The URL can be used to link to this page

10-21-14 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber October 21, 2014 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 C. Headway Emotional Health Service - Domestic Abuse Awareness D. Robbinsdale Area Schools - Volunteers In Partnership (VIP) 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Check Register 1. City 3 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 4 B. Licenses: 1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Sons of the 5-7 American Legion Post 523 2. On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - New Bohemia Wurst 8-9 & Bier Haus C. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - September 8, 2014 10-16 2. Human Services Fund - September 8, 2014 17-18 3. Special Joint Water Commission - July 25, 2014 19-20 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - August 21, 2014 21-29 D. Bids and Quotes: 1. Authorize Amended and Restated Easement Agreement with Minneapolis Park 30-47 & Recreation Board for Watermain and Reservoir Purposes 2. Authorize Purchase of One Fire Pumper Truck 48-49 E. Waiver Public Hearing & Certification of Special Assessments-2014 Driveways 14-83 50-52 F. Second Consideration - Ordinance #531 - Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Ordinance 53-58 G. Receipt of September Financial Reports 59-67 H. Acceptance of Donations on behalf of City 14-84 68-69 I. Execution of revised Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement 70-80 Personnel and Equipment with Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association 14-85 J. Board/Commission Appointment 81 K. Approval of Plat - Kate's Woods 14-85 82-84 L. Extending Payment Terms for Isaacson Park Improvements by Golden Valley Little 85-86 League 14-86 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #532 - Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, 87-125 Amendment No. 2 - 7475 Country Club Drive - Albert Miller, Applicant B. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119 - 7200 and 126-167 7218 Harold Avenue - Peter Knaeble, Applicant 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Possible Amendment to Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit 168-183 Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components B, METRO Blue Line Extension Update 184 C. Announcements of Meetings D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT city 0 . goldcnIV4*,V%� M E M 0 R A N D U M valley Finance Department 763-593-80y13/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Approval 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 to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. c day o Valley go 1 en, MEMORANDUM Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city of 14 4 - I!kv 4r gotaenll,y MEMORANDUM va City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Sons of the American Legion Post 523 Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Attachments Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the gambling license application to conduct excluded bingo for the Sons of the American Legion Post 523. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 6/13 Page i of 2 LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo No Fee ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization name�^ /n) )_ Previous gambling permit number J a P,r3 .,P h AItj t' i� o O.. Minnesota tax ID number, if any Federal employer ID number(FEIN), if any Type of nonprofit organization. Check one. Fraternal Religious !_Veterans Other nonprofit organization y Mailing address City State Zip code HENN 200 NO. LILAC DR. GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 Name of chief executive officer[CEO] Daytime phone number E-mail address DAVID JENKINS 612 618-3330 EMAILCHICOQAOL.COM NONPROFIT STATUS Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status. X Nonprofit Articles of incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 60 Empire Drive,Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 651-296-2803 IRS Income tax exemption [501(c)]letter in your organization's name. Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS at 877-829-5500. IRS-Affiliate of national,statewide,or international parent nonprofit organization [charter] If your organization falls under a parent organization,attach copies of both of the following: a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. EXCLUDED BINGO ACTIVITY 1, X No Yes Has your organization held a bingo event in the current calendar year? If yes,list the dates when bingo was conducted. 2. The proposed bingo event will be: 1 one of four or fewer bingo events held this year. Dates 11/27/2014 OR conducted on up to 12 consecutive days in connection with a: county fair. Dates _civic celebration. Dates _Minnesota state fair. Dates 3. Person in charge of bingo event DAVID JENKINS Daytime phone 612-618-3330 4. Name of premises where bingo will be conducted GOLDEN VALLEY LEGION 5. Premises street address 200 NO. LILAC DR. 6. cityGOLDEN VALLEY If township,township name County HENN Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. Otherwise, bingo hard cards, bingo paper,and bingo number selection devices must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on Distributors under the WHO'S WHO?LIST"OF LICENSEES, or call 651-539-1900. Be sure to complete page 2 LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo 6/13 Page 2 of 2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE The information provided in this applica?Pn is co tete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Chief executive officer's signature AY//��y �� Date 8/13/2014 Print name DAVID JENKINS LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township On behalf of the city,I approve this application for excluded On behalf of the county,I approve this application for excluded bingo activity at the premises located within the city's bingo activity at the premises located within the county's jurisdiction, © PLI jurisdiction. /c e Print city namePrint county name Signatp-e o ity sonnel Signature of county personnel i Title Date / Title Date TOWNSHIP-If required by the approving county. On behalf of the township,I acknowledge that the organization Is applying for excluded bingo activity within the township limits. [A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application, per Minnesota Statutes 349.166,Subd 2.) Print township name Signature of township officer Title Date MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENT Fax the application and a copy of your proof of You will receive a document from the Gambling Control Board nonprofit status to (651)639-4032 or mail to: with your excluded permit number for the bingo activity. Gambling Control Board Your organization must keep its bingo records for 3-1/2 years. 1711 West County Road B,Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 Questions? Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 651-539-1900. This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e.large print,Braille) upon request. Data privacy notice: The information requested on this All other information provided will be pri- General;Commissioners of Administration, form(and any attachments)will be used by the Gambling vate data about your organization until the Minnesota Management&Budget,and Control Board(Board)to determine your organization's Board issues the permit. When the Board Revenue;Legislative Auditor,national and qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in issues the permit,all Information provided international gambling regulatory agencies; Minnesota. Your organization has the right to refuse to will become public. If the Board does not anyone pursuant to court order;other Indi- supply the information;however,if your organization issue a permit,all information provided viduals and agencies specifically authorized refuses to supply this information,the Board may not be remains private,with the exception of your by state or federal law to have access to able to determine your organization's qualifications and, organization's name and address which will the information;individuals and agencies as a consequence,may refuse to issue a permit. If your remain public. Private data about your for which law or legal order authorizes a organization supplies the information requested,the Board organization are available to: Board mem- new use or sharing of Information after this will be able to process the application. Your organizations bers,Board staff whose work requires notice was given;and anyone with your name and address will be public information when received access to the Information;Minnesota's written consent. by the Board. Department of Public Safety;Attorney C'1 0 golden!-. MEMORANDUM valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. 2. On-Sale Wine (including Strong Beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary New Bohemia GV, LLC d/b/a New Bohemia Bier Wurst Haus applied for an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License. New Bohemia is located at 8040 Olson Memorial Highway at the former Godfather's Pizza site. The City Attorney has reviewed the application, and has found the application documents are in order and complete. The Golden Valley Police Department completed the background investigation and has found no reason to deny the license. Attachments • Memo from Golden Valley Police Department regarding background investigation (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve the issuance of an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to New Bohemia GV, LLC d/b/a New Bohemia Bier Wurst Haus, located at 8040 Olson Memorial Drive. city 0 f gottlen MEMORANDUM valley Police Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) Application for 2014 Liquor License — New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus OT 14-14343 Prepared By Jim Roberts, Sergeant Summary New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus has applied for an On-Sale/On-Sale Wine with the Optional On-Sale Sunday liquor license for the 2014 license year. New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus will be located at 8040 Olson Memorial Highway. A background investigation including record checks was completed and the applicants meet City Code requirements. Recommended Action Approval of an On-Sale/On-Sale Wine with the Optional On-Sale Sunday liquor license for the 2014 license year to New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 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 8, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes August 25, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page three and asked that it be clarified to state that the subject property clearly starts with two parallel side yard lot lines that eventually bend creating a side yard and a rear yard, whereas the side lot lines on a pie shaped lot would intersect at a sharp angle. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 25, 2014, minutes with the above noted clarification. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 200 Meadow Lane North — Sunnyridge Woods — SU08-12 Applicant: Golden Valley Land Company (Matt Pavek) Address: 200 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to demolish the existing single family home and subdivide the property into three new single family residential lots, all of which meet the requirements found in City Code. He stated that the applicant has had two neighborhood meetings and that the neighbor's concerns included: the loss of trees, the size of the lots, the impact of the construction, the impact on the character of the neighborhood, and the impact on surrounding home values. Kluchka asked if there is any component of this proposal that would allow it to be denied. Zimmerman stated that it meets all of the requirements in the City Code so there is really no reason to deny the requested subdivision. Segelbaum asked if the applicant is requesting any variances. Zimmerman said no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 2 Peter Knaeble, representing the applicant, stated that the main concern he heard at the neighborhood meetings was regarding the density of his proposal. He stated that based on economic feasibility he can't split the property into two lots instead of three. He said he also heard concerns about the relationship of the home on proposed Lot 3 to the neighbor immediately to the east at 207 Sunnyridge Lane. He said he would like to propose that Lot 3 be widened by five feet and be allowed to have variances in order to have a 10 foot west side yard setback (instead of 15 feet), and an east side yard setback of 20 feet (instead of 15 feet) so that the new home can be built further away from the existing home at 207 Sunnyridge Lane. He discussed the tree preservation requirements and stated that the majority of the trees on the property would remain. However, because of the neighbor's concerns, he would like to propose a tree conservation easement along Meadow Lane and Sunnyridge Lane to further protect an additional 34 trees. He referred to the neighbor's concerns about the impacts during construction and said he thinks any additional controls regarding noise, parking, working hours, etc. should be enforced at the time of construction. Kluchka questioned the procedure in light of the applicant's proposed new information. He questioned if the Planning Commission should wait to review the proposal until new plans are submitted for review. Zimmerman stated that staff has had some time to review the additional information so he doesn't think the process needs to be stopped. He noted that any variance requests would take place during the building permit process since the variances discussed would be from the Zoning Code requirements, not from the Subdivision Code requirements. He added that the proposed tree conservation easement would need more discussion. Cera stated that traditionally, a variance request coming back to the City after a subdivision request has been frowned upon. Kluchka said the neighbors want the house on Lot 3 moved further toward the west, and he doesn't want to second guess the applicant. Segelbaum asked Knaeble if these will be custom homes and if it is difficult at this point to say which trees will stay and which ones will not. Knaeble said they will be custom homes. He stated that he is required to submit a tree preservation plan with his application and that some additional trees will be removed and some will be saved. Segelbaum questioned if there are other ways, besides a tree conservation easement, to maintain additional trees. Kluchka asked if the applicant could put a covenant on the property regarding the trees. Knaeble said they are proposing an easement that would get filed at the County with the property. Waldhauser added that covenants usually have a fixed life. Baker questioned why they couldn't have a perpetual easement placed on the lot itself so it is attached to the deed and protected. Matt Pavek, Applicant, stated that he is proposing a perpetual easement, the trick is having someone enforce the easement language. Baker referred to the tree preservation plan and noted that virtually all the trees are in the street right-of-way, not on the lots themselves, so the proposed tree conservation easement won't be effective anyway. Pavek said there are trees on the lots and in the right-of-way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 3 Segelbaum asked Pavek if he has concerns that restrictions would make the lots more difficult to sell. Pavek said it has been his experience that people want to keep as many trees as possible, so having a tree conservation easement would be a win-win situation and a good faith effort to preserve some of the trees. Segelbaum suggested that the City Attorney might be able to suggest another way to protect the trees that would not require the City to have to enforce the easement. Kluchka noted that half of the trees are ash trees will probably be removed anyway. Kluchka referred to the proposed amendment to move the west property line of Lot 3 five feet further to the west and asked if that is the maximum amount it could be moved. Pavek stated that 5 feet is an approximate amount. He said language could be changed to say that the lot line could be shifted to the west, but still maintain the required lot size. Knaeble clarified that the plans they submitted are what they are proposing. He just heard from the neighbors that they would like that property line shifted to the west, so he is willing to do that. Baker asked Pavek to explain the economic reasons why he rejected proposing a two- lot split. Pavek explained that the price is set by how many lots can be created and that the seller in this case is entitled to split this property into three lots. If fewer than three lots are created it decreases the value of the land. Kluchka opened the public hearing. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, thanked the applicant for listening to his concerns. He said he is very concerned about the tree coverage and it takes 50 to 100 years to have the kind of tree coverage they have now, which he would like to maintain. He said there will be an awful lot of activity on Sunnyridge Lane in the next 12 to 18 months. He referred to an aerial photo of the subject property and said he doesn't recognize it. He said he walks by this property every day when he walks his dog, and it doesn't look like what is being shown in the photo. He said that moving the center lot line further west makes sense and preserving trees makes sense. He asked if the 15- foot side yard setback is standard on all properties in Golden Valley. Kluchka said each property is different. Wetzel asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration what each neighbor is saying because once something starts, it steamrolls, and it is hard to stop. He said he loves where he lives, and he pays unbelievably high taxes because of the beauty of the neighborhood and the wonderful neighbors he has, and he would like to preserve that. Rick Moore, 214 Sunnyridge Lane, said he thinks the applicant is headed in the right direction and has been listening to the neighbors. He said typical setbacks are really set up for a typical rectangular lot that you might find in a grid situation where there is a front, two small sides and back. He said in the situation of pie shaped lots, there needs to be a different way to analyze these types of properties because there are side yards next to back yards. He said the discussion demands that these types of lots be looked at differently. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 4 Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, handed out pictures of his house, his back yard, and the trees on the subject property. He said he appreciates the time the applicant has spent with him and the neighbors. He said this proposal affects him a lot. He said he counted 52 trees on Lot 3, some of which are 85- to 125-feet tall Austrian pines, which are a protected species, and are 125 years old. The trees are a haven for wildlife, and protection for his house. He said he has 20 windows on his house that face the proposed Lot 3. He said he is trying to sell his house and realtors have told him it will be virtually impossible to sell with construction going on, without reducing the price by 15 to 20%. Michael Alexin, 208 Sunnyridge Circle, said the picture the applicants have shown is not drawn to scale and that the proposed new houses are really right on top of each other. He said he moved to this area because of the large lots and trees and this proposal is a tragedy that will ruin the character of the neighborhood. He said even though it meets all of the legal requirements, those requirements go across all of Golden Valley, and this is a very special neighborhood, and a special community in the City with a very high tax base. He said he really believes this should be a two lot development, and with bigger homes on them the economics can work. He said doesn't understand why they need the third lot because it will change the character of the neighborhood, and the homes will be very close together. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, referred to the pictures he submitted and noted that his patio goes all the way to the property line. He said there is a major concern that his house will look at the new house on Lot 3 so he suggests the proposed variance should be granted so the new house will be further away from his house. He stated that there are 2 or 3 pine trees that are 45 inches in diameter that will have to be removed which is disturbing. George Landis, 220 Meadow Lane North, said he'd like to offer an appeal for a two-lot subdivision. He said people come to his house and they can't believe there are any neighborhoods like this in the Twin Cities. He asked the Planning Commission if they want to be like Wayzata or Coon Rapids, and asked where they want this community to go. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Knaeble stated that the plans are drawn to scale. Baker asked Knaeble if the aerial photo he showed was an existing photo of the trees or if trees were added to the photo. Knaeble explained that the plan he showed is a color rendering layered over an accurate aerial photo, and that no trees were added to the photo. