The URL can be used to link to this page

09-20-11 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber September 20, 2011 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 PAGES A. Roll Call 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - July 19, 2011 3-10 B. Approval of Check Register 11 C. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission -August 22, 2011 12-22 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - July 26, 2011 23-26 3. Joint Water Commission - July 13, 2011 27-29 4. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - June 16, 2011 30-33 D. Emails, Letters and/or Petitions: 1. Letter from Diane Ondrey Regarding Harold Avenue Rezoning 34-35 2. Email from Erik Pederson Regarding Harold Avenue Rezoning 36-37 E. Second Consideration - Ordinance #468 -Adopting the Amended State Building 38-39 Code - Incorporation of 2011 National Electrical Code F. Approval of Amendment to Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-laws for 40-42 Interest on Deferred Retirement Benefit 11-45 G. Receipt of August 2011 Financial Reports 43-50 H. Approval of Amendment to Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (Fund) 51-54 By-laws 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Ordinance#469 -Approval of Conditional Use Permit#42 - 55-74 Amendment#2 - 1930 Douglas Drive - Northern Tier Retail, LLC, (SuperAmerica) Applicant B. Public Hearing - Property Rezoning - Harold Avenue Area 75-100 1. Ordinance#470 - Properties between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential" 2. Ordinance #471 - Properties befinreen Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Moderate Density (R-2) Residential" B. Public Hearing - Property Rezoning - Harold Avenue Area - Continued 3. Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-46 4. Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Befinreen Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-47 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Zaoe LLC d/b/a MGM Liquor Warehouse - 101 7704 Olson Memorial Highway B. Announcements of Meetings C. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 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 July 19, 2011 at 6:30 pm. The following members were present: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer. Also present were: Thomas Burt, City Manager; Jeannine Clancy, Director of Planning and Development; Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant. Approval of A�enda MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the agenda of July 19, 2011 as submitted. Approval of Consent Aqenda MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the consent agenda of July 19, 2011 as amended: removal of Authorization to Submit Grant Application - MnDOT FY 2013 Metro Municipal Agreement Program -TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue Improvements. *Approval of Minutes -Citv Council Meetinq - Mav 17, 2011 MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to receive and file the City Council Meeting minutes of May 17, 2011 as submitted. *Approval of Check Re�tister MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to authorize the payment of the City bills as submitted. *Solicitor's License -Josh Peterson for Edward Jones Investments MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the solicitor's license for Josh Peterson for Edward Jones Investments. *Minutes of Boards and Commissions MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to receive and file the minutes as follows: Planning Commission - June 13, 2011 Joint Water Commission - June 1, 2011 Human Services Foundation - June 13, 2011 Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 Page 2 *Email from Julie Johnson Reqardina Rezonina of Harold Avenue MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to receive an file the email from Julie Johnson, dated July 5, 2011, regarding rezoning of Harold Avenue. *Authorization to Sian Amended Aqreement with Breck School for Communitv Service Officer MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to authorize the Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief to sign the amended Community Service Officer Agreement with Breck School for 2011-2012. Authorization to Submit Grant Application - MnDOT FY 2013 Metro Municipal Aqreement Proaram -TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue Imarovements iVlayor Loomis suggested the Council set up a pavement management plan for state aid streets which considers scheduling and funding reconstruction instead of applying for grants that may not get funded. Jeannine Clancy answered questions from the Council. Member Pentel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10-36 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT PROGRAM SUBMITTAL FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WINNETKA AVENUE AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 55 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: Loomis, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Approval of ReQUests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 Page 3 Public Hearina -Second Consideration -Ordinance#462 - Repealina in its Entiretv Section 6:34: Tobacco and Addinct a New Section 6:34: Tobacco and Approve Summarv Publication The following ordinance was MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg: ORDINANCE N0.462, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Repealing in its Entirety Section 6:34: Tobacco and Adding a New Section 6:34: Tobacco Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspection Services, introduced the agenda item and answered questions from the Council. Thomas Burt and Allen Barnard answered questions from the Council. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Bill Feist, Feist Automotive Group, 1875 Lilac Drive North, stated he did fail one compliance check and got fined; stated he doesn't get a lot of kids coming into his establishment to buy tobacco products; stated he has training for his employees and now customers get mad when they check for ID's; thinks this is just another way of taxation and suggested some type of incentive or bonus program for establishments that don't sell tobacco products to minors for a year. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to adopt on Second Consideration Ordinance#462, 2nd Series. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: FREIBERG -YES LOOMIS -YES PENTEL - YES SCANLON - YES SHAFFER -YES MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve publication of the Summary of Ordinance #462. City Council requested staff research the idea an of incentive program for establishments that have been in compliance and bring it back to a future Council/Manager meeting for discussion. Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 Page 4 Public Hearina - Ordinance #463 -Adoqtinq a New Section 11.04: Temporarv Uses The following ordinance was MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg: ORDINANCE NO. 463, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Adding a New Section 11.04: Temporary Uses Mark Grimes, Director�of Planning and Development, introduced the agenda item and answered questions from the Council. Thomas Burt answered questions from the Council. Mike Kisch, Planning Commission Member, presented the Commission report. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to adopt Ordinance#463, 2nd Series, as amended: Subdivision 2. A., The City Council may permit in any nonresidential use district for a temporary use such as....... Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: FREIBERG -YES LOOMIS -YES PENTEL - YES SCANLON - YES SHAFFER -YES Public Hearina - Ordinance #464 - Deletina and Replacina in its Entirety Section 11.90, Subdivision 4, Board of Zonina Appeals The following ordinance was MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Pentel: ORDINANCE NO. 464, 2ND SERIES Deleting and Replacing in its Entirety Section 11.90, Subdivision 4 Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner, introduced the agenda item and answered questions from the Council. Allen Barnard and Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development answered questions from the Council. Mike Kisch, Planning Commission Member, presented the Commission report. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 Page 5 Public Hearina - Ordinance #464 - Deletinq and Replacina in its Entiretv Section 11.90, Subdivision 4, Board of Zonina Appeals - Continued Bill Feist, Feist Automotive Group, 1875 Lilac Drive North, stated he would like to remodel his location as his station was built in 1964, has no insulation and other building issues; stated he is frustrated he has not been able to rebuild and will be meeting with Planning staff to discuss his location. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to adopt Ordinance #464, 2nd Series, as amended: remove "in an orderly way"from Subdivsion 4(C)(3). Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: FREIBERG -YES LOOMIS -YES PENTEL -YES SCANLON -YES SHAFFER -YES Continued Public Hearina -Approval of Conditional Use Permit#119 -Amendment#2 - 800 Boone Avenue North - DRAM Properties. LLC, Applicant Joe Hogeboom, City Planner, stated staff is requesting consideration of the item be continued to the August 3, 2011 City Council meeting in order for the applicant to comply with the inflow/infiltration requirements. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to continue the public hearing for Approval of Conditional Permit#119, Amendment#2, 800 Boone Avenue North, DRAM Properties, LLC, Applicant, to the August 3, 2011 City Council meeting. Continued Public Hearina - Ordinance #459 -Amendina Section 11.23: Medium Densitv Residential Zonina District(R-3) Reaardinct Allowina Senior and Phvsical Disabilitv Housina as a Conditional Use Joe Hogeboom, City Planner, stated staff is requesting consideration of the item be continued to the August 3, 2011 City Council meeting. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 Page 6 Continued Public Hearinct - Ordinance#459 -Amendinct Section 11.23: Medium Densitv Residential Zonina District(R-3) Reaardinu Allowina Senior and Phvsical Disabiliiv Housina as a Conditional Use - Continued n/IOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to continue the public hearing for Ordinance#459, Amending Section 11.23: Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) Regarding Allowing Senior and Physical Disability Housing as a Conditional Use to the August 3, 2011 City Council meeting. Staff was requested to add Calvary Center-Co-op to the mailing list to receive notices of any Harold Avenue meetings. First and Second Consideration - Ordinance #465, Addina a New Section 4.07: Electrical Reaulations and Inspections, and Authorization to Sian Actreement with Stephen Tokle Insaections, Inc. for Electrical Inspections The following ordinance was MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer: ORDINANCE NO. 465, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Adding a New Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspection Services, introduced the agenda item and answered questions from the Council. Thomas Burt and Allen Barnard answered questions from the Council. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to adopt on First Consideration Ordinance#465, 2nd Series, as amended: removal of Subdivision 8. Sunset. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: FREIBERG -YES LOOMIS - YES PENTEL -YES SCANLON -YES SHAFFER -YES �IIIOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to suspend the rules and hold Second Consideration of Ordinance #465. The following ordinance was MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon: ORDINANCE NO. 465, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Adding a New Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 Page 7 First and Second Consideration - Ordinance#465, Addina a New Section 4.07: Electrical Reaulations and Inspections, and Authorization to Sian Aareement with Stephen Tokle Insaections, Inc. for Electrical Insuections - Continued Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspection Senrices, introduced the agenda item and answered questions from the Council. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to adopt on Second Consideration Ordinance #465, 2nd Series as amended: removal of Subdivision 8. Sunset. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: FREIBERG -YES LOOMIS -YES PENTEL -YES SCANLON -YES SHAFFER -YES MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to authorize the Mayor and City Manager sign the Consultant Services Agreement, as amended, with Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc. for electrical inspections and request staff to modify the agreement to reflect the amended Ordinance. Approval of Temporarv Use - Business and Professional Offices Zonina District - Wavzata Boulevard and Hiqhwav 100 - Cavalia USA, Inc., Applicant Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, introduced the agenda item and answered question from the Council. Jeannine Clancy, Thomas Burt and Allen Barnard answered questions from the Council. Anne-Laurence Dubois, applicant, answered questions from the Council. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve Cavalia as a Temporary Use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District from August 8, to November 20, 2011 subject to the conditions found in Engineering's memo, dated July 14, 2011, being satisfied prior to operation of the event; and the applicant will show on their site plan the public right-of-way. Authorization to Si�tn Joint Powers Aareement with St. Louis Park for Operation of Cavalia Mayor Loomis introduced the agenda item. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of St. Louis Park for the operation of Cavalia. Regular Meeting of the City Council July 19, 2011 Page 8 Announcements of Meetinqs A Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission meeting will be held on July 21, 2011 at 11:30 am. A Concert in the Park featuring Tubby Esquire will be held on July 25, 2011 at 7 pm at Brookview Park, followed by Envision Ice Cream Social. The Market in the Valley is having a Family Day on July 31, 2011. Minnesota Night to Unite celebrations will be held throughout the evening at various neighborhood locations on Tuesday, August 2, 2011. The Council will hold board/commission interviews on August 3, 2011 beginning at 6 pm. The next City Council meeting is Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm. Mavor and Council Communications Mayor Loomis informed the Council that Ed Silberman, former Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission member passed away the Council will recognize his contributions at a future Council Meeting. Mayor Loomis stated that some Council Members met with Human Rights Commission members to discuss planning a public forum in 2012 to discuss what the community would like to Adiournment The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:11 pm. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant � , , ---�. ',.�,� ,., � , .� `� �I �/ P finance O �', i✓ N� V 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 20, 2011 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments Loose in agenda packet. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 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, August 22, 2011. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera (arrived at 7:25), Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, SEH Traffic Engineer Mike Kotila and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Segelbaum was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes July 25, 2011 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Kisch asked that the fourth paragraph on page two be clarified to state that he was questioning McDonald's drive-thru volume increasing compared to the overall sales volume increasing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 25, 2001 minutes with the above noted clarification. 2. Continued Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit Amendment— 1930 Douglas Drive - CU 42-03 Amendment#2 Applicant: Northern Tier Retail, LLC (SuperAmerica) Addresses: 1930 Douglas Drive Purpose: To allow the existing SuperAmerica store to remain open for business 24 � hours per day. The property is located in the Commercial zoning district. Grimes reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their June 27 meeting to allow SuperAmerica additional time to hold a neighborhood meeting to address issues such as hours of operation, lighting, signage and noise. He noted that SuperAmerica has addressed the items listed in his staff report and that neighbors were notified of this meeting. McCarty asked how the neighborhood meeting went. Karla Bigham, Northern Tier Retail, Applicant, stated that their neighborhood meeting was similar to the June 27 Planning Commission meeting. Tracy Pink, District Manager, SuperAmerica, stated that there was discussion regarding lighting and limiting the hours for using the intercom system. He said he offered to have his employees clean up trash in the surrounding area a couple times per month and agreed to sponsor the Night to Unite neighborhood party. Waldhauser asked if SuperAmerica's customers are coming mainly from Honeywell or from the neighborhood. Pink said he believes their customers come from both Honeywell Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 2 and the neighborhood. He stated he believes extending their hours will be a benefit to the community. Waldhauser asked if SuperAmerica has considered installing signs regarding noise ordinance regulations. Pink said they would be willing to install noise ordinance signs. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Bob Parzyck, 2005 Brunswick Ave N, said SuperAmerica gets broken into when they are closed so staying open 24 hours per day is probably a cheaper security system for them. He said this proposal is good for SuperAmerica, but not for the neighborhood and SuperAmerica should just put in a better surveillance system. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said he is inclined to support this proposal because SuperAmerica has addressed the City's concerns, he sees nice improvements in their plans and their involvement in the Night to Unite event is good. McCarty agreed. Kluchka suggested adding the neighborhood clean-up and the installation of noise ordinance signs as conditions of approval. Kisch said he would like the installation of noise ordinance signs added as a condition of approval but the neighborhood clean-up and the Night to Unite involvement are verbal commitments that would be difficult to enforce. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to allow the existing SuperAmerica store located at 1930 Douglas Drive to remain open for business 24 hours per day subject to the following conditions: 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted to ensure compliance with the City's lighting ordinance. The lighting ordinance did not exist in 1989. The 24-hour operation could not begin until it was proven that the lighting requirements are met. 2. Landscaping on the site shall be as indicated on the Landscape Plan filed in the City Planning Office. 3. All signage shall be in accordance with the City's sign ordinance. Prior to 24-hour operation, the applicant must meet with the City's sign inspector to ensure that the signage on the site is consistent with City code. 4. Noise ordinance enforcement signs shall be posted. 5. The memo from the Deputy Fire Marshal dated June 14, 2011 shall become a part of the CUP permit. Because a loudspeaker system is required by the Deputy Fire Marshal, the loudspeaker systems shall be designed so that it cannot be heard at any of the property lines. SuperAmerica shall provide proof that the loudspeaker cannot be heard at any of the property lines by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to 24-hour operation. 6. No trash or recycling pickup can be made after 10 pm or prior to 7 am. 7. There shall be at least two employees on site at all times. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 3 8. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning Office. The four-foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the main building and extending into the setback area on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the setback area. 9. The station is allowed to be open for public business 24 hours per day. 10. The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view. 11. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements. 12. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation. The Planning Commission bases its recommendation on the following findings: • The significant neighborhood contributions that SuperAmerica is making • Agreement to the 12 conditions of approval especially the improvement in lighting and noise issues 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezonings — Properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue. The properties west of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church are proposed to be rezoned to "Medium Density(R-3) Residentia�' and the properties to the east of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church are proposed to be rezoned to "Moderate Density(R-2) Residential." Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated General Land Use Plan Map Hogeboom explained that the City's updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010. As part of that process the City is required by the State to make sure the General Land Use Plan Map, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the Zoning map. He referred to a map of the subject properties and explained that area A is the property north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, east of Winnetka Avenue and west of the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church. These properties are proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density(R-3) Residential. Area B on the map includes the properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church and are proposed to be rezoned to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. He added that the R-3 zoning district would allow a development with up to 4 stories and 12 units per acre if it is non-senior housing. Senior housing would be allowed by Conditional Use with no specific density and height up to 5 stories. The R-2 zoning district would allow development with up to 8 units per acre for single family homes, duplexes, twin homes or small townhouse developments. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 4 Hogeboom stated that the City has been contacted by different developers regarding this property throughout the years but that no developer has ownership of all of the parcels in question. Hogeboom noted that the City held an open house in June and some of the comments from people who attended the open house included concerns about the potential height of buildings, tree preservation and rising levels of traffic. He stated that Harold Avenue is planned to be reconstructed in 2012 and the zoning of these properties will help guide the design of Harold Avenue. Hogeboom reiterated that action must be taken by the City to either rezone the properties to match the General Land Use Plan Map or re-designate the General Land Use Plan Map to match the Zoning Map. Waldhauser asked Kotila to explain proposed plans for Winnetka Avenue. Kotila explained that there is an existing operational issue on Winnetka as well as concern about increases in traffic demand as a result of future development, enough that the City has applied to MnDOT for some cost participation to improve Winnetka Avenue at the Highway 55 intersection. He referred to a map of the area and discussed the proposed intersection design and how it would help the intersection operate more safely and efficiently. Cera asked if the proposed intersection changes are planned regardless of what happens to the future development of these properties. Kotila said the need for the improvements currently exist but parts of the plan could change depending on what type of development occurs. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, referred to a section in the Comprehensive Plan that states all owners shall jointly petition for rezoning. He asked how many people have asked for this rezoning and how the City knows what is best for these people and for property values. Lee Brant, 7631 Harold Avenue, stated that she understood that the south bound lane on Winnetka would stop at the entrance of Brookview; now the lane seems to go south of the entrance of Brookview. She is also concerned about the removal of park land and trees. She asked if the properties were rezoned to R-3 how residents would know if something else, such as apartments or something other than senior housing would go there instead. Kathy Welander, 440 Idaho Avenue N, asked if there is any definition of what level of housing would be built from luxury to low income. If there is low income housing she questioned the level of crime and said she doesn't want people to come into their area that might raise crime. Gerry Deters, 7710 Harold Avenue, said he is concerned with how property taxes will be affected if the properties are rezoned. He added that most of the neighbors have no desire to move. He said he is under the impression that the proposed rezoning shouldn't affect their property values but he doesn't want his taxes to skyrocket as a result of this rezoning. He asked if there is a plan B or C if no developer comes in. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 5 Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said that what the City is not telling property owners is that when the properties are rezoned, owners will not be allowed to make changes or additions to their homes and are being forced out. He asked about the definition of non- compatible and urged the Commission to think about the amount of traffic with the proposed lane expansion and the safety of pedestrians. He stated that there is currently a lot of inventory of inedium and high density properties and asked why there is a need for more and what the purpose is for adding more. He asked who is asking for this rezoning and read from the City's vision guide and asked if this proposed rezoning matches the vision guide and if it is really the right thing to do. Sally Levens, 7811 Ewald Terrace, said something needs to be done about the traffic that backs up on Winnetka and the people who don't stop. She said there are lilies in the boulevard area that she is supposed to maintain but she is unwilling to risk her life in the traffic. She said that Winnetka Avenue doesn't need to be enhanced to make Highway 55 better and asked how many units of housing could be built. She added that she doesn't think it is safe or responsible to have higher density at this corner. Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, said he agrees with his neighbors that rezoning these properties would be a big mistake. He said he didn't get a clear report on the comments from the June open house and there is no reference to what happens to property values and the whole make-up of the neighborhood. He said rezoning these properties is going to destroy a neighborhood and he gets the impression that no one is interested in hearing them. Dale Berg, 7040 Western Avenue, said he agrees with everything that has been said. He said he has heard little from the City regarding the reasons for doing this. He said he is concerned about mass transit and that there is already enough traffic on Louisiana due to Lion's Park. There is also not enough parking at Lion's Park and he hasn't heard anything about any type of environmental assessments regarding flooding. He said there is a natural barrier and you can't see or hear Highway 55 from his neighborhood and now he is going to feel like he is living in downtown Minneapolis with multi-level housing. He suggested the City buy the properties and give low interest home loans to young families with kids. Alan Ingber, 7360 Half Moon Drive, said he agrees with what has already been said. His concern is that Ridgeway Road will become more of a freeway with higher levels of traffic trying to get to I-394 and Laurel. Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said there has been no talk about traffic on Harold Avenue. If these properties are developed the traffic will be like a funnel because there are constant problems at the corner of Harold and Winnetka. He asked if this rezoning is being done because of a developer. He added that the traffic really needs to be thought about because there are going to be massive problems. He said he thinks this is a really bad idea and maybe the City can work on getting the area fixed up and the homes occupied instead. Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, said he did not buy his house with the intention of seeing a well-established neighborhood be overdeveloped with townhomes. He asked what City need this proposal serves and who asked for it because if there are actual people Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 6 involved who have asked for this, he deserves to know or if it is just a corporation pushing their agenda he deserves to know that too. He said if Winnetka is made wider it will only encourage more traffic on Winnetka because it is a thoroughfare and was made to be thoroughfare. He said the City is going in the wrong direction with these proposals and should be putting stop signs at every intersection to make it possible for families to cross the road and get into the park because cars don't stop. He added that everyone who is not a resident should be deterred from driving through this area and this proposal should not even be considered because it goes against everything in the vision guide for Golden Valley. Fred Gross, who lives in Burnsville, and owns the property at 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if it was true that if the properties are rezoned homes can't be improved. He said somewhere, somebody thinks this is a good idea but he is not sure that it is. He asked if the City has considered ignoring what the non-elected Metropolitan Council has said or has considered changing the City's vision to match the current zoning instead. He added that no one is "chomping at the bit" to have more traffic on Harold, Ridgeway or Winnetka. He asked if the City would consider condemning these properties if the owners decide not to sell. Julie Johnson, 300 Edgewood Avenue N, said she hasn't heard anything about the impact to Glenwood Avenue. She said she doesn't think this will only impact this small area it will impact the whole southern part of Golden Valley. She said she agrees with everything that has been said and she is totally against this proposal. Beverly Weinberg, 7523 Harold Avenue, said she has a major concern about the left hand turn from Harold onto Winnetka. She said at this time it is difficult and dangerous and if the traffic is heavier it will be almost impossible and will be asking for accidents. Schara Jesse, 743 Winnetka, said Ridgeway is a cut through thoroughfare and this development will escalate the problem. She said this issue comes up every decade and petitions have put a stop to it. She said the residents should get together and get a petition going. She suggested people call the City Council to find out who is asking for this and questioned if it is United Properties. She said she doesn't like this proposal. Kluchka said he categorized the questions into traffic, property and legal and asked Grimes to talk about his experience on how values and taxes are impacted by rezoning and by redevelopment. Grimes explained that taxes are set by Hennepin County based on the value of the property and its use. He referred to Area A and stated that if that area is rezoned to R-3 the existing properties will become non-conforming which means the homes can remain and be maintained and improved but they can't be expanded. In Area B the existing homes would be considered a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district so they could be expanded. He said he doesn't feel that rezoning these properties would decrease their value because it would be in effect "up zoning" which means they could have a higher value. Kluchka said the next issue is why there is a need for this rezoning. He said he is thinking about trends and how cities need to be responsible in meeting needs in appropriate ways such as providing senior housing. Grimes agreed there is a large aging population in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 7 Golden Valley. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council provided for additional types of housing opportunities during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. He added that Golden Valley is an attractive location as an inner ring suburb and unfortunately the Comprehensive Plan Amendment meetings and open houses don't draw large audiences because the entire City is being reviewed, not just certain areas. Waldhauser stated that the vision for the City, including this area did come from the City's residents with direction from the Metropolitan Council. She agreed that Golden Valley is a changing community and the Comprehensive Plan update sought to find a balance between good change and preserving what's best of Golden Valley. Grimes referred to the question regarding the General Land Use Plan Map being required to be compatible with the Zoning Map and explained that the City Attorney's opinion is that the two maps should be compatible. He stated that the City could re-designate the properties back to single family residential but the Metropolitan Council looks at the metropolitan area as a whole in regard to transit, sewer, highways, etc. so Golden Valley likes to work together with the Metropolitan Council because not working with them may affect things like grants. Kluchka added that the City and the broader community get a benefit from meeting Metropolitan Council's goals and objectives. Grimes explained that according to Metropolitan Council projections there needs to be room in the metro area for another million people and it saves taxpayer money to develop or redevelop property already served by sewer, water and transportation. Kluchka asked if there is another plan in place for these properties if a development doesn't occur. Grimes stated that the development community is waiting to hear a decision from the City regarding the zoning of these properties. He added that the City Council has stated they will not use condemnation to develop these properties. It will have to be done by developers purchasing the properties at market rate. Waldhauser agreed that the City is not in the position to buy these properties. Kluchka asked if the City can control the type of development on these properties. Grimes stated that more than likely the properties will be a senior housing type of development. He explained that the traffic patterns for senior housing could work well in this location and that the City has latitude in approving things like landscaping plans and traffic plans as part of the Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development process. Waldhauser said she appreciates that people who live in the area see things she doesn't, but it seems like there are some long-term traffic issues in this area that this particular rezoning may or may not impact. Grimes referred to the question asked regarding environmental issues such as flooding and noted that those types of issues will be addressed at the time of development. Kotila referred to the safety issues that have been discussed and explained that he recognizes the need for pedestrian improvements at Winnetka and Harold. He discussed how traffic backing-up on Highway 55 makes every movement more difficult so fixing those issues should help alleviate some of the concerns. Kisch asked if increasing capacity would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 8 also increase demand. He also asked about implementing other safety and speed control measures. Kotila explained the approach is to try and serve the existing traffic demand and that he realizes some of the traffic will be dispersed to other locations. He stated that part of the Harold Avenue reconstruction project includes constructing a fairly narrow two-lane roadway which should help moderate the speed at which people drive. Grimes referred to the question regarding what type housing could be built this location. He stated that the City has no control over housing being low-income versus market rate. Waldhauser noted that the City tries to disperse its housing types. Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, asked why both areas couldn't be rezoned to R-2. Waldhauser stated that that Area A is at an intersection that faces a commercial district and a highway which provides a better opportunity for additional housing. She said her opinion is that Golden Valley is a fairly urban community and is a part of the City and in order to be a vibrant community and attract people who want to live here there needs to be community services, convenience, walkability and transit. Chesen said the way the properties are going to be developed isn't going to attract those types of people because senior housing is what has been proposed. Hogeboom showed a map illustrating the ownership of each parcel in Area A. Chesen stated that United Properties has attended meetings and questioned why they have been allowed to speak if the issue really is whether or not to rezone the properties. He said it sounds to him like a deal has already been done. Kluchka stated that developers are a part of the community and are welcome to attend City meetings. He said he wants it made clear that there is no malfeasance or arrangement happening outside the law. Chesen said he has stated nothing but the facts. Hogeboom stated that United Properties has made no official application submittal to the City. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if the City has considered selling part or all of Brookview Park to satisfy the Metropolitan Council and to meet its vision. Kluchka said it has been discussed in the past. Grimes added that a large portion of Brookview is in a flood plain. Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said the Commission still needs to answer the question of who is asking for this rezoning. He said he hasn't heard anything discussed but trends and told the Commission not to believe everything they read. He asked if these properties are bank owned why there aren't for sale signs on them. He said he thinks there is opportunity for developers and personal homeowners, himself included, to consider doing a "flip" and asked why that opportunity is only available to the private community and not the public community. He stated there are currently 190 homes, condos, townhomes and twin homes for sale in Golden Valley and told the Commission to think about the tax revenue of those 190 homes versus throwing somebody into an 800 square foot apartment. The "bigger bang" would be to encourage people to buy these properties, increase the value and get more property taxes rather than building a 5-story building with minimal property taxes which would drive everybody else's values down. Grimes referred to the question of who is asking for this and reiterated that the Planning Commission and City Council chose to re-designate this area on the General Land Use Plan Map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 9 Diane Stelow, 7335 Ridgeway Road, asked if these properties could have driveways entering and exiting on Highway 55 to get the traffic out of the neighborhood. Grimes said that MnDOT has said no. Kluchka said it is not hearsay that the population is changing so when they are asked who is asking for this rezoning the City Council has to look long-term at the broader needs of the community. McCarty added that the Metropolitan Council is asking for it because there needs to be more room to accommodate additional people so the Planning Commission's charge was to figure out the best way to utilize the property the City has. Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, asked if Golden Valley has any 5-story buildings next to residential property. Grimes said yes and mentioned Calvary, Covenant Manor and Laurel Terrace Apartments as examples. He asked how many empty buildings there are downtown and asked the Commission if they really believe it is in Golden Valley's best interest to solve the senior housing problem. He said Golden Valley is a small suburb in a big metro area and people will go where the housing opportunities are. He said he doesn't hear a single tax payer/voter asking for this. He added that if the City goes ahead and does this they are doing it without any regard to what the people who live in the neighborhood think. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if it is possible that Central Bank does not have these properties marketed for sale because it is in their best interest to hold onto them for a developer interested in buying them. He asked why there are not any developers at this meeting and why there aren't any neighbors in attendance saying that this is a wonderful idea. Grimes agreed that Central Bank is more than likely waiting for the outcome of this rezoning proposal before they put the properties on the market. Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said people don't come to public hearings because they feel they don't have a voice in their government. That what they say goes in one ear and out the other. He said if something is this important it should be front page news and every resident should get a letter. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Cera proposed to split the areas into two votes. Waldhauser started with Area B. She stated that having worked on the Comprehensive Plan update process she really does feel that the Plan was aired in many ways. She feels the City is changing and people need to change with it. She said that for commercial development to survive there needs to be density around it. She feels this area is a great place for a more dense development that will help get better transit and will help get some of the traffic off the local streets. She said she thinks there has been forward thinking and this proposed rezoning has the best interest of the community at heart. Kisch said he is concerned about the rights of home owners being able to improve their properties in Area A. He said that rezoning Area B to R-2 doesn't change property owners' rights at all and won't impact what is there right now and will only be changed as the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 10 market dictates. He added that the traffic concerns are valid and need to be addressed. Cera agreed. Schmidgall said he is in favor of recommending approval of the proposed rezoning for both areas. He said this is all long term planning and the homes in Area A could stay forever. He said they've talked a long time about providing a variety of housing types in Golden Valley including higher density for an aging population and there could be a very attractive development built in this area. He said he really tries to sort out the concerns he hears during public hearing and thinks the traffic issues are a legitimate concern but people worry about change and prefer the evil they know to the evil they don't. He said he really doesn't think there is an incentive for a developer to build something undesirable at this location. Kluchka said this meeting was a great opportunity to hear from the residents in the area. He said he is conflicted on how he feels about rezoning these properties and he wants the traffic concerns further studied before he can support the rezoning. McCarty agreed that traffic does need further study. He said there is a problem with houses sitting vacant and people shouldn't be pushed into single family homes because that is part of the reason the economy is how it is today. He said he also agrees with the need for increased density and even though it's difficult to hear from the neighbors, rezoning this property is for the overall good of the City so he is inclined to support the proposal. Kluchka asked about the opportunity to hear more about the traffic and safety concerns before the rezoning is considered by the City Council. Grimes stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was updated and re-designated to a higher density category, the traffic was studied using various development scenarios. Kotila noted that the City Council has received the forecasting report and specifics related to the proposed density. Grimes added that the transportation section of the updated Comprehensive Plan was done after the land use section so the City could be sure that traffic issues were managed. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of rezoning Area B from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. Cera, Kisch, McCarty and Waldhauser voted yes. Kluchka voted no. Kisch said the issue in Area A lies in the rights of the property owners' ability to make changes and add value to their homes and rezoning to R-3 limits what can be done. He said he agrees that the City needs a diverse group of housing choices because it makes for a more solid and vibrant community, but he also needs to see what the traffic impacts are really going to be. McCarty noted that until it is decided what kind of development is going to be built, the traffic impacts are unknown. He added that he doesn't see these properties being used long-term for single family housing. Kluchka said his concerns are also about the traffic. He said he would like to look at rezoning the properties to Mixed Use instead of R-3 because he wants this area to contribute more to the neighborhood. Cera agreed that the idea of Mixed Use is intriguing in this area. He said properties zoned R-3 could sit for a while and go downhill. He said R-2 might be a better choice. He added that there is a roomful of citizens who have concerns Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 11 that should be listened to and he can't support R-3 at this location. He could support R-2 or discussing Mixed Use. Kisch said a Mixed Use zoning designation would cause a bigger issue with traffic. He said this is a stab at planning for the future and it can be rezoned or re-designated in the future if needed. Waldhauser said she is torn between rezoning Area A to R-3 or R-2 because R-2 doesn't provide the opportunity for potential senior housing. She said she is not optimistic that a developer will want to develop these properties as single family or finro-family homes. Grimes suggested studying the possibility of allowing senior housing in an R-2 zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. Kisch asked if the City could issue a Conditional Use Permit to allow a non-conforming use to be expanded. Grimes said he would talk to the City Attorney. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by McCarty and motion tied to recommend rezoning Area A from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3). Commissioners McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioners Cera, Kisch and Kluchka voted no. --Short Recess— 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals would like to Planning Commission to address the issue of covered and uncovered porches and landings. Hogeboom said he would discuss the issue with the Board at their next meeting. 5. Other Business No other business was discussed. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 pm. David A. Cera, Secretary Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2011 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at Cifiy Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Boudreau-Landis, Maxwell and Nelson, and Planning Commission Representatives McCarty and Waldhauser. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes —June 28, 2011 Regular Meeting MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 28, 2011 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 9315 Medicine Lake Road (11-07-04) McDonalds, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Subd. 3 Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces • 7 parking spaces fewer the required 85 parking spaces for a total of 78 parking spaces • Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second drive-through lane. Hogeboom explained McDonald's proposal to renovate their existing store. As part of the renovation, the applicant is requesting to add a second drive-through lane which will reduce the number of parking spaces. This property is required to have 85 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow them to have 78 spaces. He noted that the Planning Commission is also reviewing an amended Conditional Use Permit request for this property and has asked staff to review other communities parking requirements. Maxwell asked Hogeboom to review the fire access improvements. Hogeboom referred to the site plan and explained that the Deputy Fire Marshal is requiring wider drive aisles to better accommodate emergency vehicles. He noted that this proposal will have better emergency access than the site currently has. McCarty added that the driveway on Mendelssohn will also be widened to allow for improved access. Boudreau-Landis asked about parking requirements for different types of restaurants. Hogeboom stated that sit-down restaurants require more parking spaces than drive- through restaurants. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2011 Page 2 Brian Johnson, Architect with Reprise Design, referred to a site plan and explained the emergency access and the proposal to add a second drive-through lane. He stated that this McDonald's has a lot more parking space than other McDonald's and he showed the Board a rendering of the proposed new look of the store. Nelson asked if this is a franchise or corporate store. Ray Croaston, Applicant stated that this store is a franchise store but that corporate controls the land and real estate. McCarty referred to the site plan and stated that the radius of the proposed second drive-through lane looks tight. Croaston stated that the radius is 20 feet which is typical for vehicular movement. Nelson asked about the typical number of parking spaces for a store of this size. Croaston said 50 to 55 stalls would be the number of spaces they usually have. Nelson noted that the amount of parking spaces even if the requested variance is granted would exceed the typical amount McDonald's needs. Waldhauser questioned if they could allow McDonald's to have even fewer than 78 parking spaces since they don't require that many. She said she would like to see more grassy areas or picnic tables instead. Maxwell said he believes the Board can only address the question before them. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 7 parking spaces fewer the required 85 parking spaces for a total of 78 parking spaces. The Board based its decision on the following findings: • The request is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code • The site will have a sufficient amount of parking • The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • The proposal uses the property in a reasonable manner • The proposal won't alter the essential character of the locality • The property has a unique size and shape 5124 Winsdale Street North (11-07-05) Robert LeVasseur Construction Inc., Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District(R-1), Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 4.6 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 25.4 ft. at its closest point to front yard (south) properly line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch Hogeboom referred to the site plan and explained that the applicant is proposing to construct an open front porch which would extend into the front setback area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals J u ly 26, 2011 Page 3 Nelson asked how close a deck or patio could be built to the front property line if it does not have a roof over it. Hogeboom explained that if a structure is smaller than 25 square feet it is considered a landing and can be in the front setback area. If it is larger than 25 square feet it would need to meet setback requirements. Bob LeVasseur, Applicant, stated that the proposed open front porch will be functional but mostly, it will enhance the overall appearance of the house. McCarty asked about the width of the porch. LeVasseur said the pad of the porch will come 6 feet out from the house and will be 13.5 feet in width. He added the gable roof will be 15.5 feet in width. The Board discussed whether the measurements should be taken from the edge of the roof or from the foundation. Nelson suggested that the language regarding decks and porches be clarified. She said she would also like to see language added to the Code that would allow for covered landings. McCarty asked the applicant if he had an elevation sketch of the proposed porch. LeVasseur showed the Board a proposed sketch. McCarty said he is having difficulty justifying granting a variance for this proposal. Hogeboom noted that this house was built closer to the front yard property line than the houses around it. Waldhauser stated that she believes variances are supposed to be related to the circumstances of the lot itself and not where the buildings are placed. Maxwell stated that the circumstances in this case were not caused by the current landowner, the City is generally in favor of front porches, this proposal does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and it is a reasonable use of the property. Nelson added that this proposal is in harmony, and is consistent with, the intent of the Zoning Code. MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance for 4.6 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 25.4 ft. at its closest point to front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of an open front porch. The Board based its decision on the following findings: • The request is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code • The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • The proposal uses the property in a reasonable manner • The proposal won't alter the essential character of the locality • The circumstances on the property were not created by the current landowner • The City is generally in favor of allowing front porches Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2011 Page 4 III. Other Business Election of Officers MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to nominate Nelson as Chair, Nelson accepted the nomination. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to nominate Boudreau-Landis as Vice Chair, Boudreau-Landis accepted the nomination. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:43 pm. Nancy Nelson, Chair Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Meeting of July 13, 2011 The Golden Valley— Crystal — New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to order at 1 pm, in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room. Commissioners Present Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope Staff Present Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, Golden Valley Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager, Golden Valley Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley Tom Mathisen, Director of Public Works, Crystal Randy Kloepper, Water and Sewer Superintendent, Crystal Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works, New Hope Bernie Weber, Utilities Supervisor, New Hope Pat Schutrop, Administrative Assistant, Golden Valley Minutes of June 1, 2011 MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald, and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the June 1, 2011 meeting. Resolution 11-03 Adoptinct the 2012 General Fund Budaet_of the Joint Water Commission Commissioner McDonald introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption based on a 1% increase in New Hope average hourly rate with no benefits from $23.03 to $23.26, and an adjusted budget total of$7,869,600: RESOLUTION 11-03 RESOLUTION OF THE JOINT WATER COMMISSION ADOPTING THE 2012 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Norris and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Burt, McDonald, and Norris; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Chair and his signature attested by the Vice Chair. Joint Water Commission July 13, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Resolution 11-04 Adoptin� the 2012-2016 Capital Proiects for the Golden Vallev- Crystal-New Hope Joint Water Commission Commissioner McDonald introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the following amendments noted to Schedule A: exterior structure repairs to South Tower costs reduced from $150,000 to $50,000; and removal of$35,000 for Emergency Water Supply, pump and motor starter New Hope well, for an amended 2012-2016 CIP total of$918,000: RESOLUTION 11-04 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2012-2016 CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE GOLDEN VALLEY-CRYSTAL-NEW HOPE JOINT WATER COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Norris and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Burt, McDonald, and Norris; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Chair and his signature attested by the Vice Ghair. Technical Advisorv Committee (TAC) Update Emergency Backup Supply—The TAC recommends moving ahead with development of a scope of work for the backup water supply plan and meeting with Barr Engineering Co. to discuss same. The TAC will update the JWC at the August 3 meeting. 42"d Avenue Watermain—The TAC met with the City of Minneapolis to discuss the water delivery schedule stated in the agreement and the flexibility of that schedule if there is agreement to reduce the 30-inch transmission pipe to a 24-inch pipe for the County Road 9 project. Hennepin County is proposing to remove the existing pipe and install the transmission pipe down the center of the road; however, if the decision is to stay with the 30-inch pipe then the other proposed utility locations would be affected and project costs would be impacted. The modeling performed by Bonestroo indicates that the 24-inch could meet delivery volume requirements if the schedule was exceeded. This pipe would be considerably less expensive. Tom Mathisen will draft a letter summarizing the meeting with Minneapolis for the TAC to review before submitting to the City of Minneapolis. The TAC anticipates presenting the final design at the next JWC meeting. The TAC will continue funding negotiations with the County. Rates and Cost of Service Negotiations—Tom Burt will draft a letter to the City of Minneapolis indicating that the JWC is aware of the negotiation process underway and communicate that the JWC would like opportunity to comment on the rates and cost of service. Joint Water Commission July 13, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Meter Ownershiu Steve Kotke, Director of Public Works for the City of Minneapolis, submitted a letter to the JWC formalizing the City of Minneapolis' interest in taking over meter ownership for its wholesale customers. Clancy will draft a letter to Kotke addressing the JWC's interest in releasing meter ownership to Minneapolis and also request that future billings no longer be estimated charges. Other Business No additional business. Next Meetina The next meeting will be Wednesday, August 3, 2011, at 1:30 pm. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 pm. Thomas D. Burt; Chair ATTEST: Pat Schutrop, Recording Secretary Minutes Envision Connection Project Executive Board June 16, 2011 7 pm, Brookview Community Center, Conference Room Directors Present: Linda Loomis, Chair, Lynn Gitelis, Jim Heidelberg, Dean Penk, Marshall Tanick, Blair Tremere Directors Absent: Sharon Glover, Cindy Inselmann, Helene Johnson, Philip Lund, Luke Weisberg Staff: Sandy Werts. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 8 pm, when a quorum was reached. 2. Approval of Agenda Motion: It was moved by Tremere and seconded by Gitelis to approve the agenda as presented 3. Approval of the Minutes of May 12, 2011 Motion: It was moved by Gitelis and seconded by Heidelberg to approve the minutes as written. 4. Community Foundation Update Tremere reported that the first official meeting of the Golden Valley Community Foundation was held on Tuesday, June 14. Officers are as follows: Chair: Dean Penk Vice-chair: Connie Sandler Secretary: Sharon Glover Treasurer: Luke Weisberg At this time the Board is taking care of the fundamentals. They are searching for a physical home and working on the fundraising plans. They have reserved some domain names for a website and must decide on what to use. A Communications Advisory Board is being set up. Gitelis volunteered to serve on it. Disbursements of funds raised would begin in 2012. This does not include money that comes in for other organizations such as the 125th Anniversary. They will be meeting monthly. 5. Bridge Building Activities • Bridge Builders Quarterly Meeting There were about 15 people in attendance at the meeting on June 4 at the Struthers Parkinson Center. The location was good and the tour was very informative. The next meeting will be in September. They would like to offer the history tour prepared by the Historical Sociefiy for Valley Day. Penk is looking into the use of the PRISM bus. • Farmers Market Envision will share the booth with the 125t"Anniversary Committee on June 26, July 31 and August 28. The booth must be set up by 8:45 am. Tanick, Penk and Cathy Gorlin will be at the Market to set up. Werts will have the tent, tables and chairs placed in the back hall at City Hall. Loomis is available to open and close the building. Werts will have the information prepared. • Lilac Planting Werts said that she sent the approved city resolution authorizing the city to enter into an agreement with MNDOT on the 2011 Lilac Planting project to Todd Carroll, the MNDOT staff Landscape Architect, so that he can start processing it. Loomis received a call from a resident along Highway 100, asking if material would be available for planting along Highway 100. A suggestion was made to contact Struthers Parkinson Center for volunteers to help with the planting. • Valley Volunteer Day No new information is available. • Neighbors Helping Neighbors Werts attended a Blitz follow-up meeting on June 15. The agencies were asked to make sure that all the people who signed up to have help on April 30 received it. A suggestion was made that a survey should be sent to everyone who receives services. • Envision Award No Report • Memorial Day Display The display will stay up until the end of July. Werts will remove this item from the agenda. • Ice Cream Social Werts reviewed the memo included in the Envision Packet with questions about the event. Members took flyers and signs to distribute. Werts will apply for an Itinerant Food Handlers permit through the Hennepin County Environmental Health Department. She will send a memo to the City Council and Open Space and Recreation Commission for help scooping ice cream. A rain date was discussed and determined as Sunday, July 31. Penk will contact Sebastian Joes to see if this date will work. It was decided not to include it on the flyer. Board members took flyers and lawn signs to post after the 4t" of July. They will let Werts know where the signs will go. The Board sampled Minneapolis Vanilla and the new Golden Valley Sunflower ice creams. • Garden Club The Garden Club had a successful plant sale at Valley Days. Gitelis will be talking about community gardens at an upcoming meeting. The Club planted the five planters along Winnetka. 6. New Business - None 7. 125 Anniversary Planning • Activities—Tanick and Werts reported on upcoming activities including: o Booth at Farmers Market on June 26— help is needed with set-up and to staff the booth. o There were 30 people on the history tour which was very interesting o July 5 - 125t" anniversary day at Brookview Golf course. $1.25 hot dogs and soda and a display of old fashioned golf clubs. o Tremere, Kisch and Tanick are working on fund raising levels. According to Tremere, letters are going out to potential corporate sponsors. o Tanick and Tremere will be visiting Liberty to see if they can build the time capsule. • Monthly Articles on Community Organizations—the article on the Optimist Club and a Star Tribune article on the 125th was included in the packet • Next Meeting —June 23 —6:30 pm at Brookview— Sumac Room 8. Valley Day • According to Tremere, although it rained through the morning and early afternoon, he said that Weisberg thought that the event did all right. 9. Communications • Werts distributed a brochure on the upcoming Golf Classic sponsored by the Human Services Foundation on July 15. 10.Recruitment of Members to Executive Board 11.Upcoming Meetings—July 21, August 18, September 15 12.Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. S�P 1-;� 2011 Golden Valley Mayor, City Council and City Manager September 15, 2011 As a homeowner at 7647 Harold Ave, I am concerned about the two projects that are currently under consideration by the Golden Valtey City Councii: One is the City Council rezoning/comprehensive plan meeting to be held on September 20, 2411, and the second is the scheduled rehabilitation of Harold Avenue in 2012. The two are ineutricably connected and should be noted as such. I attended fihe first three-hour Golden Valley planning commission meeting on August 22 which was extensive because many home owners questioned the wisdom of rezoning the area designated as "A". to be changed from R1 to R3.This property is not wholly owrned by the residents but rather out-of-state developers who apparently have not come forward with new plans. I, for one, am not opposed to rezoning that particular area if I am assured that the Golden Valley City Council wrill maintain the four-story height limit, not have Section 8 or low- income housing present and will maintain the multi-story trees. I have heard nothing. I understand the difficulties in dealing with the Metropolitan Council and applaud the efforts of Golden Valley in considering this property, hence the planning commission 3-3 tie vote on the issue. Secondly, the rehabilitation of Harold Avenue is directly dependent on this area "A". The Valley d'Or landscape committee met with four members of the street department who described their "plans" for Harold Avenue.This was spoken about in a letter of July 1, 2011 and before that in a letter of December 15, 2010 a feasibility report regarding Harold Avenue is requested. The letter sites design. plans as being flexible if Golden Valley knows about them early enough. In earty September a crew visited our Vallee d'Or site and drafted ideas about widening the sidewalk, narrowing the boulevard, Golden Valley's right-or-way, removal of eight trees and a retaining wall, and compliance udith federal ADA requirements as well as MSRS sp�nsorship. The Vallee d'Or landscape committee owns and maintains a!I the properties—except the footprint of each of the individual 45 units and small common elements-at considerable cost. Landscaping has been a particular concern this year with excessive snowfail, changing lightening strikes, dead plantings, mulching, planters and maintenance. No one at Golden Valley was consulted in these undertakings. ADA compliance has not been mentioned in correspondence from Golden Valley regarding Harold Avenue, only MSRS(see handouts from the Open House). I believe your scheduled meeting on September 20 will be contentious. Please keep this letter active and present its contents to that meeting and call me at your first convenience: 763-647-9703. . { ��',�1�� Diane Ondrey 7647 Harold Avenue Golden Valley MN 55427-4819 Pii�me �rik Aederson '' � Email pedo56C�ahotmail.com � _ _ . _ _. __ __ __ .__ __ Comments� To the Golden Va11ey lVlayor and City Council- I have left voicemails foe each of you this afternoc�n and wanted to follow-up with you.over email.Uver the past 2 weeks a group " of concerned citizens has been ra:ising awareness abo�t the potential rezoning af the WinnetkafHarald/55/Glenwood area to RZ and R3 housing,We all rnat ane�nother ak tha City planning meeting where we all voiced our di5approval of this rezoning,Whi]e this be�ame he�ted at tinnes there are 3y4 of us trying to lead the group anci'keep it a ca�n r�srie�t�ui maeting on the 20th. We have been working on a petitic�n for#k��n�'rghborhood to sign'(both paper and ele+�tronio versit�ns)'ta show the city council the displeasure a large majority of us have with this rezoning.To be frank,I don't believe I have heard t�f more than 1-Z people that are actually in favor of this rezoning,We have at this time lirnited the door to door cnnwersations to theBrookvie'w and Lions Ciub neighborhoods from the golf cdurse to Edgewood on the East.We hope these directly impacted home owners�nd residents will a loud enough voice to be heard and change this rezoning plan. A brief summary of why the surrounding neighborhoods do NOT want this area rezoned. 1.Tr�c-Hazald,Winnetka,and Glenwood already have TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.There are times you can't turn from Harold onto either Glenwood or Winnetka.Go South instead?Welcome to the Ridgeway cut through that the neighbors to the South get fed up with.There is aIready nat enoug�parking at the park to support its current use.Additional tr�c would on[y drive parking and tr�c further into€he neighbor�Qads: 2.�?Ve da NOT support increasing traffic on tlaese roads,widening the Winnetl�alSS intersectian,or widebing Harold Ave.This is a neighborhood that shouid h�v�lower traffic flow�han cr�rrent levels.'If you make this inters�ction larger it will become a better cutthrough and further increase traffic.Cars a3ready go dangerously fast on this road and do nnt yield ta pedestr3ans.The city has not done a good job of controlling this.If you do not live in this neighborhood I invite you ta try and cross Winnetka within 2 hours of rush hour.It is not safe for families to do this even with the traffic signs to try and sla�peopie down. 3.This has primarily been a Ri single-family neighborhood for 50+years.We bought here and live here because it is a suburban neighborhoad closer to the city.We da not want an urban development.We want to keep rhe t�ees and green space along Hwy 55 and not cut them down to build apartments and town homes.These have been overdeeeloped in the last 10 years and we do not need these in otu neighborhood.Just because a developer can get financing daes not mean it belangs in our neighborhood.Please keep the higher density redevelapmenY to the urban corridor north of 55 and`on the 394 comdor where the businesses already residz. The resolution we ara looking for is a Np ypte gn this rezoning which would keap the properti�s R1.'T'he banks would then be matiwated to sell tk�e prc�perties.th��c�wn to p�aple who could develop them intc�1�1'h�using;This area can be redeveloped as it is ��a��e r�tt�►en�tso��,.;tit�t�e cc�`��n�c��a ar�e�t,tl?�+��a�t�oui�� ,� �� _ �, , T l�tv�C f��rd to a c.�nvei�sation w�tti�acYi o�ya�;prip�tp.'�e meatii�g�►n�te 2Uth.. � httpJ/norezonegv.blog�r�.