10-16-12 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Raad
Council Chamber
October 16, 2012
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
B. Pledge of Allegiance
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Appraval 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 af business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - September 19 and Special City Cauncil 3-12
Meeting - October 9, 2012
B. Approval of Gheck Register 13
C. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - September 10, 2012 14-20
2. Human Services Fund - September 10, 2012 21-22
D. Bids and Quotes:
1. Minneapolis/Joint Water Commission Water Metering Improvements - Bids 23-28
E. Letters and/or Petitions:
1. Letter from Courage Center Supporting B-C-D1 Alignment of Bottineau 29
Transitway as Locally Preferred Alternative
F. Authorization to Participate in Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program 30-31
12-75
G. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Pro-Tec Designs for City Hall Security 32-33
Improvements
H. Receipt of September 2012 General Fund Budget Reports 34-41
I. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments:
1. 2012 Pavement Management Program Driveways 12-76 42-44
2. 2012 Pavement Management Program Sanitary Sewer Repairs 12-77 45-47
J. Approval of Plat 12-78 and Authorizatian to Sign Subdivision Development 48-57
Agreement - Savanah Estates
K. Rescind No Parking Restrictions on East Side of Rhode Island Avenue North 12-79 58-61
L. Authorization to Submit Applications for Hennepin County Bikeway Development 12-80 62-67
and Sidewalk Participation Programs 12-81
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM
A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #111 - The Tiburon 68-102
Apartments - 9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial Highway - Tiburon 55, LLC, Applicant
B. Public Hearing - Existing Platted, Drainage and Utility Easement Vacations - 1540 103-106
and 1550 St. Croix Circle 12-82
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Plat 12-83 and Authorization to Sign Subdivision Development 107-117
Agreement - Golden View
B. Announcements of Meetings
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
This tlacument is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-80Qb (TTY:763-593-3968}to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may incEuds large print,electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
September 19, 2012
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 September 19, 2012 at 6:30 pm.
The following members were present: Clausen, Freiberg, Harris, Pentel and Scanlon. Also
present were: Thomas Burt, City Manager; Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works;
Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant.
Presentation of Certificate of Recoanition to Damon Struyk
Mayor Harris presented Damon Struyk with a Certificate of Recognition for his service on
the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's Theodore Wirth Park Citizen Advisory
Committee.
The Council thanked Damon Struyk for service to the community.
Presentation of American Public Works Association Exceptional Performance Award
for Journalism - Inflow and Infiltration Communications Plan
Jeannine Clancy introduced Mark Maloney, Past President, Minnesota APWA, who
presented the award the Communicatians Department and the Public Works Department
for receipt of the American Public Works Association Exceptional Performance Award in
Journalism for the City of Golden Valley's Inflow and Infiltration Communications Plan.
The employees who were present to accept the award are: Cheryl Weiler, Communications
Manager; Dave Lemke, Utility Supervisor; Lisa Nesbit, Administrative Assistant; Mitch
Hoeft, Engineer in Training; and Jeff Oliver, City Engineer. The following employees were
not able to attend: Ben Sandell, Communications Specialist; Kristi Bucher, Web/Graphic
Designer; and Bert Tracy. Public Works Maintenance Manager.
The Council congratulated staff on receiving the award.
Approval of Aqenda
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to approve the
agenda of September 4, 2012 as amended: Letter from Christopher Gise Regarding
Golden View Addition additional background material was distributed.
Approval of Consent Aqenda
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to approve the
agenda of September 19, 2012 as amended: removal of Proclamation for Women of
Today Week.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 2
*Approval of Minutes - Citv Council Meetinq - Auqust 21, 2012
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to approve the
City Council Meeting minutes of August 21, 2012 as submitted.
*Therapeutic Massaqe Facility License - MST 3 Inc. d/b/a The Beauty Lab
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to approve the
issuance of a Therapeutic Massage Facility License for MST 3 Inc. d/b/a The Beauty Lab
located at 681 Winnetka Avenue North.
*Approval of Check Reqister
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to authorize the
payment of the City bills as submitted.
*Minutes of Boards and Commissions
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to receive and
file the minutes as follows:
Planning Commission - August 27, 2012
Human Services Fund - July 9, 2012
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - July 19, 2012
*Sweenev and Wirth Lake Outlet Structure Improvements - Bids
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to award the bid
for construction of Sweeney and Wirth Lake outlet structure improvements to the lowest
responsible bidder, GF Jedlicki, Inc. for $175,635. The bids were as follows:
GF Jedlicki, Inc. $175,635
Minger Construction, Inc. $197,700
Veit & Company, Inc. $275,830
*Letter from Christopher Gise Reqardinq Golden View Addition
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to receive and
file the letter from Christopher Gise, dated September 13, 2012; and additional email dated
September 18, 2012.
regarding Golden View Addition,
Proclamation for Women of Today Week
Mayor Harris read and presented the Proclamation for Women of Today Week to the
members in attendance.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 3
Proclamation for Women of Todav Week - Continued
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to adopt the
proclamation for Women to Today Week, September 23-29, 2012.
*A ointment of Absentee Ballot Board Election Jud es for General Election
Member Pentel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 12-66
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD ELECTION JUDGES
FOR THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012 GENERAL ELECTION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Scanlon
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Clausen,
Freiberg, Harris, Pentel and Scanlon; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and his signature attested by the City Clerk.
*Authorization to Siqn School Resource Officer Service Aqreement with Intermediate
School District 281
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to authorize the
City Manager to sign the School Resource Officer Service Agreement with Intermediate
School District 281.
*Receipt of Auqust 2012 Financial Reports
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to receive and
file the August 2012 Financial Reports.
*Authorization to Sian Apreement with SEH, Inc. for Survev, Desiqn and Plan
Preparation for Sidewalk and Trail Svstem Upqrades
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimously
to authorize agreement with SEH, Inc. for professional services in the estimated amount of
$46,000 for survey, design and plan preparation of ADA improvements in the City's ADA
Transition Plan Priority 1 area.
Public Hearinq - Ordinance #488 - Final Desiqn Plan Approval - PUD #109 - Eldridqe
3rd Addition - 4900 Triton Drive - A.K.A.R.E. Companies LLC, Applicants
The following ordinance was MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg:
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 4
Public Hearinq - Ordinance #488 - Final Desiqn Plan Approval - PUD #109 - Eldridqe
3rd Addition - 4900 Triton Drive -A.K.A.R.E. Companies LLC, Applicants - Continued
ORDINANCE NO. 488, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Final Plan of Development
Eldridge 3rd Addition, P.U.D. No. 109
A.K.A.R.E. Companies, LLC, Applicants
Rob Eldridge, applicant, reviewed the final plan and answered questions from the Council.
Chuck Segelbaum presented the Planning Commission report and answered questians
from the CounciL
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, presented the staff report and
answered questions from the Council. Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, reviewed his staff report
and answered questions from the Council. Thomas Burt, Allen Barnard and Jeannine
Clancy 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.
Fred Reiter, 3146 Quail Avenue North, filed a written objection to the granting af final
approval to the PUD; stated he requested documents at the last meeting and did not
receive them; stated he has reviewed the documents he had and feels that the preliminary
plan application did not follow the city code as it states that the owner or representative
and contract holder are allowed to submit an application for a PUD and he feels based on
the documents contained in his objection that none of the persons listed on the PUD
application owned the property at the time the application was submitted, feels the
application was an improper application; was void because it was not signed by the owner
and submitted by someone who did not own the property; feels the Council should not
have accepted it and they didn't know it was void and feels the decisions made at that time
are also void; requested the Council put the decision off for at least 30 days to give the
Council and all interested parties an opportunity to come forward with any documents or
records that they may have that they should look at; requested copies of all relevant
documents so they can review them and asked the Council not to make a decision until
they have seen the documents and had enough time to review the documents and have
their input as a neighborhood.
Mike Ernst, 4845 Lowry Terrace, stated he is still concerned about the pond, the builder
and developer didn't object to the idea of the bio-filter catch basin in lieu of the pond; did
not hear the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission objected to the bio-filter;
asked what the cost difference is between a bio-filter and pond maintenance; stated the
bio-filter system would be on the cul-de-sac on a hard surface and can be accessed
anytime during the year; stated there may be sheds and power lines in the way with
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 5
Public Hearinq - Ordinance #488 - Final Desiqn Plan Approval - PUD #109 - Eldridge
3rd Addition - 4900 Triton Drive -A.K.A.R.E. Companies LLC, Applicants - Continued
maintenance and there is potential for property; he is fine with leaving the power lines
where they are and moving the pond to the south if a pond is installed; stated the
neighborhood was not interested in paying the filing fees for the land to alleviate the pond;
feels there is no need for a pond;
Jack Terrio, 3139 Orchard Avenue North, asked if the marking for the individual lots across
the back or side yard will going in; feels the area has never been properly surveyed; stated
in the past the property lines were moved by 3 feet; stated the property is hilly and wanted
to know how much control the City has if the owner wants to move dirt in and level the land
for a play area or move dump dirt so that from his property you would be looking up a hill, a
few of the neighbors don't know where the property lines are; had questions about wells;
and stated that he thinks there is a septic tank on the property.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to direct staff to
locate the purchase agreements and provide them to Mr. Reiter and any other persons
interested in obtaining them.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to adopt
Ordinance #488, 2nd Series. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows:
CLAUSEN - YES FREIBERG - YES HARRIS - YES PENTEL - YES SCANLON - YES
Public Hearinp - Existinq Platted Easement Vacations - 4900 Triton Drive - Eldridqe
3rd Addition, PUD #109 12-67
Jeannine Clancy introduced the agenda item and answered questions from the Council.
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 Scanlon and motion carried unanimously to continue the
public hearing until the plat for Eldridge 3rd Addition PUD 109 is considered for approval
by CounciL
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 6
Public Hearinp - Preliminarv Plat Approval - Golden View - 1540 and 1550 St. Croix
Circle
Jacqueline Day, representing the applicants, reviewed the plat and answered questions
from the Council.
Chuck Segelbaum presented the Planning Commission report and answered questians
from the Council.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, presented the staff report and
answered questions from the Council. Jeannine Clancy and Jeff Oliver, City Engineer; and
Thomas Burt 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 Freiberg, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried to approve the Preliminary
Plat for Golden View, 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle, make the following findings:
1. There are special circumstances affecting said properties so that the strict application of
the provisions of Chapter 12 create an unusual hardship and practical difficulties and
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the petitioner as well as the City.
3. the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious ta
other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated it will be in fact be
advantageous.
Further, subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee shall be paid before final plat approval.
3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated August 22, 2012 shall become part of this
approval.
4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that
will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum.
5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 7
Public Hearinq - Preliminarv Plat Approval - Golden View - 1540 and 1550 St. Croix
Circle - Continued
Further, the City Council approves a waiver from Section 12:20, Subdivision 5(A) of City
Code, finding that;
1. The proposed Lot 1 measures 60 feet in width along the northeast front setback line.
2. The proposed Lot 2 measures 62 feet in width along the northeast front setback line.
3. Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(A) of City Code requires that interior lots measure at least
80 feet in width along the front setback lines.
4. Reducing the lot width requirement eliminates the need for additional road construction.
Council Member Pentel and Scanlon voted no.
The Council requested that staff review the conditions for variances from the Subdivision
Code for discussion at a future Council/Manager meeting.
Public Hearinq - Preliminarv Desiqn Plan Approval - PUD #110 - Boone Avenue
Convenience Center - Linn Investment Properties, Applicants
Stephen Linn, CEO Linn Companies, Applicant reviewed the plan and answered questions
from the Council. Cathy Anderson, Architect, Architectural Consortium and Jared Jones,
Civil Engineer, MFRA, answered questions from the Council.
Chuck Segelbaum presented the Planning Commission report and answered questions
from the Council.
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner, presented the staff report and answered questions from the
Council. 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 Scanlon, seconded by Clausen and motion carried unanimously to approve the
Preliminary PUD Plan for Boone Avenue Convenience Center PUD No. 110, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
July 30, 2012, shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver and Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning
and Development, dated August 22, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.
4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 8
Public Hearinq - Preliminarv Desiqn Plan Approval - PUD #110 - Boone Avenue
Convenience Center - Linn Investment Properties, Applicants - Continued
5. The final design plans include elements for final design based on the Planning
Commission discussion.
6. There shall be discussion between staff and the applicant regarding the appropriate
amount of parking for the site.
7. There shall be discussion between staff and the applicant regarding alternative storm
water management options.
8. An enhanced landscape plan shall be considered.
9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55,
Subd. 5(E)(1):
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics ofi the site and achieves a higher
quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional
provisions of the ordinance.
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the
land.
4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the genera4 health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
The Council requested the letter sent by John Kluchka be received and filed at the next
City Council meeting.
Announcements of Meetinqs
A Bassett Creek Water Management Commission meeting will be held on September 20,
2012 at 11:30 am.
Some Council Members may attend the Golden Oaks Park neighborhood meeting on
September 20, 2012 at 7 pm at Mibs Pearson's, 8115 Plymouth Avenue.
Some Council Members may attend the Lilac Planting Party on September 22, 2012 at
8:30 am at 9010 Olson Memorial Highway.
Some Council Members may attend the neighborhood meeting on September 27, 2012 at
7 pm at Jeanne and Iver Iverson's, 1437 Orkla Drive.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
September 19, 2012
Page 9
Announcements of Meetinqs
The City Council will interview candidates for the board/commission vacancies on October ,
2, 2012 at 6 pm.
The next City Council meeting will be held on October 2, 2012 at 6:30 pm.
Some Council Members may attend the Valley Volunteer Day activities from 9 am to 1 pm
at various locations throughout the city.
Some Council Members may attend the Kelly Drive Pumpkin Festival on October 6, 2012
at 11 am at the Kelly Drive neighborhood.
Mavor and Council Communications
Mayor Harris updated the Council on a meeting he held with a group of teens regarding a
teen advisory group and will keep the Council informed about the status of the group.
Mayor Harris met with Joan Peters, Three Rivers Park District Commissioner and it was
suggested that an introductory meeting be set with the leadership of the Park District to
discuss trail maintenance and the Bassett Creek Regional Trail.
Thomas Burt updated the Council on the meeting held with other communities regarding
9-1-1 dispatch centers and dispatch services.
Council Member Scanlon updated the Council on the Robbinsdale School District 281
meeting and Bridge Buildings.
Adiournment
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Clausen and motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 10:19 pm.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy NaUy, Administrative Assistant
Special Meeting
of the
City Council
October 9, 2012
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of
Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Golden Valley Road in said
City on October 9, 2012 at 6:04 pm.
The following members were present: Clausen, Freiberg, Harris, Pentel and Scanlon. Also
present were: Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager; Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant.
Administrative Hearinq - Residential Propertv Maintenance Code Administrative
Citations Appeal - 1516'/Z Rhode Island Avenue North
Mayor Harris opened the meeting and introduced Allen Barnard.
Allen Barnard presented an overview of the administrative hearing process.
Allen Barnard administered the oath to Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections; Josh
Kunde, Fire/Property Maintenance Specialist.
Mayor Harris stated that since the property owner was not present he requested staff to
come forward to present the staff report.
Mark Kuhnly and Josh Kunde presented the staff report, outlining the timeline of events and
citations issues and answered questions from the CounciL
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Scanlon and motion carried unanimousiy to make the
following findings and determinations:
Findings and Determination
1. Appellant faifed to schedule a rental inspection and were properly cited for it.
2. Appellant failed to appear at the Administrative Hearing or provide any evidence or facts
to support its failure therefore, Council upholds the citation and required payment of
citation penalties.
Adiournment
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:12 pm.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
���� ���y
Finance Department
763-593-8013 t 763-593-8109{fax)
� �,"'.� .����°�: � _ _ � � �-�: . ____�_.��= � � � °�:�. °`��� � _ "�. � � ��
Executive Summary For Actian
Golden Valley City Council Mee#ing
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. B. Approva! of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
• Document sent via email
Recommended Action
Motion ta authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
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,
September 10, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall,
Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development
Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Commissioner Cera was absent.
9. Approval of Minutes
August 27, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to
approve the August 27, 2012 minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review — Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway - The Tiburon —
PU-111
Applicant: Tiburon 55, LLC
Address: 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate
apartment building.
Hogeboom referred to a location map and stated that the applicant is proposing to build a
six-story, 142-unit, market rate apartment building at 9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial
Highway which is 2.7 acres in size. He added that these properties have recently been
rezoned from Commercial to High Density R-4 Residential and they are in the process of
being redesignated on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Density
Residential.
He explained that the proposal would vary from the requirements of the City Gode and
is being considered as a PUD for the following reasons: 1) The R-4 Zoning District
allows a five-story maximum height, the applicant is proposing six stories, 2) the R-4
Zoning District allows no more than 60% of a lot to be covered by impervious surface,
the developer would be covering 77% of the site with impervious surface, 3) the
applicant is seeking to vary slightly from parking dimension requirements to allow better
traffic flow and more efficient parking locations on the site, 4) the R-4 Zoning District
requires a 25-foot front yard setback, the applicant is proposing a 15-foot front yard
setback requirement along Highway 55.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 2
Hogeboom referred to a map of a larger area and explained that the City's Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has requested that staff focus redevelopment effarts in
this area. The HRA will meet this month to discuss road improvements, pedestrian access
and property rehabilitation for the area along Golden Valley Road between Boone Avenue
and Mendelssohn Avenue. The HRA will consider creating a special redevelopment
district that would enable the use of certain public financing tools for public improvements.
Hogeboom showed the Commissioners an illustration of the proposed apartment building
and explained that the property will have a Golden Valley Road address and most of the
parking will be underground. He added that this Preliminary Plan review is to approve the
concept, not necessarily the specific landscaping, fa�ade material, etc. as those issue can
change between the preliminary and final stages. He stated that staff is recommending
approval of the proposed plan with the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
September 5, 2012, shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works
Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated
September 6, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.
4. A Park Dedication Fee of $16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of
the Final PUD Plan.
5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Waldhauser referred to the Deputy Fire Marshal staff report and questioned the
narrowness of the access road for fire equipment. Hogeboom explained that the Deputy
Fire Marshal will work with the applicant, during the construction phase, on fire code
issues.
Waldhauser asked if the City has any responsibility regarding the Pollution CQntrol
Agency's concerns about traffic noise. Hogeboom stated that cities are required to
carefully consider the Iocation of residential developments and to avoid negative
impacts of noise when possible. He added that MnDOT has reviewed the plans and
have made it clear that they are not responsible for noise mitigation on projects that are
built adjacent to existing highways.
Waldhauser asked at what point a barrier between Olson Memorial Highway (TH 55)
and this development will be designed. Hogeboom referred to MnDOT's policy
regarding sound walls and explained that it is their policy to construct a sound barrier
when road construction projects happen near existing residential properties, but they
don't construct sound barriers when a new residential development is built adjacent to
existing highways. Waldhauser referred to an existing fence that is around this area now
and questioned why it is there and if it would have to be retained. Hogeboom said he
didn't know and suggested the applicant address that issue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 3
Kisch asked about the impervious surFace requirements of comparable projects in other
zoning districts. Hogeboom stated that most R-4 projects are done through the PUD
process which typically varies from the requirements af the Zoning Code. He said he
can't think of any comparable existing properties however there are some proposed
projects pending that are considering having more impervious surface than this project
due to the size of the parcels. Waldhauser added that the Mixed Use zoning district
allows more impervious surface. Grimes added that the impervious surface
requirements don't exempt projects from the water quality requirements. Hogeboom
noted that much of the green space in this project is Highway 55 right-of-way which
doesn't count in the impervious surface calculations, but is green space adjacent to the
development.
Kluchka asked what the applicant could build on this property without using the PUD
process. Hogeboom said they could build a four-story building, they could not exceed
60% total impervious surtace, they would have to meet the parking dimension
requirements and they would have a 25-foot front yard setback requirement. Grimes
explained that this parcel is a remnant property from when Highway 55 was constructed
so this is a unique site that will require variances or a PUD to develop.
Waldhauser asked if the proposed building will affect access or visibility for surrounding
property owners. Hogeboom said the visibility of Nationat Camera will actually be
improved with this development. He added that property owners within 500 feet
received hearing notices.