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to explain the side yard setback requirements. Zimmerman stated that side yard setbacks vary according to the width of the lot and the height of the house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 5 Waldhauser referred to the drainage on these properties and noted that there is going to be a catch basin along the north property line. She asked how that will work if there are trees in the easement area. Pavek said they will work with the City Engineer regarding the placement of that pipe. Kluchka referred to the comment regarding the methods used for odd lot sizes and stated that the City Council will be discussing some proposed changes. Zimmerman stated that the lot width language was addressed and the discussion regarding lot depth is ongoing. Segelbaum noted that any new language being considered wouldn't change the analysis of this proposal. Cera questioned if Austrian pines are a protected species. Baker said they are a viable species, but there is no special protection that he is aware of. He added that he is cognizant of the fact that the City Council will be discussing a moratorium on subdivisions at their next Council/Manager meeting, which he supports, so he is opposed to a motion approving this proposal. Cera noted that the City Council does not take action at their Council/Manager meetings. The Commissioners discussed tabling this proposal until the City Council debates a moratorium on subdivisions. Zimmerman stated that applications already received would continue to go through the process. Segelbaum stated that the applicant has presented a viable proposal. He said he is pleased that some changes were made based on neighborhood concerns, and he doesn't see any basis to deny this request. Blum agreed, and said that this is one of the most beautiful areas in the City, but understanding the law and the Planning Commission's responsibility, there is nothing proposed here to base a denial on. He added that the applicant could sue the City which would require the request be approved anyway, without the changes the neighbor's asked the applicant to consider. Kluchka said he thinks moving the interior lot line five feet to the west is a good idea that he would like to encourage. Cera said he would prefer that option over granting variances in the future. Segelbaum said he would like to leave the tree conservation easement question to the City Attorney. He said he thinks it would be better not to have the City be required to actively maintain that easement, and he does not want it to be added as a condition of approval. Cera suggested adding a condition stating that the easement could be one option, but that further study is necessary. Waldhauser said the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds all of the City's requirements. She said she is not opposed to moving the interior lot line five feet to the west, and she would endorse some sort of tree preservation arrangement. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the Sunnyridge Woods Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 6 Findings: 1. All three of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Conditions: 1. The west property line of Lot 3 shall be moved 5 feet to the west as proposed by the applicant. 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$4,448.80 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated September 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. The consensus of the Commission was that they have a preference for no future variances, and they would also like the City Attorney to examine ways to provide tree preservation similar to what the applicant has proposed. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the last Community Center Task Force meeting where the group narrowed their recommendation down to two options. 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. Kluchka stated that has been a lot of talk on social media about the new Lock Up storage business under construction at the corner of Highway 55 and Douglas. He asked how he would request that a public hearing being held to figure out how the City let this development happen. Waldhauser said she recalls that there was an opportunity for the City Council to rezone that property, however, the utility and access issues with this property would have been very expensive for the City to address. Segelbaum suggested that the Planning Commission review the uses permitted in the various zoning districts. Baker said there needs to be some education done before the next Comprehensive Plan update process. Waldhauser suggested articles be put in the SunPost and the City's newsletter. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 7 Kluchka said people do not understand that decisions regarding that property were made for a reason. He said he is concerned about ideas versus reality and he wants people to understand what led the City to this point. Baker said he would like to the City Council to write an article in order to get ahead of issues like this and to look for ways to get people involved. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend that the City Council address the community's concerns about the Lock Up property including the public review of the history, the issues that were involved, a glimpse of what the building will look like when completed, and the opportunities to be involved in the Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioners Segelbaum and Waldhauser voted no. 5. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Golden Valley Human Services Fund (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes September 8, 2014 Present: Hilmer Erickson, Kathryn Frommer, Elissa Heilicher, Alan Ingber, Carolyn Kaehr, Craig McDaniels, Jennifer Rudolph, Connie Sandler, Toots Vodovoz and Andrew Wold. Also present: Vicky Kendell, Covenant Village and Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison Not Attending: Michael Herring, Peggy Watkins. Call to Order: Wold called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. Agenda Changes or Additions: No additions or changes to the agenda. July 7 minutes: Erickson moved and Kaehr seconded the motion to approve the minutes from July 7. The motion passed unanimously. Upcoming Event: September 19th — Golf Classic. Sponsors: A commitment has been received from TruStone Financial. Door Prize Solicitation: Doolittles has sent 2 gift cards for the event. Food/Beverages: Crossroads Deli and Davanni's have been contacted. Volunteers: Sandy Werts, the Volunteer Coordinator, has recruited volunteers to assist with the event. Applications for Funding: Applications were received from the following agencies: Agency Request Previous grant/year Crisis Nursery $ 5,000 $ 3,000/2014 Dinner At Your Door $ 8,000 $ 7,500/2014 Canvas Health/Crisis Connection $ 2,200 $ 2,000/2014 PRISM $10,000 $10,000/2014 Second Harvest Heartland $ 3,000 NEW Senior Services HOME $ 5,000 $ 5,000/2014 Senior Services Outreach $ 3,500 $ 3,500/2014 Sojourner Project $ 5,000 NEW The Bridge for Youth $ 4,000 $ 3,500/2014 TreeHouse $ 5,000 $ 3,500/2014 YMCA— New Hope $ 7,000 $ 5,000/2013 TOTAL $57,700 Fackler will contact Canvas Health, Second Harvest Heartland and the YMCA to present at the October meeting. Commission members will review the packets and contact Wold or Fackler if they would like other agencies to present at the October meeting. Other Business: Fundraising Ideas: Members would like to add Lawn Bowling to the Golf Classic in July. The question of adding a bike race to Run the Valley was discussed. Fackler will check into the cost and course requirements. Solicitation Letter:As of today, $10,954 has been received. Fackler presented the theme for 2014. Members discussed options for the envelope. It was decided not to order the colored envelope and go with a teaser on the envelope instead. Fackler will meet with Cheryl Weiler to work on the letter. The goal is to have the letter ready for mailing by November 1St. Sandler suggested looking into Business to Business mailing as an option. Fackler will talk to Do-good.biz for a price. Wold reminded the members that the next meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 13 and may start earlier with agency presentations. Adjournment: Erickson moved to adjourn the meeting, Rudolph seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Wold, GVHSF Chair Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Special Meeting of July 25, 2014 The Golden Valley — Crystal — New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room. Commissioners Present Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal Staff Present Tom Mathisen, City Engineer, Crystal Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works, New Hope Bernie Weber, Operations Manager, New Hope Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor, Golden Valley Mitch Hoeft, Utilities Engineer, Golden Valley Pat Schutrop, Administrative Assistant, Golden Valley Others Present Steve Nelson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Emergency Backup Water Supply Line Proiect On Thursday, July 17, 2014, the bid opening was held for the Emergency Backup Water Supply Line Project. Out of five planholders, only one bid was received. G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. submitted a bid in the amount of$759,086 which was over the engineer's estimate of $368,357. Based on this information, Bolton & Menk, Inc. recommends rejecting the bid and rebidding in the fall for construction in Spring 2015. Nelson also recommends removing the generator and the road portion of the work from the rebid documents. Relocating the generator and the road work will be completed this fall. The following quotes were received for relocating the Golden Valley generator: Killmer Electric Co., Inc. $37,357.00 Stinson Electric, Inc. $37,760.00 MOVED by McDonald and seconded by Norris to reject the bid received from G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. and rebid the water supply line project in Fall 2014 for construction in Spring 2015. Motion carried. MOVED by Norris and seconded by McDonald to accept the quote submitted by Killmer Electric Co., Inc. in the amount of$37,357 for removal and relocating the Golden Valley generator. Motion carried. Other Business None. Joint Water Commission July 25, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Adjournment Chair Burt adjourned the meeting at 9:13 a.m. Thomas D. Burt, Chair ATTEST: Pat Schutrop, Recording Secretary Item 4Aii. BCWMC 9-18-14 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21,2014 Golden Valley City Fall,8:30=a.m. Commissioners and Staff Present: Crystal Not represented Robbinsdale Not represented Golden Valley Commissioner Stacy Hoschka, St. Louis Commissioner Jim de Lambert, Chair Treasurer Park Medicine Lake Commissioner Clint Carlson Administrator Laura Jester Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch Attorney Charlie LeFevere,Kennedy&Graven Minnetonka Commissioner Jacob Millner, Engineer Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Co. Secretary New Hope Alternate Commissioner Pat Crough Recorder Amy Herbert Plymouth Commissioner Ginny Black Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)Members/Other Attendees Present: Patrick Anderson, AMLAC Jeff Oliver, TAC, City of Golden Valley Caroline Amplatz, Golden Valley Resident John O'Toole,Alternate Commissioner, City of Medicine Lake Derek Asche,TAC,City of Plymouth Bob Paschke, City of New Hope Marge Beard, City of Plymouth Tory Peterson, Perpich Center for Arts Education Harvey Feldman,Friends of Northwood Lake Jim Prom, City of Plymouth Erick Francis,TAC, City of St. Louis Park David Stack,Friends of Bassett Creek Christopher Gise, Golden Valley Resident Liz Stout, City of Minnetonka Steve Heiskary, MN PCA Peter Tiede, St. Paul Tom Mathisen,TAC, City of Crystal Robert White, Friends of Northwood Lake 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL On Thursday,August 21,2014,at 8:36 a.m. in the Council Conference room at Golden Valley City Hall,Chair de Lambert called to order the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission(BCWMC)and asked for roll call to be taken. The Cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale were absent from the roll call. 1 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Tory Peterson of the Perpich Center for Arts Education introduced himself, described the school and its location in Golden Valley and in the watershed. He explained that the theme for his students this year is"water."Mr. Peterson explained his students would be working on 3 design concepts regarding water and that he would also like his students to learn about the watershed,community, and government. Administrator Jester and Commission Hoschka volunteered to connect with Mr. Peterson. Minneapolis resident David Stack asked if the Commission has a policy on kayaking on Bassett Creek and if not, he requested that the Commission create one.There was a brief discussion on the Commission's current 2014 Watershed Management Plan process, discussion within that process about recreational policies,and how kayaking considerations mean consideration in design of creek projects with regard to things like cross vanes. Administrator Jester said that she would follow up with Mr. Stack about opportunities within the plan process for discussion of such policies. Patrick Anderson, President of the Association of Medicine Lake Area Residents(AMLAC), announced that AMLAC is holding its annual Medicine Lake"Walk About;"a community and education event at Medicine Lake on September 13 from 11 a.m.to 2 p.m. He said it is a walk on the path around the lake between East and West Medicine Lake Parks, with educational displays, food,and events. 3.AGENDA Commissioner Black moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Welch requested the removal of items 4Cii—Barr Engineering Invoice,and 4D—Approval of TruStone Financial Building Project in Golden Valley. Chair de Lambert said that the invoice would be added to the agenda before item 5A and the TruStone item would be added to the agenda after 5A. Chair de Lambert requested that item 5C—Final Approval of 2015 Operating Budget—be added to the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Black moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [The following items were approved as part of the Consent Agenda: the July 17,2014, Commission Meeting minutes,the monthly financial report, and the payment of the invoices(except for the invoice from Barr Engineering,Approval to set public hearing date for October Commission meeting to receive comments from cities on 2015 Main Stem Project,and Final approval of the 2015 Operating Budget.] The general and construction account balances reported in the Financial Report prepared for the August 21,2014, meeting are as follows: Checking Account Balance $651,686.13 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $651,686.13 TOTAL CASH& INVESTMENTS ON- $3,064,158.09 HAND (8/12/14) 2 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes CIP Projects Levied—Budget Remaining ($2,861,732.83) Closed Projects Remaining Balance $202,425.26 2013 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $8,756.59 2014 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $428,419.50 Anticipated Closed Project Balance $639,601.35 5.BUSINESS Barr Engineering Company Invoice for July 2014 Engineering Services Referring to the invoice from Barr Engineering,Commissioner Welch wondered how the Commission Engineer and the Administrator handled inquiries from individuals with various concerns in the watershed. He recognized the Commission needed to be responsive to residents but also wanted to be sensitive to consultants' time. There was a brief discussion, Administrator Jester suggested that she and Commissioner Welch talk about his concern outside the meeting and bring the issue back to the Commission at a future meeting, if needed. Commissioner Black mentioned that she thinks the Administrative Services Committee should be conducting an annual review on how the Commission is functioning,conducting business, and using staff resources. A. Receive Information and Updates on Blue-Green Algae Administrator Jester reported that the algae data from the most recent monitoring of Sweeney Lake showed no evidence of the blue green algae toxins but the message is still for people to use discernment. Engineer Chandler reported that other agencies in the metro area weren't surprised to see the appearance of blue-green algae early in the season especially due to the amount of rain this area received in June and the subsequent runoff from the rain events. Chair de Lambert noted that the Commission should be considering its role in this issue if any, especially in regard to the watershed management plan. Administrator Jester introduced Steve Heiskary,a research scientist with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Mr. Heiskary provided a PowerPoint presentation on algae and algal toxins in Minnesota. He gave an overview of algae, a brief history of algal toxins,shared some case studies, and described the findings from some Minnesota studies. Mr. Heiskary noted that blue-green algae develop each summer. He said that this summer the MPCA has been seeing it in new places,so the MPCA has been getting contacted a lot about it. He listed the types of algae and explained that blue-greens are grouped as a phytoplankton but are actually bacteria that gain energy through photosynthesis. Mr. Heiskary described the conditions in which different algae thrive. He said that blue-green algae prosper in hot temperatures,abundant sun,calm winds, and in nutrient-rich waters that are low in silica and nitrogen. Mr. Heiskary described the different toxins that can be produced by blue-green algae: Microcystin(of which 3 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes there are 80 variants), saxitoxin, anatoxin-a,cylindrospermopsin, and BMAA. There was a discussion of the effects of these toxins. Ms. Chandler added that the sample from Sweeney Lake earlier in the summer showed the presence of anatoxin and some microcystin. Mr. Heiskary gave an historical overview of documented cases of blue-green algae starting in the late 1800s. He talked about some activities in the early 2000s in Minnesota such as the formation in 2005 of the MN Blue-Green Algal Toxicity Workshop. He noted that the MPCA has a lot of information on its website about blue-green algae including many photographs so that residents can learn more the algae. Mr. Heiskary summarized that blue-green algae are one of several forms of algae in Minnesota lakes and that blue-green algae are found in all Minnesota lakes. He stated that severe blooms are most frequent in lakes with high nutrients,warm water, low wind, and an abundance of sunlight. Mr. Heiskary explained that several forms of blue-green algae produce toxins, which can cause death for animals that consume the water.He said that people can get gastrointestinal illnesses, skin rashes, and respiratory problems. He added that the most commonly measured toxin is microcystin. He said that the MPCA's message is"when in doubt, keep out"if residents suspect the presence of blue-green algae. Mr. Heiskary also noted that the MPCA is developing microcystin recreational risk-based thresholds for water bodies. Administrator Jester brought up the idea raised by residents and the Commission at a previous meeting about using rapid test kits to monitor lakes in the watershed. Mr. Heiskary suggested that if the Commission wanted to undertake some type of monitoring in the watershed,the Commission could consider doing a study for a range of lakes to get a better understanding of patterns and the relationship of blue-green algae and the waters in the watershed. He didn't recommend simply giving out the test kits for residents to sample here and there. He did think it might make sense to use the test kits at publicly-run beaches. Mr. Stack asked what can help alleviate the problem of the blue-green algae blooms. Mr. Heiskary responded that there are no easy or short-term solutions. He said that reducing nutrients, implementing TMDLS (Total Maximum Daily Load Studies)and BMPs(best management practices)would help greatly. Mr. Heiskary said to think of the blue-green algae blooms in terms of frequency, intensity, and duration. Commissioner Welch said that blue-green algae add a health component to the reasons behind watershed management. Mr. Heiskary agreed that it does raise the bar and that there is an important educational component to get this information out to people regarding the reasons behind stormwater management and load reductions. Mr. Heiskary answered questions and said that Administrator Jester has a copy of today's PowerPoint presentation. B. Approval of Tru Stone Financial Building Project in Golden Valley Commissioner Welch stated that he would like the Commission to consider how it handles projects such as this one because he believes that it is not good policy for projects of this size to receive no water quality treatment from the Commission. He remarked that most concerning to him with this project is the fairly substantial amount of fill in the 100-year floodplain. Engineer Chandler noted that she believes that the City of Golden Valley had provided additional wetland mitigation and floodplain storage so that the City could do this type of project. She provided more details on the history of the site. Mr. Oliver also provided details about the history of the site,the land donated by General Mills and the purpose behind it, and the City's work with floodplain mitigation. Commissioner 4 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes Welch asked about the biofiltration system planned for the site and added that it would be a bad idea to infiltrate through a contaminated site. Mr. Oliver said he believes it is a filtration system, not an infiltration system. He said that his recollection is that the previous owner did mitigation prior to selling the property and that there were minor leaks that were cleaned up. He said that documentation on this will be provided. Commissioner Welch requested that the Commission Engineer's recommendation number 5 in the August 12, 2014, memo on the project be revised to include that approval of the project is contingent on not infiltrating through contaminated soils. There were more questions about flood levels. Mr. Oliver clarified that there will be no increase in flood levels in this portion of the creek due to General Mills or any work here. Engineer Chandler wanted to clarify that the flood level in the area of the project is no longer 888 but is now quite a bit lower but the City hasn't yet gone through the formal process to have it changed. Mr. Oliver confirmed. He added that flood levels and flood mitigation is his top priority and this project does not pose greater flood risks. Commissioner Black moved to incorporate Commissioner Welch's requested language into the Commission Engineer's recommendation number 5 and approve the project with the Engineer's recommendations. Commissioner Hoschka seconded the motion. Chair de Lambert asked Commissioner Welch to restate his recommendation. Commissioner Welch said that his recommendation was that the Commission's approval is contingent on there being no infiltration through contaminated soils. Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [City of Minneapolis abstained from the vote, and the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale were absent from vote]. C. Review Mid-Year 2014 Budget Status Administrator Jester reported that she and the Commission Engineer reviewed the status of the annual budget. She said that overall the budget is anticipated to be exceeded for technical services by approximately$9,500. She provided a correction to a line item in the Commission Engineer's memo on this agenda item. Administrator Jester described the reasons for the anticipated overages. She described the anticipated savings of up to$10,000 to$13,000 in other line(non-engineering)budget items. Administrator Jester recommended that the Commission not change or discontinue any services,and she said that she believes that the Commission will finish out its fiscal year in the black. Administrator Jester said that for the watershed plan the Commission Engineer anticipates being over-budget by$5,000 by the end of 2014.Administrator Jester reminded the Commission that it budgeted$30,000 for the watershed plan in 2015. She said that the Commission may go over budget this year with the plan but will try to be back in line with the plan budget in 2015.Administrator Jester added a few caveats, noting that the Commission has had and may continue to have intense discussions on policies in the plan,there are questions about the Commission's role in recreation to discuss,and there is the implementation plan to put together. She said that she is not promising that the plan budget at the end of the process will come in exactly on budget but that is her hope. Commissioner Black supported the Administrator's recommendation and recommended keeping a close eye the budget. She asked that another budget review come to the Commission at its October meeting. D. Consider Agreement with Golden Valley for Design and Construction of Schaper Pond Diversion Project Administrator Jester reminded the Commission that last September it adopted a resolution ordering the project but did not enter into an agreement with Golden Valley because there were questions about whether the State would permit the project. She reported that the Commission has worked through the permitting issues and that discussions about whether or not Golden Valley will ultimately be able to take credit for this project in their MS4 permit are ongoing. Mr. Oliver noted the City would like to move forward. Administrator Jester said 5 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes that Barr Engineering has provided to the City of Golden Valley a proposal to design and construct the Schaper Pond Diversion Project. She noted that in front of the Commission today is an agreement between the City of Golden Valley and the Commission for the City to move ahead with the project with a total reimbursable project cost not to exceed $612,000. Commissioner Welch asked and Engineer Chandler confirmed that the Commission did not receive Clean Water funds for this project. There were some questions about who would construct the project. Commissioner Welch explained that the construction would be bid. Commissioner Welch said that in paragraph 2 of the agreement,the language reads that plans and specifications are subject to review by the Commission. He said that the Commission refined that language to provide more specificity about checkpoints and asked why that more specific language doesn't appear in this agreement. Engineer Chandler described the process that she envisions the project will follow,which is the Commission's CIP process. Commissioner Welch and Attorney LeFevere discussed the language in the agreement,and Commissioner Welch asked for the language to be more specific and for"subject to"to be removed. Mr. Oliver said that the City has no problem with that request. Commissioner Black asked if the Commission Engineer would be reviewing its own work since Barr Engineering would be designing the project.There was a discussion. Attorney LeFevere said that the Commission could hire an outside engineer to do a peer review of the Commission Engineer's work,but it would be an unusual and costly step. Commissioner Black said that another option is to not have the Commission Engineer do the design. Mr. Oliver said that Barr Engineering is in the Commission's engineering pool and Barr Engineering has a 20-year history with the project site. Commissioner Black said that she has worked in many jobs in which she had her work reviewed and that now and again someone would find an error. She said that when the feasibility study and the design are both done by the Commission Engineer, it opens the project up to problems that may cause cost increases in the future. She said that she thinks it is not a good way to conduct business to have everything done internally with no one from the outside reviewing the project. There was discussion about different member cities' processes with regard to contracting for feasibility studies and project design. Mr. Asche said that for him the perfect process would be for the Commission Engineer to do the feasibility studies but not the design.He said that instead he would look to an outside firm in the pool to do the design because he feels there is an advantage to having an outside consultant do the design and the Commission Engineer review it because he likes an extra set of eyes on it. Mr. Asche said that it is each city's choice since the City has to manage the projects. There was discussion about the revision to the language in the agreement. Mr. Oliver said that the City is fine with a revision as long as it doesn't mean that minor change orders need Commission approval because the delays that could occur in construction would be costly. Commissioner Welch moved that the Commission approve the agreement subject to Commission review of the 90%plans/bid documents and that the Commission authorize Counsel to work out change order language in the agreement with the Chair's review and approval. Commissioner Hoschka seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. E. Receive Update on Next Generation Watershed Management Plan Development Administrator Jester provided an update and reported that the Commission needs to hold a workshop in late September or early October to discuss remaining policies and the draft implementation plan.The Commission 6 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes agreed that Administrator Jester would send out a Doodle poll to coordinate the workshop. F. Receive Update on Materials for New Commissioners Commissioner Black recommended that the Joint Powers Agreement and a list of acronyms be included in the materials and suggested that the Commission have a presentation annually to review the Open Meeting Law. There was a brief discussion and the Commission agreed that these materials should go on the Commission's website and can be provided to new members in other formats if necessary. [Commissioner Hoschka of Golden Valley and Commissioner Millner of Minnetonka depart the meeting) Administrator Jester said that she will work on gathering those pieces and will work with the recorder to get the materials posted. G. Consider Approval of Plans for Volunteer Recognition Administrator Jester summarized the proposed process for recognizing volunteers. Commissioner Welch suggested that in this inaugural year the Commission recognize volunteers going back at least one year. Commissioner Black moved to approve the process with the addition of continuing to recognize outgoing Commission members with a certificate at the member's final meeting. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 5-0 [Cities of Crystal,Golden Valley, Minnetonka, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [Commissioner Carlson of Medicine Lake departs the meeting. Alternate Commissioner John O'Toole assumes voting role.] H. Consider Commission Involvement on Project Advisory Team for MPRB Ecological System Plan Administrator Jester gave a summary of the project and reported that Engineer Chandler attended the first meeting. She noted that approximately three more meetings are planned. Commissioner Welch moved that he attend the meetings and that if he can't attend, Administrator Jester will attend in his place. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 5-0 [Cities of Crystal,Golden Valley, Minnetonka, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. I. Receive Update on Watershed Map Administrator Jester said that she has a meeting tomorrow about the map, plans to order the printing of 2,500 copies, and has requested that the map be done and ready for Golden Valley Days. J. Receive Update on NEMO Workshops Administrator Jester noted that 14 local officials and BCWMC members attended the July workshop on Lake Minnetonka. She announced that there is one more workshop, which will be a bus tour of storm water improvement projects. She added that staff is still investigating sites to add to the tour. K. Discuss Plans for Commission Involvement in Golden Valley Days Administrator Jester said that Golden Valley Days is on September 13`h and the BCWMC will have a vehicle in the parade. She said that if anyone is interested in being in the parade to contact her. She announced that she will send out an email with updates on the event. 6. COMMUNICATIONS A. Administrator: i. Administrator Jester announced that she and the City of Golden Valley are helping with a tour for 7 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes MPCA staff next Tuesday morning. She said the tour is of BMPs and will stop at the Wirth Lake Outlet Structure and the Main Stem restoration project in Golden Valley. B. Chair: No Chair Communications C. Commissioners: i. Commissioner Black announced that she has requested that the Plymouth City Council appoint David Tobelmann as the Commissioner and her as the Alternate Commissioner for the BCWMC. ii. Commissioner Welch,Administrator Jester, and Engineer Chandler provided an update on the permit status at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Main Stem restoration project in Minneapolis. Engineer Chandler reported that the grant for the project has been extended. iii. Commissioner Welch announced that the Minneapolis Transportation Public Works Committee passed the Joint Powers Agreement amendment, which will go to the Minneapolis City Council next week for approval.He said he anticipates that the amendment will be signed before the next Commission meeting. iv. Commissioner Welch requested that the Administrator touch base with the City of Robbinsdale regarding the city's representation on the Commission. D. TAC Members: No TAC Communications E. Committees:No Committee Communications F. Legal Counsel:No Legal Communications G. Engineer: i. Engineer Chandler spoke about the MPCA's responses to the Commission's comments on the bacteria TMDL. She provided a summary of the responses. Engineer Chandler said that the Commission could have an informal conversation with the MPCA, could send a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or could just work things out during implementation and planning. ii. Engineer Chandler reported that the Commission isn't eligible for this next round of Clean Water Fund grants because the Commission's Watershed Management Plan expires in September and for the Commission to be eligible there needs to be a plan in effect. 7. INFORMATION ONLY (Available at http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/Meetings/2014/2014- August/2014AugustMeetingPacket.htm) A. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet B. WCA Notices,Plymouth 8 BCWMC August 21, 2014, Meeting Minutes 8.ADJOURNMENT Chair de Lambert adjourned the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Regular Meeting at 11:26 a.m. Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Secretary Date 9 Cit gold' 0 en!'-.4" M E M 0 R A N D U M valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) 'a"wa'9av'94Y➢d ft4V°!fi& mw 4P,�.a, Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. D. 1. Authorize Amended and Restated Easement Agreement with Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board for Watermain and Reservoir Purposes Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer R.J. Kakach, EIT, Utility Engineer Summary The City of Golden Valley, on behalf of the Joint Water Commission (JWC), owns and maintains a water supply reservoir within an easement on property owned by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) in Theodore Wirth Regional Park. The original easement allowing construction and operation of the reservoir was established in 1965. Following a comprehensive study to establish an emergency water supply for the JWC, it was determined that a supply well would need to be located immediately adjacent to the JWC reservoir in Golden Valley. The installation and operation of this well will require additional easement from the MPRB. On September 17, 2014, the MPRB amended the original easement agreement with Golden Valley to provide land area to install the supply well and piping into the reservoir. In addition, an Operations and Maintenance Agreement with Golden Valley was approved by the MPRB for the use of sand material generated from well drilling and water supplied from routine exercise of the new well for recreation uses, including snow making and irrigation, in exchange for monetary compensation for the easement. City staff has determined that this property addition to the reservoir site is necessary in order to install and maintain the emergency wells as part of a cooperative project with the Joint Water Commission scheduled for 2015. Attachments • Amended and Restated Easement Agreement between Golden Valley and Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board (13 pages) • Operations and Maintenance Agreement between Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board and the Joint Water Commission (4 pages) Recommendation Motion to Authorize the Amended and Restated Easement Agreement between Golden Valley and Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board. AMENDED AND RESTATED EASEMENTAGREEMENT THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of , 2014 by and between the City of Minneapolis, acting by and through its Park and Recreation Board("Park Board'), a body corporate and politic under the laws of the state of Minnesota and the City of Golden Valley("City"), Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation. RECITALS A. The Park Board owns land which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto(Park Board Land). B. On June 22, 1965,the Park Board and the City(then Village)of Golden Valley entered into an easement agreement for water main and reservoir purposes. The easement was duly executed and subsequently recorded in Book 2501 of Deeds, Page 326 of the Public Records of Hennepin County Minnesota(hereinafter "1965 Easement Agreement"). A copy of the 1965 Easement Agreement is attached hereto.as Exhibit B. C. The City now finds it is required by the Minnesota Department of Health to construct and maintain an emergency water well for its utility operations and that the construction of this additional water well will require the use of additional Park Board property. D. The City has therefore requested that the Park Board amend the 1965 Easement Agreement to expand the area of property burdened, and the Park Board by execution of this Amended and Restated Easement Agreement evidences its consent to the Village's request. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows. I. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct in all respects and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. 1965 Easement Agreement. The 1965 Easement Agreement is restated and incorporated herein by reference, except as follows: a. Additional Easement Area. The property to be added to the easement area in the 1965 Easement Agreement is a portion of land 50 feet wide by 130 feet long located at the southwest corner of the 1965 Easement Area and is legally described as well as depicted on a map which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit C. b. Easement Area. The area encompassed within the 1965 Easement Agreement and the Additional Easement Area described in this agreement shall be referred to hereinafter as the Easement Area. c. Giant of Easement. The Park Board hereby grants, conveys and confirms to the City a perpetual easement for ingress and egress purposes over, upon,across and through the Easement Area together with the right to construct, operate, maintain,repair and replace the emergency well within the Additional Easement Area as well as any testing required by any state agency with respect to the water in the emergency well. d. Conditions and Limitations on City. Other than changes made in this Amended and Restated Easement Agreement, all of the conditions and limitations contained in the 1965 Easement Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall apply to the Easement Area. A separate operating agreement of even date herewith, shall cover particular matters regarding the day to day operation and maintenance of the Easement Area.. e. Park Board's Rights. The Park Board shall have the right to use that portion of the Easement Area depicted in Exhibit D which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, as being outside the fenced area surrounding the reservoir/watermain easement for any and all recreational uses deemed appropriate for the area by the Park Board, 3. Governing Law. This agreement is governed and shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4. Binding_Effect. This agreement will inure to the benefit of, and will be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amended and Restated Easement Agreement to be duly executed by their officers on the day and year first above written. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS PARK AND RECRTI N BOARD D By W c f-z(, -� 4►7I President � bq,t j i&�j Its Secretary STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing document was acknowledged before me this 10- day of Q 2014, byU?, j e Rrc5w1 as President and 9 ,e(&h�as Secretary of)be City of Minneapolis, acting by and through its Park and Recreation Board. Ca RENAY W LEONE No yPublic .. NOTARY pUB�iC MINNESOTA .; 6 y Comm.Expires Jan.31.2015 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Its By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing document was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014,by and as and of the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation. Notary Public EXHIBIT A Park Board Land That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter(SW 11 of SW %)of Section 17,Township 29,Range 24,Hennepin County,Minnesota, as described in a Quit Claim Deed conveying a utility easement to the Village of Golden Valley, recorded July 14, 1965 in Book 2501 of Deeds, on Page 326. EXHIBIT B 1965 Easement Agreement 4 �t�te at �tittnt�ata, u. 0`25 01 tA►thia .�_._....... ..» . ...day of»_ _ M _. cul _.�_.. _. ....,1A.65_., b4m mu in end for"0 0—tyr Y.nonaRY appe red to rxe Jaroaen to be the peramr..._.».__deeortbed irr,and who axaeniad tha j imtrument.' _... .... . ........ .. _ _._..,.....___._. __...mrd aehnaadtd fad that: ._M...._ .....axseutd the acme at and Jrotory Pablta........Hernnepin._.....Coaxty,.ittna. .ily eoa mkVIon Muni Tri.ad■nL U...meow!e..nw"en M wr wl.i�Ye M.rvnAn�N...aa.e 4•.NI..Mr�raal. .. 4 xamr iuena x.en�els Cw�ts.Iaas last Filed for record an the 14 day Of Jul AD 1966 at 250 o'olook P.M. MMM �/ a�aaa„o►��ta n:.w.. Foray No,31—N, ala.. aM. IIUwwa OMty� X2501 am-126 • 35511sa. ! ; Iffy ofbe the–Gity.oi�KMiFlent3apoi»is.by,and.through_its_.Bt►acti..o�Pa9Ckc._ ......__. • ' Conisi s s i over s• 's a eorporottox under the laaa of rho Btap ef-......N iq��5^*a .,Fa►t!/aj the tired Part,and' + + eri pa l•--- 7�iE_sLT I A6E_0"0.LD.E"ALLBX, � ._ ....._.....,_. all�attare wwter tka laird of tha8data of_.,,,,_...._.__,..M.i•nAeSOti.w..,,....,. � trarty of CAW iuwnd Pali. ._,__.. ..... Mbitrse4, 'Thai the.aid of y�s�wee tit i t� OO�idaraitw� at' the nun of . Anes nol.1at_Md_12tb.Qt_2jM'V%Ltyt_91._ eras on _. ..._. Nam*, to a is hand paid 3y the maid party of as eremd part,the whomf to hereby aekee ledkeel, doer he4y t's'naat.Barown,Quitclaim,and Canary U140 the add Party of the as and W4 its.neawrert and ,nrewr,all Aa trwR at.ar Paratt g..air land dyin(and bond in the Caaariy of .