�tn,j', Sincerely,.. .. - E#3k Pederspn : 13�Loui�iana A�+e.N � `! � ;(12.71 b.U��$ �� . __ �� ,� oy�_��,��! � �'�;��` �, � Fire Department � 763-593-8080/763-593-8098 (fau) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 20, 2011 Agenda Item 3. E. Second Consideration - Ordinance #468 -Adopting the Amended State Building Code - Incorporation of 2011 National Electrical Code Prepared By Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections Summary The State of Minnesota adopted the 2011 National Electrical Code, replacing the previously adopted 2008 Code. The National Electrical Code is required to be adopted locally and is enforced through consulting services provided by Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc. The City Council approved the ordinance on its first consideration on September 6, 2011. If the Council adopts the ordinance on its second consideration, it will be effective upon publication. Attachment Ordinance#468, Adopting the Amended State Building Code, Incorporation of the 2011 National Electrical Code (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve on Second Consideration, Ordinance #468, Adopting the Amended State Building Code, Incorporation of the 2011 National Electrical Code. ORDINANCE NO. 468, 2ND SERIES AN ORQINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Adopting the Amended State Building Code Incorporation of the 2011 National Electrical Code The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. City Code Section 4.01, entitled "Building Code Adopted", is amended by deleting item J, "1315 -Adoption of the 2008 National Electrical Code" and replacing it with a new item J, which reads "J. 1315 -Adoption of the 2011 IVational Electrical Code". Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation A Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council this 20th day of September, 2011 /s/Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATfEST: /s/Susan M. Virnig Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk �p � 5� � �r$� ' • ;w.. " � ';_ �� : � � -� � �/ Finance �. ' "'�� N� 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 fau ,�w � e � � Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting September 20, 2011 Agenda Item 3. F. Approval of Amendment to Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-laws for Interest on Deferred Retirement Benefit Prepared By Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The Fire Relief by-laws were approved on October 19, 2010 by City Council. Since the approval an amendment to the by-laws was considered and approved by the Fire Relief Association on September 7. The amendment includes the interest rates that are paid on the Deferred Retirement Benefit since 2006. Minnesota Statute §356.219 allows the board of trustees to set that amount up to 5%. The City Council needs to consider the rate change and approve the change due to the possible municipal contribution needed to fund those benefits. Attachments Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-laws, page 7 (1 page) Resolution Approving Amendment to Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-laws for Interest on Deferred Retirement Benefit (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Approving Amendment to Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-laws for Interest on Deferred Retirement Benefit. g. Post-Payout Retu�n to Service—If a member has received a retirement distribution aud should return to service, (they are deemed qualified and subsequently hired by the fire department) they will be treated as a new member and will begin accruing time anew. In no event will a member receive duplicate benefits for the same time period of service. h. Inte�est on the Defer�ed RetiYement Benefit —Interest shall be added to the deferred benefit amount, compounded annually, at a rate equal to the actual time weighted tota.l rate of return of the fu.nd as set by the board of trustees under Minn. Stat. § 356.219,up to 5%,and applied consistently for all deferred service pensioners. Minn. Stat. § 424A.02, subd. 10(b),requires municipal ratification of the rate set by the board of trustees in years in wluch the relief association does not have a surplus over full funding under Minn. Stat. § 69.772, subd 3, paragraph(c), clause (5), or 69.773, subd 4, and if the municipality is required to provide f nancial support to the special fund of the relief association under Minn. Stat. § 69.772 or 69.773. As of the date of this amendment,the following rates have been set by the board: 2006 = 5%, 2007= 5%, 2008 =0%, 2009=0%, 2010=5%. Interest will not accrue for any year in which the member reaches the age of 50 or thereafter. i. Suppletnental Reti�ement Benefit-Pursuant to Minn. Sta.t. § 424A.10, all retirees shall be paid a supplemental benefit in the amount of 10%of his or her service pension amount,not to exceed$1,000.00. This benefit shall be paid at the same time as the retirement benefit. In the event tha.t Minn. Stat. § 424A.10 is amended or repealed,this benefit shall be amended or discontinue as per state sta.tute. Section IL• Association Recommendation-Because of the varying circumstances in each member's retirement planning,the Association strongly recommends consulta.tion with a tax consultant, insurance andlor estate planner or an attorney before requesting payment of their service pension. ARTICLE XII. ANCILLARY BENEFITS Section I: Death Benefit-Upon the death of an active member,the association shall�ay to the surviving spouse and surviving children. If there is no surviving spouse or surviving childxen the benefit is paid to the designated beneficiary. If there is no designated beneficiary,the death benefit shall be paid to the estate of the deceased active or deferred firefighter. They shall be paid equal to the current yearly lump sum service pension rate multiplied by the nuxnber of years of active service. The minimum benefit shall be equal to five(5)times the current yearly lump sum service pension rate and without regard to the vesting schedule. Deferred members shall be paid an amount equal to their current deferred pension amount. Section Il: Permanent Disability Benefits-A member who is permanently disabled shall be eligible to collect a disability benefit. The member shall be eligible to receive the disability benefit immediately upon approval of the Board of Trustees. a. Any such disability benefit paid in accordance with this section shall be in lieu of all rights to further service pension and survivor's benefit. b. Disability defined: see Article III-Definitions. c. Documentation Required-No member shall be paid disabiliTy benefits except upon the written report of a physician, surgeon or chiropractor of the member's choice. This report shall set forth the diagnosis and prognosis of the disability,disease or injury of the member. Each such document shall be filed with the Association. � Resolution 11-45 September 20, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO GOLDEN VALLEY FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BY-LAWS FOR INTEREST ON DEFERRED RETIREMENT BENEFIT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 424A, subd. 10 set procedures and require the City Council to approve changes to bylaws; , WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Fire Relief Association by-laws in its entirety on October 19, 2010, after the Fire Relief Association approval on May 11, 2010; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 7, 2011 the Fire Relief Association approved an amendment to their by-laws to include the interest rates that are paid on the Deferred Retirement Benefit since 2006. WHEREAS, at its Council/Manager meeting on September 13, 2011 members of the Fire Relief Association reviewed their request to amend their by-laws; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley to approve the amendment to the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association by-laws in Article XI, Retirement Benefit, Section I, h, Interest on the Deferred Retirement Benefit, which reads as follows Interest on the Deferred Retirement Benefit— Interest shall be added to the deferred benefit amount, compounded annually, at a rate equal to the actual time weighted total rate of return of the fund as set by the board of trustees under Minn. Stat. § 356.219, up to 5%, and applied consistently for all deferred service pensioners. Minn. Stat. § 424A.02, subd. 10(b), requires municipal ratification of the rate set by the board of trustees in years in which the relief association does not have a surplus over full funding under Minn. Stat. § 69.772, subd 3, paragraph (c), clause (5), or 69.773, subd 4, and if the municipality is required to provide financial support to the special fund of the relief association under Minn. Stat. § 69.772 or 69.773. As of the date of this amendment, the following rates have been set by the board: 2006 = 5%, 2007 = 5%, 2008 = 0%, 2009 = 0%, 2010 = 5%. Interest will not accrue for any year in which the member reaches the age of 50 or thereafter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association by-laws are to be reviewed on an annual basis and requires approval of the City Council for any language amendment that would affect a possible municipal contribution. 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. :ozf`� �: � �`, �� /�: " -' � �� '` - "�/ Finance � �`"`��, �� N� � 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 20, 2011 Agenda Item 3. G. Receipt of August 2011 Financial Reports Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The monthly financial report provides a progress report on the following funds: General Fund Operations Conservation/Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund) Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund) Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund (Enterprise Fund) Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) The revenues and expenditures show current month actual and year-to-date actual compared to the 2011 approved budget. General Fund Operations: The 2011 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 August 2011, the City is using $544,854 of fund balance to balance the General Fund budget. Attachments August 2011 General Fund Financial Report- unaudited (2 pages) August 2011 Conservation/Recycling Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited (1 page) August 2011 Water and Sewer Utility Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited (1 page) August 2011 Brookview Golf Course Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited (1 page) August 2011 Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited (1 page) August 2011 Storm Utility Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the August 2011 Financial Reports. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures August, 2011 (unaudited) Over % 2011 August YTD (Under) Of Budget Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. Council $287,970 9,849 169,491 ($118,479) 58.86% City Manager 747,095 54,337 464,969 (282,126) 62.24% Admin. Services 1,524,180 90,822 1,007,651 (516,529) 66.11% Legal 120,000 0 89,804 (30,196) 74.84% (1) General Gov't. Bldgs. 570,680 34,656 295,163 (275,517) 51.72% Planning 322,315 31,058 207,484 (114,831) 64.37°!0 Police 4,695,320 331,705 2,823,504 (1,871,816) 60.13% Fire and Inspections 1,516,730 120,905 955,633 (561,097) 63.01% Public Works Admin. 319,830 23,365 203,225 (116,605) 63.54% Engineering 613,515 30,460 352,085 (261,430) 57.39% Streets 1,333,375 77,906 829,276 (504,099) 62.19% Community Center 71,400 2,354 28,419 (42,981) 39.80% Park& Rec. Admin. 672,460 53,971 411,205 (261,255) 61.15% Park Maintenance 996,485 103,544 666,522 (329,963) 66.89% Recreation Programs 409,170 57,899 274,058 (135,112) 66.98% Risk Mar�agement 280,000 0 224,795 (55,205) 80.28% (3) Transfers Out 439,970 0 439,970 0 100.00% (2) TOTAL Expenditures $14,920,495 $1,022,831 $9,443,254 ($5,477,241) 63.29% (1) Legal is paid through June, 2011. (2)Transfers out were made in June. (3)This includes two quarterly payments. LMC dividend in paid in December. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Revenues August, 2011 (unaudited) Percentage Of Year Completed 66.00% Over % 2011 August YTD (Under) of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $11,702,050 0 $6,043,041 ($5,659,009) 51.64% (1) Licenses 166,865 12,871 203,843 $36,978 122.16% Permits 576,400 99,736 624,528 $48,128 108.35% Federal Grants 0 0 12,797 $12,797 (6) State Aid 10,500 14,358 87,082 $76,582 829.35% (4) Hennepin County Aid 0 0 2,850 $2,850 Charges For Services: General Government 37,725 281 30,540 ($7,185) 80.95% Public Safety 190,115 8,180 161,553 ($28,562) 84.98% Public Works 124,000 6,103 80,618 ($43,382) 65.01% Park& Rec 392,200 44,898 334,530 ($57,670) 85.30% Other Funds 981,500 (1,060) 757,662 ($223,838) 77.19% (5) Fines& Forfeitures 250,000 25,681 180,769 ($69,231) 72.31% (2) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 1,012 ($98,988) 1.01% (3) Miscellaneous Revenue 214,140 2,766 202,575 ($11,565) 94.60% Transfers In 175,000 0 175,000 $0 100.00% TOTAL Revenue $14,920,495 $213,814 $8,898,400 {$6,022,095) 59.64% Notes: (1) The first half taxes was received in July. This includes the Animal Humane Sociery payment. (2) Fines and Forfeitures are through July. (3) Investments will be booked at year end. (4) State Training will be received in August. This includes a HEAT training for Police (overtime) and Energy Grant($33,677)for electrical improvements (Killmer Contract paid from 1425.6382-$35,504) (5) HRA Transfer was received in July. (5) Reimbursement of Violent Offenders Task Force City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund August,2011 (unauditedj Over 2011 August YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 51,425 56,026 56,026 4,601 108.95% Recycling Charges 275,975 23,713 152,736 (123,239) 55.34% (3) Interest on Investments 10,000 0 0 (10,000) 0.00% (1) Total Revenue 337,400 79,739 208,762 (128,638) 61.87% Expenses: Recycling 418,360 1,645 199,727 (218,633) 47.74% (2) Total Expenses 418,360 1,645 199,727 (218,633) 47.74% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) This is through 1une, 2011 curbside services. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund August,2011(unaudited) Over 2011 August YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,304,300 493,779 2,368,786 (1,935,514) 55.03% Sewer Charges 3,210,000 297,265 1,923,177 (1,286,823) 59.91% Meter Sales 5,000 0 4,438 (562) 88.76% MCES Grant Program 0 0 0 0 Penalties 100,000 9,247 106,332 6,332 106.33% Charges for Other Services 190,000 37,433 250,627 60,627 131.91% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 43,000 4,021 27,064 (15,936) 62.94% Certificate of Compliance 45,000 5,850 59,500 14,500 132.22% Interest Earnings 85,000 0 0 (85,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 7,982,300 847,595 4,739,924 (3,242,376) 59.38% Expenses: Utility Administration 2,769,610 (279,913) 1,293,862 (1,475,748) 46.72% Sewer Maintenance 2,248,140 177,253 1,531,502 (716,638) 68.12% Water Maintenance 3,873,915 628,703 2,377,351 (1,496,564) 61.37% Total Expenses 8,891,665 526,043 5,202,715 (3,688,950) 58.51% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund August,2011(unaudited) Over 2011 August YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Fees 981,155 150,188 624,710 (356,445) 63.67% Driving Range Fees 112,600 18,388 84,590 (28,010) 75.12% Par3 Fees 194,240 42,954 133,886 (60,354) 68.93% Pro Shop Sales 80,000 13,411 60,044 (19,956) 75.06% Pro Shop Rentals 243,050 48,954 163,985 (79,065) 67.47% Concession Sales 216,000 45,511 163,280 (52,720) 75.59% Other Revenue 109,325 443 60,622 (48,703) 55.45% Interest Earnings 15,000 0 0 (15,000) 0.00% (1) Less:Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (150,000) (5,785) (13,170) 136,830 8.78% Total Revenue 1,801,370 314,064 1,277,947 (523,423) 70.94% Expenses: Golf Operations 666,450 45,121 497,982 (168,468) 74.72% (2} Course Maintenance 742,820 78,658 444,174 (298,646) 59.80% Pro Shop 109,560 10,787 87,173 (22,387) 79.57% Grill 185,185 31,309 123,977 (61,208) 66.95% Driving Range 45,615 8,113 33,898 (11,717) 74.31% Par 3 Course 30,525 4,702 19,686 (10,839) 64.49% Total Expenses 1,780,155 178,690 1,206,890 (573,265) 67.80% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. Net Assets at 12-31-10 were$1,007,118. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund August,2011(unaudited) Over 2011 August YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 9,000 0 0 (9,000) 0.00% (1) Charges for Services 531,000 0 137,462 (393,538) 25.89% Total Revenue 540,000 0 137,462 (402,538) 25.46% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 529,135 641 360,281 (168,854) 68.09% (2) Total Expenses 529,135 641 360,281 (168,854) 68.09% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2)Transfer was made in June,2011, *Net Assets at 12/31/2010 were$976,515. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund August,2011(unaudited) Over 2011 August YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 50,000 0 0 (50,000) 0.00% (1) Storm Sewer Charges 2,212,150 192,302 1,462,065 (750,085) 66.09% State Reimbursement(MPCA) 0 0 56,686 56,686 Bassett Creek Watershed 715,000 0 0 (715,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 2,977,150 192,302 1,518,751 (1,458,399) 51.01% Expenses: Storm Utility 2,018,810 (Z6,902) 866,597 (1,152,Z13) 42.93% (2) Street Cleaning 117,460 4,471 63,184 (54,276) 53.79% Environmental Control 276,985 1,707 56,842 (220,143) 20.52% Debt Service Payments 437,300 67,599 435,899 (1,401) 99.68% Total Expenses 2,850,555 46,875 1,422,522 (1,152,213) 49.90% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and 2010 PMP is not complete. i�� 4 '\\ f/l� � �� y \�.. �,! ��.. y�.. ��tj !. , L Park and Recreation � `, �/� �, e 763-512-2342/763-512-2344(fau) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 20, 2011 Agenda Item 3. H. Approval of Amendment to Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (Fund) By-laws Prepared By Jeanne Fackler, Senior Citizen Coordinator Summary At its Council/Manager meeting on September 13 the Chair of the Foundation was in attendance to review proposed amendments to the by-laws. One of the proposed changes is changing the name from the Golden Valley Human Services Foundation to the Golden Valley Human Services Fund. The City Council proposed one amendment regarding the meeting start time and the attached by-laws reflect the change. Attachment By-laws of the Golden Valley Human Services Fund (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the By-laws of the Golden Valley Human Services Fund. BY-LAWS OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY HUMAN SERVICES FUND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL— SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Article I: Mission Statement The Golden Valley Human Services Fund (GVHSF) exists to study human service needs in the community and recommend action to the City Council regarding funding those needs. With these goals in mind, the Fund will: 1. Identify the community's needs for human services. 2. Develop guidelines to evaluate funding requests and allocate funds to human service organizations that meet the identified needs of the community. 3. Determine funds needed and strategies to provide funding through charitable gambling proceeds, fundraisers, or community events. 4. Encourage and enlist participation from the greater Golden Valley community. Article II: Membership, Meetings and Attendance 1. Membership A. The GVHSF membership shall consist of the following: 1. Seven citizens-at-large 2. Five business or community organization members Emphasis in appointments will be based on knowledge of human service needs in the community through participation in community organizations, experience and knowledge of fundraising, and evidence of personal commitment to the delivery of human service needs. B. Persons involved with agencies or groups that anticipate soliciting funds from the GVHSF should not seek appointment. 2. Meetings 1. The GVHSF will hold monthly meetings on the second Monday of the month or as needed. 2. A quorum consists of a majority of the current membership and is necessary to transact the business of the GVHSF. 3. The GVHSF inay hold special meetings to complete or initiate business at the call of the chairperson or at the request of three members. 4. Each member shall be notified at least 48 hours in advance of a special meeting regarding the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. 5. All meetings will be open to the public. 3. Attendance Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from three meetings per calendar year may result in removal from the GVHSF. Members are responsible for notifying the staff liaison or chair if they cannot attend a meeting. Article III: Appointment, Terms and Vacancies 1. Appointments Appointments shall be for terms extending through May 1 and the Council will appoint the appropriate members. 2. Terms Members will serve three year staggered terms, except for the Council Member who will be appointed annually. Terms extend until May 1 or when a successor is appointed and confirmed. 3. Vacancies If a vacancy occurs before the end of the term, interim appointments will be made by the Council. Article IV: Officers, Elections, and Duties 1. Officers The GVHSF will have two officers: a chairperson and vice chairperson. City staff shall senre as secretary. 2. Election of Officers The GVHSF will elect officers at the May meeting each year. Officers will serve until the next election. 3. Duties of OfFicers The GVHSF chairperson will: • develop meeting agendas and give final agenda to staff liaison member ten business days before each meeting • conduct and preside over monthly meetings in a productive, timely manner � monitor and ensure the progress of the GVHSF • report to the City Council • assure that the GVHSF conducts its activities within its mission and by-laws. The GVHSF Vice Chairperson will: • preside over any meeting in the Chairperson's absence Article V: Reporting 1. Annual Allocation Report The GVHSF shall recommend allocations for the upcoming year to the City Council for approval by November. 2. Fundraising Report The GVHSF shall recommend all fundraising events for approval by the City Council. 3. By-Laws Any changes to the GVHSF by-laws will be approved by the City Council. 4. Special Reports The GVHSF can make special reports to the Council to consider emergency requests or adjustments because of revenue shortfalls, but it must justify the need outside the parameters of the annual allocation report. Article VII: Amendments and Revisions The GVHSF will review these by-laws annually at the June meeting with a majority of inembers present, and members will present recommendations for changes and amendments. These by-laws can be altered or amended at any regular quarterly GVHSF meeting, provided that notice of the proposed changes and amendments is mailed to each member at least ten business days before the meeting. kn� ,.,�rm-....�\ a9 fi`^�\ ,Y, ,{� ':_. �� .�� \ �� \ �ss. . �" - ° Planning O ` �/�� e 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 20, 2011 "60 Days" Deadline: September 25, 2011 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #469 -Approval of Conditional Use Permit#42 - Amendment#2 - 1930 Douglas Drive - Northern Tier Retail, LLC, (SuperAmerica) Applicant Prepared By Joe Hogeboorr�, City Planner Summary The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval to amend Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 42 to allow 24-hour operation at the Douglas Drive SuperAmerica location. The use of the property as a gas station and convenience food store is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning designation for the site (both uses require a CUP prior to operation). However, the current conditions for the property prohibit the store from being open for public business between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am. The following conditions are included in the amended Conditional Use Permit: 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted to ensure compliance with the City's lighting ordinance. The lighting ordinance did not exist in 1989. The 24-hour operation could not begin until it was proven that the lighting requirements are met. 2. Landscaping on the site shall be as indicated on the Landscape Plan filed in the City Planning Office. 3. All signage shall be in accordance with the City's sign ordinance. Prior to 24-hour operation, the applicant must meet with the City's sign inspector to ensure that the signage on the site is consistent with City Code. 4. Noise ordinance enforcement signs shall be posted. 