Steve Dunbar, Tiburon 55 LLC, Applicant, showed the commissioners illustrations of the
proposed development and discussed the various amenities they will offer such as a
courtyard, a grill area, underground parking, a bike room, conference room, theater,
fitness center and storage units for each resident as well as a full size washer and dryer
in each unit.
Schmidgall questioned the number of units in the building because the narrative states
there will be 142 units but he counted 144 units on the plans. Dunbar clarified that they
intend to have 142 units and 142 enclosed parking stalls.
Waldhauser stated that the narrative refers to a green roof, but the plans don't show a
green roof. Dunbar explained that the narrative and plans are referring to the green
courtyard area.
Kisch noted that the parking ratio is 1.5 stalls per unit and asked Dunbar if that is
comparable to other products they market. Dunbar stated that their typical ratio is 1 for
1, however 1.5 is more flexible. Kisch noted that if some of the parking spaces along
Golden Valley Road were removed they could add more green space to the proposal.
Dunbar said he would be happy to work with the City regarding additional green space.
Kisch asked about the height of the first floor wall shown on the plans. Noah Bly,
UrbanWorks Architecture, representing the applicant, stated that the wall is 11' 2". He
added that they really can't reduce the parking very much but they may be able to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 4
remove a few spaces in order to get more green space. Kisch asked Bly if they would
be comfortable changing the parking ratio to 1.25 spaces per unit. Grimes noted that
there is no parking allowed on Golden Valley Road so he is concerned about this
proposal not having enough parking spaces. Waldhauser questioned if an off-site
parking arrangement could be considered. Dunbar said he doesn't anticipate needing
off-site parking.
Kisch said he would like to encourage the applicant to reduce the 77% of impervious
surface they are propasing. He referred to the height parking plinth and asked if it could
be lowered by 5 or 6 feet. Bly said lowering it could cause problems with getting people
into the parking area. He said he would work on ways to get some more greenery along
that wall. Schmidgall said he would be inclined to cut the applicant some slack in regard
to impervious surface coverage because they are proposing underground water
management as well.
Waldhauser asked Dunbar about the noise from Highway 55. Dunbar said they have
ways of mitigating the noise including installing high quality windows.
Kluchka asked about pedestrian amenities and bike racks. Dunbar explained that there
is a bike room and showed pictures of what it will look like. He added that there will also
be a bike rack installed above each parking stall along the exterior wall of the parking
garage. Bly discussed the sidewalks and pedestrian connections. Kluchka said he
would like a candition of approval added to the recommendation that there be a
sidewalk leading to the front entrance. Bly said he would integrate that sidewalk into the
pedestrian plan. He added that they can also install an exterior bike rack.
Kluchka asked the applicants to describe their landscaping plans. Dunbar reviewed the
landscaping plans with the Commission. Waldhauser said it is odd there are no
evergreen plants on the plans. Grimes noted that there is not a lot of room along Golden
Valley Road to add landscaping and a sidewalk. Bly said there is some room available
to add more landscaping. Kluchka asked the developer if they would be able integrate
their landscape plans with what has already been done as part of the City's lilac planting
initiative. Dunbar said yes. Kluchka said he would like to add that as a condition of
approval. Hogeboom said he would talk to the City's Forester.
Kluchka asked if there will be any LEED status with this project. Dunbar said no.
Kluchka asked the applicant to speak to the fence issue Waldhauser discussed earlier.
Dunbar said they don't plan on disturbing the existing fence at all.
Waldhauser asked Dunbar if his firm will retain ownership of the property. Dunbar said
yes.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to
comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 5
MOVED by Schmidgall and seconded by McCarty to recommend approval of the
Preliminary PUD request with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Hogeboom explained that he would like to add a condition to the recommendation which
states that the Developer, the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will
work tagether to iook for tools to fund public improvements in the general vicinity of the
Tiburon development. Tools may include creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
district, or a similar redevelopment district.
Kisch said he would also like to add the conditions that Kluchka suggested and he
would also like to add a condition to encourage the applicant to reduce the amount
impervious surFace.
Kluchka summarized his proposed conditions as follows: 1) ensure the Planning
Commission has design approval as well as approval over the materials used, 2) ensure
landscaping approval and integration with the City's lilac plantings and 3) ensure
appraval of the pedestrian access design.
Kisch reiterated his suggestion about adding a candition that encourages a reduction in
the amount of impervious surFace. Schmidgall said he disagrees with requiring the
applicant to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Segelbaum asked Kisch if he
was referring to covering up the first floor wall a little bit more. Kisch said no, that would
be landscaping: Waldhauser said she also would not support a decrease in impervious
surface because this is a "tight site" that is difficult to develop. She added that she
would however support more green space, landscaping and screening. Segelbaum
agreed.
Waldhauser said she is confused as to the actual fa�ade materials being proposed and
added that she would like something like was shown in the illustrations.
Kluchka said he doesn't want to get into a situation like the Menard's propasal where
the Planning Gommission has no say in the design. He said he wants the ability to
influence the design. Schmidgall stated that there will be economic pressure to make
sure the building is attractive. Segelbaum questioned how the Planning Commission
cpuld require design standards. Hogeboom explained that Menard's was different
because their use was grandfathered-in. Kluchka said he is trying to set some
precedent and be consistent with what they require. McCarty asked Kluchka if he wants
the Planning Commission to say what materials the applicant can use. Kluchka said no,
he wants a tool in the PUD process that allows the Planning Commission to say they
like the design. McCarty said that is totally subjective. Kluchka said that the applicant is
asking for variances so the Planning Commission should have a say regarding the
design. Segelbaum noted that the applicant isn't at the final design plan stage. Kluchka
said he wants the design specified. Kisch suggested saying that as part of the Final
Plan review the Planning Commission wants the materials specified. McCarty noted that
all of the materials are already listed in the Preliminary plans. Waldhauser noted that the
plans and the narrative are different and added that it would probably be better for the
Planning Commission not to approve the materials. Kluchka said he wants the ability to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 6
have an influence on the design. Grimes suggested the Planning Commission review
the entire PUD ordinance and decide if they would like to amend it. Segelbaum said he
believes the concept that the Planning Commission is reviewing at this meeting is what
they are recommending for approval so it is good to talk about it at this stage in the
process.
Schmidgall clarified what has already been moved and seconded as follows: the
conditions listed in the staff report with the addition of the Developer, the City and the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority working together regarding TIF, landscape
enhancing and integration with existing lilac plantings and improved pedestrian access
from Golden Valley Road.
MOVED by Kisch to amend the motion to add the three things Schmidgall clarified.
McCarty said he would like to know more about the proposed TIF item. Hogeboom
explained that the development could move forward without the TIF district being
approved but the HRA wants to consider a larger area in order to help fund public
improvements. McCarty asked about the repercussions if the Planning Commission
doesn't recommend approval of the TIF district. Segelbaum asked if the developer
would pay for sidewalks on their own property. Hogeboom said yes and added that
sidewalks only on the subject property with no connections would be unsafe.
McCarty seconded the amended motion adding the three additional conditions as
discussed.
Kluchka asked about smooth-faced concrete block. Schmidgall explained that it is
concrete block that is smooth or polished looking. Kluchka asked if the rendering
reflects what that block would look like since it is the majority of the facing. He reiterated
that is something that should be looked at.
Waldhauser asked for a vote on the amended motion. The Commissioners agreed
unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for PUD 111 with the
following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
September 5, 2012, shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works
Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated
September 6, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.
4. A Park Dedication Fee of $16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of
the Final PUD Plan.
5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commissian
September 10, 2Q12
Page 7
7. The Developer, the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will work
together to look for tools to fund public improvements in the general vicinity of the
Tiburon development. Tools may include creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
district, or a similar redevelopment district.
8. The Developer will work to enhance the Landscaping Plan to include more
landscaped areas and, if possible, less impervious surfaces. If possible, the
Developer will coordinate landscaping efforts with the City's Highway 55 Lilac
Planting initiative.
9. The Developer will work to include an improved pedestrian connection from Golden
Valley Road to the front door of the building.
--Short Recess--
3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
4. Other Business
The Commissioners discussed the possibility of reviewing the PUD ordinance at a future
meeting.
Waldhauser reminded the Commissioners about the MnAPA planning conference at the
end of September.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm.
David A. Cera, Secretary
Golden Valley Human Services Fund (GVHSF) Meeting
Minutes
September 10, 2012
Present: Hilmer Erickson, Kathryn Frommer, Brenda Hayle, Elissa Heilicher, Alan Ingber,
Diane Nimmer, Connie Sandler, Toots Vodovoz and Peggy Watkins. Also present: Joanie
Clausen, Council Liaison and Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison.
Not Attending: Katie Hart
Call to Order: Sandler called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m.
Introduction of inembers: Chair Sandler welcomed the three new members to the
Commission: Kathryn Frommer, Alan Ingber and Peggy Watkins. Introductions were made.
July 9 minutes: Erickson moved and Vodovoz seconded the motion ta approve the
minutes from July 9. The motion passed unanimously.
GVHSF Events:
Golf Classic: Members reviewed the Golf Classic. The unofficial totals are: $13,505 (gross)
and $6507 (net) with 116 golfers. Many positive comments were heard from the golfers.
Fackler will meet with the golf manager in January to set the date for 2013.
Run the Valley: Fackler asked the Commission to change the date from April 6 to April 13
due to a conflict at Brookview. The Commission approved the date change. 2013 fees were
discussed. Heilicher made a motion that the 2013 fees for Run the Valley are: $25 if
registered by March 1, $30 March 1-April 12 at 3PM, and $40 on race day. A $15 youth fee
for those 12 and under includes a t-shirt but not chip timing. Hayle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously. T-shirt sizes will include some youth sizes. Sizes will be
guaranteed if registered by March 1. If youth want to be included for medals and chip timing
they will register for the full adult fee.
Other Business:
Farmers Market: Nimmer reviewed the July Farmer's Market. Based on the review Fackler
will ask Gommunications to make a banner and have a ring toss or bean bag game for the
table. A pamphlet about the GVHSF and sign-up sheet will be available. Run the Valley t-
shirts and Golden Valley mugs will be sold. Fackler will have the material ready for the
September 16 Farmer's Market. Hart and Heilicher will be present at the table from 9AM-
1 PM.
Community Foundation: Sandler reported the CF board is working on a formal application
process to accept and apply grant proposals. Grants have been given to sponsor a Cultural
Day at the Farmer's Market and Lilac Planting.
New Event: Sandler reported on the talks with Perpich and Breck to host the new event.
Breck has two possible areas for the concert— the theater which seats 400 and the Chapel
which seats 500. The fee is $150/hour plus an additional fee for tech/sound/lighting,
Commission members would like to pursue the concert. Sandler and Heilicher will re-
contact the Twin City Men's Gay Chorus for possible dates. Suggested ticket price is $20
with the possibility of a VIP ticket which would include a dessert reception after the concert.
2013 Application Packet: The application packets were given to members for review.
Sandler asked members to review the applications and contact Sandler or Fackler if there
is an agency they would like to present at the October meeting. Nimmer suggested
members tour an agency applying for funding.
The updated roster was given to the Commission members.
Sandler announced the next meeting is October 8 at 6:45 p.m. Sandler reminded group to
review the funding applications and contact Fackler if there is an agency they would like to
attend the October meeting.
Adjournment: Nimmer moved to adjourn the meeting, Ingber seconded the motion. The
meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanne Fackler
GVHSF Staff Liaison
i.�d�� y 5✓� ""�w +
t..v ..rvd,.
✓ ����
Public�Vorks Departrnent
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
. ...�..��.��,�A�.�����` = . ,�.�`� ..�° . . ".��� �a. .,_��
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. D. 1. Award Contract for the Minneapolis/JWC Water Metering Improvement Project No. 12-10
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mitchell Hoeft, EIT MPA, Engineer
Summary
On September 18, 2012, at 9 am the City of Golden Valley received construction bid prices ta
complete the JWC/Minneapolis Water Meter Improvement Project (12-10). The following bids
were received:
Magney Construction $759,257
Rice Lake Contracting $882,100
The anticipated cost breakdown of each organization is shown below:
JWC constructian costs: $399,628.50
Minneapolis construction costs: $359,628.50
Amendment No. 1 to the Golden Valley-Crystal-New Hope Joint Powers Agreement (attached)
outlines the agreement for the City of Minneapolis and the 1WC to each finance 50%of the total
construction cost of this metering improvement. The JWC is also responsible for financing 100%
of the demolition costs associated with the existing intake meter vault and discharge meter pit.
The City of Minneapolis has reviewed and approved their portion of funding to complete this
project. The cities in the JWC have also given their concurrence for the City of Golden Valley to
move forward and award the project at its October 16, 2012 City Council meeting.
Attachments
+ Amendment No. 1, Minneapolis-Joint Water Commission Water Agreement-2004,
Amendment to Contract No. C-22438 (4 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to award a contract with Magney Construction in the amount of$759,257 for the
construction of inetering improvements at the Minneapolis/JWC Metering Vault near the Golden
Valley reservoir located at 1500 Skyline Drive.
AMENDMENT NO. 1
�A� � 0 �0�?
?VIINNEAPOLIS—JOINT WATER COMMISSION
�VATER AGREEMENT—2004
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. C-2243$
This agreement is made and entered into as of the $th day af February, 20 t 2, by and
between the City af Minneapolis,a Minnesota home rule charter city in Hennepin County,
Minnesota,and the 3oint Water Commissian("JWC"}, a jaint powers board formed pursuant t�
Minn. Stat. §471.59 by the cities of Galden Valley, Crystal and New Hvpe, Minnesota,all
Minnesata cities in Hennepin County,Minnesota,
WITNESSETH:
RECITALS
WHEREAS,the City of Minneapolis operates a municipal water system knawn as the
Mirmeapolis Water Warks ("MWW"); and,
WHETt�AS,the City of Minneapolis and the JWC have previausly entered into an
Agreement for the City to supply water to the J WC to be effective as of the I S`day of danuary
20Q4 entitled"Minneapalis—Join!Water Commission WaCer Agreement—2004"; and,
WHEREAS, the City and JWC deem it to be appropriate to make amendments to thaT
Agreement as specified herein.
NOVd'1"HEREFORE,it is mutually agreed as follows
1. That Paragraph 4 of the above-referenced Agreement is amended to read as follows:
4. Obli�ation af JWC.
A. JWC Facilities. 3WC shall construct,own, operate and:naintain the water
distribution system and storage facilities necessary to supply water to its
consumers fram the Points of Delivery. JWC sha11 make investments in, and own
a11 facilities necessary to the transmission, storage, and distribution of water from
the existing Points af Delivery and necessary ta the metering of water, except for
the actual meters themselves, which will be owned by the City af Minneapolis.
T'xcept far the actual meters, JWC shall finance and maintain,at na expense to the
MWW, its entire water system from the Points af Delivery to and within JWC.
Reliable records af construetion and maintenance suffieient to identify the
location af all parts of such systern shall be kept,a11 of which sha11 be subject to
inspection by MWVV upon one week priar notice.
B. Measurement of'Water. Water delivered purstzant to this Agreement shall be
measured by meters to be furnished and maint.ained by the City of Minneapolis at
its own cost and expense. Such meters shall be subject to periodic inspection and
testing by the MWW with the cooperation of the JWC for verification purposes.
AWWA standards shall be followed to determine the frequency of testing,
accuracy and tolerances of such meters.
C. The existing meter at the City of Crystal purnp station shall become the property
af the City of Minneapolis effective 3anuary 1,2013. Subparagraph 4B, as
amended above,sha11 apply to this rneter.
D. The meter setting in the City of Gc�lden Valley requires a new design,a new
connectian into the�8-inch water main and a new meter vault. Minneapolis and
Golden Valiey agree to design and construct this new facality in 2012 with the
City of Minneapolis owning the new meter but not owning any of the reiated
piping�r the meter vault. The cast of the new setting, including the new meter
will be shared on a 50%- 50%basis between JWC and the City of Minneapolis.
The City of Minneapolis will take full ownership of the meter or rneters on
January l,2013. The amended paragraph 4B above shall apply to this rneter or
meters.
E. As part of the projeet for the JWC meters,a SCADA(Supervisory Control And
Data Acquisition)connection far each meter shall be completed in a way that both
the JWC and the City ofMinneapolis have access ta the meter readings through
the SCADA system.
2. That the first sentence of Paragraph 12 of the Agreerz�cnt be amended ta read:
12. Minneapolis agrees to indemnify and save JWC harmless from any and alt ciaims
regarding or related to the quality of the Water supplied to JWC by Minneapolis
to the Points af Delivery, as described in Section 1(L) of this Agreement, which
claims arise or may result from Minneapolis' operatians or the actions or neglect
of Minneapolis' officers, employees or agents pursuant to this Agreement, or
from the use, instaliatian,maintenance and repair of Minaeapolis facilities inside
ar outside of Minneapolis or the reading of Minneapotis' meters by Minneapolis
persannel,and wiIl assu.me the defense af any actions arising therefrom in which
JWC is made a party defendant.
IN WI'I'NESS WHEREDF,the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first abave written.
WITNESSETH:
CITY OF MINNEAPULIS JOINT WATFR CtJMNIISSTON
,r
� �..rr,�� �� c.��,�,2r�' sy: � �, .
Printed Name af Department Head �1'homas D. Burt, r
Joint Water Cornmission of Crystal,
� � Golden Valley and New Hope
� ' 'i'r''
Signature of Departrnent Head
Approved as to Form:
� �. V�:� �, 9j��:�
City A ey As stant City Attorney
t".h�",�Y7 !��'1�17/r�71/1),Cs `,X
Printed Name of Finance Officer/Designee
,� �-
<" �„
Signature of Finance Officer esignee
(
D3.19�l2.
Date
�
�
� � ae r �� 2a��
City of Golden Vatley
7800 Golden Va11ey Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
October 10, 2012
Dear Mayor Shep Harris,
I am v►7iting to express Couragc Center's strong support for the selection of the B-C-D 1 alignment of the
Bottineau Transitway as the Locally Preferred Alternatir�a(LPA). We see the proximity of this proposed line to
aur Golden Valley location as a huge benefit to our clients, emplo}-ees, and the community at large.
As Minnesota's largest independent nonprofit rehabilitation sen�ices provider,sercing more than I Z,000
individuals each year, �-e understand that access to reliable transportation is critical to the independence of
those with disabitities and complex medical conditions. Our customers re13�hea�•ily on public transit and Metro
Mobility to access our Golden Va11ey pragrams. A 2011 examination of Metro 11Tobility data showed an
average of 3,000 riders each month to our�'acility. An equal number of clients each month come to us via
private medical transportation provid�rs, lVlost of these riders cannot dri.ve themselves, ar do not o�vn a vehiele.
What they have in common is the need for reliable and safe transportatian.
We also ha.ve a population of indi�-iduals w�ho live on site at our Golden Valley location. These are individuals
with brain and spinal injuries residing in our 48-bed Transitional Rehabilitation Program. We often arrange
public outings for them to Minneapolis and be3-ond. It's not uncommon for them to ride the bus, or travel
independently via sidewalk to enjoy Wirth Park and its beauty. Access to LRT would provide a wealth of
additio�nal options.
As an empio}�er of 503 individuals,we have falt the sting of budget cuts and the subsequent declines in Metro
Transit service on Gotden Uaile}�Road. Wh.ile we applaud the Metropolitan Council for preserving serviee to
Courage Center,the frequency of stops has greatl5�diminished over the last several years.
The Bottinea,u Transitway, specifically�the B-C-D 1 alignrnent,would greatly increase transportation optians to
Courage Center. We clearl3•see the potential benefits to our employees and clients, and hope y�au'll agree.
I thank you for your consideration of our comments, and welcome any questions you may have.
Sincexely,
� .��
Malcolm
CEO
3915 Galden Voffey Rooci
Minneopoiis, Minnesoi�55422
p:7&3 5£3�i DF311
CaurogeCantar.ora
�°t��1 CI�
Public Works Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
=-:: ,��u�.�.�a����.�����.,;. . .._ ,s..;. ,�: _��������� ,_x.�� �:�= _���-_
M,����,. � _._ �.��� �
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. F. Authorize Participation in the Metropolitan Council Municipal Publicly Owned Infrastructure
Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mitchell Hoeft, E.I.T. Engineer
Summary
The Minnesota Legislature has appropriated $4,000,000 to the Metropolitan Council for the
Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant program. The purpose of this program is to provide
reimbursement to municipalities for capital improvements to public municipal wastewater
collection systems, which reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration into the Metropotitan
Council's sanitary sewer disposal system.