__. n P_ n....... ...snd stab of Ariwnwota,&m iw ai twipme,to•"U, A utility easement in perpetuity for water storage reservoie purposes on that part of the Southwest * of the Southwest } of Section 17 Township 29 Range 24 described as followsi Beginning at a point In the West line of said quarter-quarter; distant 400 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence North along the West line' of said quarter quarter, a distance of 600 feett thence at a right angle East a distance- of 300 fact;- thence at a rlght angle South a distance of 600 feetj thence at andight angle West a distance of 300 feet to the point of beginning= -A perpetual easestent for watertnain purposes over that NMI %F, 7 we sf 15 Peetrof the Southwest * of the Southwest * of Section 17, Township 29, Range 24, lying South of a line drawn at right angles to the west line of sold quarter-quarter, from a point therein distant 400 feet North of the Southwest corner theraofi also the North 15 feet of the east 9$4.5 feet of the Northeast * of the North- east k of Section 19, Township 29, Range 24; also the North 15 feet of the west 15 feet of the.Northwestof the Northwest t of Section 20, Township 29, Range 24; and also a strip of land 15 feet, " in width and 7.5 feet on each side of aid center line hereinafter described as being a part of the East of the Northeast k • of Section 19, Township 29, Range 24 and lying between the North line of said section and the N rtherly right of way AInc of the Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern Railway, aforesaid center line being described as a line running from a point in the North line of said Section 49, distant 977 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof to a point in the Eastarly extension of the South line of Lot 97 tri in the plat of toGlanwood", distant 20 feet East of Southeast corner of sold tot 97x- Sub''ect, however, to the following conditions and limitations which shat) govern•said,easemantss 1. Said water reservoir shall be so constructed so-as to be as visually unobtrusive as possible and blended into the topographical surroundings by appropriate landscaping, which landscaping shall be according to plans forgyrading and planting mutually. agreed upon between the pirties hereto and at the expense of the Village of Golden Valley. 2f Structures above the ground at the water storage reservoir site shall be restricted to a height of ane story and shell only be structures directly required for the Installation,and use of a water, storage-reservoir. 3. The -Village of Golden Valley ghall obtain and provide means of access to the aforesaid water storage reservoir easement site over property other than that owned by the Grantors, 4. Profile elevation and W—ation of the water main pipe line- shall.be• subject to the approval of the Minneapolis Superintendent'of Parks. S. Following the installation of any :water main pipe line, pro- •�psr top soil reseeding and replanting shall be performed by the Village of Golden Valley and any future settlement within said watermain pipeline located within the easement shal4 be repaired at the expense of the Village of Golden Valley. , 6. Access over the brantor's property forAhe purpose of building or servicing the water main pipe line located within the easement.given hereby shall be under the direction of and according to.permits,issued by the Minneapolis Superintendent of-Parks. 7. The Village of Sol-Men Valley shall save the Minneapolis- Board of Park Commissioners and the City of Minneapolis harmless from all responsibility and liability resulting from the 'installation, maintenance and repair of said water main pipe lines located within the easements granted hereby, any damage to public or private property caused by any of such activities to be repaired at the sole expense of the Village of Golden Valley, 8. in the event that any future development or use by the Minneapolis Board of Park Commissioners of its property contemplates or requires the relocation of any water main pipe line within the easements hereby given, said moving or relocation shall be performed at the expense of the Village of Golden Valley. • t 5 a r 1 25ol wap.$ ' r 1 ,I 1 e l • t j��le•4)r foam toe impe, ro(ether udtk all Ohe havditamexb wtd apparbxaaoee ehero ' n „ !n/or'G►�a1 a aYFerfatxtx/,to pie cold party of the smmd part,tte eueaaeom unit aaijxs, 5 •^�" ` lilllpilir ItttOl, nd said on$party has caumd thele �' ",, ', l•.: •i-;* pr tante to be•leaped in ib eorporate name by!te i rig Pre*ww and lte»..�S-e-y �s#TlL,.,..and Its be hw-"&44-d a"day gild yycaaa F Amt above •eCal to V of Minneapolis, by aM thry it,, R4 r HOARD OF PARK C%#USMO)&Ry)^S�J. ,.M»...«,_. ,Prwidmw -so.,,,,41wa;�yw�y , �►tRtt Of Ofuntatd, - J On thte ' 22nd day % June MAL btfort t •._....,,,M..»..?'�t�ubYlSs,._..»_,»..._,._ _ ...»-,reWlthix,and f orsam.r...r..........._., ., xer,a i wtauhi M riflX C4QXSi.,-• #4"!da 4 I to wo P—"ally knoran,ivhny b dmf Nock by nal duly mare _ �td I-dtd say that Mg aro rrspmtivsi j the—. - ,-.—Praidsxt and fha, ,?►{ _... . ._. ...af the wrp"Um named bx tT�i t fenO004�infemmeat,and th $am axil a}Jlaed to am lamOusrext to the mporak evel of acid eorperatton,• pxd that Pa Co�lisstoaePs and aaiad.ln behalf void by arthoruip of its Aoard oral cold jrHen _ aakxorsls3 j 41014 lxskwxext to be Me firifi aeiaid deed of Mid Myosm dv&m Pc�Y tRAD� r ' •v►Wf7 rrir'vlss,ssas• n�'eunl xls 1,... .r•?;r i•1_ Lm..t^•r..:n+ £•.•, Nov.t 1v1. 7 •„ ;i w I s F11ed for reoord on the It dj{ sy of Jul AD'lti6ti at xr80 O'olook F.U.Pli EXHIBIT C Additional Easement Area (shown on attached as yellow highlighted property) An easement over,under, and across that part of the'Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17,Township 29, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter,distant 400 feet north of the Southwest corner thereof; thence east, at a right angle to said west line, a distance of 31.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing east, on said line at a right angle to said west line, a distance of 130.00 feet; thence south, at a right angle, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence west, at a right angle, a distance of 130.00 feet; thence north, at a right angle, a distance of 50.00 feet, to the point of beginning. x a 4 GV-W1 so' 36' 41 NX � .:, . ox. e NMAR Note: The ExistingReservoir/Wbterm ain Easement will be added to as shown and the language will be modified to allow for municipal well activities and protection as required by the Minnesota Department of Health fi�1 ProOwr�vM 4E.wrrr*IWO 5 `,J ftkr Slruolurm 60'Selbodt SWAN SVU&m Rs3erwolr lowr =aw ftrfty Pipe Parcels ' Sloan Shucta" Proposed EaeemeM -at Sion Pipe A�ddltlon �... YWtermaln EeaemeM JyyJjjlIj{rrii , EXHIBIT D EASEMENT AREA FOR RECREATION (area outside pink fenced portion of original reservoir/watermain easement property) cn Pitno g w 0 ft X A r an V C r. �"' av OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered as of this day of , 2014 by and between the City of Minneapolis, acting by and through its Park and Recreation Board(MPRB), a body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and the Joint Water Commission(JWC), a Joint Powers Commission involving the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope. RECITALS A. In 2014,the MPRB amended and restated its 1965 Easement Agreement with the Village (now City)of Golden Valley(Golden Valley), in which it enlarged the area of property covered by the 1965 Easement agreement in order that Golden Valley, in association with the JWC, could construct an emergency water well on the additional property as required by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The document evidencing this easement was subsequently recorded as Document No. with the Hennepin'County Recorder, B. The JWC finds that in constructing the emergency water well it will be displacing sand and potentially disposing of sand when digging the well. C. The MPRB may have a use for the sand at its golf courses but at this time prefers. not to commit to taking the sand. D. The JWC is willing to give a portion of this sand to the MPRB for use on its golf courses,if the MPRB so desires. E. The JWC will regularly operate the wells to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the emergency well system on a schedule determined by the JWC. The amount of water produced is not large and shall be discharged into the nearest stormwater basin. R The MPRB may have a use for and may desire to use this excess water for winter sports activities during the months of November through February of each year. Any MPRB use of the excess water or any additional water that is needed to support MPRB operations shall be discussed and approved by the JWC. G. The JWC desires to direct this excess water for use by the Park Board during the months of November through February each year(upon construction of a conveyance and storage system). H. The Park Board and JWC desire to set out certain details regarding the City's use of the'Easement Property for operations and maintenance purposes. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows. I. Term. This Agreement will be in full force and effect from the date of signing through December 31, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of this Agreement 2. )WC's Obligations. The JWC shall: a. if requested by MPRB, give MPRB access to a portion of the sand,that is displaced by the construction/digging of the emergency water well; b. Install a pump, water line and cut off valve at the emergency water well that direction of the excess water from testing to MPRB's water line during the months of November through February; c. Ensure that the pump is operational at all times that this agreement is in effect; d. Ensure that all excess water from normal operation is directed to the MPRB and its water line during the months of November through February of each year that this agreement is in effect; and e. Remove all sand from the site during/after the JWC completes its construction of the emergency well. The sand will be delivered to a site owned by Golden Valley for storage. 3. Park Board's Obli tions. The Park Board shall: a. Transport the sand that will be used by the MPRB for its operations from the Golden Valley-owned'site to the MPRB site. b. Pay,for all utility and maintenance charges associated with the use of the JWC's well in directing water to the MPRB during the months of November through February of each year that this agreement is in effect but only for the amount of water taken by MPRB exceeds the regular exercising of the well. The payment of such utility and maintenance charges shall also be offset by MPRB use of JWC well water during other months for the benefit of the JWC. 4. Indemnification. Each party is responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law. Minnesota Statutes chapter 466 and other applicable laws govern the parties' liability Nothing herein shall be construed to waive or limit any immunity,from, or limitation on, liability available to either party, whether set forth in Minnesota Statutes .chapter 466 or otherwise. 5. Successors and Assigns. Neither the JWC nor the MPRB shall have the right to assign its rights, obligations and interests under this Agreement to any other party without prior written consent of the other party. 2 6. Amendment.Modification or Waiver. No amendment, modification or waiver of any condition,provision or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing and signed by the party or parties to be bound,or its duly authorized representative. Any waiver by either party shall be effective only with respect to the subject matter thereof and the particular occurrence described therein, and shall not affect the rights of either party with respect to any similar or dissimilar occurrences in the.future. 7. No Agency, Nothing contained herein and no action by either party hereto will be deemed or construed by such parties or by any third person to create the relationship of principal and agent or a partnership or a joint venture or any other association between the parties hereto. 8. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated any time after 2024 by the either the MPRB or the JWC by the terminating party giving the other party 180 days written notice prior to the date of termination. Any such termination shall be in writing and signed by the parties. Termination shall not require the JWC to remove any portion of the well from the easement or limit the use of the facility on the MPRB property. 9. Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed given on the first business day following the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail(registered or certified)postage prepaid,addressed as follows: To the Park Board: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Attn: Superintendent 2117 West River Road North Minneapolis,MN 55411 To the JWC: Joint Water Commission Attn: Tom Burt 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 10. Goyer=iz Laws.' This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the MPRB and the JWC have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written Joint Water Commission City of Minneapolis, acting by and through its Park and Recreation Board By: By: Its Its resident Date: Date: B �, � •- y Approved as to form: its Secretary Date: Golden Valley City Attorney Approved as to form: Park Board Attorney 4 city 0 � 4r golden MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. D. 2. Purchase One Fire Pumper Truck Prepared By Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager John Crelly, Fire Chief Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman Summary The 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program includes $575,000 for the purchase of a fire pumper truck (V&E-082, page 39) for the Fire Department. The fire pumper due for replacement meets the criteria set forth in the City's Vehicle Replacement Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI index is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement. Any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above meets the category of"needs immediate consideration." The fire pumper Unit 331 due for replacement scored 41 points. The purchase will be made under the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) Contract FS12-13 Northstar Fire Apparatus. The HGAC is an approved cooperative purchasing program. The contract is on file in the Physical Development Department. Funds have been designated in the Equipment Replacement Fund for the purchase of the fire truck. Although the purchase will be made early, the City does not need to sell equipment certificates for this purchase. The HGAC has awarded the following contract: Contract No. Item Vendor Amount F512-13 Pierce Manufacturing Northstar Fire Apparatus $536,222.00 HGAC Fee Calculation (from current fee tables) $2,000.00 Loose Equipment $15,747.00 Subtotal Purchase Without Early Payment $562,311.00 Total Purchase with Early Payment $553,969.00 Note: Early payment of$278,060 due 90 days prior to delivery. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the purchase of one Pierce Fire Pumper and pertinent equipment from Northstar Fire Apparatus for$553,969. city 0 gotaen MEMORANDUM valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2014 Driveways Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs for driveways and waiving the public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statues 429.031. This work has been done by the city contractor for driveway repairs. This program is offered to those property owners interested from the current Pavement Management Area. This allows the improvement to be paid with property taxes. The City needs to have a contract setup with the property owner before this option is available. Attachments • List of Pavement Management Program Driveway Improvements Assessed in 2014 (1 page) • Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Driveways Involved 2014 City Street Improvements (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Driveways that Involve 2014 City Street Improvements. 2014 PMP Driveways Levy 18834 PID Property Address Total 32-118-21-43-0052 105 IDAHO AVE N 3,666.38 32-118-21-44-0042 6633 GLENWOD AVE 1,917.48 5,583.86 Resolution 14-83 October 21, 2014 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 2014 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2014 PMP 10 6% 2015 $5,583.86 Driveways 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 of 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, 2015 through December 31, 2015, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2014, collectible in 2015, 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 15, 2014. 4. The owner may pay off the assessment in full after November 15, 2014 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. ATTEST: Shepard Harris, Mayor Kristine A. Luedke, 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. city o� MEMORANDUM go I den 1 *1 valley Public Warks Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. F. Second Consideration - Ordinance 531 - Addition of Section 3.32 Regarding Discharge of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager R.J. Kakach, EIT, Utility Engineer Summary Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) is defined as the buildup of greasy material in the sanitary sewer system, usually from animal or vegetable food sources that are discharged into a sink or floor drain. Over time, these discharges begin to build up on the interior walls of the sanitary sewer pipes, resulting in a decrease in capacity. These restrictions often result in sewer blockages and backups. In an attempt to minimize these issues, staff currently spends hundreds of hours cleaning and jetting the sewer lines in the City each year. A cost breakdown of the cleaning and jetting indicates City resources in excess of$114,000 per year go into this additional maintenance. In some extreme cases, specific lines are cleaned as often as once per week. In an ideal situation with the proper grease separation devices in place, these lines would only need to be cleaned every three years. The additional maintenance effort consumes City resources which could be better utilized on other utility maintenance issues. In addition to the maintenance concerns, the City Code does not currently require the removal of FOG necessary to meet local Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and national Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Both MCES 406.04 and 406.05 and EPA National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR 403.5(b)(3)) rules specifically prohibit the discharge of"solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction" into the wastewater collection system. More specifically, MCES defines FOG as a concern when it exceeds 100 milligrams per liter as a solution. To properly address the issue of FOG discharge into the public sanitary sewer system, staff has drafted an ordinance to achieve proper removal and disposal of FOG. There are 109 licensed food service providers in the City of Golden Valley. About half of these facilities are restaurants that produce FOG. Some of these restaurants already have grease traps or interceptors installed; however, many do not. In addition to requiring restaurants to have the necessary equipment in place, this ordinance also requires each restaurant to be accountable for proper cleaning and maintenance of its equipment to ensure that it continues to work effectively. To ensure this accountability, each restaurant would be required to submit annual maintenance logs to the City for review. Consideration for non-restaurant food service providers would be evaluated once all restaurants have complied. The first consideration of this ordinance was held at the October 7, 2014, City Council meeting. Staff has not received any communication from affected businesses since the first consideration. If Council adopts the ordinance on its second consideration, it will be effective upon publication. Attachments • Ordinance#531, Addition of Section 3.32: Discharge of Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) and Amending Section 3.01 Definitions. (4 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on second consideration, Ordinance #531, Addition of 3.32: Discharge of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) and Amending Section 3.01: Definitions. ORDINANCE NO. 531, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Adding a New Section 3.32: Discharge of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) and Amending Section 3.01: The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. Chapter 3 of the Golden Valley City Code is hereby amended include a new Section 3.32 to read in its entirety as follows: Section 3.32: Discharge of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Subdivision 1. Installation Any existing, new, renovated, or expanded Food Service Facility must install a Grease Interceptor/Trap upon notice by the City that it has been determined that the Fat, Oil and Grease discharge from such Food Service Facility significantly impacts the City sewer system requiring undue additional maintenance. Upon notification, the Food Service Facility shall have a period of time stated in the notice, not exceeding one (1) calendar year, to install the Grease Interceptor/Trap. Subdivision 2. Design All Grease Interceptors/Traps must be designed and installed in accordance with the State of Minnesota Plumbing Code (MN Rule 4715) and the Hennepin County Environmental Health Department. Subdivision 3. Location All Grease Interceptors/Traps shall be located as to be readily and easily accessible for cleaning and inspection. Subdivision 4. Annual Maintenance Record By April 1 of each year, Food Service Facilities with Grease Interceptors/Traps must submit annual maintenance records to the City on a form that is provided by the City. The City may also perform periodic inspections of Food Service Facilities to ensure that Grease Interceptors/Traps are being properly maintained by each Food Service Facility. Subdivision 5. Installation and Maintenance Policy and Procedures The City shall maintain an Installation and Maintenance Policy and Procedures which will document specific requirements of this Section. This policy will be available to each Food Service Facility at the City. Subdivision 6. Additional Control Measures The City reserves the right to require additional control measures if existing Grease Interceptors/Traps are determined to be insufficient to protect the wastewater collection system from interference due to the discharge of FOG from the Food Service Facility. Ordinance No. 531 -2- Section 2. City Code Section 3.01 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows (struck text deleted, underlined text added): Section 3.01: DefinitionS As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings stated: 1. Gmean Clear Water: is any surface flow, run off, and drainage that does not contain any hazardous substance or sewage. This includes but is not limited to NPDES permitted discharges, storm water and water from foundation and footing drains and basement or other sump pumps. 