5. The memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated June 14, 2011 shall become a part of the CUP permit. Because a loudspeaker system is required by the Deputy Fire Marshal, the loudspeaker systems shall be designed so that it cannot be heard at any of the property lines. SuperAmerica shall provide proof that the loudspeaker cannot be heard at any the property lines by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to 24-hour ope�ation. 6. No trash or recycling pickup can be made after 10 pm or prior to 7 am. 7. There shall be at least two employees on site at all times. 8. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning Office. The four-foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the main building and extending into the setback area on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the setback area. 9. The station is allowed to be open for public business 24 hours per day. 10.The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view. 11.The site shall meet all other City and State requirements. 12.Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Planning Commission Minutes dated June 27, 2011 (3 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated August 22, 2011 (3 pages) Memo to Planning Commission dated June 21, 2011 (4 pages) Memo to Planning Commission dated August 16, 2011 (1 page) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated June 14, 2011 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Original Conditional Use Permit#42 dated June 13, 1989 (1 page) Site Plan (1 page) Ordinance #469, Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit No. 42, Amendment 2, 1930 Douglas Drive, Northern Tier Retail, LLC (SuperAmerica), Applicant (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #�69, Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit No. 42, Amendment 2, 1930 Douglas Drive, Northern Tier Retail, LLC (SuperAmerica), Applicant. �z o / i_ s_°s°�°°ssl�o 5�ao � � o0 75 � � 2158 f Westmore Way. '- _ � 14b � 750 �y 005 gq 2155 ! 21$O 2155 t 2129 � 2125 � �1 43902 a122 2115 ' ��5 �00 934 6910 ' � 20 2120 a 21�� " 'Kenncth Way' " �� 6 1 2040 r�- �1 3 20A1 m � 202D � ! 2130 � � 2010 20� � �� E 01fl I j t � � 20A0 � � 1 O z ' 1�b 1 1B8 � � � i 1970 I j i ---'i ' " � "' buluth St - _ _.f _ _ __ � 1950 I ' � "' ' � . Subject Property ,%' ��5 ' °� � `. �' S�� : . � � S�lB 33 19�1 � T ' � Lo9'i8 A6nd I 2�d ' � � -��' � 920 1921 b 1920 ' �� 2� 1 � �6 �.. , .�``o � s10d�1�8 i �gfl601 6000 �r'y, 1910 3 00 `��1 �,,�---------i-. A '�a15 E _ 'Duhnhta- - a 1880 3 ``.,�_r,•�'' � � �.t+�c 1S0 1$4 i 8d5 s03 SOi gpO j 7 1 Havteywe!!Pond 2 7 `�.� 17b5 I ,a' 1860 8 1� 1�'24 I i ��i�y 6140 � 6050 020 000 20 00 g 85d4 6120 t 9 653�8 5 2 0 Honeyw e l l Pc�d ' 7 b ��_ i Wo►�b�r ry la" ° .. .. 1710 s� i� 1� 1d •. y 6055 A2s 005 95 "- "'J '° .. I 12 •. 5901 1792 1701 ','� 833 b52�hr�+� a 430 A �t �� 700 89 S 0 ' �i8— 1676 1875'd JI'�25 �S�Nr�'.P! .. 'd g 14Z7 ' v 5D � / 'P 31 ,I`�, 0 020 59d0 5920 �„:. 1566 1655 w $19 � �62a m � � 03 59 0 � ��7 y� 65D � t 1618 1 05 � 1441 r 430 •. ` SBbO �� 1858 1645� 7807 ` 81D �5'�$ . i ap gp45 St.Croix Park C11f a 7640 30 -- - . -- -- - - -- -• - a � , i ' , �- - - -. ... _ _ - 1 DO ` �� B 1 51 160 �1600 332 � 180 � 1511 � 1510 1639 : 850 g� �19 67' O Syn � 653 � 10 83 p� I 3 3 n �' _�_ _ �_ - -- - - - - -t J O�a�� 1521` 1520 7629 840 OtY�PL?$t_ _- _- -- � / 17c-�.�OA 7 51835 � ��1 2 5 3 ' 38 �'� �5 5 31 630 � „;;��oi 1531.� 1530 1619 �� 1d1 Q7 i l I � �f° , 82 2�3 1Sd'�G 549 809 ZO,�;' 120 505 � B00 52$ 8500�S sfl� 0 _ 32 831 630 ' 2D2 �g r r g1 y� 6 30 6 80 $ - 6d d '� 55'� � 1601 ; - - -�- - -Wensdale St_.A� ` ��17 � 600 � �`, .` .� �; ` 53 495;`0 43 642 640 31 F 01701 56 •"- 5825 � 8 1 �z 833 � 5 t S80 , . � 372309„30 5T1 13g 1375 1388 14Z5 ; �o�a».-�nsn�s e�sF:e,.ex�scs�ou � ; �fi8�'�0�$.1A2 sz�t / Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 27, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commis ' n was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, ncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Ro , Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Mon : , Jun 7, 2011. Chair Waldhauser called th meeting to order at 7 pm. f`` .�, � ��a , Schmid all, Those pr nt were Planning Commission rs Cera, Kisch, Kluchka,�.,� rty g Segelbaum d Waldhauser. Also present as Director of Plann,i- `�and Development Mark Grimes a dministrative Assistant isa Wittman. �63°`�; 1. Approval of M� es June 13, 2011 Regula nning C mi.- 'on Meeting ��: Kisch referred to the first sentence in r st paragraph on page 2 and stated that he would like the words `bccupancy loa_ �'r'� h d to "maximum number of clients the daycare facility can be licensed fc� : Kisch referred to the first s � ence in the rst paragraph age 3 and stated that he would like the sentence � rified to ask if e client load increa_ ,would the number of parties also increas . � Waldhauser r red to the fifth paragrap on page 3 and stated that she w like the sentence c � ied that she wanted to kn the applicant's plans for screening dumpste . M D by Schmidgall, seconded by Ce and motion carried unanimously to approve June 13, 2011 minutes with the abov noted changes. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit Amendment— 1930 Douglas Drive -CU 42-03 Amendment#2 Applicant: Northern Tier Retail, LLC (SuperAmerica) Addresses: 1930 Douglas Drive Purpose: To allow the existing SuperAmerica store to remain open for business 24 hours per day. The property is located in the Commercial zoning district. Grimes explained the applicant's request to amend their existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to remain open for business 24 hours per day rather than 6 am to 11 pm as their current CUP allows. He noted that in 1996 SuperAmerica came before the Planning Commission with the same request. At that time the Planning Commission tabled their - request in order to allow SuperAmerica time to discuss the issues with the residents in the neighborhood. The 1996 proposal was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 27, 2011 Page 2 Grimes referred to the site plan and photos of the property and discussed the following concerns he has regarding this proposal. He would like an acoustical engineer's report showing that noise from the loudspeakers cannot be heard at any of the property lines. He would like the applicant to ensure they are in compliance with the City's sign ordinance and he would like a lighting plan submitted to ensure compliance with the City's lighting ordinance. Waldhauser asked if the applicant has re-done the loudspeaker system since the last time they requested a CUP amendment. Grimes said no and noted that a condition in their existing CUP stated that there can be no use of the loudspeakers after 10 pm. Segelbaum asked about other gas stations in the area which may be open 24-hours. Waldhauser stated there is a 24-hour gas station at Hwy. 100 and Duluth near Byerlys. Grimes stated there is also a 24-hour SuperAmerica at I-394 and Louisiana. Schmidgall asked if the speaker system is a requirement of the Deputy Fire Marshal. Grimes said yes and explained that state law requires there to be a way for employees to communicate with people at the pumps. . Kisch asked how this SuperAmerica fits in with the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. Grimes noted that SuperAmerica fit in with the study of the area and the study did assume there would be a retail use at this corner. Karla Bigham, Public Affairs Coordinator/Paralegal, Northern Tier Energy/SuperAmerica, referred to questions regarding the use of the loudspeakers. She stated that they would consider ceasing the use of the loudspeaker unless it is for an emergency. Cera suggested SuperAmerica have a neighborhood meeting similar to what was requested as a part of the 1996 proposal. Tracy Pink, District Manager, SuperAmerica, stated that he would be happy to meet with the neighbors. Bigham added that would also be happy to look at the lighting and sign ordinances to make sure they are in compliance. Kluchka asked the applicant's if they would consider making their gas pumps credit card only, all of the time. Bigham said they could consider doing that during the overnight hours. Kluchka added that he would also like to limit the use of television screens at the pumps. Pink said they currently have no plans to install television screens. Kisch suggested additional screening (fence or landscaping) along the east side of the site. Segelbaum asked the applicants if they have considered having the gas pumps available 24 hours per day, but not the store. Bigham said they have not had that discussion. Pink added that they would like to have someone on site in case of an emergency. , Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valiey Planning Commission June 27, 2011 Page 3 Bob Parzyck, 2005 Brunswick Ave N, said his concern is noise. Not so much from the loudspeakers but from cars beeping when they are being locked. He added that nothing good happens after 11 pm. Leann Moss, 2020 Douglas Dr N, said she agrees the beeping cars are noisy. She said a lot of people walk through her yard and leave trash in her yard and she doesn't want more people and more trash in her yard. There is also a big light at the SuperAmerica store that shines in through her living room window. Paul Snodgrass, 2010 Douglas Dr N, said Golden Valley is nice and quiet at 11 pm and he wants to keep it that way. He said that adding trees and changing the lighting at SuperAmerica isn't going to stop the engine noise. He expressed concern about people sneaking around the neighborhood and said he is opposed to this request and would like to keep it the way it is. Marcel Lamour, 2000 Douglas Dr N, said he is the closest neighbor to SuperAmerica and he can hear the noise from the loudspeakers. He said he is worried about his house being robbed and he is against the proposal. Joseph Mastrian, 2101 Brunswick Ave N, said this isn't going to help traffic, the police are going to have to do more surveillance and there is no reason for SuperAmerica to be open later than 11 pm. Paul Snodgrass, 2010 Douglas Dr N, reiterated that changing the lighting and planting trees is not going to help the general roar. He added that he is also concerned that allowing SuperAmerica to be open 24 hours will draw people from Minneapolis. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka suggested tabling the applicant's request to allow them time to have a neighborhood meeting. Commissioners Segelbaum, Cera and Kisch agreed that more time would allow the applicant to address the issues they've heard at this meeting and in the staff report. McCarty said that if SuperAmerica is willing to comply with the requirements there would not be a need to table their request. Schmidgall said he is inclined to recommend approval of the request with the condition that more screening be added. He said he feels the site could really be improved with better lighting, screening, fencing, etc. Waldhauser asked the applicants if they would like the Planning Commission to table their request, vote on their request or if they would like to withdraw their request. Bigham said their preference would be to meet with Mr. Grimes and decide from there if they would like to go forward with their request and/or a neighborhood meeting. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this request. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commi sion was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Co ' Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley R ad, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 2 , 011. Chair Waldhauser calle the meeting to order at 7 pm Those present we lanning Commission rs Cera (arrived a .� V�), Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Waldhauser. Als present wa�, `Tector of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, ity Planner J Hoge.p � , SEH Traffic Engineer Mike Kotila and Administrative Assis t Lisa W" m��'�ommissioner Segel6aum was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes n July 25, 2011 Regul _ s anning Co issi eeting Kisch asked that th urth paragraph on p ge two be clari i to state that he was questioning Mc ald's drive-thru volume creasing compare he overall sales volume incr ing. MO by Kluchka, seconded by Kisch an motion carried unanimously to approve the J 25, 2001 minutes with the above noted larification. 2. Continued Informal Public Hearing —Conditional Use Permit Amendment— 1930 Douglas Drive - CU 42-03 Amendment#2 Applicant: Northern Tier Retail, LLC (SuperAmerica) Addresses: 1930 Douglas Drive Purpose: To allow the existing SuperAmerica store to remain open for business 24 hours per day. The property is located in the Commercial zoning district. Grimes reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their June 27 meeting to allow SuperAmerica additional time to hold a neighborhood meeting to address issues such as hours of operation, lighting, signage and noise. He noted that SuperAmerica has addressed the items listed in his staff report and that neighbors were notified of this meeting. McCarty asked how the neighborhood meeting went. Karla Bigham, Northern Tier Retail, Applicant, stated that their neighborhood meeting was similar to the June 27 Planning Commission meeting. Tracy Pink, District Manager, SuperAmerica, stated that there was discussion regarding lighting and limiting the hours for using the intercom system. He said he offered to have his employees clean up trash in the surrounding area a couple times per month and agreed to sponsor the Night to Unite neighborhood party. Waldhauser asked if SuperAmerica's customers are coming mainly from Honeywell or from the neighborhood. Pink said he believes their customers come from both Honeywell Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 2 and the neighborhood. He stated he believes extending their hours will be a benefit to the community. Waldhauser asked if SuperAmerica has considered installing signs regarding noise ordinance regulations. Pink said they would be willing to install noise ordinance signs. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Bob Parzyck, 2005 Brunswick Ave N, said SuperAmerica gets broken into when they are closed so staying open 24 hours per day is probably a cheaper security system for them. He said this proposal is good for SuperAmerica, but not for the neighborhood and SuperAmerica should just put in a better surveillance system. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said he is inclined to support this proposal because SuperAmerica has addressed the City's concerns, he sees nice improvements in their plans and their involvement in the Night to Unite event is good. McCarty agreed. Kluchka suggested adding the neighborhood clean-up and the installation of noise ordinance signs as conditions of approval. Kisch said he would like the installation of noise ordinance signs added as a condition of approval but the neighborhood clean-up and the Night to Unite involvement are verbal commitments that would be difficult to enforce. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to allow the existing SuperAmerica store located at 1930 Douglas Drive to remain open for business 24 hours per day subject to the following conditions: � 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted to ensure compliance with the City's lighting ordinance. The lighting ordinance did not exist in 1989. The 24-hour operation could not begin until it was proven that the lighting requirements are met. 2. Landscaping on the site shall be as indicated on the Landscape Plan filed in the City Planning Office. 3. All signage shall be in accordance with the City's sign ordinance. Prior to 24-hour operation, the applicant must meet with the City's sign inspector to ensure that the signage on the site is consistent with City code. 4. Noise ordinance enforcement signs shall be posted. 5. The memo from the Deputy Fire Marshal dated June 14, 2011 shall become a part of the CUP permit. Because a loudspeaker system is required by the Deputy Fire Marshal, the loudspeaker systems shall be designed so that it cannot be heard at any of the property lines. SuperAmerica shall provide proof that the loudspeaker cannot be heard at any of the property lines by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to 24-hour operation. 6. No trash or recycling pickup can be made after 10 pm or prior to 7 am. � 7. There shall be at least finro employees on site at all times. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 3 8. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning Office. The four-foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the main building and extending into the setback area on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the setback area. 9. The station is allowed to be open for public business 24 hours per day. 10. The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view. 11. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements. 12. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation. The Planning Commission bases its recommendation on the following findings: • The significant neighborhood contributions that SuperAmerica is making • Agreement to the 12 conditions of approval especially the improvement in lighting and noise issues Informal Public Hearing — Prope Rezonings — Properties located north of arold Avenue, south of Highway 5, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of 'nnetka Avenue. The properties est of the Spirit of Hope U .' ed Methodist Ch ch are proposed to be rezon d to "Medium Density(R- ResidentiaP' and the operties to the east of the irit of Hope United Me =odist Church are propo d to be rezoned to "Mod ate Density(R-2) R. idential." Applicant: ity of Golden Valley �`�w a�, Y Addresses: Pro rties located no ' h of Harold�\venue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenw d Avenue an east of,�Vinnetka Avenue F�� Purpose: To bring th roperti , in,t�o conformance with the recently updated General Land Use Pla ap ;: �l � Hogeboom explained that the Ci s + dated Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010. As part of that process the Cit��s re.� d by the State to make sure the General Land Use Plan Map, which is part of�{�� Com ` ehe ive Plan, is compatible with the Zoning map. He referred to a map o�-�e subjec � roperties� .�d explained that area A is the property north of Harold Ave�, south of ghway 55, e ' t of Winnetka Avenue and west of the Spirit of Hope Me�, dist Church. ese properties re proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density (R-3) idential. Area B' n the map includ ' the properties located north of Harold Aven�}�',south of Highwa 55, west of Glenwoo venue and east of the Spirit of Hope Met :� �ist Church and are roposed to be rezoned Moderate Density (R-2) Residen ': ` . He added that the R 3 zoning district would all a development with up to 4 stories nd 12 units per acre if it non-senior housing. Senio ousing would be allowed by ditional Use with no speci c density and height up to 5 s ries. The R-2 zoning di ict would allow development ith up to 8 units per acre for single family homes, plexes, twin homes or small to nhouse developments. a { �` �� c�;" ��; �§ �:.:,;, , _. (j e Planning U 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: June 21, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 42, SuperAmerica Station at 1930 Douglas Dr., Northern Tier Retail LLC, Aplicant Background Northern Tier Retail, represented by Michael Eareg000d, is the owner of the SuperAmerica (SA) gas/convenience store at 1930 Douglas Dr. N. (southeast corner of Douglas Dr. and Duluth St.). Approximately 22 years ago in 1989, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was issued to allow the construction of the current SA store. The site was previously the home of a Mobile gas station. The CUP was required because convenience stores within the Commercial zoning district require a CUP to operate. The previous gas station on the site did not have a CUP because it predated the time when they were needed for a gas station. SA could not just "inherit" the nonconforming status of the old Mobile station because the old service station was razed and SuperAmerica is considered a convenience store. The proposed CUP amendment would allow 24-hour retail sales. They are currently restricted to 6 am to 11 pm. Northern Tier Retail recently purchased all the SA stores in Minnesota. They will continue to operate under the SA banner and not change to Speedway as has happened in other parts of the country. In 1989, there were two public hearings held, one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council. In review of the reports and minutes from the public hearing, the largest concern of the public related to traffic and traffic congestion. A traffic study was prepared by the City's consulting traffic engineer. With some minor changes to the plan, the traffic engineer recommended approval of the plan. Only one or two people brought up ather issues, including noise. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval and the City Council unanimously voted to approve the CUP in 1989. As part of the CUP, there is to be no Ioudspeaker use befinreen the hours of 10 pm and 6 am unless there is an emergency. SA agreed to this requirement. In 1996 SA did request to amend their CUP to allow 24-hour operation. This request was withdrawn after it was tabled by the Planning Commission. Proposed Use of Building and Site As noted in the materials submitted by Northern Tier, there are no changes proposed for the site or the building other than allowing 24-hour operation. At this time SA may operate the store for customers from 6 am to 11 pm. Employees can be in the store outside those hours but no retail business can be done including the sale of gasoline. In 1996, SA proposed the exact same amendment to allow 24-hour operation. This request went to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission tabled the request in order to give SA time to meet with the neighborhood to discuss noise, lighting, traffic and other issues. Before bringing this matter back on the table at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant withdrew the application because they had not had sufficient time to meet with neighbors. As indicated in the Planning Commission minutes, neighbors of the SA were concerned about the noise and other issues with the extended hours. The Planning Commissioners did voice certain concerns related to noise, traffic, lighting and landscaping. They felt it would be best for SA to meet with neighbors to understand the request and get input. Such a meeting was not held and SA withdrew the application before it went to the City Council. SA did imply that they would probably request 24-hour operation at some time in the future. I have visited the site on numerous occasions as both a customer and in my capacity as Planning Director. Yesterday I took several photos that are attached. I found the site to be in good repair and free of garbage and debris. The dumpster and air conditioning equipment is screened. The only disturbing item was that a truck was unloading at the site and the tractor portion of the truck was sticking out into the Douglas Dr. right-of-way. (Deliveries are difficult to this site due to the small size of the site. The delivery of goods to the site should not change at all due to the extended hours.) There has been a good growth of trees along the property line to the south and east that blocks the view of most of the store and site from the apartment to the southeast. During the non-growing season, the back of the SA store is more visible to the apartment. SA has indicated that the 24-hour operation would increase customers and the number of employees. � In 1996, Honeywell supported the 24-hour operation. Factors for Consideration for Review of CUP In approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to the current proposal are as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market for the proposed good or service. In this case, SA believes that there is a market for 24-hour operation. However, staff is concerned about extending the hours in this area due to the residences in the nearby area. There is already 24-hour gas available at the gas station located at Duluth and TH 100 only about 1/2 mile to the east. 2. Consistencv with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map identifies the proposed site for commercial uses:The Douglas Drive Corridor study also indicates that this intersection is a good location for retail uses. Gas/convenience stores are, therefore, consistent with the City plans for the area. 2 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: The additional hours of operation may have a negative impact on the adjoining residential areas to the east and north especially if there is loudspeaker use and car radio use that can be heard at the adjoining homes and apartments. 