Staff recommends submission of a grant application requesting reimbursement of project costs
directly related to inflow and infiltratian reduction improvements in the City's municipal sanitary
sewer lines. Staff has identified approximately$735,000 of qualifying expenses and we anticipate
the City could receive between $50,000 and $300,000 from this program, depending on the
amount of applicant submittals.
Attachments
• Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Metropolitan Council Municipal Publicly Owned
Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program for the Reimbursement of Project Costs
Associated with Inflow/Infiltration Improvements (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Metropolitan Council Municipal
Publicly Owned Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program for the Reimbursement of
Project Costs Associated with Inflow/Infiltration Improvements.
G��� � 101,���� �!� �U�IGt� lr'i,t�jn ;
�- s
DeDe Scanio y
n
From: Scanlon, DeDe <DScanlon@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16,2012 10:50 AM
To: dedescanlon@comcast.net
Subject: FW:City Will Revist Bottineau Transitway Plans
DeDe Scanlon
Golden Valley City Council
763.545.0669(home)
_ _
From: Kelly Lowrie [krlowrie@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October iZ, 2012 5:22 PM
To: Clausen,Joanie; Harris, Shep; Pente(, Paula; Scanlon, DeDe; Freiberg, Mike
Cc: t��,�;�U�ic���arttsi�nlc�n�t; Carol Barry; Cathy Abboud, Randy Roy; Thom Melcher; thom�Fl�inm�sou.�>.com;
�E_ 1»
�+`�5,..!.�. .}.�i S..`i.
Subject: City Will Revist Bottineau Transitway Plans
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Harris,
1 understand the City Will Revisit Bottineau 7ransitway Plans on Nov 13th.
article: ntt�_tt�oid�nvai�eyr.patch.coml�rt�c€�sicit�w�6i-r�visi-rpottineaumtrars{�w��c�etails I understand you are receiving
pressure; however, I'm a bifi surprised to hear we are revisiting the plans.
I have copied interested neighbors, if you would be so kind to repfy to all with your feedback.
******,�*,�,�*****************�***.**,�,«*****�****„�,�,t**,�*«****.*�.*,�.*.,�,►,�****x,��**�.*«***x,�****�********,�
I think we can agree that we need additional infirastructure and the ability to offer communities and citizens improved mass
transit with access to jobs, schools, and health care, however, let's come up with a solution in a location that makes
strategic and environmental sense.
I do empathize and in favor of public transportation since I take the 758 bus to downtown Minneapolis vs. driving to
Ameriprise every day.
Golden Valley has over 1,035 acres dedicated to parks and open space and the City maintains nearly 50 miles of
trails. Do we want to modify and sacrifice our natural resources?
After spending dozens of hours researching and educating myself, making calls, emails to council members and
politicians and talking to neighbors who utilize the parks asking for their input. I come up with the same question;why
here?
I've lived in the Metro area; St Louis Park, Minneapolis, Golden Valley area for 46 of my 46 years. I love my home, our
neighborhood and secret wildlife refuge#ucked away. Our home resides directly adjacent to Socnacki Park at 4300
Culver approximately 300 feet to the proposed Bottineau Transifinray light rait. I have cancerns with the light rail going
through our parks and wetlands for the following reasons;
• Increased noise and vibration from 70 transit runs a day.
• The negative environmental and wildlife impact.
�
• Increase in crime.
• Increased taxes to pay for increased police and/or security needed.
• Decrease in home value—(Please don't refer me to a study from Seattle)
• No proposed Park and Ride other than Robbinsdale. (Please visit their stop and how safe it is.)
Additionally, who are the 30 local leaders and stake holders of the Policy Advisory Committee who made the preferred
choice of Golden Valfey?
Mike, in one of our email conversations, you mentioned that Met Council wifl eventually diminish bus tines and light rail is
our future. If that is the case, the Golden Va{ley Road stop offers 4 parking spots. The Robbinsdale Park and Ride is less
than ideal or safe. So if I understand correctiy, I would live next to light rail it, but not have the ability to utilize it....
Common sense would tell you it doesn't make sense so why are we furthering a study for a non-sense subject. Can we
find a more logical solution? lf the plan goes through, I will consider sel{ing my home.
What has changed and how will you vote in November'?
Thank you kindly,
Kelly Lowrie
Kelly Lowrie �4300 Culver Road, Golden Valley� Mobile 612.554.8761 �http://www.linkedin.com/in/kellylowrie
2
Resolution 12-75 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
MUNICIPAL PUBLICLY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE INFLOW/INFILTRATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF PROJECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
INFLOW/INFILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, funding is available from the Metropolitan Council Municipal Publicly
Owned Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program for the reimbursement of project
costs associated with inflow/infiltration improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has made improvements to the municipal
sanitary sewer system which reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration entering the
Metropolitan Cauncil Enviranmental Services system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Golden Valley City Council hereby
authorizes the Director of Public Works or her designee to prepare and submit the
Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program application on behalf of the City of
Golden Valley.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption af 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 his signature attested by the City Clerk.
t;l��1 C�� �'
Public Works Department
763-593-8030 i 763-593-3988(fax)
���� .:r� . : � . ��.��� ,: �-����� .. ,;;��t=� ,� ����,�,{_ �:� °
�� �
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. G. Phase I Security System Installation in City Hall
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Ran Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Summary
The 2011-2016 Capital Improvement Program (B-025, page 63) included $50,000 funding far
developing a long-term security system master plan for all City-owned facilities and $42,000 for
implementation of the first phase of the improvements. In addition, $65,000 was budgeted in the
2012-2017 Capital Improvement Program (B-025, page 53) for a total of$157,OOQ for installation
of necessary security measures.
Strategic Network Integrations and HGA Architects and Engineers were hired to develop the
Building Security Master Plan at a fee not to exceed $70,500. The goal of the project was to
develop a plan for installation of improvements to protect the public and employees along with
securing City equipment. The study determined the priority of need for security improvements in
all buildings and a multi-year phasing plan for instaliation of security measures in those buildings.
As part of their task, the consultant also developed a scope of work for implementation of the
first phase of the improvements in City Hall.
Pro-Tec Design, the City's vendor for security systems in the Public Safety Building, currently has
a contract through Minnesota Department of Administration, Materials Management Qivision
(Electronic Premises Security Systems Contract No. 13683) for supply and installation of security
measures. Golden Valley is eligible to receive the state contract pricing through their cooperative
purchasing agreement with the State.
Staff received a quote from Pro-Tec in the amount of$55,303.78 that is in accordance with the
state contract, for performing basic improvements at City Halt. Proposed improvements include
electronic access on all exterior doors, proximity card access on interior doors and distress alarms
in each functional area. The system will allow select doors to be locked and uniocked in
accordance with room/building schedules and will provide information about who is gaining
access.
Small contracts with other vendors to provide interconnects with the existing fire protection
system are expected and will be performed in coordination with the security improvements. All
work will be within the amount budgeted for the project.
Recommended Actian
Motion to approve awarding a contract to Pro-Tec Design for installation of security
improvements in City Hall in the amount of$55,303.78.
���� ��
Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
���,��,»���° _ . �.�����,�� � ���i u����c�.��z�,. ���i ���:��.� ,-�_� _ ���� x �:
�a�.�,
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3, H. Receipt of September 2012 Financial Reports
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Qirector
Summary
The monthly financial report provides a progress report of the following funds:
General Fund Operations
Conservation/Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund)
Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund)
Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund)
Mator Vehicle Licensing (Enterprise Fund)
Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund)
General Fund Operations: As of September 2012,the City uses $1,564,955 of fund balance to
balance the General Fund Budget. The second half property tax settlement will be received in
December.
Attachments
• September 2012 General Fund Financial Reports - unaudited (2 pages)
• September 2012 Conservation/Recycling Fund Financial Report - unaudited (1 page)
• September 2012 Water and Sewer Utility Fund Financial Report - unaudited (1 page)
• September 2012 Brookview Golf Course Fund Financial Report - unaudited (1 page)
� September 2012 Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund Financial Report - unaudited (1 page)
• September 2012 Storm Utility Fund Financial Report - unaudited (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the September 2012 Financial Reports.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Revenues
September, 2012 (unaudited)
Percentage Of Year Completed 75.00%
Over %
2012 September YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Bud et Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $11,702,050 9,580 5,975,664 ($5,726,386) 51.07% (1)
Licenses 173,800 3,000 209,668 $35,868 120.64%
Permits 628,070 61,470 830,427 $202,357 132.22%
Federal Grants 0 0 11,522 $11,522
State Aid 10,500 0 37,486 $26,986 357.01%
Hennepin County Aid 0 0 0 $0
Charges For Services:
General Government 43,550 159 28,685 ($14,865) 65.87%
Public Safety 181,745 26,911 137,904 ($43,841) 75.88%
Public Works 125,000 15,204 99,666 ($25,334) 79.73%
Park & Rec 395,350 42,391 485,195 $89,845 122.73%
Other Funds 1,001,500 30,150 795,288 ($206,212) 79.41%
Fines & Forfeitures 260,000 58,782 235,989 ($24,011) 90.77% (2)
Interest On Investments 110,000 0 675 ($109,325) Q.61% (3)
Miscellaneous Revenue 182,700 4,855 72,456 ($110,244) 39.66%
Transfers In 86,810 0 86,810 $0 100.00%
TOTAL Revenue $14,901,075 $252,502 $9,007,435 ($5,893,640) 60.45%
Notes:
(1) The first half taxes was received in July.
(2) Fines and Forfeitures is through August.
(3) Investments will be booked at year end; Cart Lease interest
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures
September, 2012 (unaudited)
Over %
2012 September YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
001 Council $287,755 26,439 215,430 ($72,325) 74.87%
003 City Manager 697,925 57,482 495,875 (202,050) 71.05%
ooa Transfers Out 294,710 0 294,710 0 100.00% (1)
005 Admin. Serviees 1,572,160 64,399 1,117,117 (455,043) 71.06%
oos Legal 120,000 5,995 80,128 (39,872) 66.77% (2)
007 Risk Management 290,000 0 227,835 (62,165) 78.56%
ot� General Gov't. Bldgs. 570,855 25,709 336,554 (234,301) 58.96%
o1s Planning 317,035 18,765 214,131 (102,904) 67.54%
oz2 Police 4,701,500 340,511 3,330,678 (1,370,822) 70.84%
023 Fire and Inspections 1,554,480 116,108 1,126,403 (428,077) 72.46%
035 Public Works Admin. 315,365 24,627 228,528 (86,837) 72.46%
os6 Engineering 663,425 45,775 426,279 (237,146) 64.25%
os� Streets 1,386,530 91,464 861,500 (525,030) 62.13°/a
065 Community Center 75,355 2,668 36,421 (38,934) 48.33%
oss Park & Rec.Admin. 646,275 52,464 462,476 (183,799) 71.56%
os7 Park Maintenance 996,780 73,613 706,479 (290,301) 7�.88%
o6s Recreation Programs 410,925 29,284 411,846 921 100.22%
TOTAL Expenditures $14,901,075 $975,303 $10,572,390 ($4,328,685) 70.95%
(1)Transfers were made in June.
(2) legal fees are through August.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund
September 2012 (unaudited)
Over
2012 September YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Hennepin County Recycling Grant 51,425 0 56,859 5,434 110.57%
Recycling Charges 276,000 20,945 182,818 (93,182) 66.24% (3�
Miscellaneous Revenues 0 608 825 825
Interest on Investments 5,000 0 0 (5,Q00) O.OQ% (1)
Total Revenue 332,425 21,553 240,502 (91,923) 72.35%
Expenses:
Recycling 453,605 13,008 222,661 (230,944) 49.09% (2)
Total Expenses 453,605 13,008 222,661 (230,944) 49.09%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) This includes through August services as of YTD.
(3) Recycling Charges are through September 2012 (City Utility Bill).
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund
September, 2012(unaudited)
Over
2012 September YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Water Charges 4,022,955 537,052 3,078,118 (944,837) 76.51%
Sewer Charges 3,236,245 253,742 2,236,561 (999,684) 69.11%
Meter Sales 5,000 0 2,463 (2,537) 49.26%
MCES Grant Program 0 0 0 0
Penalties 120,000 10,360 89,720 (30,280) 74.77%
Charges for Other Services 220,000 13,854 238,115 18,115 108.23%
State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 43,000 5,800 30,466 (12,534) 70.85%
Certificate of Compliance 60,000 9,085 57,000 (3,000) 95.00%
Interest Earnings 65,000 0 0 (65,000) 0.00%
Total Revenue 7,772,200 829,893 5,732,443 (2,039,757) 73.76%
Expenses:
Utility Administration 1,913,620 72,832 1,155,763 (757,857) 60.40%
Sewer Maintenance 2,441,390 193,680 1,776,459 (664,931) 72.76%
Water Maintenance 4,098,800 406,817 2,933,027 (1,165,773) 71.56%
Total Expenses 8,453,810 673,329 5,865,249 (2,588,561) 69.38%
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund(3)
September, 2012 (unaudited)
Over
2012 September YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Green Fees 879,100 103,202 835,247 (43,853) 95.01%
Driving Range Fees 107,700 9,532 108,406 706 100.66%
Par 3 Fees 195,150 17,291 162,03Z (33,118) 83.03%
Pro Shop Sales 82,000 9,132 75,092 (6,908) 91.58%
Pro Shop Rentals 235,200 34,295 234,096 (1,104) 99.53%
Concession Sales 218,200 30,761 222,472 4,272 101.96%
Other Revenue 68,000 74 67,657 (343) 99.50%
Interest Earnings 15,000 0 0 (1S,Q00) 0.00% (1)
Less:Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (37,000j (5,709) (21,651� 15,349 58.52% (4)
Total Revenue 1,763,350 198,578 1,683,351 (79,999) 95.46%
Expenses;
Golf Operations 649,565 31,863 502,403 (147,162) 77.34% (2)
Course Maintenance 721,620 61,275 500,866 (220,754) 69.41%
Pro Shop 111,600 7,306 104,275 (7,325) 93.44%
Grlll 176,190 21,482 175,568 (622) 99.65%
Driving Range 44,320 5,397 42,796 (1,524) 96.56%
Par 3 Course 29,730 4,264 26,710 (3,02Q) 89.84%
Total Expenses 1,733,025 131,587 1,352,618 (38Q,407) 78.05%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end.
(3) Course opened on March 16.
(4) Credit card fees are through August.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund
September, 2012 (4)(unaudited)
Over
2012 (3) September YTQ (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 0 0 (1)
Charges for Servlces 15,&51 48,070 (2)
Total Revenue 0 15,851 48,070 48,070
Expenses
Motor Vehicle Licensing 22,868 141,709 (5)
Total Expenses 0 22,868 141,709 0
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Activity is posted in through August.
(3) No 2012 budget was set due to the closure.
(4)The DMV opened July 23.
(5) Due to the closure, additional start up cost were incurred.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund
September, 2012(unaudited)
Over
2012 September YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 40,000 0 0 (40,000) 0.00% (1)
Storm Sewer Charges 2,228,920 180,196 1,620,811 (608,109) 72.72%
Bassett Creek Watershed 1,080,200 0 0 (1,0$0,200) 0.00%
State Grant-Other 0 0 25,369 25,369 (3)
Total Revenue 3,349,120 180,196 1,646,180 (1,702,940) 49.15%
Expenses:
Storm Utility 2,777,630 216,812 909,129 (1,868,501) 32.73% (2)
Street Cleaning 121,780 0 66,054 (55,726) 54.24%
Environmenta)Control 240,050 967 123,969 (116,081) 51.64%
Debt Service Payments 435,125 0 433,899 (1,226) 99.72%
Total Expenses 3,574,585 217,779 1,533,051 (2,041,534) 42.89%
�1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Qepreciation is allocated at year-end and. 2011 PMP and 2012 PMP are not complete.
(3) Project Reimbursement
L l��1 C)� �� �
� � ��
��,� Finance Deparfiment
7G3-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
��yu n .:4�^5:��:F�:�� .. . . .��', ,.'�.�.:�£��..���.: .�. ..��'� ��^ix��'����PY� ...�8�rs����N� � .�„r..?.r.�?ia�...,., .
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. I. 1, Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments- 2012 Driveways
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the
public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolution it allows the
property owner to pay for their driveway improvement over time with their property taxes.This
work was done by the contractor for the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and was billed
at the time of completion of the project. Terms are the same as the 2012 PMP project.
Attachments
• List of Driveways Assessed in 2012 (1 page)
• Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering
Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve 2012 City Street Improvements
(1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.Q31
and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve 2012 City Street
Improvements.
Pending Special Assessment Roll
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
2012 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENT(S)
PID Address Total Assessment
04-117-21-22-0174 111 King Hill Rd 3,237.44
04-117-21-22-0057 13Q King Creek Rd 7,107.31
04-117-21-22-0058 150 King Creek Rd 4,930.86
04-117-21-21-0031 155 King Creek Rd 342.89
04-117-21-22-0181 180 King Hill Rd 3,228.36
04-117-21-22-0054 280 King Hill Rd 5,691.24
30-029-24-24-0015 5001 Circle Down 5,063.93
30-029-24-24-0014 5011 Circle Down 1,163.95
30-029-24-23-0051 5221 Circle Down 3,423.24
30-029-24-23-0048 5301 Circie Down 3,946.33
Total 38,135.55
Resolution 12-76 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
ON PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS THAT INVOLVE 2012 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Pro'ect Years Interest Rate First Year Lev Total Assessed
2012 10 6% 2013 $38,135.55
Driveways
1. Each individual address (lots) wilt be assessed the fult value of the signed contract
with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s).
2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the praper
assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of six
(6) percent per annurn accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending
over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case.
3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the
period of January 1 through December 31, 2013, will be payable with general taxes for the
year of 2012, collectible in 2013, and one of each of the remaining installments, together
with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general
taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by
November 16, 2012.
4. The owner may pay off the assessment in full after November 16, 2012 with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must
be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor
a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each
unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the
County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
Shepard M. Harris, 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 his signature attested by the City Clerk.
�z�;� ��.
Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
:� � ��.����.��:g�u.�������,������: �...3�.���������������. .,:�� ���.�.�_ . ������.,.�,� �. .W.�:�� ��.;#
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. I. 2. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2012 Sanitary Sewer
Repairs
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the
public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolution it allows the
property owner to pay for their sanitary sewer improvement over time with their property taxes,
This work was done by the contractor for the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and was
billed at the time of completion of the project. Terms are the same as the 2012 PMP project.
Attachments
• List of Sanitary Sewer Repairs Assessed in 2012 (1 page)
• Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering
Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that Involve 2012 City Street
Improvements (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031
and Qrdering Certification af Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that Involve 2012
City Street Improvements.
Pending Special Assessment Roll
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
2012 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT(S)
PID Property Address Tatal Assessment
30-029-2423-0037 5320 Circle Down 5,715.00
33-118-21-21-Q024 1107 Welcome Ave N 2,143.25
30-029-24-24-0014 5011 Circle Down 4,525.00
04-117-21-22-0176 6001 Glenwood Ave 2,483.78
33-118-21-21-0020 1114 Welcome Circle 5,605.00
32-118-21-34-0005 7465 Harold Ave 4,745.00
32-118-21-34-0006 7445 Harold Ave 5,315.00
30,532.03
Resolution 12-77 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS THAT INVOLVE
2012 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Pro�ect Years Interest Rate First Year Lev Total Assessed
2012 PMP 10 6% 2013 $30,532.03
Sanitary Sewer
Repairs
1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract
with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s).
2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate af six
(6) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending
over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case.
3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the
period of January 1 through December 31, 2013, will be payable with general taxes for the
year of 2012, collectible in 2013, and one of each of the remaining installments, together
with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general
taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by
November 16, 2012.
4. The owner may pay off the assessment in full after November 16, 2012 with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must
be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor
a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each
unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the
County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
Shepard M. Harris, 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 his signature attested by the City Clerk.
�,��� ���
Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
����. . � �a,. .�,��,:� ���.x-��,.._�_' ��� ��;r_ �;�,� ...��.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. J. Approval of Plat and Authorization to Sign Subdivision Development Agreement - Savanah
Estates
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboam, City Planner
Summary
At the August 8, 2012 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the preliminary
plat for the minor subdivision of Savanah Estates (6601 and 6621 Medicine Lake Road). After the
hearing, the Council approved the preliminary plat. The final plat of Savanah Estates has now
been prepared by the PTS Land Services, Inc. City staff has reviewed the final plat and finds it
consistent with the approved preliminary plat and the requirements of City Code.