2. Consumer and Customer: mean any user of a utility. 3. Draintile: means a subsurface drainage and conveyance system of clear water and groundwater into the storm sewer system. 4. Food Service Facility: means any facility containing an operation that prepares, packages, serves vends or otherwise provides food or which disposes of food related wastes. Food service facility does not include single or multi-family residential facilities, but does include institutional facilities and other facilities designated by the City Manager or his/her designee, as a facility that discharges enough FOG to have a significant impact on the City's Sanitary Sewer System 5. Fats, Oils and Grease or FOG: means material composed primarily of fats, oils and grease from animal or vegetable sources 6. Grease Interceptor/Trap: means a City-approved device for separating and retaining waterborne FOG prior to wastewater exiting the interceptor and entering the sanitary sewer collection and treatment system 7. Infiltration: is an indirect connection of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. 8S. Inflow: is any direct connection of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. 96. Interceptor Sewer: means that portion of the sanitary sewer system that extends outside of the City of Golden Valley and is owned, operated and maintained by the Metropolitan Council. 10-7. Inspector: means any pei=sen duly authorized by the City Manager or his her designee, . 118. Joint Water Commission (JWC): means the commission established through a joint powers agreement between the cities of Golden Valley, Crystal and New Hope to provide potable water to customers in the three cities. Ordinance No. 531 -3- 129. Minneapolis Water Works (MWW): means a municipal water system owned and operated by the City of Minneapolis. 133.9. Municipal Utility: means any city-owned utility system, including, but not limited to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer service. 1434. Owner: means the person or entity that owns or holds the title of a property served by a municipal utility. 15372. Sanitary Sewer System: includes all street lateral, main and intersecting sewers and structures by which sewage or industrial wastes are collected, transported, treated and disposed of; provided that this shall not include plumbing inside or a part of a building or premises served, or service sewers from a building to the sanitary sewer main. 1633. Service: means providing a particular utility to a customer or consumer. 1734. Sewage: means water-carried waste products from residences, public buildings, institutions or other buildings or premises, including the excrement or other discharge from the bodies of human beings or animals. 18375. Sewer Service Lateral or Service Lateral: means that portion of the sanitary sewer system that generally is perpendicular to the sewer main and extends from the sewer main to the structure being served. 19375. Sewer Main: means that portion of the sanitary sewer system that is owned, operated and maintained by the City. The City portion of the sanitary sewer system is typically within street rights-of-way or easements. 204-7. Storm Sewer: means a subsurface drainage facility that conveys storm water runoff and snow melt runoff into surface water bodies. 213-8. Sump Pump Inspection: means a visual examination of a sump pit and the pump and discharge piping designed to remove liquids therefrom. 2249. Trunk Water Main: means water mains larger than twelve (12) inches in diameter that distribute water throughout the distribution system and are owned by the Joint Water Commission and maintained by the City. 2329. Utility: means all utility services, whether public, city-owned facilities, or furnished by public utility companies. 244. Water Main: means that portion of the potable water distribution system that is twelve (12) inches in diameter and smaller, and is owned, operated and maintained by the City. 252-2. Water Service: means that portion of the potable water system that is generally perpendicular to the water main that extends from the water main to the structure or group of structures being served. Ordinance No. 531 -4- Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 3.99 of City Code entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 21 st day of October, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Cit0 goldenivv4v ^ MEMORANDUM valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. G. Receipt of September 2014 Financial Reports Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director 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) Motor Vehicle Licensing (Enterprise Fund) Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) Equipment Replacement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) General Fund Operations: As of September 2014,the City uses $1,532,554 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments • September 2014 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages) • September 2014 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) • September 2014 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) • September 2014 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) • September 2014 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) • September 2014 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) • September 2014 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the September 2014 Financial Reports. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures September, 2014 (unaudited) Over % 2014 September YTD (Under) Of Budget Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend oot Council $294,840 10,659 177,602 ($117,238) 60.24% 003 City Manager 762,980 56,724 497,100 (265,880) 65.15% 004 Transfers Out 294,710 0 294,710 0 100.00% (1) 005 Admin. Services 1,676,280 111,835 1,253,686 (422,594) 74.79% 006 Legal 135,000 13,550 89,676 (45,324) 66.43% (2) 007 Risk Management 300,000 0 202,970 (97,030) 67.66% 011 General Gov't. Bldgs. 556,990 72,052 408,870 (148,120) 73.41% 016 Planning 346,195 16,259 218,148 (128,047) 63.01% 018 Inspections 651,545 54,659 464,652 (186,893) 71.32% 022 Police 5,202,175 382,862 3,530,602 (1,671,573) 67.87% 023 Fire 1,200,190 73,509 783,641 (416,549) 65.29% 035 Physical Dev Admin 334,315 21,505 234,817 (99,498) 70.24% 036 Engineering 691,880 16,612 335,893 (355,987) 48.55% 037 Streets 1,429,410 124,555 1,073,170 (356,240) 75.08% 065 Community Center 74,100 3,671 38,245 (35,855) 51.61% 066 Park& Rec. Admin. 679,345 54,901 473,522 (205,823) 69.70% 067 Park Maintenance 1,051,490 85,561 773,997 (277,493) 73,61% 068 Recreation Programs 502,830 21,500 219,094 (283,736) 43.57% (3) TOTAL Expenditures $16,184,275 $1,120,414 $11,070,395 ($5,113,880) 68.40% (1) This transfer was made in June, 2014. (2) Legal services are through August. (3)Tennis program expenditures are lower due to contractual arrangement. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Revenues September, 2014 Percentage Of Year Completed 75.00% Over % 2014 September YTD (Under) of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $12,358,005 0 6,417,261 ($5,940,744) 51.93% (1) Licenses 210,785 4,905 251,091 $40,306 119.12% Permits 725,000 72,452 938,673 $213,673 129.47% Federal Grants 0 0 13,860 $13,860 State Aid 255,390 0 149,092 ($106,298) 58.38% (2) Hennepin County Aid 31,205 0 31,758 $553 (3) Charges For Services: General Government 45,050 17,441 41,609 ($3,441) 92.36% Public Safety 163,870 25,740 133,797 ($30,073) 81.65% Public Works 141,000 16,987 117,687 ($23,313) 83.47% Park& Rec 525,270 61,786 311,438 ($213,832) 59.29% (4) Other Funds 981,500 0 685,998 ($295,502) 69.89% Fines & Forfeitures 320,000 24,923 217,305 ($102,695) 67.91% (5) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (6) Miscellaneous Revenue 227,200 1,410 153,272 ($73,928) 67.46% Transfers In 100,000 8,333 75,000 ($25,000) 75.00% (7) TOTAL Revenue $16,184,275 $233,977 $9,537,841 ($6,646,434) 58.93% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January(delinquencies). (2) Police Training was be paid in August. Safe and Sober is billed on time spent. (3)Violent Offenders Task Force is run by Hennepin County. (4) Tennis progam was changed after budget was approved. (5) Fines/Forfeitures are through August 2014. (6) Investment income is allocated at year end. (7)Transfers are monthly. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund September 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 September YTD (Under) Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,500 56,955 56,955 455 100.81% Recycling Charges 332,400 25,208 210,991 (121,409) 63.48% (3) Miscellaneous Revenues 9,000 0 0 (9,000) Interest on Investments 5,000 0 0 (5,000) 0.00% (1) Total Revenue 402,900 82,163 267,946 (134,954) 66.50% Expenses: Recycling 447,135 19,079 283,168 (163,967) 63.33% (2) Total Expenses 447,135 19,079 283,168 (163,967) 63.33% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Recycling Services are through August. (3) Quarterly charges for recycling went from $10 to$12 after April. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund September, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 September YTD (Under) Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,251,750 461,419 2,678,531 (1,573,219) 63.00% Sewer Charges 3,300,970 274,629 2,250,812 (1,050,158) 68.19% Meter Sales 5,000 0 17,245 12,245 344.90% MCES Grant Program 118,730 0 0 (118,730) Penalties 110,000 17,194 107,077 (2,923) 97.34% Charges for Other Services 230,000 7,784 480,862 250,862 209.07% (1) State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,000 3,412 30,557 (14,443) 67.90% Certificate of Compliance 70,000 8,600 76,075 6,075 108.68% Interest Earnings 35,000 0 0 (35,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 8,166,450 773,038 5,641,159 (2,525,291) 69.08% Expenses: Utility Administration 1,377,255 105,954 1,270,890 (106,365) 92.28% Sewer Maintenance 2,488,530 179,278 1,694,463 (794,067) 68.09% Water Maintenance 4,363,650 53,670 2,587,030 (1,776,620) 59.29% Total Expenses 8,229,435 338,902 5,552,383 (2,677,052) 67.47% (1)This includes MCES Grant Program for residential reimbursements of$294,242. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund (3)(4) September, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 September YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 880,780 99,350 670,422 (210,358) 76.12% Driving Range Fees 105,000 10,943 97,276 (7,724) 92.64% Par 3 Fees 173,200 15,347 99,513 (73,687) 57.46% Lawn Bowling 18,730 9,862 13,213 (5,517) 70.54% Pro Shop Sales 78,500 12,223 68,272 (10,228) 86.97% Pro Shop Rentals 227,800 37,030 205,878 (21,922) 90.38% Concession Sales 215,200 49,906 237,411 22,211 110.32% Other Revenue 70,155 887 78,732 8,577 112.23% Interest Earnings 6,000 0 0 (6,000) 0.00% (1) Less:Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (35,000) (6,455) (19,478) 15,522 55.65% Total Revenue 1,740,365 229,093 1,451,239 (289,126) 83.39% Expenses: Golf Operations 655,995 40,698 493,292 (162,703) 75.20% (2) Course Maintenance 778,840 41,337 488,266 (290,574) 62.69% Pro Shop 105,705 8,260 95,816 (9,889) 90.64% Grill 177,910 38,407 182,622 4,712 102.65% Driving Range 48,075 4,847 34,595 (13,480) 71.96% Par 3 Course 3,500 3,239 17,894 14,394 53.1,26% Lawn Bowling 141,965 2,632 170,512 28,547 120.11% (5) Total Expenses 1,911,990 139,420 1,482,997 (428,993) 77.56% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. (3) Course opened April 9. (4) Course closed on June 19 due to flooding. Reopened partially on June 25. (5) Lawn Bowling opened August 15. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund September 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 September YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 3,800 0 0 (3,800) 0.00% (1) Charges for Services 396,410 29,731 272,323 (124,087) 68.70% Total Revenue 400,210 29,731 272,323 (127,887) 68.05% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 400,210 17,899 264,967 (135,243) 66.21% Total Expenses 400,210 17,899 264,967 (135,243) 66.21% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund September, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 September YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 45,000 0 0 (45,000) 0.00% (1) Storm Sewer Charges 2,226,920 183,856 1,641,358 (585,562) 73.71% Bassett Creek Watershed 998,800 0 0 (998,800) 0.00% Miscellaneous Receipts 200,000 71,865 99,234 (100,766) 49.62% State Grant-Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 3,470,720 255,721 1,740,592 (1,730,128) 50.15% Expenses: Storm Utility 2,474,535 140,808 1,010,680 (1,463,855) 40.84% (2) Street Cleaning 124,690 161 92,465 (32,225) 74.16% Environmental Control 309,225 12,753 166,565 (142,660) 53.87% Debt Service Payments 433,510 0 1,604,967 1,171,457 370.23% (3) Total Expenses 3,341,960 153,722 2,874,677 (467,283) 86.02% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. 2012 PMP and 2013 PMP are not complete. (3) Refunded 2004C Issuance 5 years early. 2014 Equipment Replacement Fund(CIP)-Fund 5700 2014 Sept YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Proceeds-Certificate of Indebtedness 750,000 0 747,600 (2,400) Sale of Assets 35,000 500 54,636 19,636 Miscellaneous 0 93 149 149 Interest Earnings(allocated at year end) 17,394 0 0 (17,394) Total Revenues 802,394 593 802,385 (9) Expenditures: Program# Project Number Project Name 5700 Bond Expenditures 0 0 15,240 (15,240) 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars(Police) 35,000 0 34,270 730 (1) 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers(Finance) 60,000 2,893 31,001 28,999 5703 V&E-003 Imaging System(Finance) 26,000 0 7,676 18,324 5712 V&E-012 Asphalt Paver(Street) 100,000 0 86,800 13,200 5733 V&E-019 Computer Servers 40,000 0 3,492 36,508 5742 V&E-069 Utility Tractor/Mower(Park) 25,000 0 31,303 (6,303) 5795 V&E-071 Pickup Truck(Park) 45,000 0 27,883 17,117 5800 V&E-084 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus(Fire) 300,000 0 264,781 35,219 5786 V&E-089 Sidewalk/Maintenance Tractor(Street) 158,000 0 138,093 19,908 5783 V&E-101 Unmarked Police Vehicle(Police) 30,000 0 35,189 (5,189) 5797 V&E-111 Dump Truck(Street) 80,000 25,531 70,120 9,880 Total Expenditures 899,000 28,424 745,848 153,153 (1)Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. Cit 0 valley, goldyenlVl ,41 � M E M 0 R A N D U M "WIT Park and .Recreation Department 763-512-2345/763-512-2344(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. H. Adopt Resolution Accepting Donations on behalf of the City Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Summary As adopted in the Donation/Gift Policy, a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. We have prepared the attached resolution detailing various donors and their gifts for your consideration. Attachments • Resolution Accepting Donations on behalf of the City of Golden Valley (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Accepting Donations on behalf of the City of Golden Valley. Resolution 14-84 October 21, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16, 2004 which established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following grants and donations on behalf of its citizens: $20,495.00 from GameTime, Inc. and Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground for a new play structure at Hampshire Park Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, 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. Cit o $Nf f MEMORANDUM golde,"11711 1. 7 valle Y Police Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. I. Authorize Execution of Revised Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment with the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Prepared By Stacy Carlson, Chief of Police Summary The following revisions have been proposed to the existing Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment with the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association: 1) The statute number for maximum liability was added. 2) Language concerning "legal counsel" was moved from the beginning of the second paragraph under "Article V. Liability for Injury or Death to Third Parties or Property Damage of Third Parties" to the end of the same paragraph." 3) Language was added to the fourth paragraph under "Article V. Liability for Injury or Death to Third Parties or Property Damage of Third Parties" to state that if a sending party wants to select its own attorney, it shall be at the sending party's expense. The cost, however, would be covered by insurance for those parties with liability insurance. 4) The penultimate paragraph to "Article V. Liability" was added to clarify that if liability exceeds the tort caps (as determined by a court), a party is only liable for claims caused by its own employees. While the liability may still be uninsured, a party won't be required to assume the liability of another party. Attachments • Revised Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment (9 pages) • Resolution approving Joint and Cooperative Agreement (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution approving revised Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment and authorize execution of the Agreement with Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association. HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION MUTUAL AID PACT Effective January 1, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 2 JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT 4 I. GENERALPURPOSE 4 II. DEFINITION OF TERMS 4 III. PARTIES 5 IV. PROCEDURE 5 V. LIABILITY 7 VI. EFFECTIVE DATE g VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 9 Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION MUTUAL AID PACT FOREWORD The Mutual Aid Committee of the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association was tasked with revising and updating the mutual aid pact among all the police agencies of Hennepin County. The original pact was created in 1968 with the various agencies joining the pact throughout the years. Many provisions of the original pact were continued into the new pact. The Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment ("Joint Powers Agreement") was updated to reflect accurately the procedures, address current issues and enhance the ability of departments to share resources with each other. The general purpose of the pact is to permit agencies to share law enforcement resources with other agencies in Hennepin County. The Joint Powers Agreement specifically allows a requesting party to select the resources that best meets the needs of a given situation. A requesting party may call upon any other participating party for mutual aid. There is no requirement to make requests through a particular party. In addition, the Joint Powers Agreement should not be interpreted as restrictive in providing resources to deal with only major catastrophic situations. Participating parties can utilize the resources for many reasons including routine circumstances such as training efforts and back-up patrol service. This pact provides the flexibility for all agencies to use the resources located among all participating parties in Hennepin County. The decision as to when to invoke mutual aid and whether to respond is left to the discretion of the requesting or sending party. Each agency should acquaint supervisory personnel with any internal procedures used for mutual aid. While the Joint Powers Agreement does not require particular words or actions to initiate mutual aid, agencies should be clear about whether mutual aid was requested and what type of assistance is being provided. Parties should not self-deploy. Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -2- Furthermore, each officer within a department should have a basic familiarity with mutual aid, the responsibilities when reporting to another agency and the protections afforded under the agency's worker's compensation. For liability reasons, management of a mutual aid situation is under the control of the requesting party. However, the sending party has discretion whether to provide personnel or equipment and can recall such assistance at any time. Time commitments for mutual aid requests: While there is no hard and fast time limit, the commitment of resources can be taxing on agencies. In addition, in some situations, an advantage can be gained by ending a mutual aid request and entering into some contractual assistance, especially when the law enforcement costs need to be tracked or can be recovered from other sources. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff") has again volunteered to serve as the administrative coordinator of the pact. As communities adopt the Joint Powers Agreement, the appropriate documentation and signature page need to be forwarded to the Sheriff. Each agency is responsible for entering and updating available agency resources. Previously the parties used the Regional Automated Property Information (RAPID) database. Resources will now be listed online in a mutually agreed upon resource management database. The parties to this agreement are solely responsible to update their available resources in the agreed upon database. The effective date for the new Joint Powers agreement is January 1, 2015. This date was established to allow enough time for agencies to receive the appropriate authority and to provide some finality between the old pact and the new pact. The former pact will expire at midnight on December 31, 2014. Failure to execute the new agreement by December 31, 2014 will terminate a party's participation in the pact. Participation can be resumed upon execution of the new agreement. Agencies that elect not to participate in the new agreement may be bound by other existing mutual aid agreement or state statutes. Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact 3- JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT I. GENERALPURPOSE The general purpose of this Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment ("Agreement") is to provide a means by which a Party to this Agreement may request and obtain Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties when a Party deems such Law Enforcement Assistance necessary. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, which authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common to the Parties. II. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section shall have the following meanings: Subd. 1. "Eligible Party" means a "governmental unit" as defined by Minnesota Statues, Section 471.59, subd. 1 or a "municipality" as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.01, subd. 1, that is authorized to exercise police powers in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subd. 2. "Law Enforcement Assistance" means equipment and personnel, including but not limited to, licensed peace officers and non-licensed personnel. Subd. 3. "Party"means an "Eligible Party" that elects to participate in this Agreement by the authorization of its governing body. "Parties" means more than one Party to this Agreement. Subd. 4. 'Requesting Official'means a person who is designated by the Requesting Party to request Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties. Subd. 5. 'Requesting Party"means a Party that requests Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties. Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -4- Subd. 6. "Sending Official" means a person who is designated by a Party to determine whether and to what extent that Party should provide Law Enforcement Assistance to a Requesting Party. Subd. 7. "Sending Party" means a Party that provides Law Enforcement Assistance to a Requesting Party. Subd. 8. "Sheriff"means the Hennepin County Sheriff or designee. III. PARTIES The Parties to this Agreement shall consist of as many Eligible Parties that have approved this Agreement by December 31, 2014. Additional Eligible Parties shall become a Party on the date this Agreement is approved by the Party's governing body. Upon approval by a Party, the executed signature page of this Agreement shall be sent to the Sheriff along with a resolution approving this Agreement. IV. PROCEDURE Subd. 1. Each Party shall designate, and keep on file with the Sheriff, the name of the person(s) of that Party who shall be its Requesting Official and Sending Official. A Party may designate the same person as both the Requesting Official and the Sending Official. Also, a Party may designate alternate persons to act in the absence of an official. Subd. 2. Whenever, in the opinion of a Requesting Official of a Party, there is a need for Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties, such Requesting Official may, at his or her discretion, call upon the Sending Official of any other Party to furnish Law Enforcement Assistance. Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -5- Subd. 3. Upon the receipt of a request for Law Enforcement Assistance from a Party, the Sending Official may authorize and direct personnel and equipment of the Sending Party be sent to the Requesting Party. Whether the Sending Party provides such Law Enforcement Assistance to the Requesting Party and, if so, to what extent such Law Enforcement Assistance is provided shall be determined solely by the Sending Official (subject to such supervision and direction as may be applicable within the governmental structure of the Party by which they are employed). Failure to provide Law Enforcement Assistance will not result in liability to a Party and each Party hereby waives all claims against another Party for failure to provide Law Enforcement Assistance. Subd. 4. When a Sending Party provides Law Enforcement Assistance under the terms of this Agreement, it may in turn request Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties as "back-up" during the time that such Law Enforcement Assistance is provided. Subd. 5. Whenever a Sending Party has provided Law Enforcement Assistance to a Requesting Party, the Sending Official may at any time recall such Law Enforcement Assistance or any part thereof, if the Sending Official in his or her best judgment deems such recall necessary to provide for the best interests of the Sending Party's community. Such action will not result in liability to any Party and each Party hereby waives all claims against another Party for recalling Law Enforcement Assistance. Subd. 6. The Requesting Party shall be in command of all situations where Law Enforcement Assistance is provided. The personnel and equipment of the Sending Party shall be under the direction and control of the Requesting Party until the Sending Party withdraws Law Enforcement Assistance or the Law Enforcement Assistance is no longer needed. Subd. 7. No charges will be levied by a Sending Party to this Agreement for Law Enforcement Assistance rendered to a Requesting Party under the terms of this Agreement unless that assistance continues for a period of more than eight (8) hours. If Law Enforcement Assistance provided under this Agreement continues for more Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -6- than eight (8) hours, the Sending Party may submit to the Requesting Party an itemized bill for the actual cost of any Law Enforcement Assistance provided after the initial eight (8) hour period, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies and other necessary expenses. The Requesting Party will reimburse the Sending Party providing the Law Enforcement Assistance for that amount. Such charges are not contingent upon the availability of federal or state government funds. V. LIABILITY Liability for Injury, Death or Damage to Sending Party's Personnel or Equipment Each Party shall be responsible for its own personnel and equipment and for injuries or death to any such personnel or damage to any such equipment. Responding personnel shall be deemed to be performing their regular duties for each respective Sending Party for purposes of workers' compensation. Worker's Compensation: Each Party will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing Law Enforcement Assistance pursuant to this Agreement. Each Party, and where applicable its insurer, waives the right to sue any other Party for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependants, even if the injuries or death were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Party or its officers, employees or volunteers. Damage to Equipment: Each Party shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Each Party, and where applicable its insurer, waives the right to sue any other Party for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Party or its officers, employees or volunteers. Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7- Liability for Injury or Death to Third Parties or Property Damage of Third Parties For the purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466), the employees and officers of the Sending Party are deemed to be employees, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.01, subd. 6, of the Requesting Party. The Requesting Party agrees to defend and indemnify against any claims brought or actions filed against a Sending Party or any officers, employees, or volunteers of a Sending Party for injury or death to any third person or persons or damage to the property of third persons arising out of the performance and provision of Law Enforcement Assistance pursuant to the Agreement, using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the Sending Party. Under no circumstances shall a Requesting Party be required to pay, on behalf of itself and other Parties, any amount in excess of the limits of liability established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, applicable to any one Party. The limits of liability for the Parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for a Party pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, subd. 1 a. The purpose of creating this duty to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts among the Parties and to permit liability claims against the Parties from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. However, the Sending party, at is option and its own expense, shall have the right to select its own attorney or approve a joint attorney as appropriate, considering potential conflicts of interest. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constitute a waiver of any immunities and privileges from liability available under federal law or the laws of Minnesota. If a court determines that the liability of a Party or Parties is not subject to the tort caps and liability exceeds the tort cap maximum, a Party shall be subject to liability only for the acts of its officers, employees and volunteers. Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact 8 No Party to this Agreement nor any official, employee or volunteer of any Party shall be liable to any other Party or to any other person for failure of any Party to furnish Law Enforcement Assistance or for recalling Law Enforcement Assistance. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall become effective and operative beginning at 12:01 A.M., local time on January 1, 2015. The Sheriff shall maintain a current list of the Parties to this Agreement and, whenever there is a change, shall notify the designated Sending Officials. Notice may be sent to the Sending Officials via email or through the United States Postal Service. VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by action of its governing body. Withdrawal is effective after thirty (30) days' written notice is provided to the Sheriff. The Sheriff shall thereupon give notice of such withdrawal, and the effective date thereof to all other Parties. Parties that have withdrawn may rejoin by following the procedure set forth in Section III of this Agreement. This Agreement will terminate when the number of Parties to the Agreement falls below eleven (11). The Sheriff shall notify the remaining parties that the Agreement has terminated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by action of their respective governing bodies, caused this Agreement to be approved on the dates below. (Each Party must attach a dated and signed signature page consistent with that Party's method of executing contracts.) Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -9- Resolution 14-85 October 21, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 authorizes governmental units by agreement of their governing bodies to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to them; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association previously developed a Mutual Aid Pact to foster the sharing of law enforcement resources among agencies in Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association has revised its Mutual Aid Pact to clarify and update the language of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment (the Agreement); and WHEREAS, the Agreement allows other governmental units and municipalities to become a party to the Agreement by the adoption of a resolution and sending notice to the Hennepin County Sheriff; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the City of Golden Valley considers it to be in its best interests to become a Party to the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Golden Valley: 1. Authorizes the Golden Valley Police Department to be a Party to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment developed by the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association. 2. The City Clerk is directed to send a copy of the signature page of the Agreement and this Resolution to the Hennepin County Sheriff; and 3. The Golden Valley Police Department agrees to comply with all terms of the Agreement. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, 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. city of goiaen1!Av'1r MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax) w Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. J. Board/Commission Appointment Prepared By Shep Harris, Mayor Summary Each year the City Council conducts interviews with persons who have applied to serve on a board and/or commission. After the interviews are conducted the Council makes their appointments. Recommended Action Motion to make the following appointment: Human Rights Commission Andrew Ramlet 1 year term term expires - May, 2015 Cit ? golden valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. K. Approval of Plat - Kate's Woods Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the September 16, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for the minor subdivision of Kate's Woods (221 Sunnyridge Lane). After the hearing, the Council approved the Preliminary Plat which will allow two lots. The Final Plat of Kate's Woods has now been presented to the City. Staff has reviewed the Final Plat and finds it consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and the requirements of City Code. Attachments • Resolution for Approval of Plat - Kate's Woods (1 page) • Final Plat of Kate's Woods (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat- Kate's Woods. Resolution 14-85 October 21, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - KATE'S WOODS 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 Kate's Woods covering the following described tracts of land: Lot 1, Block 1, Kuczek Addition, Abstract Property 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 original of said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, 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. KNOW BY ALL PERSONS THESE PRESENTS: That David J. Knaeble and Jennifer R. Knaeble, husband and wife, fee owners, of the following described property: C.R. DSC. N�. Lot 1, Block 1, KUCZEK ADDITION. Have caused the some to be surveyed and platted as KATES WOODS, and do hereby dedicate to the public D S KATh W u" U' for public use forever the easements for drainage and utility purposes as shown on the plat. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN \ In witness whereof said David J. Knaeble and Jennifer R. Knaeble, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this _day of 2014. \ SIGNED: \ by David J. Knaeble by Jennifer R. Knaeble \ \ \ r� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of 2014, by David J. Knaeble and Jennifer R. Knaeble, husband and wife. J\ zo o zo 40 \<J �\J o Notary Printed Name Notary Public County, Minnesota I Illm Illm SCALE IN FEET My Commission expires DavidE. Crook do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly licensed land surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. / 4=6425'10" \ j \ — / ® R=15.00 L — Dated this—day of , 2014. '� C+ L=16. ,_\, \ =C) David E. Crook Licensed Land Surveyor Y �� ^�� o �'_ Minnesota Licensed No. 22414 10 Y�(�1--, L c V (" STATE OF MINNESOTAQz —J I COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2014, by David E. Crook, Land Surveyor, Notary Printed Name Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota [ _ My Commission expires � �_— </ 7 I \I J GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA03J I [] This plat of KATES WOODS was approved and accepted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 2014. If applicable the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer oCP 1 / `1 I have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Si 2. la 7 CITY COUNCIL OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 0 L, , By: By: \ C J Mayor Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 86 X62 \ Drainage and Utility Easements are shown thus: 8 \ I hereby certify that taxes payable in and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat. Dated this day of ,2014. n_'U Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County Auditor By: ,Deputy LiJ nJ.7 / n TInNI _ / r UVI Iv1 v SURVEY DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Being 6 feet in width adjoining lot lines, unless otherwise indicated, and f0 feet in width djoining 6� Pursuant to MINN STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969), this plat hos been approved this day of , 2014. right—of—way lines, unless otherwise indicated as shown on the plat. / Chris F. Mavis, Hennepin County Surveyor By: / O — DENOTES 1/2—INCH X 74 INCH SET IRON / PIPE MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 22414 COUNTY RECORDER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • — DENOTES FOUNDI/2—INCH OPEN IRON PIPE I hereby certify that the within plat of KATES WOODS was recorded in this office this MONUMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED day of 2014, at o'clock—. M. Martin McCormick, county Recorder By: Deputy The northwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 1 KATES WOODS, has an assumed bearing of South 54 degrees 52minutes 38 seconds East DEMARS—GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.otlNactorv.com city `! MEMORANDUM o t a e n ,-. va ley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. L. Extending Payment Terms for Isaacson Park Improvements by Golden Valley Little League Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary On March 20, 2012, the City approved Resolution 12-22 authorizing loan for Park Improvements to Golden Valley Little League. These improvements coincided with the improvements made to Isaacson Park. In 2013, the Golden Valley Little League failed to make payment due to the major improvements to the concession stand and field equipment. The Little League attended the September 9, 2014, Council Manager meeting asking to extend the term by one year. This resolution changes the payment terms only and not the remainder of the agreement. Attachments • Resolution Extending Payment Terms Park Improvements by Golden Valley Little League for Isaacson Park (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve Resolution Extending Payment Terms to Resolution 12-22 Authorizing Loan for Park Improvements by Golden Valley Little League for Isaacson Park. Resolution 14-86 October 21, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXTENDING PAYMENT TERMS TO RESOLUTION 12-22 LOAN FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS BY GOLDEN VALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE FOR ISAACSON PARK WHEREAS, the Little League entered into an loan agreement with the City of Golden Valley that was approved with Resolution 12-22 on March 20, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Little League has asked for an extension of those terms on September 9, 2014; and WHEREAS, no terms of the agreement with Resolution 12-22 have changed except for the extension of those terms by one year; and WHEREAS, the Little League has guaranteed payment over the next three years the remainder of the amount of $16,500 with payments due by October 31; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley as follows: 1. The City shall receive payments with no interest from the Golden Valley Little League. The payments are due by October 31 in each year below: Date Principal 10/31/2015 $5,500 10/31/2016 $5,500 10/31/2017 $5,500 2. Park Improvement Fund will receive the money for the loan to the Golden Valley Little League. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine L Luedke, 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. Cit o gold' enl!'-.�e' "V, Yr Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 60 day deadline: October 20, 2014 60 day extension: December 19, 2014 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing- Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment No. 2 - 7475 Country Club Drive -Albert Miller, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary Albert Miller is requesting an amendment to Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72 to expand the existing vacant 60 unit senior living facility to a 110 unit assisted living and memory care facility. The PUD contains two buildings on two lots: a 230 bed nursing home to the west and the 60 unit senior living facility to the east. The original PUD was approved by the Council on April 2, 1996. An amendment to expand the senior living facility with two one-story additions was approved on April 1, 1997. The property is zoned Institutional (1-3) and is guided for long-term Semi-Public Facility use on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area for the PUD is 4.54 acres; the total lot area for the senior living facility is 1.98 acres. The PUD is bounded by Country Club Drive and Glenwood Avenue to the north and office and high density residential uses to the south. The proposed PUD amendment would allow the Applicant to expand the existing "L-shaped" senior living facility both to the north and east and would reduce the size of the parking lot. The proposed three story building expansion would increase the footprint by 9,138 square feet from 15,672 square feet to 24,810 square feet. The building expansion would require a reduction in the size of the parking area and in the number of parking spaces. Under the requirements of the zoning code, one parking space is required for every 5 units/beds in an assisted living facility. Based on the 110 units proposed, 23 parking spaces are required. 