4. Effect of anv Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and Conqestion in the Area: From 11 pm to 6 am, there were be some traffic going to the store but generally the existing streets are empty at that time. Therefore, there would be no negative traffic impact on the area. 5. Increase in Population: Because this is a non-residential use, there will be no increase in population due to the extension of hours at SA. 6. Increase in Noise Level: The noise level may increase during the hours that they currently are not open. Of particular concern is how to minimize the use of loudspeakers and car radio/stereos when pumping gas. There is also the opening and closing of car doors. In terms of delivery of products, gas may be dumped at the site in the middle of the night. The City encourages the dumping of gas at night in order to minimize conflicts on the site during the day. Generally, the dumping of gas by the tanker trucks can be done without disturbing the neighborhood. 7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration Cause by the Use: No significant added impact is expected from the increased hours. 8. Any Increase in Flies, Rats, or other Vermin in the Area Caused by the Use: No significant added impact is expected from the increased hours. 9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure of Use: Expanding the hours of operation is not expected to have an impact on the visual appearance of the site with the exception of lighting. Staff is asking for a lighting plan to insure that it meets the requirements of the City's lighting ordinance. By following the current lighting ordinance, there should be minimal impact on the surrounding properties because the lighting level and glare allowed by the ordinance is less than permitted in 1989. 10.Other Concerns Reqarding the Use: The staff does not see any other issues to address. I have spoken to the Police Chief and she does not anticipate any negative impacts. Recommended Action At this time, staff is concerned about amending this permit. SA did not meet with the neighborhood in 1996 as recommended by the PC to address neighborhood concerns. At this time, the neighborhood is about the same as it was in 1996. There is still the apartment building contiguous to the SA site. There are single family homes to the north and east. This is a very busy store and even with the elimination of the loudspeaker sound over the SA property line, the SA is quite busy and noise can be heard from the site on adjacent properties. The noises includes the opening and closing of car doors, delivery of goods and gas and the customer's car radios and stereos left on while pumping gas. Over the past 22 years that the SA has operated, I have never heard a complaint about its limited hours of operation. The gas station at TH 100 and Duluth does have 24-hour gas pumping so there is 24-hour gas available in the area. SA has argued that the 24-hour store 3 would better serve the shift employees at Honeywell. Honeywell employees have the opportunity to visit SA before or after their shift with the existing hours of operation. If the Commission recommends approval of the amended CUP to allow 24-hour operation, the staff recommends the following conditions for the amended CUP: 1. A lighting plan sh�all be submitted to ensure compliance with the City's lighting ordinance. The lighting ordinance did not exist in 1989. The 24-hour operation could not begin until it was proven that the lighting requirements are met. 2. Landscaping on the site shall be as indicated on the Landscape Plan filed in the City Planning Office. 3. All signage must be in accordance with the City's sign ordinance. Prior to 24-hour operation, the applicant must meet with the City's sign inspector to insure that the signage on the site is consistent with City code. (I have recently spoken to the Inspections Department about signage at the SA. In the past there have been issues with too much signage at the store but they have improved as of late.) 4. The memo from the Deputy Fire Marshal dated June 14, 2011 shall become a part of the CUP permit. Because a loudspeaker system is required by the Deputy Fire Marshal, the loudspeaker systems shall be designed so that it cannot be heard at any of the property lines. SA shall provide proof that the loudspeaker cannot be heard at any of the property lines by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to 24-hour operation. 5. No trash or recycling pickup can be made after 10 pm or prior to 7 am. 6. There shall be at least two employees on site at all times. 7. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning Office. The four-foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the main building and extending into the setback area on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the setback area. 8. The station is allowed to be open for public business 24 hours per day. 9. The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view. 10. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements. 11. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated June 14, 2011 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Site Plans (2 pages) Existing Conditional Use Permit (1 page) Memo to Planning Commission dated January 3, 1996 (3 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated January 8, 1996 (4 pages) Photos (10 pages) 4 ��y�. :�� ?� �: ,,, _�f,` `�' -��-� � : �� . � Planning � , 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 16, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Continued Consideration of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 42, SuperAmerica Station at 1930 Douglas Dr., Northern Tier Retail LLC, Applicant. At the June 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public hearing to consider an amendment to the CUP for SuperAmerica at 1930 Douglas Dr. After the hearing was closed and a number of persons spoke, the Commission tabled the request in order to give the applicant time to meet with persons living in the neighborhood and address concerns raised at the informal public hearing. The amendment is being requested by Northern Tier Retail in order to allow the SuperAmerica gas/convenience store to be open 24 hours per day. The CUP now allows the store to be open only from 6 am to 11 pm. Several persons spoke at the informal public hearing. The attached minutes of the meeting outline the concerns of those that spoke. The Planning Commission suggested that Northern Tier have a meeting with the neighbors to determine if there were measures that could be taken to make the increased hours acceptable to the neighborhood. Northern Tier agreed to meet with the neighborhood. This was done on August 4, 2011 at Brookview Community Center. The applicant was given the City mailing list for the informal public hearing and notices of the neighborhood meeting were sent to those people. As stated in the attached letter dated August 8, 2011 from Karla Bigham of Northern Tier, the comments made at the meeting were similar to the ones made afi the informal public hearing. This letter from Ms. Bigham outlines what Northern Tier will agree to as part of an amended CUP to allow 24 hour operation. The 11 points in her letter relate to the 11 items in my memo dated June 21, 2011. My recommendation remains the same as in my memo from June 21, 2011. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Planning Commission Minutes dated June 27, 2011 (3 pages) Letter from Karla Bigham, Northern Tier Energy/SuperAmerica, dated August 8, 2011 (2 pages) Memo to Planning Commission dated June 21, 2011 (4 pages) of � e�tor� r�d � � ell a e Fire Department F i r e D e p a r t m e n t 763-593-8065/763-593-8098(faxl To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Conditional Use Permit Amendment 42.03 Super America, 1930 Douglas Dr. Date: June 14, 2011 I have reviewed the Conditional Use Permit amendment information packet for the Super America gas station, located at 1930 Douglas Dr. The Conditional Use Permit application is requesting 24 hour operation per day. In reviewing the packet information, listed below are my comments. 1. The 24 hour operation shall be conducted by a qualified attendant or should be under the supervision of a qualified attendant at all times. 2. The gas station attendant shall be able to communicate with persons in the dispensing area by using a PA, or public address speaker system inside that is located at the pump dispensers. A public address speaker system is to authorize the fueling and controlling of the dispensing of fuel. 3. The operation in controlling and observation for the attendant shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or my e-mail address, eanderson aC�`golden-valle .y mn.us ea/jl NARREITIVE DESCR�PTION Northern Tier Retail,LLC dba�uperAmerica 444�,is only requestang a change in ogeraiing hours. Northern Tier Ret�,LLC vvould like to operat�SuperAmerica 3tore#9�4�F3 twenty-fou� hours a day,w�ich i�an increase�'mm the aurrent ei�hteen hour busin�es�day. There will be na ch�nge to the s�u�ture or equipment witbin the stare. Northern Tier Retail,LLG would need to b.i�e�dditionel enaployees fo n�an�ge the stt�re for tho expandBd hours of op�ratiou. Northern Tier Retail,LLG would�xperience an increase in customers be��tise of the cc�nvenien:ce of being open for business twentyr-four hou�s a d�.�. Nor�iein Tier Retail,LLC does not expeat aay off �ite impact as a result of the change in ho.nrs of operation. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY CONDIT. IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 89-42 DA7E OF APPROVAL: June 13, 1989 by the City Council in accordance with Section lI.1Q, 5ubd. 2 and Sect3on 11.11, Subd. 1 of the City Zaning Cade. ISSUED T0: John K. Q ren Properties APPROYED LOCATION: 1910 Douylas Drive ' APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE: _ Operation of a SuperAmerica. Station with Co�venience Sho�ping in a Commercial Zonina District. ___�__— CONQITIQNS OF APPROYAL: 1. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning office. The four-faot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the ma3n building and extending into the setback are on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In � addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the setback area. ' 2. Except for changes required by the Building Board of Review, landscapi�g on the site shall be as indicated on the Landscape Flan filed in� the City Planning Office. 3. Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM loudspeaker use shall be iimited to emergency communications. 4. The dumpster area shall be fu11y sh�elded from v�ew. 5. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements. 6. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit sha11 constitut� grounds for revocation. 7. The station shall not be open for public business from 11:00 PM to 6:a0 �AM. WARNING: This permit does not exempt you from vther City Code provis�ons, regulat3ons and ordinances. ISSUED BY: � Mar . Grimes, rector o anning and eve opment � � � � � � � � � � � �� g � ; � � � �� _ � 3 � w � � � � � f � ' � � � � � �� $ �� *�� g � � � � � t E � � 's � � � �W# � ��a�� . � � � � � � � � if � � 8 � � q � � � t '�� 4y �p" � � � � � ' � �a� � � � � � 3 �� i � � � � � � ��9� �� ( $p� �J$�'`' �� Ca� Y � �� gg$ :2 � $ �j� ��i �a� � �� °w ��'sC �� 3��3 '�1 �� $ � � �'� �2� � � � �. � � � � � ��!�0� ��„ ��'�Q�� `' 0'�' �� '�� B�� a � Q � �� l! '��._ � � i� r\Y�� _ ,, � � �� , � ,,, � � � d `i ' � � � f O ��._N'��+.. �s� � � � � � r a �-� +..,`` ,�i:\y._. � � . �J / `'°�'��`-`=°_`;�; � I ,/ � f � �I ` __�..``"t f� _ � �y�$� �y:,�J/ \� � � ❑ ❑ � • ` 1 � �a �+��`� .� t� •� 1 � / � R�'� � '�'\�� '� � � ^ �5g;a e /� l ;, ' �� f�a�� e J / / � � � ., 7zs�� o � �! � � . i / _ ••II a�' I ��a '° .} i � � n . � C7 � �j ��.' �� I . �I: -.�. �� 1 Y � I � � � _'� :n�� ' � - �-- __�. -=�'� � � .�-'�—__.__.�;� � �'-�''��' � , �9 � � . � � �.�1 -- - I � ... -- -� - � � - ,o- -- i i --+ • �� ., � >' �.. � "�=— -�— ` -`__Lr-�--1'` :! �•�°'� >� �� —. i r� t �a� - �-.-°° _--_-._- �- �tX t�_ b.Y�_- Oo � o-�— - -_ � J�� , i < $ t- �',��_°'_'- � �` �-_�.r` o �'�_.^� ��1- 6 , N O r -�--�-g-� s ;'�7- � �s) ��` , 1� (.` Q'a , �7. � ��j' ; d , ,/ J �_ ,, �1 `�; -�-.-�y�' �- _ `}'`,,L�r� ��,r}..,j—f� ; � � �� _� _� . ' �o- .C°_ t�' f f�� {� �/ �_ `' pV � t 1 � �tl r° .�_"�°� •� � 1 �..� / ,` �~ a � , � � a. . (� ' {;- �� '-_- --_ __ _ _ . J� �.,y . � . L.. __��J� ��.___. ,__. .�. . =1�- � �� o � � � � � . �.w._ .. ' ° � t �^ C'� � ,�. —4U�-�,, I� a'_�#� ___ l-- '' _.1�,' I � � �s.. N ��= =t -.-M --rr- `.'� �`F I `� e �"p` Sc � ____'_�.�'.�r-��/':tl N �'_'_' � 6:'� y� �' �/' � d�—+ y si„y� s ,�"4' y7.,�k �" �'(��-�-�� r` � F�,q„? � � �� ,.,f �1 s3`-�° g � C� ,. i e � � , . �q 'E s� m l�lh �y 6 c�� ; t4�, � $:: ,nt� � "�� `�' t �� ;lt ; � ' g� �. . � �� e � :. . _��, �=r __ -,�±�� o = �=---- �� I � € �:�___T--___ __�_____—. _ ��- ��, --_____ s�- - -- � � � 3 _. __ � . _ I99 'OH CyOtl A1Nt10J) � �ia��is Hin�na ��- - — ■ ORDINANCE NO. 469, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit Number 42, Amendment#2 1930 Douglas Drive Northern Tier Retail, LLC, (SuperAmerica) Applican� The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is . amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, and Section 11.30, by approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a certain tract of land at 1930 Douglas Drive thereby allowing the existing SuperAmerica store to remain open for business 24 hours per day. The property is located in the Commercial Zoning District. This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the findings of the Planning Commission pursuant to City Code Section 11.80, Subd. 2(G), which findings are hereby adopted and incorporated herein as follows: 1. The significant neighborhood contributions that SuperAmerica is making. 2. Agreement to the 12 conditions of approval especially the improvement in lighting and noise issues. This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions: 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted to ensure compliance with the City's lighting ordinance. The lighting ordinance did not exist in 1989. The 24-hour operation could not begin until it was proven that the lighting requirements are met. 2. Landscaping on the site shall be as indicated on the Landscape Plan filed in the City Planning Office. 3. All signage shall be in accordance with the City's sign ordinance. Prior to 24-hour operation, the applicant must meet with the City's sign inspector to ensure that the signage on the site is consistent with City code. 4. Noise ordinance enforcement signs shall be posted. 5. The memo from the Deputy Fire Marshal dated June 14, 2011 shall become a part of the CUP permit. Because a loudspeaker system is required by the Deputy Fire Marshal, the loudspeaker systems shall be designed so that it cannot be heard at any of the property lines. SuperAmerica shall provide proof that the loudspeaker cannot be heard at any of the property lines by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to 24-hour operation. 6. No trash or recycling pickup can be made after 10 pm or prior to 7 am. 7. There shall be at least finro employees on site at all times. 8. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning Office. The four- foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the main building and extending into the setback area on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the setback area. 9. The station is allowed to be open for public business 24 hours per day. 10. The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view. 11. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements. 12. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation. Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows: Block 11, Yarnalls Golden Valley Outlots, Commencing at a point in the west line of Block 11 distant 125 feet north from its intersection with northeasterly line of St. Croix Ave thence southeasterly deflect 66 degrees from south to east from said west line a distance of 115 feet thence northeasterly to a point 151 feet east from west line of Block 11 and 163 feet south from north line thereof thence north to north line thereof thence west 151 feet to northwest corner thereof thence south to beginning. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sec. 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeano�' are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 20th day of September, 2011. /s/Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Susan M. Virniq Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk � ` .-�---�`,, ��.��-��w� �,�� ; O �\\ �'� p Planning V 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 20, 2011 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - Property Rezoning - Harold Avenue Area Ordinance #470 - Properties between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential", and Ordinance#471 - Properties between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Moderate Density (R-2) Residential", or Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-46, and Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Befinreen Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-47 Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary In May of 2010, the Metropolitan Council approved the City's Comprehensive Plan. State Statute requires that the City's zoning designations correspond with the General Land Use Plan Map, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. To be in compliance with this requirement, several areas in the City must be rezoned. The alternative would be to amend the General Land Use Plan Map to reflect the current land use of the site. All subject properties are currently zoned Single Family R-1 Residential. The General Land Use Plan Map guides the area west of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church (Area A) as "Medium-High Density Residential." This land use category requires the area to be zoned either Medium Density R-3 Residential or High Density R-4 Residential. The City Council had previously indicated that it would prefer this area to be zoned Medium Density R-3 Residential. The Medium Density R-3 Residential zoning designation would permit multi-family residential development of up to 12 units per acre. Multi-family residential buildings would be permitted to be up to four stories in height. If housing is proposed for senior citizens or people who are physically disabled, then buildings could be built at a higher density and up to five stories in height with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP process would involve a traffic analysis that would determine how much traffic the specific site can accommodate. The General Land Use Plan Map guides the area east of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church (Area B) as "Medium-Low Density Residential." This land use category requires the area to be zoned either Moderate Density R-2 Residential or Medium Density R-3 Residential. The City Council has indicated that it would prefer this area to be zoned Moderate Densitv R-2 Residential. The Moderate Density R-2 Residential zoning designation would permit the development of new single family homes as well as new multi-family residential development of up to 8 units per acre. This could include twin-homes, duplexes and small townhome developments. No structure could exceed 30 feet in height. If this rezoning occurs, single family homes remain legally conforming land uses. They can continue to function as they do under existing zoning criteria. If the Council chooses to retain existing zoning classifications for one or both of the subject areas, then it must adopt a resolution ordering staff to amend the General Land Use Plan Map to reflect long term low density residential land use. The Council must make findings supporting the denial of the rezoning petition and the adoption of the resolution to order a change to the General Land Use Plan Map. Attachments Location Maps (2 pages) Email from Kathy Dritsas, 7601 Harold Avenue (1 page) Email from Lee and Larry Brant, 7631 Harold Avenue (1 page) Memo to the Planning Commission dated August 17, 2011 (4 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated August 22, 2011 (9 pages) General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) State Statute Section 473.858 - Comprehensive Plans: Local Governmental Units (1 page) Ordinance#470 - Properties befinreen Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential"to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential" (1 page) Ordinance#471 - Properties between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Moderate Densifiy (R-2) Residential" (1 page) Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-46 (1 page) Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-47 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #470 - Properties between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential". Motion to adopt Ordinance#471 - Properties between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Moderate Density (R-2) Residential". or Motion to adopt Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-46. Motion to adopt Resolution Supporting Ordering Staff to Amend the General Land Use Plan Map for the Area Between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to Reflect `Low Density Residential' 11-47. Location - Area A ,� ' K �'I I;", 1 h.. �'j �I` �.... ._ � �ntolHOp� � " wrch Pur�;� " ,... -s', $piri(ol u_.�. �� . , ,.. - � �` Churcte . . � /I � . . r_ �. L �Po�dti �� Hara'o Po,ad ' a t�?P.�a".k V7PYY�� . . / ' s • 7644 Harold Avenue No. • 7710 Harold Avenue No. • 7724 Harold Avenue No. • 7732 Harold Avenue No. • 7830 Harold Avenue No. • 7840 Harold Avenue No. • 7831 Olson Memorial Highway • 401 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 409 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 411 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 413 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 400 Winnetka Avenue No. • 410 Winnetka Avenue No. • 424 Winnetka Avenue No. • 440 Winnetka Avenue No. Location - Area B �; � - �� \ .. ..., a . . . YhW..iA(:il:). t Spn7o/HO,op �r . g ; , Gl;wd:Pon .+. - . ,z $pirit O7 .'�k, �� ..� a. ` �,ct': - Churcn t t . . .. '. ,`s. : _ + —_ ' . � .• ,_• • � �. . ' � ' L . r r ... ` � , ... ' . � �. . ��C•f7 . . ... < .. 