The developer has proposed to divide two lots into three lots for the construction of three new
homes. The existing homes and outbuildings will be removed.
Attachments
• Resolution for Approval of Plat- Savanah Estates (1 page)
• Subdivision Development Agreement- Savanah Estates (6 pages)
• Final Plat of Savanah Estates (2 pages, 11x17" plans mailed separately)
Recommended Action
Motian to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat- Savanah Estates.
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Subdivision Development
Agreement with RJT Investments, LLC.
Resolution 12-78 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the fallowing resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - SAVANAH ESTATES
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Savanah
Estates covering the following described tracts of land:
The East 131.42 feet of the West 394.13 feet of that part of the North '/z of the
Northeast '/a, Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, lying North of the South 300 feet
and South of the North 206.85 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the
East 131.38 feet of the West 262.71 feet of that part of the North '/z of the Northeast
'/a of the Northeasfi '/4 of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, lying North of the
South 300 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and;
The East 131.42 feet of the West 394.13 feet of the North 206.85 feet of the
Northeast '/4 of the Northeast '/4 of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the Gity of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and
the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original af
said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
Shepard M. Harris, 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 his signature attested by the City Clerk.
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Savanah Estates
AGREEMENT dated this_day of , 2012, by and between the City of
Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and RJT Investments II, LLC (the
"Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivision
of land and a plat of land to be known as Savanah Estates, which land is legally
described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof
(hereinafter referred to as the "subject property").
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the subdivision and the plat on the
following conditions:
a. Conformance to, and inclusion of, all provisions of the Final Plans for Savanah
Estates dated June 8, 2012, prepared by PTS Land Services, Inc.
b. Execution of this Subdivision Development Agreement.
c. Payment of all applicable fees including a Park Dedication fee of$1650.00 and other
fees identified in the current fee schedule.
d. Incorporation of any easements necessary to accommodate drainage, ponding,
streets and utilities.
e. Marketable title in the Developer, if the City attorney determines a title review is
necessary before final plat approvaL
f. It is the present intention of the City Council not to grant to the Developer any
variances for the subdivision unless the circumstances warrant it.
g. Removal of all existing structures prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For three (3) years from the date of this Agreement, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or
affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved
plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the
Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary,to
the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls, platting or
dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
4. Development Plans.The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the
approved plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Department of Public
Works. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms
shall control.
5. Installation bv Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay
for the following, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Improvements." The
grading, erosion control and landscaping shall all be made in accordance with City
approved plans.
1
a. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
b. Surveying and staking of work required to be performed by the Developer.
c. Gas, electric, telephone, and cable lines prior to building occupancy
d. One set of sewer and water services per dwelling prior to building occupancy
e. Installation of driveway aprons
f. Other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in
other agreements
6. Gradin�, Draina�e/Site Gradin�/Erosion Control and Clean up.
Site grading for each lot shall be completed by the Developer, or his assignee, at its cost
in accordance with the Stormwater Management Permit for each lot issued and
approved by the City at the time of home construction. If required, such activities shall
also be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and be in
accordance with an NPDES permit. The Developer or its assigns shall comply with the
terms of the Stormwater Management Permit issued for each home.
The Developer, or his assignee, shall obtain a tree preservation permit for each lot.
7. Permit. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a permit to enter the Subject Property to perform al(work and inspections
deemed appropriate by the City during the site development including home
construction.
8. Assessment for Public Works Costs.
a. The Developer shall obtain the appropriate permits for and install sewer and water
services to said Lots 1, 2, and 3 and driveway aprons for said Lots 1, 2, and 3 as
determined by the City Engineer. The Developer is required to obtain necessary
Right of Way (ROW) permits, utility permits and County permits.
b. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred
resulting from plat or subdivision approval and development of the Subject
Property. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of
such claims, including attorney's fees.
9. Park Dedication.The Deveioper agrees to pay a park dedication fee in the amount of
$1,650.00 at or before the time of execution of any plat by the City.
10. Propertv Fees, Char�es and Assessments. The Developer understands that builders will
be required to pay for the�Subject Property fees, charges and assessments in effect at
the time of issuance of building permits. The rates for each of these items will be set
according to the current rate structure at the time the building permit is received.
2
11. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by its hereunder,the City may, at its option, perform the work and the
Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City,
provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours
in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary
for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does
any such work,the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or
in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives its rights
to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such
assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081.
12, Miscellaneous.
a. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property,
the subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and
federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances,
zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. The existing sanitary sewer
service must be compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance prior to
occupancy of the home. If the City determines that the subdivision, or the plat, or
the development of the Subject Property does not comply,the City may, at its
option, refuse to allow construction or development work on the Subject Property
until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease
work until there is compliance.
b. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
c. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial
of building permits, including lots sold to third parties.
d. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this
Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portion of this Agreement.
e. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the
provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in
writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council.
The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not
be a waiver or release.
f. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the
property. The Developer agrees to provide the execution of amendments to this
Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has
completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request,
the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release.
g. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in
addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter
3
arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and
each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting
may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed
expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time
thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
h. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the
City Council.
i. It is the present intention of the Council not to grant to the developer variances for
this subdivision.
13. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by
registered mail at the following address:
RJT Investments II, LLC
Rollin Thornton
2316 Humboldt Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55406
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City
Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the
following address:
City Manager
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
By:
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
DEVELOPER
By:
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2012,
by Shepard M. Harris, Mayor, and Thomas D. Burt, City Manager, of the City of Golden Valley, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority
granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20 , by Rollin Thornton, , on behalf of the said RJT Investments II,
LLC.
Notary Public
5
ATTACHMENT 1
Savanah Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
�
�� �
�� o
�h
w� �
�� w
'> x
�� �
�N
z�
�F
� 's 4°
€ a vI
9g.ieb$ � F s i�= " I : ox
�z$°�° a � �Eia g s $ i r i
�5=;=s` �� I I U <£�° ° �� � $
as `��� 'o aesoa "a r a
ma�aas� �s g � uI$e;o � o�l I g i I
Q�g`'oS_ «� � ei�eg°° � � �� � - m a � m .
Se$p��� _ �= o n o os�ed� Q � � � e .
s�al.�,�a e r� '°�`_°�°°� x � I I s a ? ��� �
.���as�o I 8 ��EWfR ' x - � m H i ^o .
3r�Fr i ;,Ec$f 2 a' � m Y � ..y
-m.�� ° � °sE"'t°ir3' � � � e V � a� o
�a°�ua°y ^ b h k'°'Fc$ � sy 3 k � � '
$-�a°� ° Z �:d"oo $ o �; - � °n � x r� $ .
�'oo. �s i �o'�°° � o �w F�
�o � _ � � aaa^ � � �o � -I � r� �
_' =�g^ I � _ � ,'A-°E 5 ' _ 2 e
�zosaa� _ Et °oR9 = o � =1 m ��. ri �
F'm �c°oo 5 0 =F �p - 0�8� � q °'t N °�i a j
� ~a5a°3E°uo d u u �� �S n>rv�3Y � � -o f d I 3 Pi _ i rc
W
; Q,
a �
�
W
5 �
a au
o Z
Q\
a �U
� �U
s � o sa
E i �\°=,cooY �r o; os a 9 _
��� a°g`�\� �� �m Eg 9��° �o aido
_ - ..5`<"e`�`5 z �a " °I .
omY L.�s`a s« �� -,.,ao Y = h �
E�o s�s�eoF �oe _<. S" o' " Eog
g_ E'.
=r�e -��s o - °�0 3ia �r .F E�%°
' 8Q � �°_ 'g pr o $o° ` �oi r
�'c'�� a S .. a o - �
€E$o m`�\' I- Az� �aa c9i 6 ���E mv i�� �
600€ �r"-r��c wsa g�9 E� ��z a B: =4o a
- 3�€� :s �al °e= x�`
W�se ~amm3$m� - °�E �~ � `"� .. °�
wr v< <x-r ° 's� Y£� .. `"� s o°" ,. `"'
L �__ � °u � 8z� � E5 � E^'� s EOne v
Yo.g- o2,s o& � v� YaS g ��Y � � � � ��a w �
�=E` "d�� � ��m � `°o ol � r �. < < �.�
Y.s=o nb�i o m�u � _ - r �$I�E °a EoI ° &'I":. °E
L5s � W�� � E`g° °I - �_ =_r� _q I - � �lEe "r� .
zE�� .i��W��%< < e E=.- d i�o ;� I m � � .i`ds" aiz _.. I �~ � � �13� �_�
�w "
'{" ?= o
�t �� �
�� � c 7 v� W
_' � �-G >> �`1
'__ l2 W �S W �;y� f�la �
s �'`'�' �o� � „ s€� $ � '"-� i�
g a, � o � E � �F� w a ��� �F
� � � �� `� � � --- -1_� �W � � ��� �a
�s § -- -- £�= g � o ��� �°
� � s �� g
� � s S��io� �s x�� ' � l o� �Wn � � g��
?tio ��_ � �� ���� � � ��5�
r� o p. �� �
�s ���
� S�o
I �
W- • � — j- - - - - - - - — - -- - - - - . —
es�sois I 3.95,9S.68N
_ — — _ _ — �__ _ _ — _ —._� _ _ _ _ —_J
i - � 3
r� o'I
I �
-_'"__' oezaZ �lt.o`ws "'_"' I I
—1— '"� . -'�
�33�ooPof H,�os 3��,0 3ry„�.eax
a 09"[9 � 09-LB 09-L8 _ I I
� .- _ . � ° ,
� ---_------ —_--I____--- �, —____—�--___� �
r_ � pr—, � �—
I
Ol � I n� I "�� II 01
' � � � � � �.
i
� � � � � � � I �I �� � I
` � � � II � n I �
W � � � � � � � � �
� � � � , � i
� � � � � �
g � i i i l'� i �i � i
� i i i i i �
a � i i i i "� i i i i i
V, i i � i i i i
i �i i � �i i �i �
W � � � lo � � o �
, � � � � � � � �a
a T i i i � '� , i i �i o ,; ,
i i i � � i i i =
a � i i i � i i —�i-- �.;�__ I�
-- -�:- -t-----------------i— -r--------,-----------�- -T---4�96t �
w i i i i : �a
0 7 I I I I I �
Q I . I I I � � I I�
� I I I � i I I� I
r > �a«do. _ - os I I I �cz9s 1---o• — € I
I —T— I I �- —I---------------- -
d n3,se�9� n�,x.� d�a�o, o
-------- -
a � � c � I I I --------+- - ----- --------------�- y
c°� I I I I I ef�"` � ° �
u v, � f I i j � � ��
I = I I I ,3 I I I � I� ro
i � I � I I g I I � W � ��
° I I � I I � - � � .
` I I I I I - =
< I ' I I � = I I � �
W I ; I I � � � � �� = I
- r-�e�f�--F-�-t--------w � I I w � I I
� � I I � = I I � � �
I I I I �o I I
I-----------� I I „ 5 I I � I
� � `- I I � I
�I I I I
I I � I I N � h l � � .
� t I I I I I � I I
� I I I � I I �
I , I I ' � I
I � I I � "a � � �
I i I I � � i � � � �
I I I
I I I I I
I I � N�
� N 3
o� IL— I ol I al I o� �
�
�
i a o
� -- —i—_--J �L—_T_— J L ___—_� �
09�C9 `8 —_.__ __—___ �
09CH �
--+-- � _—_ —` _ � � N�
���) 3� I -- O8�9C — ( w�
2��hY � M�
�`'� g ° ab'0�1 3>I� �NI�Ia3W ° �
ss,ss
— — 09'6�6 � � iClit 4<'fl£t
OB.79Z �z 3�rvra B�I airvsrvmot sz xoLL�35'tlliavn0 isv]n�norv 3�i eo 3xn nteorv
� ;9f,Z£.885 co-sroro� }
G.'°'''"6`` � __ - _
��,y \ ,. , , "' �. eoczsz I
/•*?'a•.na�� � .oH�aa svienoo oHa-oH anv wicz jo�3nna3irv3o�� . �• •,, . . ��_"., � a3Naoo�o/��H—�
[,/` -nna3in3�iva3�ownv 3 no
F' 3�z-a��-sz aNao�
����� �� �i
� � ��
��;,. � Public Works Department
763-593-803U/763-593-3988(fax)
: � � . � _��� ��.;��� �.�. �,.��� �� .�
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda ItQm
3. K. Rescind No Parking Restrictions on East Side of Rhode Island Avenue North
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Qirector af Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Mark Ray, PE, Engineer
Summary
This summer, City staff completed the sign inventory of all regulatory signs in the City. Staff has
been reviewing the existing signing to ensure compliance with Council resolutions as well a
functional need. This process identified that the current parking restrictions on Rhode Island
Avenue North, between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue, exceed the needed restrictions.
On May 17, 1983, the City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution 83-49) restricting parking on
both sides of Rhode Island Avenue North between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue. Parking
restrictions are still needed on the west side of Rhode Island Avenue due to the large equipment
entering and exiting the City Hall campus, as well as the need to keep sight lines open for
emergency vehicles exiting at the Public Safety driveway. The restrictions on the east side, north
of the Calvary Cooperative loading dock area are no longer needed. Staff from both the Police
Department and Fire Department have reviewed these proposed changes and support them.
Attachments
• Location map (1 page)
• Resolution Rescinding Restriction of Vehicle Parking on Rhode Island Avenue North Between
Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue North and Establishing a No Parking Zone on the West
Side of Rhode Island Avenue North Between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue North and
on the East Side of Rhode Island Avenue North from Golden Valley Road North 485 Feet
(1 page)
• Resolution Restricting Parking on Rhode Island Avenue North, Resolution No. 83-49 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Rescinding Restriction of Vehicle Parking on Rhode Island Avenue
North Between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue North and Establishing a No Parking Zone
on the West Side of Rhode Island Avenue North Between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue
North and on the East Side of Rhode Island Avenue North from Golden Valley Road North 4$5
Feet.
Resolution 12-79 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RECINDING RESTRICTION OF VEHICLE PARKING
ON RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD AND
10TH AVENUE NORTH AND ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE ON THE WEST
SIDE OF RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD AND
10TH AVENUE NORTH AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NORTH
FROM GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD NORTH 485 FEET
WHEREAS, the City Gouncil has the power and authority, pursuant to Chapter 9.06,
Subd. 2 of the City Code, to designate no parking zones and areas, and it appears that no
parking zones on both sides of Rhode Island Avenue North between Golden Valley Raad
and 10th Avenue North should be amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has the power and authority, pursuant to Chapter 9.06,
Subd. 2 of the City Code, to designate no parking zones and areas, and it appears that no
parking zones are needed on the west side of Rhode Island Avenue North between Golden
Valley Road and 10th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has the power and autharity, pursuant to Chapter 9.06,
Subd. 2 of the City Code, to designate no parking zones and areas, and it appears that no
parking zones are needed on the east side of Rhode Island Avenue North between Golden
Valley Road and a point 485 feet north of the intersection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley that the parking restrictions as established on May 17, 1983 by Council Resolution
83-49 be rescinded; and no parking shall be permitted on the west side of Rhode Island
Avenue North between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue North and on the east side of
Rhode Island Avenue North between Golden Valley Road and a point 485 feet to the north.
Shepard M. Harris, 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 his signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resalution 83-49 t1a}r 17, 1983
Me�ber Johnson introduced the following resoiution and r�oved its adoption:
RESOl.U7IQtd RESTRICTING PARKiNG ON RHOD� ISIRtdD RVE{�U� NORTH
4fNER�AS, the City Council has the power and authority, pursuant to Section
700:169.33 of the City Code, to designate no parking zones and areas, and it
appears that na parking zones should be created on certain portians of Rhode
Island Avenue North.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IF RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of GaTden
Valley that no parking shall be permitted anytime on bath sides of Rhode Isiand
Avenue Narth fran Golden Valley Road to 10th Avenue P�orth.
, . --�
. �
os er�a y a ; o r
ATTEST:
a , ep uty ,t ty C e rk
The mation for the adoptian of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
Anderson and upon a vate being taken thereon, the fo7lowing voted in favor
thereof: Anderson, Johnson, tlltchell, Stockman and Thorsen, and the foilowing
voted against the same; • nane, whereupon said resotution was decTared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the r4ayor and her signature attested by the Deputy
City Clerk.
�"l��1 (��� �
��.. �� Public Works Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988{fax)
�.� ��as,.,.�» � .. . ., . ., . . . ... , ` �,''.°:���b.?�s�'���J��d�r�nS(�a����a:�..._; , ....�����„—� �������Up�i�y�_. ,����.r��°. ti
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
3. L. Resolutions of Support for Application Submittals for Hennepin County 2013 Bikeway
Development and Sidewalk Participation Programs
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Mark Ray, PE, Engineer
Summary
Hennepin County has established a Bikeway Development Participation Program and a Sidewalk
Participation Program to support and enhance the bikeway and sidewalk network along
Hennepin County roads.
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the proposed Three Rivers Park District Bassett
Creek Regianal trail along Golden Valley Road (CSAH 66) from Theodore Wirth Parkway to the
pedestrian bridge over Highway 100. Along with a conceptual D-1 atignment of light rail, with a
proposed stop at Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway, this area has the potential for
significant transportation upgrades in the future. This segment is also an identified gap on
Hennepin County's Bicycle Transportation Map. To assist all the stakeholders in developing a
long-term plan for the Golden Valley Road corridor between Theodore Wirth Parkway and
Regent Avenue, a feasibility report will serve as a first step in providing the foundation and
direction for future needs analysis. For the Bikeway Development Program, the County is offering
a 50% contribution up to a maximum of$25,000 for any feasibility study. Applications are due by
November 1, 2012, and a decision will be made in early December.
The Sidewalk Participation Program has a 25% contribution up to a maximum of$50,000.
Applications are due by November 1, 2012, and a decision will be made in early December. The
City has two projects listed in its proposed 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that
could be eligible candidates for the Sidewalk Participation Program. Specifically, the Winnetka
Streetscape project (S-018, page 97) has the potential to involve sidewalk and curb ramp work
along Winnetka Avenue (CSAH 156). The second CIP program is the Sidewalk and Trail System
Upgrades (S-030, page 100) which could provide the needed match funding for eligible projects
on the County highway system.
Two project areas have been identified as good candidates for submittal ta Hennepin County. The
first are sidewalk and pedestrian ramp upgrades along Winnetka Avenue between Highway 55
and 10th Avenue. These needs were first identified as part of the Winnetka Streetscape project
and this fall, the City contracted with SEH, Inc. to complete survey and design work along this
corridor in preparation for these needed improvements. The exact scope and cost of the needed
improvements will be determined by SEH's work; however, at this time, a preliminary cost
estimate is being developed.This estimate will be used in the grant submittal application. The
City will try to get as much matching funding from the County as possible for the needed work.
The second praject is to complete the sidewalk network along the west side of Glenwood
Avenue, between Harold Avenue and TH 55. Staff is scoping this project and if it appears that the
segment can be constructed with available funds and County participation, then staff will also
submit for this project.
Attachments
• Location Maps (2 pages)
• Resolution Authorizing Submittal for the Hennepin County Sidewalk Participation Program
(1 page)
• Resolution Authorizing Submittal for the Hennepin County Bikeway Development
Participation Program (1 page )
Recommended Action
1. Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Submittal for the Hennepin County Sidewalk
Participation Program.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Submittal for the Hennepin County Bikeway
Development Participation Program.
Resolution 12-80 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL FOR THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY BIKEWAY DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION PRpGRAM
WHEREAS, funding is available from Hennepin County for the 2013 Bikeway
Develapment Program to support and enhance the bikeway network along Hennepin
County roads; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is committed to developing and maintaining a
complete sidewalk and trail system that is accessible for all users.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Golden Valley City Council hereby
authorizes the Director of Public Works or her designee to prepare and submit the 2013
Bikeway Develapment Participation Program application on behalf of the City of Golden
Valley.
Shepard M. Harris, 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 vated in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and his signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 12-81 Octaber 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL FOR THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY SIDEWALK PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, funding is available from Hennepin County for the 2013 Sidewalk
Participation Program to support and enhance the network of sidewalks along Hennepin
Gounty roads; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is committed to developing and maintaining a
complete sidewalk and trail system that is accessible for all users.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Golden Valley City Council hereby
authorizes the Director of Public Works or her designee to prepare and submit the 2013
Sidewalk Participation Program applications on behalf of the City of Golden Valley.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayar
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 his signature attested by the City Clerk.
M�4 W'�� &.+�� �
Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
,r .. ,:';:: ?��„ �,`���'i.`�'�ur.Ius:?�.,.�:>::..z�.x . �;'s:'� '.',�"'y.'���„i'1����7�3.�.:...w.�: . '�'?�,..,�P'-`.%.. :, -� '' . ��N�7�!���..��..��s"a:,�, ... :�=:�:,ou�.,::''s�t�' �"§,..." � .. ..
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
"60 Days" Deadline: December 7, 2012
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing- Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD#111 -The Tiburon Apartments -
9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial Highway-Tiburon 55, LLC, Applicant
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
Tiburon 55, LLC is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit for the
construction of a market rate apartment building to be located at 9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial
Highway. Under this proposal, the 2.7 acre site would contain a six-story, 142-unit apartment
building. The apartment would feature a mix of studio apartments, one bedroom apartments,
one bedroom-plus-den apartments and two bedroom apartments. It would cater to those
wishing to rent in an upscale facility in the near-northwest suburbs. To accommodate this
project, the property was re-guided for long-term High Density Residential uses in the
Comprehensive Plan, and was also recently rezoned "High Density R-4 Residential."
City Code establishes standards for PUDs, which are laid out in the staff report to the Planning
Commission. In addition, City Code establishes findings that must be made by the City when
creating a PUD. These findings are included in the City Council's recommended action.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated September 10, 2012 (7 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated September 6, 2012 (4 pages)
• Memo from City Engineer leff Oliver and Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman dated September
6, 2012 (8 pages)
• Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated October 11, 2012 (2 pages)
• Applicant's Narrative (10 pages)
• Conceptual Drawings (5 pages, distributed previously)
• Site Plans (15 oversized pages, distributed previously)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the Preliminary Plan for The Tiburon Apartments, PUD No. 111, based on the
following findings of fact:
1. The City Engineer,has studied the proposed development and the public infrastructure
needed to support the proposed development, and the current public infrastructure is
insufficient for the use described in the project plans submitted for the planned unit
development.
2. The Planning Department has reviewed the project plans and indicated that the proposed
development including the necessary public infrastructure improvements is not reasonably
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable
future.
3. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality
of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the
ordinance.
4. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features.
5. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use of the land for multi-family residential.
6. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent commercial uses and is
cansistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
7. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and
general welfare of the people of the City.
8. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provisions.
And subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed
Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated September 5, 2012,
shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist
Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated September 6, 2012,
shall become a part of this approval.
4. A Park Dedication Fee of$16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of the Final
PUD Plan.
5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
7. The Developer shall work to enhance the Landscaping Plan to include more landscaped areas
and, if possible, less impervious surfaces. The Developer shall coordinate landscaping efforts
with the City's Highway 55 Lilac Plan#ing initiative.
8. To the extent possible, the Developer shall improve the pedestrian connection from Golden
Valley Road to the front door of the building.
9. Finat PUD approval will be dependent upon the City's approval and effectuation of a tax
increment financing district within the project area to fund the necessary public infrastructure
requirements, to be installed by the City, including among other items, street realignment,
pedestrian improvements, street lighting, sanitary sewer lining, and overhead power line burial.
° S t. �
,, 3 �y .`\` �1� f
!
` ? ,i/
.
��
° �1(FTE#AVE p1 ` i ''�
, _ �� ;
� �� .i
,. ,� ,,,
, , . ;, _... __.«_
` � �,\,�;`.' �, Y_ - _ : _ ._ _ _ �� .._ . 10th Ave Nt .
� � ��
� _�---_.A_ ` .. �- '
- --- - �,.-�--- ,�_�--- .
� ��t ��.�— . . _
� t�
� '� ` ;
�
' , . 4
i� ( �
i O
9TRi AV�Pt = �,�__R � �
3 t�/} ��� � ��
� �
� �
6Yt �' �..^.�P.
� � � � ,x
� a
,p� � � , %�a'.'�
z�' N i � ` 1� i���g`�
' ; ° z 710�ond���a�
� � �-� 0
�� � � � Subject Properties �� ����"''����" � � � � � �
q E 3 ��' 1
� ` ,t �
� ? i k
� �J r` 1
__���._.�t, ' [
: J� � _
�� 1�.,� � " 1
'` ��'�.._ " -- .,. . ., e-..
�` � y�� �� - � Golde ��alley Rd,�:,���_,�
P ._ - ,..,d.�:
- _ M.. .,. ._ ,�--.
i�
., ° s �'J�J.r'�'� 'c�—' i1//-;1 f ' �YV .,. �° �� _ ���,__..._.«..
i / � _.-
� . � � ` << ,. .. � " /iJi� % r� /i `�� � ?
: : ,�� *�fi' i//ii�/l `!i�iii� �� O.�5 -. .. ��.,
.. 's �Y 7� �i-.�,i�/%� '" , _.gtat� �p.55.... -- � •,r--�--._
. ,t� ' 9�� . . � c�tHt��WY _ "�--��7; �'�
# _ "°
° § , � � � i ._ ^ti a �
� �- ~
, ` tu;1'Ltva '- � �_. . � I�� �
� _. ��- - � -
_ �S�qr,sfi'O _� � ' C
� ���,�� � .�, _....._ .{ �, , �
p§ � ,.� �
��,� ' x�� � �`��,/ � � -.wairy.�t. ��� � �
s = .,r�,� � ( j { � ��
�� �`` ,� `� � `' w�,% �� ... � � ���
r '• m- � z: d . � i
o� fl ___ - �$ ,� � _.
� "'rn�� ,��rq i __° _� _ _ �
r�, tn! � ,/ "� �� t� �
�r�, '° ��'J Broakvi�w Gsmmunity Cf:nter&Golf Course
° .Gen�rai ht'tlls Naturs Pre�rire ,�
��, s �
2U2 G�rteraJ�ilts Pwrd �
,E f �-.,1 �
: �_ �
._ �
W �
: �` �, � �
._.___...___..
—�- ��_
_. � _
--- _�C----_,_-L.�: °�.. �
_ ~-..
_ i i "..-_��,,� i �
,�...�r+� �..-'v r``� t � �fty�,f'-.. -....` � . .
� � �r„/�� ' � r p�,,;� ^� ... L.-'/ , ..�.
� , ... ... ,� .. .. � " . J ( � � �r��� „� r � .
�+ �'.-,-._
��� �; �� ( ( f '•^"-1 e _
' '# ` ,� � � � j� � �
u��t:,�,.,�,..-�UFn�.,�L���+ic;��c�scxsaxn 1 i / � r��a�
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
A regular meeting of the Planning Co mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
il Chambers, 7800 Golden Vall Road, Golden Valley, Minneso#a, on Monday,
Septem 0, 2012. Chair Waldhaus r called the meeting t er at 7 pm.
Those present were ning Commis ioners, Ki , luchka, McCarty, Schmidgall,
Segelbaum and Waldhaus . Iso pre ent Director of Planning and Development
Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Commissioner Cera was absent.
1. Approval of M' es
Augus , 2012 Regular Plann g Commission Meeting
MO by Schmidgall, seconded by isch and motion carried unanimous
rove the August 27, 2012 minutes s submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway - The Tiburon —
PU-111
Applicant: Tiburon 55, LLC
Address: 9130 & 9220 CJlson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate
apartment building.
Hogeboom referred to a location map and stated that the applicant is proposing to build a
six-story, 142-unit, market rate apartment building at 9130 and 9220 Oison Memoria!
Highway which is 2.7 acres in size. He added that these properties have recently been
rezoned from Commercial to High Density R-4 Residential and they are in the process of
being redesignated on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Density
Residential.
He explained that the proposal would vary from the requirements of the City Code and
is being considered as a PUD for the following reasons: 1) The R-4 Zoning District
allows a five-story maximum height, the applicant is proposing six stories, 2) the R-4
Zoning District allows no more than 60% of a lot to be covered by impervious surface,
the developer would be covering 77% of the site with impervious surface, 3) the
applicant is seeking to vary slightly f�om parking dimension requirements to allow better
traffic flow and more efficient parking locations on the site, 4) the R-4 Zoning District
requires a 25-foot front yard setback, the applicant is proposing a 15-foot front yard
setback requirement along Highway 55.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 2
Hogeboom referred to a map of a larger area and explained that the City's Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has requested that staff focus redevelopment efforts in
this area. The HRA will meet this month to discuss road improvements, pedestrian access
and property rehabilitation for the area along Golden Valley Road between Boone Avenue
and Mendelssohn Avenue. The HRA will consider creating a special redevelopment
district that would enable the use of certain public financing tools for public improvements.
Hogeboom showed the Commissioners an illustration of the proposed apartment building
and explained that the property will have a Golden Valley Road address and most of the
parking will be underground. He added that this Preliminary Plan review is ta approve the
cancept, not necessarily the specific landscaping, fa�ade material, etc. as those issue can
change between the preliminary and final stages. He stated that staff is recommending
approval of the proposed plan with the following conditions:
1, The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
September 5, 2012, shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works
Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated
September 6, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.
4. A Park Dedication Fee of$16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of
the Final PUD Plan.
5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Waldhauser referred to the Deputy Fire Marshal staff report and questioned the
narrowness of the access road for fire equipment. Hogeboom explained that the Deputy
Fire Marshal will work with the applicant, during the construction phase, on fire code
issues.
Waldhauser asked if the City has any responsibility regarding the Pollution Control
Agency's concerns about traffic noise. Hogeboom stated that cities are required to
carefully consider the location of residential developments and to avoid negative
impacts of noise when possible. He added that MnDOT has reviewed the plans and
have made it clear that they are not responsible for noise mitigation on projects that are
built adjacent to existing highways.
Waldhauser asked at what point a barrier between Olson Memorial Highway (TH 55)
and this development will be designed. Hogeboom referred to MnDOT's policy
regarding sound walls and explained that it is their policy to construct a sound barrier
when road construction projects happen near existing residential properties, but they
don't construct sound barriers when a new residential development is built adjacent to
existing highways. Waldhauser referred to an existing fence that is around this area now
and questioned why it is there and if it would have to be retained. Hogeboom said he
didn't know and suggested the applicant address that issue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 3
Kisch asked about the impervious surface requirements of comparable projects in other
zoning districts. Hogeboom stated that most R-4 projects are done through the PUD
process which typically varies from the requirements of the Zoning Code. He said he
can't think of any comparable existing properties however there are some proposed
projects pending that are considering having more impervious surFace than this project
due to the size of the parcels. Waldhauser added that the Mixed Use zoning district
allows more impervious surface. Grimes added that the impervious surface
requirements don't exempt projects from the water quality requirements. Hogeboom
noted that much of the green space in this project is Highway 55 right-of-way which
doesn't count in the impervious surface calculations, but is green space adjacent to the
development.
Kluchka asked what the applicant could build on this property without using the PUD
process. Hogeboom said they could build a four-story building, they could not exceed
60% total impervious surface, they would have to meet the parking dimension
requirements and they would have a 25-foot front yard setback requirement. Grimes
explained that this parcel is a remnant property from when Highway 55 was constructed
so this is a unique site that will require variances or a PUD to develop.
Waldhauser asked if the proposed building will affect access or visibility for surrounding
property owners. Hogeboom said the visibility of National Camera will actually be
improved with this development. He added that property owners within 500 feet
received hearing notices.
Steve Dunbar, Tiburon 55 LLC, Applicant, showed the commissioners illustrations of the
proposed development and discussed the various amenities they will offer such as a
courtyard, a grill area, underground parking, a bike room, conference room, theater,
fitness center and storage units for each resident as well as a full size washer and dryer
in each unit.
Schmidgall questioned the number of units in the building because the narrative states
there will be 142 units but he counted 144 units on the plans. Dunbar clarified that they
intend to have 142 units and 142 enclosed parking stalls.
Waldhauser stated that the narrative refers to a green roof, but the plans don't show a
green roof. Dunbar explained that the narrative and plans are referring to the green
courtyard area.
Kisch noted that the parking ratio is 1.5 stalls per unit and asked Dunbar if that is
comparable to other products they market. Dunbar stated that their typical ratio is 1 for
1, however 1.5 is more flexible. Kisch noted that if some of the parking spaces along
Golden Valley Road were removed they could add more green space to the proposal.
Dunbar said he would be happy to work with the City regarding additional green space.
Kisch asked about the height of the first floor wall shown on the plans. Noah Bly,
UrbanWorks Architecture, representing the applicant, stated that the wall is 11' 2". He
added that they really can't reduce the parking very much but they may be able to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 4
remove a few spaces in order to get more green space. Kisch asked Bly if they would
be comfortable changing the parking ratio to 1.25 spaces per unit. Grimes noted that
there is no parking allowed on Golden Valley Road so he is concerned about this
proposal not having enough parking spaces. Waldhauser questioned if an off-site
parking arrangement could be considered. Dunbar said he doesn't anticipate needing
off-site parking.
Kisch said he would like to encourage the applicant to reduce the 77% of impervious
surface they are proposing. He referred to the height parking plinth and asked if it could
be lowered by 5 or 6 feet. Bly said lowering it could cause problems with getting people
into the parking area. He said he would work on ways to get some more greenery along
that wall. Schmidgall said he would be inclined to cut the applicant some slack in regard
to impervious surface coverage because they are proposing underground water
management as welL
Waldhauser asked Dunbar about the noise from Highway 55. Dunbar said they have
ways of mitigating the noise including installing high quality windows.
Kluchka asked about pedestrian amenities and bike racks. Dunbar explained that there
is a bike room and showed pictures of what it will look like. He added that there will also
be a bike rack installed above each parking stall along the exterior wall of the parking
garage. Bly discussed the sidewalks and pedestrian connections. Kluchka said he
would like a condition of approval added to the recommendation that there be a
sidewalk leading to the front entrance. Bly said he would integrate that sidewalk into the
pedestrian plan. He added that they can also install an exterior bike rack.
Kluchka asked the applicants to describe their landscaping plans. Dunbar reviewed the
landscaping plans with the Commission. Waldhauser said it is odd there are no
evergreen plants on the plans. Grimes noted that there is not a lot of room along Golden
Valley Road to add landscaping and a sidewalk. Bly said there is some room available
#o add more landscaping. Kluchka asked the developer if they would be able integrate
their landscape plans with what has already been done as part of the City's lilac planting
initiative. Dunbar said yes. Kluchka said he would like to add that as a condition of
approval. Hogeboom said he would talk to the City's Forester.
Kluchka asked if there will be any LEED status with this project. Dunbar said no.
Kluchka asked the applicant to speak to the fence issue Waldhauser discussed earlier.
Dunbar said they don't plan on disturbing the existing fence at all.
Waldhauser asked Dunbar if his firm will retain ownership of the property. Dunbar said
yes.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to
comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 5
MOVED by Schmidgall and seconded by McCarty to recommend approval of the
Preliminary PUD request with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Hogeboom explained that he would like to add a condition to the recommendation which
states that the Developer, the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will
work together to look for tools to fund public improvements in the general vicinity of the
Tiburon development. Tools may include creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
district, or a similar redevelopment district.
Kisch said he would also like to add the conditions that Kluchka suggested and he
would also like to add a condition to encourage the applicant to reduce the amount
impervious surface.
Kluchka summarized his proposed conditions as follows: 1) ensure the Planning
Commission has design approval as well as approval over the materials used, 2) ensure
landscaping approval and integration with the City's lilac plantings and 3) ensure
approval of the pedestrian access design.
Kisch reiterated his suggestion about adding a condition that encourages a reduction in
the amount of impervious surface. Schmidgall said he disagrees with requiring the
applicant to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Segelbaum asked Kisch if he
was referring to covering up the first floor wall a little bit more. Kisch said no, that would
be landscaping. Waldhauser said she also would not support a decrease in impervious
surface because this is a "tight site" that is difficult to develop. She added that she
would however support more green space, landscaping and screening. Segelbaum
agreed.
Waldhauser said she is confused as to the actual fa�ade materials being proposed and
added that she would like something like was shown in the illustrations.
Kluchka said he doesn't want to get into a situation like the Menard's proposal where
the Planning Commission has no say in the design. He said he wants the ability to
influence the design. Schmidgall stated that there will be economic pressure to make
sure the building is attractive. Segelbaum questioned how the Planning Commission
could require design standards. Hogeboom explained that Menard's was different
because their use was grandfathered-in. Kluchka said he is trying to set some
precedent and be consistent with what they require. McCarty asked Kluchka if he wants
the Planning Commission to say what materials the applicant can use. Kluchka said no,
he wants a tool in the PUD process that allows the Planning Commission to say they
like the design. McCarty said that is totally subjective. Kluchka said that the applicant is
asking for variances so the Planning Commission should have a say regarding the
design. Segelbaum noted that the applicant isn't at the final design plan stage. Kluchka
said he wants the design specified. Kisch suggested saying that as part of the Final
Plan review the Planning Commission wants the materials specified. McCarty noted that
all of the materials are already listed in the Preliminary plans. Waldhauser noted that the
plans and the narrative are different and added that it would probably be better for the
Planning Commission not to approve the materials. Kluchka said he wants the ability to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 6
have an influence on the design. Grimes suggested the Planning Commission review
the entire PUD ordinance and decide if they would like to amend it. Segelbaum said he
believes the concept that the Planning Commission is reviewing at this meeting is what
they are recommending for approval so it is good to talk about it at this stage in the
process.
Schmidgall clarified what has already been moved and seconded as fiollows: the
conditions listed in the staff report with the addition of the Developer, the City and the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority working together regarding TIF, landscape
enhancing and integration with existing lilac plantings and improved pedestrian access
from Golden Valley Road.
MOVED by Kisch to amend the motion to add the three things Schmidgall clarified.
McCarty said he would like to know more about the proposed TIF item. Hogeboom
explained that the development could move forward without the TIF district being
approved but the HRA wants to consider a larger area in order to help fund public
improvements. McCarty asked about the repercussions if the Planning Commission
doesn't recommend approval of the TIF district. Segelbaum asked if the developer
would pay for sidewalks on their own property. Hogeboom said yes and added that
sidewalks only on the subject property with no connections would be unsafe.
McCarty seconded the amended motion adding the three additional conditions as
discussed.
Kluchka asked about smooth-faced concrete block. Schmidgall explained tha# it is
concrete block that is smooth or polished looking. Kluchka asked if the rendering
reflects what tha# block would look like since it is the majority of the facing. He reiterated
that is something that should be looked at.
Waldhauser asked for a vote on the amended motion. The Commissioners agreed
unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for PUD 111 with the
following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
September 5, 2012, shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works
Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated
September 6, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.
4. A Park Dedication Fee of$16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of
the Final PUD Plan.
5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
6. This approval is subject to ail other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 10, 2012
Page 7
7. The Developer, the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will work
together to look for tools to fund public improvements in the general vicinity of the
Tiburon devefopment. Tools may include creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
district, or a similar redevelopment district.
8. The Developer will work to enhance the Landscaping Plan to include more
landscaped areas and, if possible, less impervious surfaces. If possible, the
Developer will coordinate landscaping efforts with the City's Highway 55 Lilac
Planting initiative.
9. The Developer will work to include an improved pedestrian connection firom Golden
Valley Road to the front door of the building.
--Short Recess--
Reports on Meeti gs of the Housing and Redevelopment Authoriiy, City
Council, Board o Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No re rts were given.
4. Oth Business
The Commissio ers dis ssed the sibility of reviewing the PUD ordinance at a future
meeting.
Waldhauser reminde Commissioners about the MnAPA planning conference at the
end of September
5. Adjo nment
The m ting was adjo ned at 8:20 p .
David A. Cera, Secretary
���� {�� �
���e�t u�
�
�C�,. �� Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
_ r 1 4 ;�y : a d' ,
. . M . . „ -„. �
. ,-.,;.�, . � . .. , . .. . . . .. . . . .
,..,,,... .,._ .. _ . , _ . _ .<, -.._„ ,g z ,rt......