1�. . =� • 7025 Glenwood Avenue No. • 7031 Glenwood Avenue No. • 7045 Glenwood Avenue No. • 7146 Harold Avenue No. • 7156 Harold Avenue No. • 7182 Harold Avenue No. • 7200 Harold Avenue No. • 7218 Harold Avenue No. • 7236 Harold Avenue No. • 7324 Harold Avenue No. • 7330 Harold Avenue No. • 7340 Harold Avenue No. • 7420 Harold Avenue No. • 7430 Harold Avenue No. Hogeboom, Joe From: KATHRYN DRITSAS[kdritsas@msn.com] Sent:; Tuesday, Sep�ember 13, 2011 9:46 AM To: :� : Hogeboom, Joe �:� ; � Mr. Hogeboom- I reside at 7601 Harold Ave. and have some questions/comments about the rezoning along Harold. I feel the Comprehensive Plan should be amended. The idea that people would be limited in how they can remodel their homes is ridiculous. T also do not see any good reason to add more housing, especially across the street from Lions Park!,I understand the intent of the Plan, but think there are other sites that could be utilized without being so disruptive! Why not rezone the corner of Laurel and Turner's Crossroads/Xenia? How about the northeast corner of Brookview, which is currently a dump? Also, I know people at the last hearing were concerned about traffic on Harold and Winnetka. If some kind of complex was built in Area A, couldn't the main entrance/exit use the stoplight at Rhode Island? In other words, re-open Rhode Island at Hwy. 55 as a driveway and close Rhode Island at Harold. Thank you, Kathy Dritsas :��a .. ;� _f,:� 1 Hogeboom, Joe From: Ieebrant4400@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:47 PM To: Hogeboom, Joe Subject: Rezoning of Harold Avenue Dear Joe,: As residents of 7631 Harold Avenue, we are extremely concerned at the city's plans for rezoning Harold Avenue, particularly Section A. Currently this is being considered for medium-high density zoning. If this rezoning is approved, it will change completely the profile and substance of this area of Golden Valley. Currently the phrase "senior housing" is being floated about, but no one really knows what the real likelihood of having senior housing is in this area. There may be no developers financially able right now or interested in senior housing. Ultimately the area will sit waiting for development and may end up being used for high rises and/or low income buildings. We do not want anything that would Iower property values of the area and of the city. This zoning plan is not well thought out and the complication of traffic on Harold and Winnetka will only add to the confusion. It could easily become a "real mess" with the residents becoming the losers as the city government officials lead a battle without a real battle plan, but forging ahead without concem to the outcome. We oppose the high density rezoning (R-3) and suggest that it become R-2 or left at R-1. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Lee and Larry Brant. 1 � C��1 (?�`.�� ' i�'kC�E� ��_F:�� - ' � ��i� 6 �`� � �` Planning �� 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 fax � ) �� ,� � Date: August 17, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Rezoning Properties befinreen Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential" and; Rezoning Properties between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church from °Single Family (R-1) Residentialn to "Moderate Density (R-2) Residential" Background The City of Golden Valley has identified several areas within the City that have zoning designations that are inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. State Statute requires that the City's zoning designations correspond with the General Land Use Plan Map, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. By law, zoning designations must correspond with the General Land Use Plan map within one calendar year of its approval by the Metropolitan Council. Based upon the land use designations on the General Land Use Plan Map, there were eight areas within the City that had to be rezoned in order to comply with the General Land Use Plan Map. Several of the areas have already been rezoned, while several areas retained existing zoning and the General Land Use Plan Map was amended accordingly. One of the two areas that are left to be addressed is the area north of Harold Avenue, south of Olson Memorial Highway, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue. For purposes of clarity, this report will refer to the properties west of Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church as "Area A" and properties east of Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church as "Area B" (see illustration): *The Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church is not proposed to be rezoned, 1 �� . , •� , . ' t <� �� ♦ � ? ' .. ' ��'_ , Y .. � � � •. � Y1/ . <• � ' � / � f►� � w , � , .. . . . �:_ «.. ''''.r�. � � , . ..., , _ • � •• •� C , y x M : :. . { � _ /Q� _ rr . �l � µ'� :� • , �'• � • r.- J�� . . . . �0.[ . �rp . . . -� -: . ---� j _ �,. . ., ;�� . . : � . , , � . �',� Area A The properties located in Area A include: • 7644 Harold Avenue No. • 7710 Harold Avenue No. • 7724 Harold Avenue No. • 7732 Harold Avenue No. • 7830 Harold Avenue No. • 7840 Harold Avenue No. • 7831 Olson Memorial Highway • 401 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 409 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 411 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 413 Rhode Island Avenue No. • 400 Winnetka Avenue No. • 410 Winnetka Avenue No. • 424 Winnetka Avenue No. • 440 Winnetka Avenue No. These properties are currently zoned Single Family R-1 Residential. The General Land Use Plan Map guides the area as "Medium-High Density Residential." This land use category requires the area to be zoned either Medium Density R-3 Residential or High Density R-4 Residential. The City Council has indicated that it would prefer this area to be zoned Medium Density R-3 Residential. The Medium Density R-3 Residential zoning designation would permit multi-family residential development of up to 12 units per acre. The buildings would be permitted to be up to four stories in height. If housing is proposed for senior citizens or people who are physically disabled, then it could be built at a higher density and up to five stories in height with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP process would involve a traffic analysis that would determine how much traffic the specific site can accommodate. 2 If the rezoning would occur at Area A, the existing single family homes would become "legal non-conforming uses." That means that the homes could continue to be occupied and repairs could be made to the properties. However, no new single family development could occur on the properties. Any new construction would have to comply with the current zaning designation. Area B The properties located in Area 6 include: • 7025 Glenwood Avenue No. • 7031 Glenwood Avenue No. • 7045 Glenwood Avenue No. • 7146 Harold Avenue No. • 7156 Harold Avenue No. • 7182 Harold Avenue No. • 7200 Harold Avenue No. • 7218 Harold Avenue No. • 7236 Harold Avenue No. • 7324 Harold Avenue No. • 7330 Harold Avenue No. • 7340 Harold Avenue No. • 7420 Harold Avenue No. • 7430 Harold Avenue No. These properties are currently zoned Single Family R-1 Residential. The General Land Use Plan Map guides the area as "Medium-Low Density Residential." This land use category requires the area to be zoned either Moderate Density R-2 Residential or Medium Density R-3 Residential. The City Council has indicated that it would prefer this area to be zoned Moderate Densitv R-2 Residential. The Moderate Density R-2 Residential zoning designation would permit new single family home development as well as new multi-family residential development of up to 8 units per acre. This would include finrin-homes, duplexes and small townhome developments. Homes could not exceed 30 feet in height. If this rezoning occurs, single family homes remain legally conforming land uses. They can continue to function as they do under existing zoning criteria. Other Issues Staff hosted an open house in June that focused on issues related to this area. Residents living in surrounding neighborhoods voiced their concerns over possible height of buildings in Area A, additional traffic in the area associated with development, the potential loss of trees if development were to occur, and overall pedestrian safety in the area if development were to occur. These are valid concerns, and the Planning Commission should be aware of them. Mike Kotila, traffic engineer with Short Elliott Hendrickson, will be present at the Planning Commission to discuss possible traffic issues associated with the possible rezoning of 3 these properties. Traffic impacts associated with possible development would be reviewed by the City if a development were proposed for the site. Recommended Action To abide by State Law and be compliant with the General Land Use Plan Map, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the rezoning of the properties between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential" and recommend approval for the rezoning of the properties between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Moderate Density (R-2) Residential". Attachments Section 11.22 Moderate Density R-2 Residential Zoning District(4 pages) Section 11.23 Medium Density R-3 Residential Zoning District (4 pages) General Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page) 4 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 3 Site layout shall be as indicated o the site sketch filed in the Ci lanning Office. The oot wide strip shown on the ite sketch as running alo e�perimeter of the main buildin d extending into the s back area on the p�- 's west side shall be a sidewalk on . addition, there ay be an over `�mg roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the ack area. 9. The station is allowed open or � " c business 24 hours per day. 10. The dumpster area shall be ' ded from view. 11. The site shall meet all other ' State requirements. 12. Failure to comply with a the erm this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation. The Planning C ission bases it recommendation on Ilowing findings: • The s' ificant neighborhood c tributions that SuperAmerica is ma ing • A ement to the 12 conditions f approval especially the improvement in lighting and ise issues 3. Informal Public Hearing — Properly Rezonings — Properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue. The properties west of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church are proposed to be rezoned to "Medium Density(R-3) Residentia�' and the properties to the east of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church are proposed to be rezoned to "Moderate Density(R-2) Residential." Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated General Land Use Plan Map Hogeboom explained that the City's updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010. As part of that process the City is required by the State to make sure the General Land Use Plan Map, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the Zoning map. He referred to a map of the subject properties and explained that area A is the property north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, east of Winnetka Avenue and west of the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church. These properties are proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. Area 6 on the map includes the properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church and are proposed to be rezoned to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. He added that the R-3 zoning district would allow a development with up to 4 stories and 12 units per acre if it is non-senior housing. Senior housing would be allowed by Conditional Use with no spec�c density and height up to 5�stories. The R-2 zoning district would allow development with up to 8 units per acre for single family homes, duplexes, twin homes or small townhouse developments. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 4 Hogeboom stated that the City has been contacted by different developers regarding this property throughout the years but that no developer has ownership of all of the parcels in question. Hogeboom noted that the City held an open house in June and some of the comments from people who attended the open house included concerns about the potential height of buildings, tree preservation and rising levels of traffic. He stated that Harold Avenue is planned to be reconstructed in 2012 and the zoning of these properties will help guide the design of Harold Avenue. Hogeboom reiterated that action must be taken by the City to either rezone the properties to match the General Land Use Plan Map or re-designate the General Land Use Plan Map to match the Zoning Map. Waldhauser asked Kotila to explain proposed plans for Winnetka Avenue. Kotila explained that there is an existing operational issue on Winnetka as well as concern about increases in traffic demand as a result of future development, enough that the City has applied to MnDOT for some cost participation to improve Winnetka Avenue at the Highway 55 intersection. He referred to a map of the area and discussed the proposed intersection design and how it would help the intersection operate more safely and efficiently. Cera asked if the proposed intersection changes are planned regardless of what happens to the future development of these properties. Kotila said the need for the improvements currently exist but parts of the plan could change depending on what type of development occurs. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, referred to a section in the Comprehensive Plan that states all owners shall jointly petition for rezoning. He asked how many people have asked for this rezoning and how the City knows what is best for these people and for property values. Lee Brant, 7631 Harold Avenue, stated that she understood that the south bound lane on Winnetka would stop at the entrance of Brookview; now the lane seems to go south of the entrance of Brookview. She is also concerned about the removal of park land and trees. She asked if the properties were rezoned to R-3 how residents would know if something else, such as apartments or something other than senior housing would go there instead. Kathy Welander, 440 Idaho Avenue N, asked if there is any definition of what level of housing would be built from luxury to low income. If there is low income housing she questioned the level of crime and said she doesn't want people to come into their area that might raise crime. Gerry Deters, 7710 Harold Avenue, said he is concerned with how property taxes will be affected if the properties are rezoned. He added that most of the neighbors have no desire to move. He said he is under the impression that the proposed rezoning shouldn't affect their property values but he doesn't want his taxes to skyrocket as a result of this rezoning. He asked if there is a plan B or C if no developer comes in. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 5 Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said that what the City is not telling property owners is that when the properties are rezoned, owners will not be allowed to make changes or additions to their homes and are being forced out. He asked about the definition of non- compatible and urged the Commission to think about the amount of traffic with the proposed lane expansion and the safety of pedestrians. He stated that there is currently a lot of inventory of inedium and high density properties and asked why there is a need for more and what the purpose is for adding more. He asked who is asking for this rezoning and read from the City's vision guide and asked if this proposed rezoning matches the vision guide and if it is really the right thing to do. Sally Levens, 7811 Ewald Terrace, said something needs to be done about the traffic that backs up on Winnetka and the people who don't stop. She said there are lilies in the boulevard area that she is supposed to maintain but she is unwilling to risk her life in the traffic. She said that�nnetka Avenue doesn't need to be enhanced to make Highway 55 better and asked how many units of housing could be built. She added that she doesn't think it is safe or responsible to have higher density at this corner. Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, said he agrees with his neighbors that rezoning these properties would be a big mistake. He said he didn't get a clear report on the comments from the June open house and there is no reference to what happens to property values and the whole make-up of the neighborhood. He said rezoning these properties is going to destroy a neighborhood and he gets the impression that no one is interested in hearing them. Dale Berg, 7040 Western Avenue, said he agrees with everything that has been said. He said he has heard little from the City regarding the reasons for doing this. He said he is concerned about mass transit and that there is already enough traific on Louisiana due to Lion's Park. There is also not enough parking at Lion's Park and he hasn't heard anything about any type of environmental assessments regarding flooding. He said there is a natural barrier and you can't see or hear Highway 55 from his neighborhood and now he is going to feel like he is living in downtown Minneapolis with multi-level housing. He suggested the City buy the properties and give low interest home loans to young families with kids. Alan Ingber, 7360 Half Moon Drive, said he agrees with what has already been said. His concern is that Ridgeway Road will become more of a freeway with higher levels of traffic trying to get to I-394 and Laurel. Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said there has been no talk about traffic on Harold Avenue. If these properties are developed the traffic will be like a funnel because there are constant problems at the corner of Harold and Winnetka. He asked if this rezoning is being done because of a developer. He added that the traffic really needs to be thought about because there are going to be massive problems. He said he thinks this is a really bad idea and maybe the City can work on getting the area fixed up and the homes occupied instead. Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, said he did not buy his house with the intention of seeing a well-established neighborhood be overdeveloped with townhomes. He asked what City need this proposal serves and who asked for it because if there are actual people Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 6 involved who have asked for this, he deserves to know or if it is just a corporation pushing their agenda he deserves to know that too. He said if Winnetka is made wider it will only encourage more traffic on Winnetka because it is a thoroughfare and was made to be thoroughfare. He said the City is going in the wrong direction with these proposals and should be putting stop signs at every intersection to make it possible for families to cross the road and get into the park because cars don't stop. He added that everyone who is not a resident should be deterred from driving through this area and this proposal should not even be considered because it goes against everything in the vision guide for Golden Valley. Fred Gross, who lives in Burnsville, and owns the property at 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if it was true that if the properties are rezoned homes can't be improved. He said somewhere, somebody thinks this is a good idea but he is not sure that it is. He asked if the City has considered ignoring what the non-elected Metropolitan Council has said or has considered changing the City's vision to match the current zoning instead. He added that no one is "chomping at the bit" to have more traffic on Harold, Ridgeway or Winnetka. He asked if the City would consider condemning these properties if the owners decide not to sell. Julie Johnson, 300 Edgewood Avenue N, said she hasn't heard anything about the impact to Glenwood Avenue. She said she doesn't think this will only impact this small area it will impact the whole southern part of Golden Valley. She said she agrees with everything that has been said and she is totally against this proposal. Beverly Weinberg, 7523 Harold Avenue, said she has a major concern about the left hand turn from Harold onto Winnetka. She said at this time it is difficult and dangerous and if the traffic is heavier it will be almost impossible and will be asking for accidents. Schara Jesse, 743 Winnetka, said Ridgeway is a cut through thoroughfare and this development will escalate the problem. She said this issue comes up every decade and petitions have put a stop to it. She said the residents should get together and get a petition going. She suggested people call the City Council to find out who is asking for this and questioned if it is United Properties. She said she doesn't like this proposal. Kluchka said he categorized the questions into traffic, property and legal and asked Grimes to talk about his experience on how values and taxes are impacted by rezoning and by redevelopment. Grimes explained that taxes are set by Hennepin County based on the value of the property and its use. He referred to Area A and stated that if that area is rezoned to R-3 the existing properties will become non-conforming which means the homes can remain and be maintained and improved but they can't be expanded. In Area B the existing homes would be considered a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district so they could be expanded. He said he doesn't feel that rezoning these properties would decrease their value because it would be in effect "up zoning" which means they could have a higher value. Kluchka said the next issue is why there is a need for this rezoning. He said he is thinking about trends and how cities need to be responsible in meeting needs in appropriate ways such as providing senior housing. Grimes agreed there is a large aging population in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 7 Golden Valley. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council provided for additional types of housing opportunities during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. He added that Golden Valley is an attractive location as an inner ring suburb and unfortunately the Comprehensive Plan Amendment meetings and open houses don't draw large audiences because the entire City is being reviewed, not just certain areas. Waldhauser stated that the vision for the City, including this area did come from the City's residents with direction from the Metropolitan Council. She agreed that Golden Valley is a changing community and the Comprehensive Plan update sought to find a balance between good change and preserving what's best of Golden Valley. Grimes referred to the question regarding the General Land Use Plan Map being required to be compatible with the Zoning Map and explained that the City Attorney's opinion is that the two maps should be compatible. He stated that the City could re-designate the properties back to single family residential but the Metropolitan Council looks at the metropolitan area as a whole in regard to transit, sewer, highways, etc. so Golden Valley likes to work together with the Metropolitan Council because not working with them may affect things like grants. Kluchka added that the City and the broader community get a benefit from meeting Metropolitan Council's goals and objectives. Grimes explained that according to Metropolitan Council projections there needs to be room in the metro area for another million people and it saves taxpayer money to develop or redevelop property already served by sewer, water and transportation. Kluchka asked if there is another plan in place for these properties if a development doesn't occur. Grimes stated that the development community is waiting to hear a decision from the City regarding the zoning of these properties. He added that the City Council has stated they will not use condemnation to develop these properties. It will have to be done by developers purchasing the properties at market rate. Waldhauser agreed that the City is not in the position to buy these properties. Kluchka asked if the City can control the type of development on these properties. Grimes stated that more than likely the properties will be a senior housing type of development. He explained that the traffic patterns for senior housing could work well in this location and that the City has latitude in approving things like landscaping plans and traffic plans as part of the Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development process. Waldhauser said she appreciates that people who live in the area see things she doesn't, but it seems like there are some long-term traific issues in this area that this particular rezoning may or may not impact. Grimes referred to the question asked regarding environmental issues such as flooding and noted that those types of issues will be addressed at the time of development. Kotila referred to the safety issues that have been discussed and explained that he recognizes the need for pedestrian improvements at Winnetka and Harold. He discussed how traffic backing-up on Highway 55 makes every movement more difficult so fixing those issues should help alleviate some of the concerns. Kisch asked if increasing capacity would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 8 also increase demand. He also asked about implementing other safety and speed control measures. Kotila explained the approach is to try and serve the existing traffic demand and that he realizes some of the traffic will be dispersed to other locations. He stated that part of the Harold Avenue reconstruction project includes constructing a fairly narrow finro-lane roadway which should help moderate the speed at which people drive. Grimes referred to the question regarding what type housing could be built this location. He stated that the City has no control over housing being low-income versus market rate. Waldhauser noted that the City tries to disperse its housing types. Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, asked why both areas couldn't be rezoned to R-2. Waldhauser stated that that Area A is at an intersection that faces a commercial district and a highway which provides a better opportunity for additional housing. She said her opinion is that Golden Valley is a fairly urban community and is a part of the City and in order to be a vibrant community and attract people who want to live here there needs to be community services, convenience, walkability and transit. Chesen said the way the properties are going to be developed isn't going to attract those types of people because senior housing is what has been proposed. Hogeboom showed a map illustrating the ownership of each parcel in Area A. Chesen stated that United Properties has attended meetings and questioned why they have been allowed to speak if the issue really is whether or not to rezone the properties. He said it sounds to him like a deal has already been done. Kluchka stated that developers are a part of the community and are welcome to attend City meetings. He said he wants it made clear that there is no malfeasance or arrangement happening outside the law. Chesen said he has stated nothing but the facts. Hogeboom stated that United Properties has made no oificial application submittal to the City. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if the City has considered selling part or all of Brookview Park to satisfy the Metropolitan Council and to meet its vision. Kluchka said it has been discussed in the past. Grimes added that a large portion of Brookview is in a flood plain. Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said the Commission still needs to answer the question of who is asking for this rezoning. He said he hasn't heard anything discussed but trends and told the Commission not to believe everything they read. He asked if these properties are bank owned why there aren't for sale signs on them. He said he thinks there is opportunity for developers and personal homeowners, himself included, to consider doing a "flip" and asked why that opportunity is only available to the private community and not the public community. He stated there are currently 190 homes, condos, townhomes and twin homes for sale in Golden Valley and told the Commission to think about the tax revenue of those 190 homes versus throwing somebody into an 800 square foot apartment. The "bigger bang� would be to encourage people to buy these properties, increase the value and get more property taxes rather than building a 5-story building with minimal property taxes which would drive everybody else's values down. Grimes referred to the question of who is asking for this and reiterated that the Planning Commission and City Council chose to re-designate this area on the General Land Use Plan Map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 9 Diane Stelow, 7335 Ridgeway Road, asked if these properties could have driveways entering and exiting on Highway 55 to get the traffic out of the neighborhood. Grimes said that MnDOT has said no. Kluchka said it is not hearsay that the population is changing so when they are asked who is asking for this rezoning the City Council has to look long-term at the broader needs of the community. McCarty added that the Metropolitan Council is asking for it because there needs to be more room to accommodate additional people so the Planning Commission's charge was to figure out the best way to utilize the property the City has. Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, asked if Golden Valley has any 5-story buildings next to residential property. Grimes said yes and mentioned Calvary, Covenant Manor and Laurel Terrace Apartments as examples. He asked how many empty buildings there are downtown and asked the Commission if they really believe it is in Golden Valley's best interest to solve the senior housing problem. He said Golden Valley is a small suburb in a big metro area and people will go where the housing opportunities are. He said he doesn't hear a single tax payer/voter asking for this. He added that if the City goes ahead and does this they are doing it without any regard to what the people who live in the neighborhood think. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if it is possible that Central Bank does not have these properties marketed for sale because it is in their best interest to hold onto them for a developer interested in buying them. He asked why there are not any developers at this meeting and why there aren't any neighbors in attendance saying that this is a wonderFul idea. Grimes agreed that Central Bank is more than likely waiting for the outcome of this rezoning proposal before they put the properties on the market. Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said people don't come to public hearings because they feel they don't have a voice in their government. That what they say goes in one ear and out the other. He said if something is this important it should be front page news and every resident should get a letter. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Cera proposed to split the areas into two votes. Waldhauser started with Area B. She stated that having worked on the Comprehensive Plan update process she really does feel that the Plan was aired in many ways. She feels the City is changing and people need to change with it. She said that for commercial development to survive there needs to be density around it. She feels this area is a great place for a more dense development that will help get better transit and will help get some of the traffic off the local streets. She said she thinks there has been forward thinking and this pro�osed rezoning has the best interest of the community at heart. Kisch said he is concerned about the rights of home owners being able to improve their properties in Area A. He said that rezoning Area B to R-2 doesn't change property owners' rights at all and won't impact what is there right now and will only be changed as the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 10 market dictates. He added that the traffic concerns are valid and need to be addressed. Cera agreed. Schmidgall said he is in favor of recommending approval of the proposed rezoning for both areas. He said this is all long term planning and the homes in Area A could stay forever. He said they've talked a long time about providing a variety of housing types in Golden Valley including higher density for an aging population and there could be a very attractive development built in this area. He said he really tries to sort out the concerns he hears during public hearing and thinks the traffic issues are a legitimate concern but people worry about change and prefer the evil they know to the evil they don't. He said he really doesn't think there is an incentive for a developer to build something undesirable at this location. Kluchka said this meeting was a great opportunity to hear from the residents in the area. He said he is conflicted on how he feels about rezoning these properties and he wants the traffic concerns further studied before he can support the rezoning. McCarty agreed that traffic does need further study. He said there is a problem with houses sitting vacant and people shouldn't be pushed into single family homes because that is part of the reason the economy is how it is today. He said he also agrees with the need for increased density and even though it's difficult to hear from the neighbors, rezoning this property is for the overall good of the City so he is inclined to support the proposal. Kluchka asked about the opportunity to hear more about the traffic and safety concerns before the rezoning is considered by the City Council. Grimes stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was updated and re-designated to a higher density category, the traffic was studied using various development scenarios. Kotila noted that the City Council has received the forecasting report and specifics related to the proposed density. Grimes added that the transportation section of the updated Comprehensive Plan was done after the land use section so the City could be sure that traffic issues were managed. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of rezoning Area B from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. Cera, Kisch, McCarty and Waldhauser voted yes. Kluchka voted no. Kisch said the issue in Area A lies in the rights of the property owners' ability to make changes and add value to their homes and rezoning to R-3 limits what can be done. He said he agrees that the City needs a diverse group of housing choices because it makes for a more solid and vibrant community, but he also needs to see what the traffic impacts are really going to be. McCarty noted that until it is decided what kind of development is going to be built, the traffic impacts are unknown. He added that he doesn't see these properties being used long-term for single family housing. Kluchka said his concerns are also about the traffic. He said he would like to look at rezoning the properties to Mixed Use instead of R-3 because he wants this area to contribute more to the neighborhood. Cera agreed that the idea of Mixed Use is intriguing in this area. He said properties zoned R-3 could sit for a while and go downhill. He said R-2 might be a better choice. He added that there is a roomful of citizens who have concerns Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 11 that should be listened to and he can't support R-3 at this location. He could support R-2 or discussing Mixed Use. Kisch said a Mixed Use zoning designation would cause a bigger issue with traffic. He said this is a stab at planning for the future and it can be rezoned or re-designated in the future if needed. Waldhauser said she is torn between rezoning Area A to R-3 or R-2 because R-2 doesn't provide the opportunity for potential senior housing. She said she is not optimistic that a developer will want to develop these properties as single family or two-family homes. Grimes suggested studying the possibility of allowing senior housing in an R-2 zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. Kisch asked if the City could issue a Conditional Use Permit to allow a non-conforming use to be expanded. Grimes said he would talk to the City Attorney. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by McCarty and motion tied to recommend rezoning Area A from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3). Commissioners McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioners Cera, Kisch and Kluchka voted no. --Short Recess— 4. Reports on Meeti gs of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board o Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhau stated that t e Board of Zoning Appeals would like to Planning Commission to address t issue of c vered and uncovered ches and landings. Hogeboom said he would discuss issue ith the Board at t next meeting. 5. Other Busine No other business was s sed. 6. Adjournme The meetin as adjour ed at 10:03 . David A. Cera, Secretary y,.y _ � � 8 x _ - � � s y� YJ v--�—� 5 „ _ € t u {y _ a o � �u . s � � y` x +-� �fA _ � _ & g F LL E 2 Y� m _ Y'' pf � a.. _ � H 3 � s g$ 3 8 O p � " _ m a ° � �' _ �e „ � � g e �--. N Z' Q Q _ o � _ .� ' .� �g �z o, " � a{ - �� O Q 3 V � n � ^ LL � �� N d e#Y S � Ql L� � O _ U W ' �� ', C J = C `m � a m N m � 'm 'u i c o`f a _--�-Y N J W � ? E Q �p � v m � � LL a 3 ° �°o � a � ��s . C �. C� d aDi rn W k d �m a x �' z a �E d v � � g€a� � +r-- ►—.,, Z y r � � _ �o � ;�I S � O m a' in O 3 ¢ f g 8�3` - �".,/ � �'��0� ��1 °=�1._J � ��L�1 ' ' � � ��o� � ,��, , � Y ,�. , ,_ ,.�__ __----�---__ ____--_---.—.� .__ 1__— '�,. .. �F�}`' �,• .e , � = � � � � � � .. . �j?� �;I D�� . '-'1�::� fi � , �s� I � ,.- � ` ... .� �" � " .• � � .r�� .., �� _.._�,'- ."' '• � . _ '— "�..� .,._'_'� ' � � ;',a�� ._ a = '`.= d�� . a . iI t� ._- yw ... ' � � ' ` . _�'L., ! � r — _`—____�..-.__-.— �'....�� ' • y ...�.. V��, . .' �� ..' ' ,— 7 `� � + � j ,.. # i ... ..... .._ � � . . . � t �,� y,_ ; ". 1 . - . ' i I . ..... � N � � I i .., .. . • ' ..... ' ' . �. -. . a� .__.. . ��.... . .• �' 1' . - l, .,. .. � - � i 1:.� .,_ � � . - � � ....._ ._..... _ ' .... . � . , .. ,p :� ... ... ....._. .. , I • !dt\ V � . ..... ��h. �� i . .., !N +1/ .�M tl . S' ... . .�� 1 . , - ,•., i .... il . .....�. �_ .. ," . '�j, ..a .. ..� . : . .._ ' � - '- ` � r � .,...r ' :1 �� i .. �,._.. � . 1' , ..,... .\ ...-+. ` � � � j � . �.� ' � I ' . . 4 _. �-`�. --_ t} ' -„M f' : yM1 + :' � ' \\ i_,,' i ,I �• ._,.�/ Y� i..... , . ... �\� _ ' �, . . ' . ! , . _ . .., '. � �; � .._ •-� ,., .. � : j . . ...M .,._. . � , i . is{S_ . � , : 1 j ( , '.}.. ��a�� \\ i: L_"_ . .._..�_ .,.-[gl---� ---� .:�e.� .. - ..,` i tIt ..... ..... . ..__�`� ,�=. _ _ �' \� . „, ��'-r� ; � . . +f . �., yzlb � `3�;\\� ' �..I: .. � dt r ...-. ... . � . . .� �. . If '\.\1 i -f"`r'� ' �j � - t .. • ' i ` i, \ � , , � ` " • � S ... ., , � .. �� .�..�i,._c, .; '--Y � , +�,3�v . ........ :Sf \,\ �, 3 j?fi� 9� ._. F a� st�_; � � +?� _ ;'� \ � .�.__. �, t - _. � —. : r��., � 1:� , � , .._— ' ; t�� . �°�+ir.::_, �'�� ...�_ ... ;, , �� I � � �\\ } ..._. .._ � \V�� - .. _ __ \\\ � � : _.� � , �� - ..... - .., i �:. . 4 , . , 1 �; ° ..._,._. � '� _...'°� N i ..,..` ...__ `\�\ ` ; , _ ...._.. . � �� > - � ,, � �° z�� _ , .., � ; : i ..�- ` ._.:: �. _ ,, .-- :;�� : : . . . _. �. ` _I ; : ;� o y „ _. �� ..,.. .; . _ �- _ .. '_y �� a .. ��\ I ; ,. _ �, . �j .�... �� , ... \��\� , � � � ._>.., .�. �� s , : . � � � � V � ug �� \� � z— - .._:.. , .�._..�: � : �_� � � � � . � � ....... ' � , ..,, .. � _. �� , . . . . . - ; � " � ` . , ._._ _ �...',_ :; � � : d � ��'�. �::�.. . .,...,�..-- � _ .........__ .'..P_.: N � ,��:. � i. �' ' ' � ' , . a . . . , : , , ; � . � , . ; . . . . , , . �._ . , � .�._� j : , t .; �! , < � _...... . . i - ! ' �x� .. �i) �� t; i � � � ... . ; : - : '� .. ._.. .�. ._. . � , .��. '; - , ,.- �,.,., ..' ', � � v� � �.:_ . ; : � �; A � �. I . ,...... ...... . ....:, _ ........ ...., � � ; , : � � .. . ;_ �..._�, �• ,> _ { . �` .. � _.,.. � � s ,.. ., ,: I� Lt•� .:4 f'�S.��, q ,,.. i .d�. . [',` i \: , I ' - , , • . � t ,. � ` , . ' r ... ,. ,,.„., i ' " � � � 't . ... ,. �t: q �� . . ' " '-.�.__.�. "_"'_'_ '_ "_'.��""'7"'_.�'�.'__'_'__'_"�...._� 4.x � ..,_„�"' _''_""" "__'__' .__...�'"' ""__"".� ... ,>�P g ..... �"£�_'__ ._. , � z� i.in��ivAi�i��,..ti.i . �� u..�.i.� � v�a .ioni�� a8an� 473.858 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS; LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS. Subdivision 1. No conflicting zoning, fscal device, official control. Within nine months following the receipt of a metropolitan system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan system plan and within three years following the receipt of a metropolitan system statement issued in con junction with the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivision 2, every local governmental unit shall have reviewed and, if necessary, amended its comprehensive plan in accordance with sections 462.355, 473.175, and 47a.851 to 473.871 and the applicable planning statute , subdivision 5 and shall have submitted the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to section 473.175. The provisions of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall supersede the provisions of the applicable planning statute wherever a conflict may exist. If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the plan by local government units in conjunction with the review and, if necessary, amendment of its comprehensive plan required under section 473.864, subdivision 2. After August 1, 1995, a local government unit shall not adopt any fiscal device or official control which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan, including any amendments to the plan, or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans, as defined by section 473.852, subdivision 8. The comprehensive plan shall provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of of-ficial controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the comprehensive plan. For purposes of this section, a fiscal device or official control shall not be considered to be in conflict with a local government unit's comprehensive plan or to permit an activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans if such fiscal device or official control is adopted to ensure the planned, orderly, and staged development of urbanization or redevelopment areas designated in the comprehensive plan pursuant to section 473.859 ORDINANCE NO. 470, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 Property Rezoning Properties between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential"to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential" The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2 by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land listed below from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Medium Density (R-3) Residential". 7644 Harold Avenue North 7710 Harold Avenue North 7724 Harold Avenue North 7732 Harold Avenue North 7830 Harold Avenue North 7840 Harold Avenue North 7831 Olson Memorial Highway 401 Rhode Island Avenue North 28 address unassigned (pond) 28 address unassigned (pond) 28 address unassigned (pond) 408 Rhode Island Avenue North 409 Rhode Island Avenue North 411 Rhode Island Avenue North 413 Rhode Island Avenue North 400 Winnetka Avenue North 410 Winnetka Avenue North 424 Winnetka Avenue North 440 Winnetka Avenue North Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 20th day of September, 2011. /s/Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATf EST: /s/Susan M. Virnig Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 471, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 Property Rezoning Properties befinreen Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church from "Single Family (R-1) Residential" to "Moderate Density (R-2) Residential" The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2 by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land listed below from Single Family (R-1) Residential to "Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. 7025 Glenwood Avenue North 7031 Glenwood Avenue North 7045 Glenwood Avenue North 7146 Harold Avenue North 7156 Harold Avenue North 7182 Harold Avenue North 7200 Harold Avenue North 7218 Harold Avenue North 7236 Harold Avenue North 7324 Harold Avenue North 7330 Harold Avenue North 7340 Harold Avenue North 7420 Harold Avenue North 7430 Harold Avenue North Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 20th day of September, 2011. /s/Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Susan M. Vimig Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk Resolution 11-46 September 20, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ORDERING STAFF TO AMEND THE GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA BETWEEN HAROLD AVENUE, WINNETKA AVENUE, OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AND SPIRIT OF HOPE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO REFLECT `LOW DENSIT1( RESIDENTIAL' WHEREAS, the area between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church is currently designated on the General Land Use Plan Map as "Medium-High Density Residential"; and, WHEREAS, the Medium Density R-3 Residential Zoning District is compatible with the current designation on the General Land Use Plan Map; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.858 requires local governmental units to make zoning classifications consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map; and, WHEREAS, the City has denied Ordinance #470, rezoning the area to Medium Density R-3 Residential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that the City Council for the of Golden Valley orders staff to initiate the process of amending the General Land Use Plan Map to guide the area between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to reflect `Low Density Residential.' Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATf EST: Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 11-47 September 20, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ORDERING STAFF TO AMEND THE GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA BETWEEN HAROLD AVENUE, GLENWOOD AVENUE, OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AND SPIRIT OF HOPE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO REFLECT `LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL' WHEREAS, the area between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church is currently designated on the General Land Use Plan Map as "Medium-Low Density Residential"; and, WHEREAS, the Moderate Density R-2 Residential Zoning District is compatible with the current designation on the General Land Use Plan Map; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.858 requires local governmental units to make zoning classifications consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map; and, WHEREAS, the City has denied Ordinance #471, rezoning the area to Moderate Density R-2 Residential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that the City Council orders staff to initiate the process of amending the General Land Use Plan Map to guide the area between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church to reflect `Low Density Residential.' 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. �� n � ,� �,� � �� ; . � � r o �;� �� e - p r Public Safety Police Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) � Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 20, 2011 Agenda Item 6. A. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Zaoe LLC d/b/a MGM Liquor Warehouse - 7704 Olson Memorial Highway Prepared By Stacy A. Altonen, Chief of Police Jim Roberts, Sergeant Summary Zaoe LLC d/b/a MGM Liquor Warehouse, a Minnesota company, has applied for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license. The applicant has executed a lease at the Valley Commons Shopping Center, 7704 Olson Memorial Highway. Documents submitted by the applicants indicate that Zaoe LLC d/b/a MGM Liquor Warehouse is wholly owned by Peter and Deborah Olson. The City Attorney has reviewed the application, and has found the application documents are in order and complete. The applicant meets all State and City requirements for consideration of the issuance of an off-sale liquor license. Recommended Action Motion to approve the issuance of an off-sale liquor license to Zaoe LLC d/b/a MGM Liquor Warehouse, located at 7704 Olson Memorial Highway.