Date: September 6, 2012
To: Planning Commission
From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Subject: lnformal Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan—The Tiburon Apartments
PUD No. 111—Tiburon 55, LLC., Applicant
�. , _. .e ._.�A.. . � ,r ��.u.�.�:� �, g „ _
Background and Description of Proposal
Tiburon 55, L�C. is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Deveiopment (PUD) Permit for the
construction of a market rate apartment building to be located at 9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial
Highway. Under this proposal, the 2.7 acre site would contain a six-story, 142-unit apartment
building. The apartment would feature a mix of studio apartments, one bedroom apartments, one
bedroom-plus-den apartments and two bedroom apartments. It would cater to those wishing to
rent in an upscale facility in the near-northwest suburbs.
There is currently a strong demand for muiti-family housing in this market. There are several multi-
family buildings, most of which are rental, that are currently under construction in Minneapolis, St.
Louis Park, Minnetonka and Plymouth. While Golden Valley Planning Department staff has met
with several multi-family housing developers in the past year,this proposal is the first, and
currently the only, one to move forward to the public hearing and approval process.
The property was recently re-guided for long-term High Density Residential uses in the
Comprehensive Plan, and was also recently rezoned "High Density R-4 Residential." These changes
in land use designations and controls were requested by the City Council to accommodate this
project.The site is 2.7 acres in size and is bounded by Olson Memorial Highway to the south,
Golden Valley Road to the north, and commercial properties to the east and west. The proposed
PUD would re-plat the property into one lot. The City intends to assign a "Golden Valley Road"
address for the new development.
Site Information
This property is located in the northeast quadrant af MN Highway 55 and US Highway 169. Staff
has identified this area as one that is in need of redevelopment. One of the buildings on the
proposed development site, which is referred to informally as "the former bowling alley," appears
to be blighted. The general appearance of this area is of concern to staff because it is the first
impression of Golden Valley that commuters see when travelling east on Highway 55.
The City Council, acting in its role as the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has
requested that staff focus redevelopment efforts in this area. The HRA will meet this month to
discuss road improvements, pedestrian access and property rehabilitation for the area along
Golden Valley Road between Bovne Avenue and Mendelssohn Avenue. The HRA will consider
creating a special district that might enable the use of assistance for these projects.
The Tiburon Apartments would be "U-shaped," and would open to face Highway 55. The front
entrance would be located on Golden Valley Road. Parking for the facility would include 77 surface
parking spaces and 142 enclosed parking spaces. The first floor of the building, which would include
the parking area,would be composed of concrete. The upper five floors would be wood-frame
construction. The building would have a flat roof, and would feature a contemporary brick and
fiber cement fa�ade. Most of the units would feature private balconies. �
Recreational facilities for the site would include amenities that would be appropriate for
professional adults. Amenities would include a theatre room, a fitness area, a club room and an
outdoor swimming and recreation area. No playground or other child-oriented amenities will be
included in this product; however, the site is within a relatively short distance to both Wesley and
Brookview Parks.
Justification for Consideration as a PUD
Section 11.55 of City Code states that the PUD process is an optional methad of regulating land use in
order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements and number of
buildings on a lot. Staff has determined that this application qualifies as a PUD because it achieves the
following standards established in City Code:
• Achieves a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which
are compatible with the existing and planned land uses.
• Encourages preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and
protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes,trees, scenic views,
water ways, wetlands and lakes.
• Encourages creativity and flexibility in land development.
• Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public
facilities.
• Allow mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels.
• Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent
and nearby land uses.
• Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals.
In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make findings which are specifically
described in City Code. These findings are incorporated into staff's recommendation to the
Planning Commission.
Most multi-family housing developments in Golden Valley function under the guidance of a PUD
permit. A PUD permit allaws the flexibility for the development to vary slightly from City Code. In
this instance, the project would vary from City Code as follows:
• Height—City Code allows a five-story maximum height in the High Density R-4 Residential
Zoning District (or a six-story maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit). The applicant
is proposing six stories, with the PUD Permit taking the place of a Conditiona) Use Permit.
• Lot Coverage—City Code requires that no more than 60% of a lot in the High Density R-4
Residential Zoning District be covered by impervious surface. Because of the narrowness of
this site, and the rather extensive highway right-of-way along Highway 55,the developer
would be covering 77%of the site with impervious surfaces.
• Parking Dimensions—City Code establishes certain dimensional requirements for parking
area configurations. The applicant is seeking to vary slightly from those requirements to
allow better traffic flow and more efficient parking locations on the site.
• Setbacks—City Code requires a 25-foot front yard setback for the High Density R-4
Residential Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a 15-front yard setback requirement
along Highway 55. Staff feels this is reasonable because the property will not have direct
access to Highway 55. MnDOT has also reviewed and approved this request.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for the Tiburon Apartments PUD No. 111,
subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed
Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated September 5, 2012,
shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist
Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated September 6, 2012,
shall become a part of this approval.
4. A Park Dedication Fee of$16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of the Final
PUD Plan.
5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
Further, staff recommends the Planning Commission to find the following:
1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and
achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
conventional provisions of the ordinance.
2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes,
trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters.
3. Efficient—Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes
preservation) of the land.
4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. General Health.The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all
other PUD ordinance provisions.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver and Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman dated September 6,
2012 (8 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated September 5, 2012 (3 pages)
Applicant's Narrative (10 pages)
Conceptual Drawings (5 pages)
Site Plans (15 oversized pages)
cit�y a#f �§,,,
� ��
�" � Public Works Department
� - - - -
7b3 S93 8030/763 593 3988(fax)
Date: September 6, 2012
Ta �lark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer !y/
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist ��
Subject: Preliminary PUD Plan Review—The Tiburon Apartments
(9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway)
Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary PUD Plans for The Tiburon Apartments. The
proposed subdivision is located at 9130 &9220 Olson Memorial Highway in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highways 55 and 169. The redevelopment consists of
combining two existing commercial properties to construct a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate
apartment building. This memorandum discusses issues identified during the Public Works review
that must be addressed prior to approval of the Final PUD Plans. The comments contained in this
review are based on the plans submitted to the City on August 9, 2012.
A Subdivision Development Agreement will be drafted by the City which will outline additional
conditions and costs associated with the development.
Site Plan
This redevelopment will consolidate two commercial properties to create one lot for the 226,900
square foot apartment building. The two vacant commerciai buildings include a former bowling
alley and an office that will be demolished as part of the project.The new apartment building
has an enclosed parking garage below the units (at ground level)that will provide 142 parking
spaces, as well as two surface parking lots that will provide 77 spaces. The two existing driveways
onto Galden Valley Road will be removed and replaced with one main entrance near the center
of the site.
A Right-of-Way Permit is required for driveway work and for all excavations and obstructions in
public right-of-way. Additionally, the Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the
appropriate permits for all activities associated with demolition and removals prior to
commencing work.
G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx
Traffic and Access Mana�ement
The existing street system in the vicinity of this development is adequate to accommodate the
new vehicle trips generated by the development. However, the intersection of Golden Valley
Road, Decatur Avenue and Trunk Highway 55 has existing operationa) issues that are currently
being evaluated. While adequate capacity is present at the intersection, modifications are being
considered to maximize safety and efficiency.
The City's Comprehensive Plan shows proposed sidewalks along Mendelssohn Avenue, Golden
Valley Road, Decatur Avenue, and 7th Avenue from Plymouth Avenue to Boone Avenue. The
development is adjacent to this route; therefore,the Developer will be required to construct a
portion of the sidewalks and pedestrian facilities in this area. It is anticipated that this will include
the construction of a six-foot concrete walk meeting City Standards and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines on the south side of Golden Valley Road, along the entire length
of the property.
Preliminarv Plat
The property proposed for redevelopment is adjacent to Trunk Highway 55; therefore, it is
subject to review and comment by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. MnDOT has
reviewed the plans and provided comment to the City. The letter from MnDOT is attached to this
memorandum for reference. The comments in the letter must be addressed prior to Final PUD
Plan approval.
The property proposed for redevelopment was previously unplatted and there are no recorded
easements running in favor of the City. However, the preliminary plat shows several easements
or agreements that involve public rights-of-way adjacent to the property. The Developer must
submit copies of each of these documents to the City for its evaluation.The site survey indicates
that the north property line is the centerline of Golden Valley Road and references County Board
Proceedings. This easement for roadway purposes along Golden Valley Road must be vacated
and re-dedicated as public right-of-way on the final plat.
The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) owns and operates two sanitary sewer
force mains near the south property line. The force mains are typically located within easements,
when private property is impacted. The Developer must show the MCES force mains on the plans,
as well as the corresponding easements, if applicable.
The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on the plat
boundaries and 12-foot easements centered on all interior lot lines. The final plat for this
development must include easements on all property lines, consistent with the City's Subdivision
Ordinance.
Utilitv Plan
The City's sanitary sewer and water systems that provide service to these properties have
adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed redevelopment. The Developer has
demonstrated that extension of services is possible as shown on the Utility Plan.
G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx 2
According to the City's record drawings, there are three sewer laterals serving the existing
property. The Developer proposes to remove all existing laterals from the buildings to the main
located in Golden Valley Road. The Utility Plan must show the existing utilities identified for
removal. A new six-inch PVC sewer lateral will be constructed to serve the apartment building.
The sewer service lateral will be privately owned and maintained, consistent with City Code.
City record drawings indicate there are three water services serving the existing property. The
Developer proposes to remove all existing water services from the buildings to the main located
in the boulevard south of Golden Valley Road. The plans include the construction of one four-inch
domestic water service, one six-inch fire protection line, and two six-inch water services for
hydrants. The shut-off valves for the domestic service and the fire service are located in the
public right-of-way and will be owned and maintained by the City. These and all other services,
valves, leads, and hydrants will be privately owned and maintained. A Maintenance Agreement
for the hydrants and valves must be signed and recorded prior to commencement of work.
The Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate Sewer and Water Permits
from the City for the removal and installation of the sanitary sewer and water services. In
addition, permits may be required from MCES and MnDOT for work within their respective
easements and rights-of-way.
A City Right-of-Way Permit is required for the obstruction or excavation of City streets and right-
of-way. The plans show that Golden Valley Road will be open cut in several locations;therefore, a
Right-of-Way Permit is required for the work. In addition, because the City overlaid Golden Valley
Road with new asphalt in 2012, an increased level of restoration is required for this roadway.
According to City standards, cutting a pavement less than five years old requires a full-width
pavement mill and overlay at a length determined by the City Engineer. The exact method, scope,
and cost of restoration will be determined by the City and included in the Subdivision
Development Agreement. The work must be performed immediately following the utility and
driveway installation.
The City has an Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Ordinance that requires the sanitary sewer service to
be brought into compliance when developing or subdividing a property. The Developer will be
removing the existing sewer laterals to the main;therefore,the new lateral will require an I/I
Permit and televised inspection upon construction. The new lateral must achieve compliance
with the I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building. In order to ensure that the existing
laterals will be removed, the Developer will be required to post a financial security. Staff will
determine the amount and include this item in the Subdivision Development Agreement.
Stormwater Mana�ement and Grading
The property being redeveloped is located within the Main Stem sub-district of the Bassett Creek
Watershed; therefore, it is subject to the review of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC). This project is considered a redevelopment with a proposed decrease in
G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx 3
impervious surface area. The BCWMC will review the plans for compliance with its water quality
standards.
The Developer has proposed stormwater quality treatment facilities as part of this
redevelopment; an underground pipe gallery for rate control and volume reduction (through
infiltration) and sump catch basins placed upstream of the pipe gallery to capture sediment and
phosphorus. In addition,the Developer's engineer has indicated that a "green roof" is included in
the design of the building. More information on the design of the underground pipe gallery and
green roof must be provided to the City in order to ensure a proper review. The City also requests
a copy of the stormwater calculations and soil boring logs for the site.
The Developer will be required to enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the stormwater
quality treatment facilities onsite. The agreement will be drafted by the City and must be signed,
prior to approval of the Final PUD Plans.
This redevelopment is subject to the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. A City
Stormwater Management Permit wi(I be required before the start of construction. Upon approval
of the Stormwater Management Plan by the City, the Developer must submit the plans to the
BCWMC for its review and comment. The City will not issue permits for new construction or site
work until approval from the BCWMC is received.
Tree Preservation Plan and landscape Plan
This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and Minimum Landscape
Standards. The City Forester has reviewed the plans and inspected the site. The Developer has
proposed the removal of significant trees and has provided a plan for mitigation. Therefore, a
Tree Preservation Permit is required for this redevelopment.The City Forester will review the
Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan to determine the financial securities which must be
posted by the Developer. The amount of the securities will be included in the Subdivision
Development Agreement.
Summarv and Recommendations
Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD Plans for The Tiburon
Apartments, subject to the comments contained in this review. These comments are summarized
as follows:
1. The plans must show the construction of a concrete walk along Golden Valley Road, as
discussed in this review.
2. The Developer must submit copies to the City of all existing easements and agreements,
as discussed above.
3. The easement for roadway purposes along Golden Valley Road must be vacated and re-
dedicated as Public Right-of-Way on the Final Plat. In addition, easements along property
lines must be shown consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx 4
4. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the maintenance of the
private hydrants and valves, as discussed in this review.
5. The proposed building must become compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration
Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building.
6. A Right-of-Way Permit will be required for the excavation of Golden Valley Road and the
street must be restored to City standards, as discussed in this memorandum.
7. Information on the design of the underground pipe gallery and green roof must be
provided to the City. The City also requests a copy of the stormwater calculations and soil
boring logs for the site.
8. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the stormwater quality
treatment facilities onsite as discussed in this review.
9. The Developer and its contractors must obtain the appropriate permits prior to
development, as discussed above.
10. The Developer must enter into a Subdivision Development Agreement, pay all fees, and
post all securities and/or deposits as determined necessary in this or subsequent reviews.
11. Final PUD approval is subject to the comments provided by MnDOT, which are attached
and made part of this review.
Approval is also subject to the comments of other City staff, the BCWMC, MCES, and other
agencies. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Attachment: MnDOT Review#P12-026
C: leannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Kuhniy, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Mitch Hoeft, Engineer
AI Lundstrom, Parks Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall
G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim_PUD review.docx �J
�,��""�°r+.� Minnesota Department of Transportation
� Metropolitan District
��. �� Waters Edge Building
�F'"p 1500 County Road 62 West
Roseville, MN 55113
August 28,2012
Lisa Wirirnan
City of Golden Va11ey
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
SUBJECT: The Tiburon
MnDOT Review#P 12-026
North side of TH 55, east of US 169
Golden Valley,Hennepin County
Control Section 2723
Dear Ms. Withnan:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above
referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2,Plats. Before
any further development,please address the following issues:
Water Resources:
The proposed project will drain to MnDOT right-of-way on TH 55. A drainage permit is
required. Discharge rates to MnDOT right-of-way must be maintained at or below current
rates.
The applicant is required to provide the following docutnentation with their drainage
pernut application:
1. Drainage area maps for pre- and post-construction conditions showing topography
and arrows indicating direction of flow.
2. Drainage related grading and construction plans.
3. Hydraulic and Hydrologic computations for 10/50/100 year events.
Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Thomas Mitchell(651-234-7540 or
thomas.mitchell(c�state.mn.us)of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section.
Surveyr
The preliminary plat of The Tiburon shows that there are 6 found iron monuments along
its southerly boundary. It is not clear if this represents MnDOT`s and/or the private
surveyors' determination of the northerly TH 55 right-of-way line. 5 of the 6 found irons
are shown to be approximately 3 to 4 ft. southerly of the boundary line of this plat. The
plat shows that new irons were set on the new boundary line.
MnDOT has an alignment for TH 55 based on found alignrnent points,current section
breakdowns, some found right-of-way points, and construction plans together with the
described right-of-way alignment. The right-of-way in the vicinity of this plat but has not
yet been evaluated nor determined,but 2 iron pipes with RLS caps which were located
recently(they appear to be near the 2 most easterly irons)within approximately 1 ft. of
the record distance of 150 ft. from the eastbound centerline of TH 55. It appears that a
gap might be created if the plat is left as is. It is possible that no gap(or overlap)was
ever intended nor should anything be done to create the future possibility of such a
situation, so MnDOT would suggest working together with the applicant's surveyor
together to deternune an agreeable line.
Please direct any questions regarding survey issues to Rick Bruss(651-366-5173 or
rick.bruss(�a,state.mn.us) of MnDOT's Metro Land Survey Section.
Noise:
MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land
use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA),the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise
Area Classification(NAC)where the establishment of the land use would result in
violations of established noise standards.
MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project
proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to
minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding
MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section(651-582-1293
or peter.waskona,state.mn.us.
Permits and Right-of-Way:
The entire fire access road must be on the applicant's property. Besides a drainage
pernut, any other work that impacts MnDOT right-of-way will require a permit. Permit
forms are available from MnDOT's permit website at
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/permits/.
Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit
application. Please direct any questions regarding pernut requirements to Buck Craig
(651-234-7911 or buck.crai�cr,state.mn.us)of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section.
Review Submittal Options:
MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in
electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options.
Please submit either:
1. One(1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via
e-mail at metrodevreviews.dotn,state.mn.us provided that each separate e-
mail is under 20 megabytes.
2. Three(3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size
plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to:
MnDOT—Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One(1)compact disc.
4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files
to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/nub/incomin�/MetroWatersEd�e/Planning
Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your
Windows Explorer(My Computer). Also,please send a note to
metrodevreviews.dot(�a,state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been
submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at
(651)234-7793.
Sincerely,
i� .
Michael J. Corbett, PE
Senior Planner
Copy sent via E-Mail:
April Crockett,Area Engineer
Brian Kelly, Water Resources
Nancy Jacobson, Design
Buck Craig, Permits
Dale Matti, Right-of-Way
Dave Torfm, Survey
Rick Bruss, Survey
Ryan Coddington,Traffic Engineering
Clare Lackey,Traffic Engineering
Robert Byers, Hennepin County
Mark Larson, Hennepin County Surveys
Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council
�`���# t��*
.
��������
�� �t�, � Fire De artment
P
763-593-8079 / ?63-593-8098(fax)
Date: October 11, 2012
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning
cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Jeff Oliver, City Engineer
From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Subject: PUD Preliminary Plan For Tiburon Apartments (Revised)
The fire department staff has reviewed the revised preliminary PUD site plan dated 10/10/12. The
revised preliminary site plan indicates a summary of changes to the site. listed below are the staff
comments.
1. The revised site plan indicates a fire department apparatus access road around the entire south
side of the building site.
2. The revised site plan indicates that the fire code requirements for the minimum width of the
road and the proper turning radius have met the intent of the Minnesota State Fire Code.
3. The revised site plan does not indicate the placement of the "No Parking Fire Lane" signage and
stationary steel post to be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley City Ordinance.
4. The proposed fire department apparatus access road shall be labeled and identified on a final
survey of the property and site of the proposed building. The final survey shall indicate the
required property lines and irons for this development.
5. The vertical clearance for the fire department apparatus access road is minimum 13'6" of
clearance.
6. The proposed fire department apparatus access road shall be designed and installed to support
the imposed weight of the heaviest fire apparatus vehicle and shall be surfaced so as to provide
all weather driving capabilities.
7. The water supply for the design of the proposed site shall be capable of supplying the required
fire flow water for the building site.
8. The fire flow requirement for the building or portion of the building and facilities shail be
det�rmined by the proposed facilities, building or portion of the building, location, type of
construction type use of the building and all floor levels.
9. The fire hydrants located on the revised plan will be required to be installed on this site in
accordance with the City of Golden Valley Public Works Department and Minnesota Health
Department. Private fire hydrants located on private property shall be identified with red paint
in color.
10. The installation of Class 1 standpipes will be required for the garage level and all other levels of
the proposed building.
11. The installation of the fire suppression system will be required for the garage and all other
levels of the building. The installation of the fire suppression system shall be a zone system for
each floor and level of the building.
12. The fire alarm system for the garage and building site will be required to be installed in
accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code and the Golden Valley Fire Department current
standards on installation and maintenance of the fire alarm system.
13. Radio operability—the Golden Valley Fire Department shall be permitted to determine the radio
frequency spectrum for emergency responder communication system that will operate within
and to and from the building without interference and loss of radio signal. The radio operability
coverage system design shall have radio coverage throughout the building including critical
areas, command centers, fire pump rooms, exit stairs, exit passageway, elevator lobby, control
rooms and other areas deemed critical areas to the fire code official. Construction plans for the
design and proposed installation of the radio system for the building shall be reviewed by a fire
protection engineer and the engineer's report submitted to the fire code official for review and
approval prior to the installation.
14. The revised plans did not indicate the installation of a post indicator valve (PIV) for the fire
suppression system for the building. The installation of the PIV shall be in accordance with
recognized fire code standards. The PIV shall be protected from vehicular impact.
15. The revised plan indicated that generator and electrical transformer pads will be installed on
the east side of the building site. Protective bollards for vehicular protection shall be installed in
accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code.
If you have any questions, please contact Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly at 763-593-8080, or me at 763-593-
8065.
ea/jl
�i��r�r� 5�, LLC
5000 Glenwood Avenue South, Suite 200 I Minneapolis, MN 55422
August 9, 2012
Mr. Mark Grimes
Director of Planning&Development
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Mr. Grimes,
Attached please find the Preliminary PUD Plan application for The Tiburon Apartments in Golden Va11ey.
Included are the following items:
. Application Form (including Addendum)
• Narrative Statement
• Preliminary Traffic Analysis
. Project Renderings
. Preliminary Code Analysis
. Land Survey
• Preliminary Plat Map
• Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
• Utility Plan
• Site Plan
• Landscape Plan
• Site Lighting and Photometric Plan
• Building Floor Plans
• Building Elevations
We look forward to continuing our work with the Ciry and community on this project. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions you might have concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
TtBUROtv 55, LLC
Frank C. Dunbar Steven J. Dunbar
Chief Manager Depury Chief Manager
R;U.D. Number
�ity of Gotden Valtey
�4pplica�ion fo�Consid�ra�ion of
Ptan�eci Unit t�evelapment C�rdinan��
Before application submiftal the property must be in compfiance with InflowJlnfilfration (I/!}
requirements. Cc�ntact the Public Works �epartment at 763-593-8030 for 1/i inspection and
compliance informata�r�,An application wiil nat be accepted unfit the property recei�res an I/i
aornpliance cerfifiicate.
�reiinninarv t�esi�n P`t�n
Date of Application: a8.09-12
*�ee Paid Receipf No.
(�400.00)
Alf infos�ati�n—inc4udin��aendas,staff re,�or�s and hear�na notices wilt be sent�o the
Authori�ed Reare�en��ive.
�+pplican4lnformatio� ��
Name: Tiburon 55 LLC
(Individusl,or corpoa�te enti�y}
Mailin�Address: 5000 Glenwaod Avenue Suite�00 --
Minneapolis MN 55422 -
Daytirns Phone: 763.377.7f�90 Fax: 763 377.7089
E-MaiJ Address: s#even dunbar�tvxprop com
Authprized Representa#ive; if other than i4pplieant:
Name: Urbar�Works Archite�,ture LLC --
Mailing Address: 9Q1 N 3'�Str�et
Minneapolis M�165401
Daytime Fhone: 612.455.3121 Fax: � 612.455.�199
E-Mail Address: mwood(a�urbar�-works cvm
Property Owner: Tiburon 55 LLC
Mailing Address: 5000 Glenwood Avenue Suite 20�
Minnc�ap�lis MN 5a�22
Street Location andlor Address af F'rnperty in Question:
9130&9220 Olsan Memorial Hi�hwav ito be r�narned as XXXX Golden Valiev Roadl
Legal De�cription (Attach s�parate sh�et if n�cessary):
Piea e see addend m.
'�F26 fOF PL�II ACtaP,(lCIlXlP.�I�$�:Q�
� �18 copfe�of the�i#e plan must aacompany the applicati�an.
Tvne of Propo�al:
Small Are�: L�rge or Complex Area:
Residenfi�al: R-4 �ommercial: lndustri�l:
Business&.Professional
Office: Institutbnal: Mixed Use:._ _
Redev�lopment Area: .
Present Zoning of Praperty: Commetcial —
Proposed Use o#Praperty (Attach add9tior�al pages if necessary):
. It i�ro�„o�ed that#he nrop��tv b�deveio�ed into a�ix storv 142-uni3
market ra#e�artment buiiding with an outdoor�wimminc��ooi recFeation
area arid ar�en roof deck lPlease see addendtim for additional information 1
II( Compliant: ves _
Stru,�ctures:
Number: � Type: A�ar�ment Buildina Height: 72'
Number of Stories: _ 6_
Am�nities and/or R�creational Facilities(i.e. Tennis Cour�, Pool, etc.):
outd r swimmi al•r reatipn are • reen roof deck
Number of People tntended to Live or Work on Premises:
Adults: 160 Ghildren: 0
Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Proposed:
Enciosed {Garage or Parking Ramp): ��2 Non-Enclos�d; �7
T�ta!Acres of Land in P.U.p.: 2.57 Density(No. of Units per Acre):�.._
tndica�e the�ollowina Data bv Percentaae�;
Area Covered by Sfructures: 45 % Area Covereci by Outside ParKing: 20 °Jo
Area Covered by interior Streets: 12 % Area Landscaped: 17 %
Natural Area and/or Open Space: 6 % Ponding Area: o %
Zon�ariances:
List belaw ali variances from fhe standarr!zoning requiremen#s that wil#be requested as par#of fhis
P.U.D„ and the jus#ification far granting said var'r�nces��fifacf� additiana!sheets if needed),
R�zone r rt to R
Requegt variance to allow for Maximum Ne'saht to �72�eet and S storie�
Re uest v- 'a ce to ailow for LQt Co era e to e 77%im erviou sur�a �
f�eauest v�riance to allow far 33 Parkina Stap Dimensions to b�9 x 18 fit minimum
Reauest v�riance to al[ow for Drive Aisle Width#o be 22 ft minimut'n _
Re ues#variance to allaw for Ct�m aci arki St�ils dim�nsions o b x 16 it.min`mum
flequest variance to alfow far�ire Road Width tc►�14 it minimum
�isase see addendum for iu�ti�ication of abqve variances 1 - —
1 her�eby declare that all statements made in thi5 request, and on adciitional material, are true.
, •
��.-� � , .-. r �
� ,� /� f/ JJ
j � �" `
f , j � }A �l�fr� .� (�,-'��. .a�m.r..
G..:r <irf� `r
:;� ignatur � pplic nt '�,%r ate
��, � S Io2
�y.ISig�ature a'F Frop Owner Dafe
The Tiburan Apartment�
Preliminary PUD Application 8.9.12
ADDENDUM
Legal Description
9130 Olson Memorial Highw�
W 211 14/100 FT OF E 291 14/100 FT OF THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING S OF MPLS
WATERTOWN ROAD AND N OF SfiATE HWY NO 55
9220 Olson Memorial Hiqhway
THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING E OF W 749 8/10 FT THOF AND W OF E 291.14 FT THOF N OF
STATE HWY NO 55 AND S OF WATERTOWN ROAD
Proposed Use of Property
The proposed project,The Tiburon Apartments,concerns the development of a six-story, 142-unit, market-
rate apartment building on a 2.7 acre site near the intersection of Highway 55 and US Highway 169.
Comprised from a diverse mixture of studio, one bedroom, one bedroom + den,and two bedroom dwelling
units,the facility would also offer a generous complement of resident amenities, including a theatre,fitness
area, club room and outdoor swimming pool/recreation area. As currently designed,the facility provides
approximately 142 enclosed and 77 surface parking spaces.
The building's main entrance and enclosed parking garage are to be located off of Golden Valley Road at
ground level and supported by a precast concrete structure. The above residential levels would be
constructed with a rype 3A wood frame and capped by a flat roof. It is expected that the building's exterior
facades would be clad in an assorted blend of contemporary finishes, including brick and fiber cement
siding; punctuated by a rhythm of large window openings; and articulated by bands of private balconies
accompanying the individual residential units.
To best maximize the high visibility of the building from multiple viewpoints and to enhance its prominent
positioning along Highway 55,all facades will receive a high level of aesthetic consideration.
The approximately 226,900 square-foot, U-shaped building would be situated on its site so that the main
entrance fronts Golden Valley Road. Two on-site surface lots are planned to accommodate visitor parking.
It is intended that the grounds surrounding the site be conscientiously illuminated and aesthetically
landscaped through a variety of plantings and organic materials.
Zoning Variances
Request variance to allow for Maximum Height to be 72 ft.and 6 stories versus 60 ft. and 5 stories
In order to develop luxury apartments at this location, it is necessary to construct the building at six stories.
As ground floor units are very difficult to lease,the building's lowest level is most effectively utilized as
enclosed parking. Only the very highest point of the building,the stair and elevator shafts,will reach 72 ft.
The flat roof is located at 65 ft.and parapets at 68 ft.
The proposed building height will in no way detrimentally affect access to light and air from the surrounding
properties; cast shadows on residential properties; or obstruct views to adjacent businesses, landmark
buildings or signi#icant public spaces.
Request variance to allow for Lot Coverarae to be 77%impervious surfaces versus 60%
In order to provide the required amount of parking and a fire access road constructed of"an all weather
driving surface of asphalt or concrete cable,"an increase in the amount of impervious surface is necessary.
15%of this 77%calculation of impervious surfaces includes a 17,000 sq. ft. green roof deck. By deducting
the green roof,the impervious area is reduced to 62%. Underground retention tanks would be utilized as a
means of sensitively managing the site's storm water.
Request variance to allow for 33 Parkinq Stall Dimensions to be 9 x 18 ft. minimum versus 9 x 18.5 ft.
and
Request variance to allow for Drive Aisle Width to be 22 ft. minimum versus 24 ft. minimum
Due to the anguiar nature of the s'rte and adjacent roadway, the most effective and efficient use of land
requires that one end of the surface parking lot be 3 ft. shallower than the other. This minor adjustment
results in a 6 in. reduction in the depth of parking stalls, (two rows), and a 2 ft. reduction in the drive aisle
along the NW potion of the surface parking lot, affecting 33 of the 77 e�erior parking spaces. The remaining
NE section of the lot would have the requisite depth of 18.5 ft. for its 44 stalls and width of 24 ft. along the
drive aisle.
Request variance to allow for 3 Comqact Parkina Stalls. (dimensions to be 8 x 16 ft. minimum�
To most efficiently utilize the available floor space in the enclosed parking garage, 3 of the 142 parking
spaces would need to be designated as compact stalls,with dimensions of 8 x 16 ft., (1 space), and 9 x 16
ft., (2 spaces). These measurements fall well within the accepted conventions for compact parking space
size, (7.5 x 10 ft. minimums). The remaining 139 spaces in the garage would meet the 9 x 18.5 ft.
requirements.
Request variance to allow for Fire Road Width to be 14 ft. minimum versus 20 ft. minimum
While the vast majority of the fire road maintains a 20 ft. clearance,the irregularly shaped lot creates various
"pinch points" in which this dimension is reduced. To accommodate the property line,the fire road would
require a 14 ft. minimum width along the rear yard.
Request variance to allow for Rear Yard Setback to be 15 ft. minimum versus 20 ft. minimum
Although the front and side yard setbacks fall readily within zoning standards,the rear property line's erratic
profile creates various intervals that would necessitate a 15 ft. minimum dimension. However, despite this
reduced setback,the rear yard abutment to Highway 55 would continue to provide a generous buffer
between the furthest edge of the building and the adjacent land use.
Th� Tiburon apartm��ts
Preliminary PUD Application 8.9.12
NARRATIVE STATEMENT
The development of The Tiburon Apartments will meet the purpose and other provisions of Golden Valley's
PUD Ordinance in the following manner:
Fosterinq More Efficient and Effective Land Use
Currently occupied by vacant, single-story structures,the redevelopment of the site into a dynamic muiti-
story residential community would represent a far more efficient and effective land use than is currently
employed. The project would not only increase population and building densiry, but aiso improve the quality
of design, landscaping and building materials employed in the area.
Enhancina Visual Character
The replacement of two non-descript structures with a more prominent and attractively designed new
building will undoubtedly enhance the visual character of the neighborhood. Clad in an assorted blend of
contemporary finishes,the new structure would be highly visible from both Highways 55 and 169, helping to
ground the intersection and serve as an orienting landmark within the area. Additionally,the building's
multitude of balconies and large green roof deck will create dynamic visual activity,adding vertical vibrancy
to the public realm.
Providing Greater Housing Diversitv
Designed to meet the needs of young professionals who work in the area and are part of the community, the
project would help to meet an increased demand in quality rental housing, provide a more diverse selection
of housing opportunities, foster a greater population of"Gen Y" households, and encourage closer live/work
proximities within the City.
Supportina Economic Development
An investment in the area and increase in residential densiry would serve to support the economic growth of
area businesses and encourage continuing development in the area. The site's proximity to a wide variery
employers, restaurants, and recreational venues suggest that it is well-positioned to foster the development
of an engaging live/work/play environment within the community
��,�� F NC:INFERS .
P LANI+iERS
D E 5 f G N E R S
Consulii�a�Group,Inc.
SRF No. 01279XX
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joseph S. Hogeboom, City Planner
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
FROM: Craig Vaughn, PE,PTOE, Senior Associate
DATE: August 8, 2012
SUBIECT: PROPOSED TIBURON DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
As reyuested, SRF Consulting Group has completed a trip generation review for the proposed
Tiburon Apartments in the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota. The proposed development is
located in the northeast yuadrant of TH 169 and TH 55. The main objective is to review the trip
generation for the proposed apartment complex with the comparable trip generation for potential
commercial uses on this parcel.
PROPOSED AND POTENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development will consist of a five-story apartment building with 142 rental
dwelling units. A single access point to the proposed development will be provided at the north
side of the parcel onto Golden Valley Road. The City of Golden Valley is currently reviewing
the site for a zoning change to allow residential uses on this parcel.
The proposed development is currently located in the Commercial Zoning District. Section
11.30: Commercial Zone District describes the maximum lot coverage (50%) and height
restrictions (3 stories) for buildings in that zoning district. The parcel is located on
approximately 2.8 acres of land. Based on the Commercial Zoning District building restrictions,
the maximum building size for a parcel of this size was determined to be approximately l 80,000
square feet.
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON AND POTENTIAL IMPACT
To determine the trip generation for the proposed and potential land uses, the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition was used. For the
Tiburon apartment development the rental apartment code was applied (ITE Code 220). For the
potential development scenario, both office and retail land uses were reviewed due to either
being developable in the Commercial Zoning District. Based on the trip generation results
www.s rfconsulting.+com
C)ne Carison ParkwaV North,Suite 7�� � Aqinneapolis,MN 55347-:443 � 763.�i;S.bfN(7 Fax:iG3.a7�.2d29
t�n£r�uril i)pjrc�rtrrnity Enry�)oy<�r
Joseph S. Hogeboom, City Planner August 8, 2012
City of Golden Valley Page 2
presented in Table 1 the two potential commercial developments will generate significantly more
trips than the proposed residential use on a daily basis (approximately 2-8 times more) and
during the peak hours (approximately 2.5-7.5 times more).
Table 1
Trip Generation Estimates
ITE Land Use Size Daily A.M.Peak P.M.Peak
Code Trips In Out In Out
�,�i'�:, � �Y.,,.� �*.:'�� -.F�.4:�,._ ...� -���� {,c�,;�';�.�y. „'�_�- ��'°.`: _
220 Apartments 142 units 944 �14 � 58 57 31
.. , ?�
�..`� :� ,r,���. �;a -h� �* ,'.:`;.��. . . ���«, ,.._ .�.. ,.:..u�r w o�.av».,.. ,�'r.�'�� h n. '�'�� ���n.. � ?> - �a�t-��:
710 General Office Building 180 KSF 1,982 246 �� 33 � 46� 223
,
�.���. �.�_ ,�� .,..�;_ .,.�.�u�� . .-��.x,� a...� s��. . ,� :N, „...,�. , .�� �� ,�. 9a� ��„�_ ��.,
820 Shopping Center l80 KSF 7,729 110 70 329 342
Year 2009 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along Golden Valley Road were 1,700 vehicles
per day (vpd). Based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and typical planning level
estimates, the roadway capacity of a two-lane, undivided urban roadway is 10,000 vpd.
Therefore, the roadway should be able to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the '
proposed apartment complex without significant degradation. Please note that a more detailed
traffic operations analysis may be conducted, if deemed necessary by City staff.
K:ITrafficlEmilyGrosslGolden Valley Trip Gen1120808 Golden Valley_Tiburon Trip Gen Comparison_egcv.doc
���� ��
Public Works Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
���� '. «W '�.�:�� . � � . ` � � �� �? .���:. °'""'�i�: � � `_' � �
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing to Vacate Easements at 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist
Summary
A developer has proposed a Minor Subdivision which would combine the existing lots at 154Q and
1550 St. Croix Circle with Lot 4 of Auditor's Subdivision Number 330 and subdivide them to create
three new lots with frontage on Sweeney Lake. During the platting process, it was determined
that existing easements on the property need to be vacated before the final plat (Golden View) is
approved. The developer submitted to the City a petition for vacation of the easements to
commence the process.
Consistent with City Code, the proposed final plat includes the dedication of new drainage and
utility easements on each lot. The new easements are generally larger and broader in application
than the existing easements.
A notice of public hearing was published regarding the proposed easement vacation and letters
were sent to the affected property owners. Staff sent a letter to all private utility campanies
requesting their review and comment. There have been no objections to this easement vacation.
The petition for vacation of easements that was submitted to the City did not include the
signatures of a majority of the abutting landowners. Therefore, this is considered a vacation by
motion of City Council, and in accordance with state statutes requires a four-fifths majority vote
in favor of the resolution.
Attachments
• Easement Detail for Golden View (showing existing and proposed easements) (1 page)
• Resolution Vacating all Existing Platted Easements in Lot 7 and Lot 8, of Block 1, of the
Samuelson`s Lakeview Addition Plat (1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle) and a Drainage and
Utility Easement in Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision Number 330 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Vacating all Existing Platted Easements in Lot 7 and Lot 8, of Block 1,
of the Samuelson's Lakeview Addition Plat (1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle) and a Drainage and
Utility Easement in Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision Number 330.
� GOLDEN VIEW
� , � ,
EASEMENT DETAIL FOR ; ! � �
� � � �
DAVID FELLMAN & JEFFREY HAINES � i � ;
DETAIL � i � I ;
� � -- w.,. �
� � J �
---------------------�-� a.�.,. ;
--------_-�----- `=--- ,
30 60 120 ��p� `�""
I I i rve[ �
I 1 1
I � �
I 1 �
I I S W YO'N'W 1lSAO �
I ________�________'
SCALE IN FEET i -
� �-------------------------•- -------�
,
i
�
5 ; ,.t �°��-.; �
i � i 10 ;
i I i �
� � i B
i
� � i =
---------------------------+- i
e
i i i � �
__ � � � j i
-------------- -------�-------------------- �
t-- i Z- —i----------------------------rt' -----------------
i
i i i � i
� � c � � i
i i '�u i � i
� � ,. _� � g � �
I:� I v �� � € �
� — �, -----�----�' �
� v + � �� I 'II � i i
� �W, \ �ao.1 �� 8 I i
' '
�I��.'lUL L SDI,I' S il � I��°w" ' Z i � <1
� _
i + � � �` i I i �
i %�� �;' �� i '
/' s /$ ;t `�� �.i'... ` M�q��j.�j'� j I I �r1 � � �
� i� ' (�/� '�'c�I'��` ' r�`a.�, �` ��,�� � I j J 1 �
� ��
I � 1
..____..___,.____.-. - ���/� / �_��+ �,�� . 1 �'�ac
. ��., '
� I
fl/r / � %,r,� �� \\J` `,'I` �::�.s. _
/
��� � ��� 1
w �' �� 6�� y�0 �, URAINAGEAN�U7ILITVEASEMENT �
� ���b�,� y��t � . F=aooc.NO eeisie3�70BEVACATED j
� �y� �\� / t� �� j�AVC DED�CATFD ON F NAL PIAT 1
-- '"" � ��\ ' � �';,��� � 3 ' v �
---------- �. ^ ; , , � �
�— � ��, � '�,,�:�'�. `` ; i
� ����� � � �-��� �
,a,��� �, , �� �, � ���. � �
� �.',�.��, � . ., �. L , ,
'� �`��\\ \ `�� y.�y��� \V p wv I
1 �\ � ��Y �� � I
� � � ��\ �
� ��� �b ��`\ �t \\ ` • `\•�� i
� W •��� 2 � ',, ,, , � I ;,
, , � , .,
f , \ . � �, , .��, � �� , ;
� ; � �.��.��, ��� ` .�:. � ;
� � �, . �',�'��; � I ;
� � 1� ��;.�;0 n� � � � ;
,t , ` .�`.�, y ;/ �
i \ ` ``�\ ` UTILIT`/EABEYENT�\�'1.'?�*„
. ; ;i`
� � � O r� - TO BE YACATEO �� �.;r� � r
'____—_— ` ^ � . �
. � - ..� -�. . �
�':�" � ��`���� . �`� . �.�-� _ � '`�� ., -z
----------- ----- i .. ,� _ .�s`i�1..� �' . ,, � .
I \ ? j I ` \����`� / '�
1� � \ ,� _i �i
, � �\,� ;t�, � � ;�,----- �, ,
� ` � .� � __-----
, � � "
� ;, � ',•� ',•;� � ; � ,�. �`___
.,`.\'. i r�, �\
W - \
j , ,� � \` � I � ; � ♦
\ I�
Y� 1 �, ,\ ``\\�� jbI i ,
8 i �, � '� ,,,��� � ,� ' 4,,-- .,
, � .
, •� . :� � I � �,
; � � �` � ,�`�� ��I ; '' , "
. ,
� �7 c\ •���� r. ��I � f� I ,�'
. l . . ✓ . � �� � i �i .' '�
.
�- ` l�� \ ,�.,` � ; ,, �
, ,
� -
. ,
�------------- .
,
\� � , , ,,` � , ;,
o� � �, �� ; py��b,+ �� � ,�
`�♦ MWq[ o �� \ I I '� � Wi
� � u�cpnc
� ��\` �� ��� �� �� �� � AB�M�OHE� I _
't' ♦ s� `� ♦ ��/ I ' °�
,� \ 'f�p'�n �,\\ I I� 1 °a
4, �.� 6 .� \ i�� I I H ,
k', �� ���``• r�' i �
'� \ � )i4 i
�� . .�, � � �
., ;; �
.� ;;�\ ,
,��� ^ �s�, � ���� �
��,1! -- ,.r r �� �'J �
` ,-- � �
!1/�i �`, /� �.?., � _J' ,
T �— ,
Z O` i ri�� �J � I PflOPOBED I
t $� �RAINAC3E AND UTIUIY EASHMEh7
. I I P�•�
� ,,, ��� �� �
� ,,,�'���` � �
4 ,� f � � � �.
;� , �
:� ti vo.c,o�c�e.. ;' ; � � I ���i
; �'� � �
l � / �� � � '�-
"'�— OI tG�1 GG�V� r!�W I �� � ` - _
'W`��`Ttl V�' NS 5� in.�.nr�=roymrnrpv�,waa�,wr.port �-�-�� GRONBERG &ASSOCIATES INC.
D.TE B� REMARK9 �������°f������� *� 1
v�rn�wNmCrtleui�MM�wd ��a.��wu�du t•�90 qVILENOWEFAS,LANDSIJRVEYOR6,LANDPLANNERS
��149 445 N.WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE,MN 56556
a+,� MNN.�IGl1/0lNWtllR PHONE:952-473-4141 FAX:852-473-4433
Resolution 12-82 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION VACATING ALL EXISTING PLATTED EASEMENTS
IN LOT 7 AND LOT 8, OF BLOCK 1, OF THE SAMUELSON'S
LAKEVIEW ADDITION PLAT (1540 AND 1550 ST. CROIX CIRCLE)
AND
A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN LOT 4,
AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 330
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted public hearing on the vacation of all existing platted easements
in the recarded plat of Samuelson's Lakeview Addition; and vacation of the existing
drainage and utility easement in Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision Number 330, Hennepin
County, Minnesota (Doc. No. 8816163); and
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley that said platted easements located in the praperty legally described below be
vacated:
Lot 7, Block 1, SAMUELSON'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Hennepin County,
Minnesota;
Lot 8, Block 1, SAMUELSON'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
And
That part of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision Number 330 lying 10 feet on either side of the
following described centerline: Commencing at the northeasterly corner of Lot 7,
Block 1, Samuelson's Lakeview Addition, which is also the West line of said Lot 4,
thence northerly along the East line of said Samuelson's Lakeview Addition a distance
of 10 feet, thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees, 0 minutes, 0 seconds a distance
of 10 feet to the actual point of beginning of the centerline to be described: thence
southerly parallel with the said East line of Samuelson's Lakeview Addition a
distance of 177.56 feet, thence deflecting to the left 51 degrees, 45 minutes,
7 secands a distance of 145.0 feet more or less to the shoreline of Sweeney Lake and
there terminating.
Shepard M. Harris, 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 his signature attested by the City Clerk.
C1�"�r t�� ;
Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8149(fax)
.��: ��:�;�. �
._�...�.���-;���:..� . �:������3...���: � r,'°�������. ��°� �
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 16, 2012
Agenda Item
6. A. Approval of Plat and Authorization to Sign Subdivision Development Agreement - Golden
View
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
At the September 19, 2012 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the
preliminary plat for the minor subdivision of Golden View (1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle). After
the hearing, the Council approved the preliminary plat and granted a variance to the Subdivision
Code allowing for Lots 2 and 3 to have reduced lot widths. The final plat of Golden View has now
been prepared by Gronberg and Associates, Inc. City staff has reviewed the final plat and finds it
consistent with the approved preliminary plat and the requirements of City Code.
The developer has proposed to divide three lots into three newly shaped lots for the construction
of two new homes. The existing home at 1540 St. Croix Circle will be removed.
Attachments
• Subdivisian Development Agreement - Golden View (7 pages)
+ Resolution for Approval of Plat- Golden View (1 page)
• Final Plat of Golden View (2 pages, 11x17" plans mailed separately)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Golden View.
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Subdivision Development
Agreement with Jeffrey and Heidi Haines, and David and Cynthia Fellman.
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Golden View
AGREEMENT dated this_day of , 2012, by and between the City
of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and Jeffrey and Heidi Haines
& David and Cynthia Fellman (the "Developer").
1. Reauest for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivisian
of land and a plat of land to be known as Golden View, which land is legally described on
Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof(hereinafter referred
to as the "subject property").
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the subdivision and the plat on the
following conditions:
a. Conformance to, and inclusion of, all provisions of the Final Plans for Golden View
dated June 12, 2012, prepared by Gronberg and Associates, Inc.
b. Execution of this Subdivision Development Agreement.
d. Payment of all applicable fees including a Park Dedication fee of$4,800.00 and other
fees identified in the current fee schedule.
e. Incorporation of any easements necessary to accommodate drainage, wetlands,
floodplain, streets and utilities.
f. Marketable title in the Developer, if the City attorney determines a title review is
necessary before final plat approval.
g. It is the present intention of the City Council not to grant to the Developer any
variances for the subdivision except a waiver to Section 12:20, Subdivision 5(A) of
City Code allowing Lot 1 to measure 60 feet in width and Lot 2 to measure 62 feet in
width.
3. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or
affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved
plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the
Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to
the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls, platting or
dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
4. Development Plans. The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the
approved plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Department of Public
Works. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement,the written terms
shall control.
5. Installation bv Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay
for the following, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Improvements." The
1
grading, erosion control and tandscaping shall all be made in accordance with City
approved plans.
a. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
b. Surveying and staking of work required to be performed by the Developer.
c. Gas, electric, telephone, and cable lines prior to building accupancy
d. One set of sewer and water services per dwelling prior to building occupancy
e. Installation of driveway aprons
f. Establishment of a native vegetation buffer along the lake shore and wetland.
g. Provision of legal descriptions, surveying, and signage required to mark the
boundaries of the conservation easements.
h. Compliance with the Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance for existing homes.
i. Other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in
other agreements
6. Gradin�, Draina�e/Site Gradin�/Erosion Control and Clean up.
Site grading for each lot shall be completed by the Developer, or his assignee, at its cost
in accordance with the Stormwater Management Permit for each lot issued and
approved by the City at the time of home construction. If required, such activities shall
also be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and be in
accordance with an NPDES permit. The Developer or its assigns shall comply with the
terms of the Stormwater Management Permit issued for each home.
The Developer, or his assignee, shall obtain a tree preservation permit for each lot.
7. Permit. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a permit to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections
deemed appropriate by the City during the site development including home
construction.
8. Assessment for Public Works Costs.
a. The Developer shall obtain the appropriate permits for and install sewer and water
services to said Lots 1 and 2 and driveway aprons for said Lots 1 and 2 as determined
by the City Engineer. The Developer is required to obtain necessary Right of Way
(ROW) permits and utility permits.
b. The Developer shall be responsible for payment of the following fees:
i. Payment of$400 for review of the wetland delineation report prepared by
Svoboda Ecological Resources and processing of the Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision.
ii. Payment of$3,000 for attorney's fees and legal processing fees associated with
the drafting and recording of conservation easements granted to the City by
each property owner for the areas designated for the native vegetation buffer.
c. The Developer must submit the following cash securities:
2
i. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining compliance with the City's
Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance and must submit a cash security in the amount
of 125%of the estimated cost for impravements (calculated at $3,000) as a
guarantee that the sanitary sewer service stub for 1540 St. Croix Circle will be
inspected and brought into compliance with the Inflow and Infiltration
Ordinance prior to occupancy of the home.
ii. The Developer shall be responsible for establishing a buffer of native vegetation
along the lake shore and wetland edges. Establishment includes creation and
maintenance of the buffer during the first growing season and the maintenance
required for two additional growing seasons. A cash security in the amount of
125% of the estimated cost for improvements (calculated at $3,831.25) shall be
submitted as a guarantee that the work will be completed in a timely manner
and according to the approved plans.
d. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred
resulting from plat or subdivision approval and development of the Subject
Property. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages or expenses which the City maypay or incur in consequence of
such claims, including attorney's fees.
9. Park Dedication. The Developer agrees to pay a park dedication fee in the amount of
$4,800 at or before the time of execution of any plat by the City.
10. Propertv Fees, Char�es and Assessments.The Developer understands that builders will
be required to pay for the Subject Property fees, charges and assessments in effect at
the time of issuance of building permits. The rates for each of these items will be set
according to the current rate structure at the time the building permit is received.
11. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by its hereunder,the City may, at its option, perform the work and the
Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City,
provided #he Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours
in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shatl not be necessary
for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does
any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or
in part as a specia) assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives its rights
to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such
assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081.
12. Miscellaneous.
a. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property,
the subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and
federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances,
zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. The existing sanitary sewer
service must be compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance prior to
3
occupancy of the home. If the City determines that the subdivision, or the plat, or
the development of the Subject Property does not comply,the City may, at its
option, refuse to allow construction or development work on the Subject Property
until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease
work until there is compliance.
b. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
c. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial
of building permits, including lots sold to third parties.
d. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this
Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portion of this Agreement.
e. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the
provisions of this Agreement.To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in
writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council.
The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not
be a waiver or release.
f. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the
property. The Developer agrees to provide the execution of amendments to this
Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has
completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request,
the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release.
g. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in
addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter
arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and
each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting
may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed
expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time
thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
h. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the
City Council.
i. It is the present intention of the Council not to grant to the developer variances for
this subdivision.
13. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by
registered mail at the following address:
4
Jeffrey and Heidi Haines
1550 St. Croix Cirde
Golden Valley, MN 55422
David and Cynthia Fellman
1540 St. Croix Circle
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City
Manager, or mailed to#he City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the
following address:
City Manager
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
By:
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
DEVELOPER
By:
Its
By:
Its
5
DEVELOPER
By:
Its
By:
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2012, by Shepard M. Harris, Mayor, and Thomas D. Burt, City Manager, of the City of Golden
Valtey, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the
authority granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20 , by Jeffrey and Heidi Haines and David and Cynthia Fellman, on behalf of the said
Developer.
Notary Public
6
ATTACHMENT 1
Golden View, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Resolution 12-83 October 16, 2012
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - GOLDEN VIEW
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Golden
View covering the following described tracts of land:
Lot 8, Block 1, SAMUELSONS LAKEVIEW ADDITION
Also Tract 6, Registered Land Survey No. 1012
And;
Lot 7, Black 1, SAMUELSONS LAKEVIEW ADDITION
Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 330
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and
the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the ariginal of
said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
Shepard M. Harris, 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 favar thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and his signature attested by the City Glerk.
�
�
W
w
x
�
N
LL
� � �
Z Z
F-
W
O O - g =
� � d°cn� W
vm
F � m m _ o (A
� � U m.��o. � - `o
roE�m v '' �
oEd ° o
aE �
���o
��ta Q
- mo r -
>�=`m r�n
o�w� z � � "
- E Z c ¢ �
t7o.wE � Y `-�° ° - Oy m
o� � i - a� o w - °
_ s J i, v r ¢ d D j o ¢
V- � J � � N n O � 7 - 1_- - O
� I�% > Z d � � F Q n
a c z m ¢ `Q° � N a - O '
UNUa o �n r m Z � ¢ o o w o
`�� O �c � � � ra-a ¢ Q° >
� j�i O s Z 0=' y ��g ~
i. �5 U Q� W� � ?
$ o`N � �V%' z �- w Z3 w w3 I O
� p n
m° r�° v a° w wc z g3 � ?w� c7 .
m ��oi = z� w. ?m = r> r �>-O �- ¢
Y Z'o V
� r 2 m = �m Z Zw V f.w W
ro o~r�i p� x Z >-- �i pp� Q jo� = Z
�,. � i a zm ¢ �O � �� I � J
_ �oQ � Z� _ �� m z�� ��
`m`v' � �5 � Um a w� ' u�i a`�o� m a
¢`°dDw°u? p Qv`o > Zm g Z- I w w-.. w Uj
O; E�d � ¢aaD Q a� � w�s x Z°10 � CC
N E�� � wa a Zvi xtx Q wt I a O
zw v �7 0 � m zF 3 m y.;� ¢ m x��a ¢ m Y
?> tmm �n� wa 'um° ¢vN W
�Z =�a U� Zrq t_-5 I o.s".. ` �
� w yc F-m ¢� �
JOLN N ¢� OZ LLL O>. �
0....m� 2
a(7amt' N.Y >o ¢.� w.c 0
W >`o=c"� wcm, �� ¢�m �� Q
w`mwE2,a ¢n "�m � N� Z� .�
�� on.�E�v a vN �` I C7� I �L uj
� O" o� 'o �tt »o wso � � .
c7fE��6. t-__. maa ¢_w V_ W
2
�
Z z
w
W
0 = � �; � Z
J ; a �T°= - � —
O � " rv _ -O�ch a W
a 01 5oamt f`
R ��� o c� �� o �-nav` Q
V c',� a � " m5�wa m
-o � 09 E a c �mc��n � 0
� �� r�n" $ I _ y��E;� � N
x-g °� ` >d `- ° �n a .
9° _ _ a :',d,ia v
Um o a.: rY 5 n £ om'mm3 tS '2�+. °Sl
�� p mm aia E m E m E�'�my rW =° �
_� r t ad � z `o Z mmnv�' d° Z W
°c ,°� °c° °cl m n a$£c� c ° m m
y ,�o cxN �� o o�o$$ � m2 � Z
�x 3 3t a6 �3 ENam�� w c �
io o w 3� _m;N �a $in c �
o� � Z`� . �,� wmV itl 3� E
` y=: w� c�D- �� s.3 c�Hg,,. `�o, i0 �
"U2 _�o �°' 2a. `°° `°a �iao-m 2 m8+ �
� �mp a3 Od m� w`° £a`m �i
'cpam�z C7m ti'�° �z �°c Nie°o.o N 3u
Fa�OCyQ `°m `o I �m Z. � go�'d"a JN m�
F o2� r 'mcuoo
H�w2mE0 rr� ZN �_ � �s � - y � �m
'u"> `'oa am �� � �m U '�0"�3".`a mE co
W r Y Z N W m a� c� _ �Y � t N�y�9 j Z m�
¢p,QN m.�> �N .� ��U '�� �6 .�N- � Civ�i ON
d O�CyfqW �Na�.f%J d
W6Z�m�YQm�'` �_ _o �`m c �rmmoo `� mx
N CJ j� � .r3yy � =y ..tYatN� aJ pm� ti0
=�N�jY fq Vlt . S]m LVl C �O . �N
�uw_�mz2m� ^' m �" a'E �m a'E do�ODU'� �o Fa aE.
m��!-^m=`a�°m � � � rO � m� t°'m=�g Y� az I m�
Zwy¢°8•�°nmm m `o° °U = ` aoE3m�' �� OwN V .
¢QU�Lp�� n� _ �ot _ d z� 10 z°� �ro � �� y z°�
a�yyy .- m °"' � ° nm'"m."m.Y'' zw .
w°o� 'S=' dac c � .. - I°' �E$'=V ?x
�t��-m.c�`oa�° � � = c °m 'i� -' ?am =° �LL
" p-°���ay6 y m = s OT LLOa C7hmm�n LLD
¢�o�m m��� m c o d ' L c OF° O� Yy�fis-n OY
?i c�ac� c � Z a� a4i m �Z � �j I `�m3.�� F� .
O a t0 a �3 w m ;v �
xo ¢;n��=n 5£r a-i � x" � Y u~i�n ai��°.i� �v'm5�m ��
�
w ,�>„s� o �� — ---- W
----�-i;�\ mr, ���°�sa ��, O E e - �
, (v�� : ! °'m N
Z Z , � � _ bs� O
(J U ` �. U �€ �aE
� � i.�� �"a d _ � i g{e g��e LWj„I
H � i �,� a d� i �$. ���n �
Q U � � �a ^ Eo g � $B � '
� t & � �_ � �� E=ag;
� - � �E � �� � ' �g� �,��`
� ,� � � `€ g=� a f€� �LL�$
~ E�
� e �� � e
� ,< < ms
�:
ii � 2� m '`'g
Qo w ma
i �
O ��'L i �
� �� ; �
� ; o � �
, �� ; a
; J
� � Q
o ' '
a
O � : '� f,. \) Z
g .J�� ga
� e
CJ � � ui
� w
� i § � O
� I = . � o W
W �� � >
�
j � - � W o
�ILL Z
� � F ������R/ � J
Z � � � � � Z
� � ,,, � W �
� a� �; � w
W � � , a�i i � � � W
� � $ s " �q��, ; � �n ?
� �i / c�
„ , ,
.
... y a `��€� z
J �°� �!, .� , z
z r s �„�� , W
�u O ' �
O ' �� �l Ol; ON
7`;�' s� ,�.
� � , ti„�� ��
� : ;��;�,,'. ,,; ="M � ?
(� � o. 1� � a� $, �..o .�,��
;m
T � ° i 8��1� N
i
�\ � ��� � �� j, W
.i i�w /;4������ �� \
/ � .,.v • _____________. �
,�1��' I �;�' `.S � cy ' a
" � ����''�)�!ffi �,;� £'ZL �ON o
o -' --����.,�� � ���_ : .S . � �� a
,
. <
% "� s;��w; �.:���i--------------- --------+ °�
__ :;r,
.
. .. �. .
� �, � .5 9 ----------------------------�
� `ges,�p `��� �10/1 /00 ,,\ G � M�l/i�ylb'7 i m
"� � ��� ����a. �. �� �`.g � ' p
,� � I� ��r�^`�� ��a��,`n I t7
�. .
. ., .
, � ., ,� .
`.� �l i ' ^' _ ---
' � i E �. � �
' ,��..��� ',�
� ��. „ E m--
s.
� � � II � a.,�.; ------------------
� ;� � I L � �s> ,����� ;�E
,, ,
, �'��. � � P.;�,�
- �� .8, > �
� ; � � � ----�-----------
..
� = --------
�� �8 1
�� �p, �. ; ---
{� M<n I
j � �� g ,8�9"\. / S,NOS 7�nW b'S
, ,
� , . ,
. , n , ,
(n .i$ � �i 3 � I
� I
�� I� � e r-------�
, ° �
, � � � �
----J--- �--------------Y � �
�
. �
� �
"'� �..
, v
\ t--------------' �
I I
I
�
I