28 parking spaces would remain after the building expansion, therefore meeting the minimum parking requirements. Minor changes were made to the proposal since the Preliminary PUD Plan last came before the City Council, including: 1. A reduction in the number of units from 114 to 110. 2. An increase in the massing and building footprint of the north addition. 3. Minor modifications to the front fagade. 4. The inclusion of landscaping and terracing along the south property line. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their September 22 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval (6-0). 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. The Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 6(Q): 1. 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. 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 general 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. Staff recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Kaas Wilson architects and submitted with the application on August 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Applicant's Narrative (3 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated September 22, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated September 22, 2014 (5 pages) • Memo from Fire Department dated September 15, 2014 (1 page) • Memo from Public Works Department dated September 15, 2014 (3 pages) • Site Plans received August 21, 2014 (18 pages) • Ordinance #532, Approval of Final PUD Plan, Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment No. 2, Albert Miller, Applicant (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #532, Approval of Final PUD Plan, Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment No. 2, Albert Miller, Applicant. m \ • a • r d • N > • C y Haus „� • o`a¢%�`•y�td Subject Property: • G 7475 Country Club Drive • bi Country.Club Dr • 'r •••• .. • Glen k'Oo , d � Q toto State y NO gS - JJ- 1 • Y N° 5$ Z N d 4V CL.J. O Harold Ave Z a Q - , t )s Paz" t T, TM Golden Valley Senior Living � Date: August 20,2014 Reference: Golden Valley Senior Living Attention: City of Golden Valley Project Narrative The proposed project is an addition and remodeling of the existing and vacant Country Villa Senior Housing complex at 7475 Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley, Minnesota. The project would transform the existing 60 unit senior housing complex into a 111 unit facility that would provide both Assisted Living and Memory Care services. The scope of work includes both interior and exterior Improvements. The plan proposes to utilize the existing senior housing facility layout but transform certain spaces to accommodate the facility's focus on enhanced assisted living and memory care services. Also, an addition to the facility is necessary to meet the financial requirements of operation. Although the existing building has much of the required infrastructure in place, a 60 unit building cannot generate the revenue needed for long term operation, thus its current ownership has left it sitting vacant. Therefore, adding units to the existing building provides an appropriate economy of scale for the proposed use. Amenities to be incorporated are a library, spas, fitness center, activity spaces, additional dining space and lounges. The existing building improvements include updates to finishes and lighting, sprinkler system, and mechanical units. The addition will include assisted living and memory care dwelling units with dedicated common spaces and a new elevator. On the exterior, the new addition will mimic the look of the existing building. The existing building will be evaluated and if required, repairs will be made to the building envelope. Existing planter beds and will be refurbished and planted with new vegetation as outlined in the landscape plans. Expected Residents The Golden Valley Senior Living facility aims to attract people needing memory care or enhanced assisted living services at an intermediate cost when compared to other senior living facilities. The facility will be attractive to people who want quality care and living but cannot afford the premiums of a high end facility. Page 1 of 3 Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4th Ave.S.,Suite B,Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com Existing Trees Although the addition would require the demolition of some of the existing trees on the site, we have made an effort to keep the larger and most established trees including a 54 inch cottonwood on the south end of the site. Additionally, the Landscape Plan incorporates new trees to replace the ones that are proposed to be removed. The site will also include stepped retaining walls along the east side to prevent current erosion issues. The Landscape Plan also incorporates many other plantings to enhance the site. Parkin The project calls to remove of a significant amount of asphalt parking lot due to a low demand for parking stalls in an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, thus improving on site water quality. The only need for parking would be for employees and visitors. After the proposed parking lot removal, there would be approximately 28 parking stalls' remaining which is acceptable under the zoning code. According to the zoning for an assisted living housing facility, one parking space is required for every 5 units/beds. Therefore, only 23 parking stalls are required and we are proposing 28. Setback Requirements According to the Institutional zoning district, the side and rear yard setbacks are required to be 50'-0" from the property line with a 25' green buffer. In two instances, the existing building infringes on this setback requirement and therefore, the addition would as well. Along the west end of the site, the proposed addition does not get any closer to the property line than the existing building. On the South end of the site, the addition gets a few feet closer to the property line than the existing building but maintains a 25'-0" setback. On the North side of the site, the building no longer maintains the 35'-0" institutional zoning setback from the front property line. Rather, the proposed addition would be approximately 31'-0" from the northern property line. However, this addition would not come any closer to Country Club Drive or Glenwood Avenue than the neighboring building to the west. With one exception, all changes to the parking lot conform to the zoning requirements and maintain the required 25'-0" landscaped buffer. However, the northern most portion of the hammerhead turnaround infringes on the required setback and is unavoidable due to the size requirements of the turnaround established by the Minnesota State fire code. Page 2 of 3 Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4th Ave. S.,Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com Lot Coverage Requirements According to the Institutional zoning district, no buildings or structures shall occupy more than 25% of the area of the lot. After the proposed addition would add 8,848 SF of lot coverage to the existing building which occupies 15,672 SF of the site. Therefore, the lot coverage after the addition would occupy approximately 28% of the 86,383 SF Lot. To help offset this additional lot coverage, we are removing a significant amount of asphalt parking. Additionally, we are proposing that any new paving be a pervious surface. Staffing and Security Patient safety and security are critical to the operation of a successful memory care facility. The layout and operation of the facility including internal circulation, door hardware, and 24-hour staffing will be situated to prevent patient walkaways. Memory care patients are locked in and secluded to specific areas of the facility and cannot leave unless escorted by a staff member. Also, residents in memory care will have access to the outside areas labeled as "Memory Garden" on the plans. The security outdoors is similar to the interior, these outside areas designated for memory care patients and will be locked and monitored to prevent walkaways. To put it simply, these residents are locked into certain areas of the facility and cannot leave unless escorted by someone with approved access. Finally, The 24-hour staff will have a protocol in place to get residents evacuated from these locked areas in the event of a fire or other emergency. The proposal today has many positive attributes to the existing structure and grounds. With density comes quality: quality exterior materials, quality landscaping, quality interiors and quality care. Page 3 of 3 Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4th Ave. S.,Suite B,Minneapolis, MN 65404 www.kaaswilson.com Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 A regular meeting of the Planning Commis�°ion was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, ' ouncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, September 22, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelpaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes ,r September 8, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to page 6 and stated that the motion made for the Sunnyridge Woods subdivision proposal should include the condition regarding shifting the west property on Lot 3, 5 feet further to the west. Baker referred to page 5 and stated that he did not suggest tabling the Sunnyridge Woods proposal. He said Chair Kluchka asked him if he was suggesting tabling the proposal, but he said no, he would be voting against the proposal due to the pending moratorium discussion by City Council Waldhauser referred to the discussion regarding the Lock Up storage business and asked that her comment be clarified to state that there was an opportunity to rezone that property, however, the utility and access issues with this property would have been very expensiverfor the City to address. MO D by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser nd motion carried unanimously to approve tk+ September 8, 2014, minutes with the abve noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan Review — Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment #2 Applicant: Albert Miller Address: 7475 Country Club Drive Purpose: To convert the vacant 60-unit senior living facility into a 111-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to expand the existing vacant senior living facility from 60 units to 110 units, not 111 units as stated in the application materials. He stated that the proposed expansion includes two and three story additions with secure gardens/patios on the north and east ends of the existing building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 2 Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that there are currently 35 parking spaces on the property. He explained that 23 spaces are required and 28 spaces are being proposed. He stated that the applicant is also proposing additional screening for the single family home to the northeast and the multi-family buildings to the south. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and discussed how the proposal compares to the underlying zoning district requirements. He stated that the side yard setback along the west will be 12.5 feet instead of 50 feet with a 25 foot landscaped buffer, however it will be no closer to the west side property line than the current building. He stated that the setback along the south property line will be 25 feet rather than 33 feet and the front yard setback will be 31 feet rather than 35 feet which is consistent with the neighboring building. He stated that the new parking lot will be 17 feet from the side lot line rather than providing a 25 foot landscaped butter, and the lot coverage will be 27% rather than the 25% allowed in the Institutional zoning district. Segelbaum asked if the proposed amount of impervious surface changed between the Preliminary PUD review and the Final PUD review. Zimmerman stated that the amount of impervious surface increased slightly from the Preliminary Plan, but the applicant has stated that they are going to use pervious pavers wherever they can. Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson architects, discussed the amount of impervious surface on the site and stated that there will be an underground infiltration system installed. He referred to the number of proposed units and explained that the number of units has been reduced in order to have larger common areas in the building. Cera asked about the location of snow storage on the property. Wilson stated that there is some space on the east side of the property that can be used for snow storage. Otherwise, if there is a significant amount of snow they may have to haul it off site. Waldhauser asked Wilson to explain how the surface water will drain off the site. Wilson said the water flows from north to southeast on the site. He said they will be improving the rate control, and will be doing some terracing of the slope on the neighboring property and adding catch basins as well. Segelbaum noted that during the Preliminary PUD review it was mentioned that a portion of the residents would be eligible for subsidies. He asked if that has changed. Wilson said that has not changed. Baker asked Wilson if anything has changed in relation to the existing house to the north. Wilson said no, and added that he thinks they'll be able solve some of the erosion issues the neighboring property has been having. Blum asked Wilson to explain how they will prevent patient walkaways. Wilson said it is a misnomer that people can just walk away. He explained that the memory care units will be on the second and third floors with their own screened-in deck area. He said there is also Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 3 door security and a wrist band system so staff will know the residents whereabouts at all times. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said it is exciting to have a facility like this in Golden Valley and the applicant has done a good job of making it fit. Cera agreed and said he is glad a vacant facility will be used. Segelbaum agreed and commended the applicant for being a good neighbor. Kluchka said he is comfortable with the proposed snow storage areas and pervious surface techniques being proposed on the site. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment #2, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. 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. 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 general 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. Conditions- 1. onditions:1. The plans prepared by Kass Wilson architects and submitted with the application on August 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. City 0 9O1den,*i ,4v *1*' MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: September 22, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing– Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment#2 –7475 Country Club Drive –Albert Miller, Applicant Background Albert Miller is requesting an amendment to Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72 to expand the existing vacant 60 unit senior living facility to a 111 unit assisted living and memory care facility. The PUD contains two buildings on two lots—a 230 bed nursing home to the west and the 60 unit senior living facility to the east. The original PUD was approved by the City Council on April 2, 1996. An amendment to expand the senior living facility with two one-story additions was approved on April 1, 1997. The property is zoned Institutional (1-3) and is guided for long-term Semi-Public Facility use on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area for the PUD is 4.54 acres; the total lot area for the senior living facility is 1.98 acres. The PUD is bounded by Country Club Drive and Glenwood Avenue to the north and office and high density residential uses to the south. Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD amendment would allow the Applicant to expand the existing "L-shaped" senior living facility both to the north and to the east and would reduce the size of the parking lot. The proposed three story building expansion would increase the footprint by 9,138 square feet from 15,672 square feet to 24,810 square feet. The building expansion would require a reduction in the size of the parking area and in the number of parking spaces. Under the requirements of the zoning code, one parking space is required for every 5 units/beds in an assisted living facility. Based on the 111 units proposed, 23 parking spaces are required. 28 parking spaces would remain after the building expansion, therefore meeting the minimum parking requirements. 730 7710 0 0 Q 7740 d ( 04 .� 7708 7704 x. 7520 7600 + 7 7700 .. 7501 3 6 7800 �� 7575 s 605 7701 CBt41try Club Dr -;- -? 1 5507345 7505 ay by 7111 7475 0 o 7240 O 7812 550 7808 7700-52 531 ti1P 7028 7804530 7802 7700 521 } 7215 1�� 7800 C, 520 t . 7201 5�'�`G' ' 7650 o 511 It� 510 , 7151 '^ 7100 7500 m n o o ! 501 7330 ` uNi u� G7101 -Hwy 55 OISOP n\0 440 411 R 1- 413 _ a k... ' `, <`.6 424 7045 409_f�/q"� . 410 407.:1: 7-410 7031 _ 400 [ 405 gy406 PUD 72 - Site Map Proposed Building The Applicant intends to add 51 units to the existing 60 unit building with a three story expansion to the north and a three story expansion to the east that would step down to two stories. He would also renovate some portions of the interior of the building. Building amenities would include a library, spas, a fitness center, activity spaces, additional dining space, and lounges. Improvements would be made to the interior lighting, sprinkler system, and mechanical units. The memory care portion of the building would include common space and a new elevator. The exterior look and materials of the additions would match those of the existing building. The existing building does not meet all setbacks as established by the underlying Institutional (1-3) zoning district. The zoning code calls for a 50 foot setback along the west property line with a 25 foot landscaped buffer. The building was originally constructed 12.5 feet from the property line; the north addition would be constructed at the same distance. Similarly, the existing building is located only 33 feet from the south property line; the east addition would reduce that distance to 25 feet. The zoning code also requires a 35 foot setback from the front property line (along Country Club Drive). The proposed building would extend to 31 feet from the front property line—a change from the Preliminary PUD Plans. This distance is equal to the setback of the neighboring building to the west. Parking lots in the Institutional zoning district are required to provide a 25 foot landscaped buffer along side yards;the proposed parking lot comes within 17 feet at its closet point. Finally, lot coverage by buildings or structures is limited to 25%of the lot area in Institutional zoning districts. With the additions, the lot coverage will increase to approximately 28%. To help address the impacts of this increase in coverage,the Applicant is proposing to use pervious surfaces for any new paving. Proposed Parking There are currently 35 parking spaces in the existing lot. The proposal would modify the eastern end of the parking area through the expansion of the building and a redesign of the parking lot shape. This would reduce the number of parking spaces to 28. The new "hammer head" shaped turn-around has been approved by the Fire Chief. The Applicant has worked with the owner of the single family home to the northeast—most impacted by the building expansion and parking lot reconfiguration—and has developed a landscaping plan that attempts to provide additional screening for this property. 25 trees are proposed to be removed; 45 are proposed to be planted. Other Site Considerations Fenced gardens/courtyards will be located at either end of the new additions to provide secure outdoor spaces for residents. Pervious pavers will be used in these courtyards. Patio space will be provided to memory care residents in an east-facing bump-out of the main building. New retaining walls will be constructed along the eastern edge of the parking lot to match an existing retaining wall and help control erosion in that area. Concerns raised by residents of the multi-family development to the south have resulted in changes to the Preliminary PUD Plan. A new terraced retaining wall system, complete with new landscaping, will now be constructed along the south property line to help limit erosion. Engineering and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities and that traffic issues are resolved. A memorandum from the Engineering Division that addresses hydrants, sanitary sewer and water services, stormwater management, and tree preservation and landscaping is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that an adequate water supply is provided and that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access is attached. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot. The City has previously determined that this PUD meets the standards established in the City Code; Staff believes that this application to amend the PUD is also consistent with these standards: • Achieves a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. • Encourages construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types. • 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 the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes,trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment No. 2, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The plans prepared by kass wilson architects and submitted with the application on August 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. This approval is subject to all other state,federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (3 pages) Memo from Fire Department dated September 15, 2014 (1 page) Memo from Engineering Division dated September 15, 2014 (3 pages) Site Plans (18 pages) go I d e-nMEMORANDUM valley Fire Department 763-593-8079/ 763-593-8098 (fax) Date: September 15, 2014 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: Final PUD Amendment #2 —7475 Country Club Drive —Golden Valley Senior Living The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the Final PUD 72, Amendment#2 for the expansion of 7475 Country Club Drive submitted on August 21, 2014. This PUD Amendment proposes the expansion of the building from 60 units to 114 units. To accomplish this the building will be expanded on the north and south ends of the building. This expansion will reduce the overall parking area. An approved "hammer head" style fire truck turn around has been included in the design. Also, the fire protection water line on the north side of the building and a fire hydrant located on the south end of the existing building will be relocated so as to not conflict with the foundations of the new additions. Overall this proposed addition to the building has no positive nor negative impact on the fire protection features of this building or our ability to service this property. As this project moves forward a code analysis of the proposed construction will be required. This information will be used during the review of this project from a Code perspective (Building, Fire, Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes). If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, 4crelly goldenvalleymn.gov city 0 go 1 d e n*x MEMORANDUM Public Works Department valley P 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: September 15, 2014 To: )l son Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Sp ialist Subject: Final PUD Review— PUD 72 Amendment #2 Golden Valley Senior Living (7475 Country Club Drive) Engineering staff has reviewed the Final PUD plans for the Golden Valley Senior Living project, for the proposed expansion of the senior housing facility located at 7475 Country Club Drive. The subject property is part of the Trevilla Complex PUD and is bounded by the Golden Valley Rehabilitation and Care Center to the west, Skyline Plaza Apartments to the south, and single- family homes to the east. This memorandum briefly discusses the remaining issues identified by Engineering that must be addressed prior to the issuance of permits. The comments contained in this review are based on the plans submitted to the City on August 21, 2014. Engineering staff recommends approval of the Final Plans for Golden Valley Senior Living PUD 72 Amendment 2, subject to the following comments: 1. A Certificate of Inflow and Infiltration Compliance must be obtained prior to occupancy of the building. Minor issues were discovered upon inspection of the sewer service and therefore the Developer must make the corrections or post an escrow with the City, prior to Final PUD approval. 2. New hydrants should be shown as AVK dry barrel 2700 series on the plans. Existing hydrants may not be reused if they do not meet this requirement. 3. Stormwater Management Plans a. The stormwater management plans must meet Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements and the Sweeney Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan. Stormwater calculations must be reviewed by the BCWMC Engineer to ensure compliance with these requirements. G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Senior Living\Memos\FinalPUDReview_091514_gvseniorliving.docx b. The PUD is subject to the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. The City must approve the stormwater management plan prior to submittal to the BCWMC for review. c. The Developer must make application to the BCWMC for review and approval of the stormwater plans prior to issuance of a City Stormwater Management permit. d. The Developer must submit a copy of the MPCA NPDES Construction Storm Water permit prior to issuance of a City Stormwater Management permit. e. Specific stormwater plan comments that must be addressed before submittal to BCWMC: i. The invert elevations of the proposed storm sewer in the southeast area of the site appear to be in error and need to be checked/revised, including the chamber bypass invert. ii. Sump depths must be 4 feet, if feasible. iii. In the southeast area of site, consider adding a second catch basin inlet or submit calculations showing that the inlet has capacity to prevent overflow during certain precipitation events and/or in the event it becomes plugged by debris. The storm sewer emergency overflow should not flow directly onto adjacent property (consider energy dissipation and redirecting into perennial planting areas, etc.). iv. Since new storm sewer pipe is being added in the northwest area of the site, and drainage is directed south along the property line, please ensure that the existing basin and pipe on the west side are adequately maintained and functional and can accommodate the drainage. Staff recommends looking for opportunities to expand the basin and improve the filtration/infiltration in this area. 4. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City outlining the Developer's/Owner's responsibilities for the private water main, hydrants, storm sewer, and stormwater quality treatment facilities proposed onsite. The maintenance agreement must be executed prior to the issuance of permits. 5. This PUD is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and Minimum Landscape Standards. The plans submitted with this application include a Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan. However, a tabulation of the significant trees proposed for removal and replacement must also be submitted. The City Forester will review the tabulation and plans in more detail at the time of permitting. a. The Developer must provide an estimate of the cost to furnish and install the proposed landscaping in order to calculate the financial security. Once calculated, the Developer must submit the financial security to the City as a guarantee that the landscaping will survive a two-year warranty period. This must be completed prior to the issuance of permits. 6. The Developer must obtain permits from the City for Stormwater Management, Tree Preservation, Sanitary Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Senior Living\Memos\FinaIPUDReview_091514_gvseniorliving.docx 2 7. Subject to the review and comments of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other agencies. Please feel free to call the Engineering Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Chantell Knuass, Assistant City Manager/Interim Physical Development Director Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mark Ray, Street Maintenance Supervisor Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor RJ Kakach, Engineer John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Senior Living\Memos\FinaIPUDReview_091514_gvseniorliving.docx 3 R —�— -- - 11 fil � :<, TW fat1 .� i �1 1 �� it �, � II . ; � 1 11 1s(( �Ur 1 f l i Kowaas GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING AO Wilson architects GOLDEN VALLEY, MN Title Page ,rte m „ 5 R � r s r • Ll w 111 A IN •/, ' T MIRM ' � m r s` W.r � . mor�a6.h3iq�" 'Ftonta0o p a • gs r 01son.M y e u .Se•vic e�R�d t7Sso�n'��•� .��, '� �rrrKingaton'G� s»• o '.. s� m ' aro n-A e Y • NilAf• aas GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING y. A0. 1 wilson architects GOLDEN VALLEY, MN Area Map W ^ w , ke , S a� •f r t� W • rz } r � r 1 I TSV.•'_ �r LIJ firs Ir Mir l O {t' R t a a r + OWL I A W r z Lij -= COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE r . MEMORY GARDEN qVF EXTENTS OF •; EXISTING' J BUILDING 6 NEIGHBORING , = �- BUILDING BIKE RACKS CP 25'-0" . i o SERVICE DRIVE I -EXTENTS OFUP ;•Y., EXISTING BUILDING I ,ASSISTED LIVING- COURTYARD 1 SD Site Plan kaas GOLDEN wilson • • z M O ry o w m N N H � Z F- =)Z LL O=) N 50 C> p � Cn H O � Cl) co LL M CO 11 O Q J N �N Z O to 0.CL O=� w :3Z w u Z Q H V - W r z N_ Cn O -� N Q � QLU OO O Z w W C U_ J O C Z E O) N 0 Q E C `i J O C +-' a Q v o Y U o F� F - , Cl) N r • ` (� � ` ,s. N r � a � N� Z M O � � O QRI� Q O N (n N Q w � J ON • I r Cl) J IN J QW • • / * l I a 9 ( ZLL ' t 1 =) U— ti Z ' • O Q aNM CO U) a0 a� �� as m a a a x rj� m0Ww 1, Y om ME w W Z ,rL� N w < J J J J J Jl F� Z� Q ' Q Q Q� J Q J O mom,M M a� M �a Q� M Q� a, N z ' O� O� O �� r V 0 (A ti U) Q to U) U) Q N- - - > CD J II N \ Q c co , ■ � e e � U) � _ 2 / \ /co % , = 2 , o = % \ k / E \ / Cl) $ „ 7 Z kR c) $ / k � i = 2CO o == LLJ F- 2-1 ± Ee $ \ oma m / 7 \ < p z < � e = _ » z LU 0 \ j\ E k = < / § / 0 � O 2 ■ � . n �N Cl) cn 2 Z2• � . C-4a . c 2« n& k . / : .� �q n� ^% V— �\ . . 2 . /S fa \ �^ §� � �§ �n f\ �\ �a z ,\ e Q mow § Q U $ Q\ \� �� o � � � %� %� � G^ �3 �3 � �\ m\ § �5 §& G~ �^ . f& . x o �� ■ e . n ' 2� ' ■ : Q \It �� \� �� 2 /2 �_@ \� 27 . 2^ V- 1 � r� U ^ �^ �^ (n �� 2^ 9 , a) . � � • • • U) F- z O O Of 0 LU m N Z F- Z LL. O U) F5 O C) CN Z p co c~i) O M LLM C Q J C/) F- Q Z w N Z H � LL. Z N U _ W Z Lu 11 Z Q Q .JUF= ILLI >- Z:) N N O Q C/) � t- Q w O � Z w (D LU co Z E o Q E Q J a �n oo E E Ji N M M r J N M N co NM , CN M M � O� J E l EM J Mo FQ- QO co �M N �M Q N N l Q Q M O co lJ NM 1 dM M J co l Q M �`✓ ''�, �i N • NO Q� yM Q f M C] N U U U U � lllO U U Ud �� ❑ a� • �� gQ � MIL Mm erM Qo �� C'( Am �r+u g v p cn v) � � �/ J �`NY' > o U) N y U x 0 U 'ct , U U U U U U U U U U y M II �v ��Ma N�0 �. , M Mr �. u2 �o M MMoM L � � M r ` �r �I O00 MCV N00 � C) 000 MN N00 � O 00 O O I°p a) 00 _j �I� 00 Ir` JIB JIB JIB f 04 N O r O O r �F I c i 111 N. -77 I I s.� I i i '-�7 # sa O I N U x „& Is I uj Lr ui EE c O C > O a) LLI F � .=3 po W - ►- a� o o+. o Co > � u a� a w " I I � C � � ' 0 C � o Z � w � � N I I I I Existing Addition 10 Oblique Elevation Ir Oblique Elevation RoofAIL is I 12T-8 7 m /8" LU LU Level 3 119-81/2" M FMA LL m m ISO m LL ff111 t AN Level 2 1091-10 5/8" L 1i Lu m Ll LL aj u tj Level 1 1001-01, Southwest Elevation �-�l/1 W= 1'-101" Addition Existing Oblique Elevation Roof 127'-8 7/8" F-711 Level 3 119'-81/2" EL LL D a EL LE �]D FE LH U1 L11 Level 2 ^- —------ ------------——----------- 109'-10 5V Lin m m fa n- , m ED �= U� MEE fflffl � Level 1 1001-01, West Elevation kaas GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING A3.2 Wilson AL fbrchiteCtS GOLDEN VALLEY, MN Exterior Elevations it i 1 COUNTRY ° CLUB f€ -DRIVF N rif. .,..:- _ C8 • IIS $�§3 It J8. Ab 0 01 g 'kv` Ir V�LyIt J 1111 GNME o C J•` S �_ Ito \I'$1 1 1 III C t 1 N89.17 45'E E I .!'y*��N ,\ , `,t(+\\ • LLL (-� {l .7 ACL 4 J y i 7 � S. �� • \ 11 11'1 11 �II.17 � cz •••� 77 Ln 77 Lo 901-1 Via- 1 H a 3 CD � � �❑® a4. g�004avl 1 1 °• : a bs � w ai n na. o � • $ � m nig a ^ sS m 35 a 62 � N �< n $ m PROJECT GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING ' l J Z ` R 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE.GOLDEN VALLEY.MN 55427 € O N ALBERT MILLER ¢z°CL' I I -------1------------------------------- o —•v's---� —s'-a— —R) An x w ZZ zs m- - imago � `I `\• ��* 1 y 1 1 • P Ec / � x 1 � 1 i +'. f n q i s cn GARAGE iry > a >n N . A P Aw ° �- zo &•• � .y �� SA; '� iR u 1•i: Nr ig �+ a -A-5"� � '� a ym �% J�� ilffl� JAI All 9 $ yPWOam � tQ p yQ - w QQ 33 ° S� c 4wPm H 0, A; m 2 >pm F H >€ Pmt " m$ m LA 99 q§> B T HT €g F$ N � € A o � H mPREA a $ D � R Brag 4 4�RAR P 4 Roc, /\ mq £nomm GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING ._ g R 9 S £ 9 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE,GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55427 . H irkn O i H-l" ALBERT MILLER �'ro -lvilSite ISEGmENTAL FFTAlNiHG rL` T,TM 8612CONCRETE I. CM&GUMR ii p"Eft 2 . 'Do J CUR CONCRETE 1 6&CUTTER itF WALL mlTSENOR llmlNG VAN NNG 4�CONCRETE 11 If A T, /7 , J PA� If 0 LIN ING DARDEN FENCE JI —E I.ARCH Cl z U.1 LU TL U) 0 >- 0 ------------ J . LU 1 NX F- RETNNING COAL 6C L w cl E.F—G— DO z 1— z w z) 0 EXISTING 4-STORY BUILDING LEGEND: CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS SFIECVED(PAD OR WALK) OECOPAINE PAVEMENT AS SPECEED I IlEll T-T TNI—N RCCX MNNTENANCE STRP DHIxR _T "T.'l1,1 A FN1o11 LAW�T� ,s. HEAVY DUTY RUIRDUS PAVEM:NT ACCESSIBLE PARKNG PAVEMENT SITE LAYOUT NOTES: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY NOTES: SITE INFORMATION AND AREAS CALCULATIONS: FBOPEM WE Issuesus—AL sumR—Y I cm—CTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUTOF ALL SITE UEmENTS 7 THE CONTRACTOR SH-EUEMRT SHOP DfbAWlNGSM SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED 16, BFREINOUSPAVNGTOK'NOMNWUYMLEW.TWEWD.SEE 1, KSERVEDFoRSPECIIIIIISPECllICl—T—T-NOTES CUAB&GUTTER-1.0..W41MGUTIER PRIORTO BE""M —BUTACYTWOLEDTO. FOR REWW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENCWEE—FE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO OETAll-SHEETS FOR PAmEUEAT SECT S. LOCATIONS OF E=TWG AND PROPOSED PROPERTY IVES.EASENENTI F�TION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED WE IMPROVEMENT—SUN AS F-TING PROPOSED OR ACCESS EAWWNT SETBACKS.UT 5 BULD*-AND PAVE—�OR IS RES—BUE BUTNOT FTEOTOTHEfOULOWNNG,FAN—I.I.E. � S. S, 17. 4LIREST�A�TOUMN�TOBEMnMD�W�GEWHA FORF—LOCAT OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE ANY RENSIONS F541LINSS.BENCHES.N.AGPOLES LAND04G P—FOR CURB N-8,AND LIG- CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE OFF UNE.SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS. Bul DR,GCOvFRA" 15'666 IF18 1� 24'MOSSF 257K REQURED AFTERR�ENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.WE TO LOCATIONALLOCATIONALAND POLES.THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT MSTALLED MATERIALS A PAVEMENTSfINCLPERV) �I.M IF 30.0,630.0,6nF PARED SECTIONS TO BE PAD YELLOW TO�TE'Nu A-STmENTS SH BE CORRECTED AT NO—IOUNK COST TO OMERL TPRE-.IA—O—. ALL NON-PAVEMENTS .,SSS SF 53.9% WIF 44.T% —G' ACuUSTmENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL Of APPROVED BY THE W AND K$T ASSEWLY.SHOP D—NGS R—RED �EEFV,ANUSCAFS ARCHITECT—TO NSTALUARON OF mATERmuS.SFARE 8. PEDEETRKANCV BRAmPSSHALl-6ECOtlSTFftK7DE—TFUNCATEDDOUF HC-ACCES&B.SEN LAYOUT FOR�AL —NG FAINACCORDANCEWLT—DAREQUKMENTMEEDETAK. TOTA-TEAREA RE".1, 96,4-1 BUD. NP NOP� GFRELANE 90, I THE�TRACTONCST N&L NECE—FERRETS�TO 9. CR—STFRFI*G SHAluL BE 24—E HLFE FAINTED WE.WACED�ON —FRVIMSURFACE CC•�PACT CAR PARKING MY CONSTRUCTION RAXUDlNGAWHTuOFuAAYANDSTREETCFENlNGFER—. CENTE PE�NMU�TOTHEFL��T�FFK.WIDTH%��K 415. SHALL N5Wff.k OFHEF—EmENTMAFKlNGSS—WH—COU� $� --u� 3. THE CO TRACTOR SHALL VERFY RECONRENJATKX�NOTED W THE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED M REQUWED BY ADA M AL LOCGOVEFNING BODES. EDCONDNICN "M' GE&TECNNlC REP—FFMRTOlNSTALLATlONOFS�lm—mENY DIFFERENCE 6,216 IF mATER,A,s' 10, CURB AND GLFTTER TYLE SHALL BE M12 UNLESS OTHFRNWSF NOTED ON THE 4. CONTTACTOF SNA4 MUD C"DNATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF DRAW!NQ�TAFER BETWEEN CWB TYFE�OETAR- —RF..RlA TH 8UEMG AND�FOR FEWW AND—�BY THE� 11. ALL CURB RADI ARE mAlmW T MEW OTHERVWBE NOTED. --—AREA 01ITURUDD 10.08451 FRE—SENTATNE PRAM TONVALIATION OF FOO� ATERWLS. SODTO ENMEDONSLTE o� 12 CONTRACTOR—HEFER TO FN PtAl—LOT BCAWUAFUESNUNBERS SlUT FENC"B10 ROLL M LF GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 5. LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES,�AY PAVEMENTS,CUM AND GUTTERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PWR TO SITE ImMVEmENTS. EROS—COffTROL6LA KET D SF SITE PLA SCALAFOS,AND WALKS ARE MPROKWTE AND SHOLL BE STAKED.THE FELD, NUETPRO�ONJ DWM FA WWW—E—A—CALL.— PWOR 10 NSTAuLAT10N.FOR RENEW AND APPROVAL BY THE 13. FaD VERIFY AUL EXISTNG WE COAMMS,�NERONS. j—)2-1-TOLL FFEE EHGNEE�C�� (85114560W2 LOCAL 14, P�IETCMSFTFA LFLORP—E—"TOFXETlND--D 6. CURBDINENSIONSSHDWNMETOFACEOFWRB.BOLO GDNENSDNSARETOUNUESSNOTEDOTHEMSE. C2.0 F�OFC�E�MA .L�� B� TOBALMG FOUNDAMN—SNALLBEASS�WNON70FDFAWN- 15 ALLPAR�UOTPAWTST—TOBEWHITECAVETYP. H< O , g a3��iwla3a�vasm ,g sa M s 0 LZ499 NW'A311b'A N30-109'3/uu(ia110 A8iwoo SLVL �g °� $ kQ 0 rpt Sc;u g ' .K�' ► ONIAI1 MOMS A3_11VA N3alOJ a �"s°€gym j-_ j� -fd g „$ g shi, w � a g5�g<8gggsm r= g w �€ 3� 8F a, g .8.5 j w �C �8n g o � sggw: g _; a w' X0 .7 °fig x s„ z „8 3. w w7 i s= 08 5 o 2w u y s z oo egg w w � � � i� m o s �y ► • t ■#■ • R � s :a�FWm= Nww y� - �� . g a �� El- -.z :g �� - W est W �ff a € ° s tge•o <�€ & _ 8 til 9-.-- wa € a. > eSm$ga N� W g ge yy g � w� oa _ � I'” # � - aY a o °w ■ if J g yg ky'Ha<Pwgoh �gg� 3Y Y S� 3wN 5 ° € �� 3 � m a � = u� _sg � WOH,: Z a s � W � 3g g � q oe w s 3 19 g° W 1h -HE81119 asI ff s a 7 g ° oma ego <�s a 8� � � �� ° °fi gg' tig � �. Y g ; R d r A R R z I LH U I s j I A I AI �e a 'zz to R$ 8 E2>2 (� twavo JNll SIX31 y fytb y H H i 1 _ LIZ, o m 81 1 � � 1 . �`` •X� � � 1 1 ' _- 7 � , t � cz a s a / 1- RIN' ° cc 6 �g z � �__ tom` s `w _ . sa I � Fy H 52�� 77 n$. . 8. ` �� \ — ml , ( Hil. < a w _ 1k.{C c9'19 ' c Tr ,t IIrrr'J o 10 U �w -------/-------------r------- laz w w <i.Xw o 4 p4 v Sd Lal A r� ♦♦ 44 yy Z>_ \ � ly N n g n n A m C p czo o g s r oDISa 0 C.)In 20 U �A Oar 1 c > SOD r�o�mrvai��i5�N2 A� Z _ vm m •2mm z m a� 5y on o ,Q y mg P4 m s �^ rrya3 m A. c%R3�Z io+ nm fD •moo e� tF z 00 oob"' moat' ooA aa S Aon �ocziv mamo ��'A�no 52 z o's �m �x 12, �Fy Y�g ice" om Z --- cAflt" g^^_ a a POL nn $"a � rq Wig iv � m �: m11 o ^� ��S I7-11 W K.:; �m <�p coli" N zo �z i-N xac 0 IIS N g m> im cDi p I $m nz D >g zN FAZ Ir ml m iy �n .4 Z �� r c�=o 1 ' I xy m g� Nm �1o� s" o o � $ Z .ti Z A mFi ."�. n Uy� mK NE In j, p o pQ oP, p °EI Al~I • 9 Zm £p� �i�i vLe. 4 '"7 A VARIABLE m x o a z r y C7 D Z W n,rs g�g z Z z 2 z m C7 (D' ren Q Q im%'gq� m 1 0> 9� 0 �' D m G mg { m � 3 czi - - m /J D ?<s E _ Z / z s al a- � o s m - n_ m � € Teas 9aa ' c "li'o c L 0 g vo-1 RiR € z 11111111 ye g� 9 s mZ p -r m t R Z' 1Al"61181 D ° 981 WR oz. mg!' Sri 8 O $ a D M > a R c m 51 ■3 A �5 ? �p AL f'` •I,'. Jut i�� diq. GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING m nna m e z ano � �p 8. °� 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE.GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55427 s # oo $ ALBERT MILLER NO n. �= • Ing z iv mm DIN VE go 10, >° P z gl ' eNx to gXX 8 R Y Ux � �� 5 g�s �� oma � �' ,', i �/// ,�\, '�<,� -�,. � �i�G✓r, �� \ HTH m > a " mm ` N i_ �� jig a I� b� 1p g oo z = 1s � -1 jigag IgIgg j Iy s � g w GARAGE bAl / 2 3 — �pmS o m Z m 7 441 $ o i J ,. I 'C twsn ts m mll_I eA 4 •nG l 4Q4 � Z HUM� f 0 MM4 H m D€ q all No o T F GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE,GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55427ZO 3k. � ? 4J s $ ot ALBERT MILLER ' O z m �/tti I I -------1------------------------------- ------------ a, - `Fu ..�_ � '-I< _ _-"a_-��-��- „!r't..:_�->��-'"�- �R re'-w—tip—ire._x_,�--_•-- ._. t � e 8 � � 1 r , N� jv,; x 1 '; I _ \ v I p � 4 ` �` _ \� R a cq • d I ' 0-10 i�' Ia o $ o a off" m; °£ N T $$ BRgm na§m8 } z 'zO S A o 0 b 0 m N PROJECT $ <p IIII�kj e €£ on GOLDEN VALLEY SENIOR LIVING •'C'., 5= a 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE,GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55427 ��r ALBERT MILLER , 6 R O TU P GENERAL SWPPP REQUIREMENTS AND NOTES: TRAINING(PART III.A.2) OWNER INFORMATION TNE ,v CDNTRACrO.ANDML—TOESMNWVED—A CONSTRUCTION MTMTV—OSI—RTESOL OR NFPCIPLEMNT APOLLUTAM—D-MENSLRE REMOVE INLET PFOIECTON BASED ON A SPSONELMEtt CONLEN MNT8tt1 BE OBTAINED FROM TE JUNSpCTDNN ANTnWRTYA—DAYS OF REMNAL. DESIGN ENGINEER:MATTHEW R PANTK P.E. OMMEIE IDENTIFIED NTHESTONM WATER Mr-LUTKM PRE—PLAN(SwWVPMOST COMFY�TiX THE REgINBFEMSOF THE—-LU—DIE—EURNTUX TRNNWAT NGLRSE:d:SIGNOEs— KEEHT TER TAN SYSTFAA INPpEbICi1ERAlffRNRIDATED AUGUST LN1]YNN100001 ACES t-35.MpM'Y LOfi GONTRNNG AGENCY INVNGAmSGGION GONCERNND EROSKNMD TEMMm .1 STOGLPEES MST HAVE SILT I—DIF OTMER EFF ECT.E-DIME NTCONT-S.AHD TRAlNNGENTITY'.UNNERSITYDFMNNESOTA EE—N—CONTROL GMADT BE PVOEDNSUEAGE WATERS.MOLUONG STGGNATER COINEYHICEE SUGI AS WRB AND GUrtER SYSTEMS OR IXHIDOT5 AND DITCHES UNLESS THERE E A NSTRLOTOR JOHN CHIPNIAN BYPASS N PLACE FptTE BTORMNATER DATESOFTRANIN.0 SIE N1YN11•SRN2011 PART III STORMWATER DISCHARGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS —E TRAGNG OF SEONENTFROM!THE CONSIBIErw are 1.ONTO STREETS—THE SHE)MUST BE—DIYaFs sucxAS—PADS,DOMMETE OR TOTALTRPINMG HOLIES:12 EL WASH PMS.OR EOUNALFNT SYSTEMS STREET aWEEPNI MST BE USED F BUCH BNF,IEE NOT AdAIATE TO PIEIENT SEDIMENT FROM BEING THAGED ONTO —RTFDATKFN.1IN-1113114 I5 HDURS4 M.W-17 SWPPP(PMT INA) RHE STREET LSEE PMT NE.ND.4 THE HATWE OFTMS PNOECT WLLYCLN651DR YATH WHAT IS RFPRESENTEO N THIS SET OF--PLANS ANp SPE--SEE THE S—RAH—E THE KENT,E Mor MBNSE SOIL COMPACTON'AND,UNLESS INF—PRESERVE T—MNNt¢IJD SOIL LdiILIDN S NOT REQUIREDVAEPE THE FUNMONG AREAS AND QUANTITIES OF-TEM SAPPP E(A NMENEARC9�oNPiEVTION8—TE PLATE FOR ADDITIONAL WESPE—DE E—INFORMAA—THE IPLANS S m.L. TIONSE�� THE E,SEE LE�n u+cQ�M=A�cTm�.NAE�TH6Dos�.OR�sroP�oIL�ixn�uDF�rw�A osTac�Dr�ovs�GIL P�RnR m�aRAnnD an�vanaAavmAATD�rx�DE (PART III.A.4.B&C): SWPPP CONTACT PERSON M BITE AREA=ISBAMIS COWFLACTOR'. THE NENOED SEOL.ExCNGU W.IORCONSTRUCTIONMTMTIES SAS Fpl.dYS'. THE PERJNTEEWSTI%THLIEMPORARTSEWEN TDNBFSNSABREQUREDNPMTaNOF THSPSRMT. ON SITE DISTURBED PREM=—AMES %JD% 1,rLSTALL,rANMEDRWNOONS—TINNENTRANCE DEWATERING AND BASIN DRAINING(PART N.D)'. OF STTEDI57URBPOIREA•Q00AMES xxx 3.NSTAWTONGSETFENCEAA—DSRE SNTMLL OPANFE CONSTRULTDN FEMOING MUMD IKlTRATdNIRF?5. D—E—OR BA,IND M.,E.G.,NUME.OSCHMF£S.MNGYMCH CUTS FOR dWNGE)RFIATED TO TIECANSiRUCiKN1 ACINTY THAT MAY HAVE T.PBD OR TOTKd IMPSF ARAFFEN-tA KYx A.UEAR AND GRAB FON TH.—Y BEOIEHT SIN i POND INSTALL SEDIMENTIPllEN dSCHMGE WATER MUST BE DSCHARGED TO A TEMNMURI OR PEEMANEM SEDIMENTATION BASH ON THE PRQIELT WE WHENEVER POSSIBLE.FTHE mINDED I.P 10lI EA—095 ACRES S CCMSTPUCT 7EMPoRANY SEDIWIMT BAMN/P FEART NRI wATERCMNOTBEOSGNRGEDWABEGNNTATDNBASNPRDRTOEMERNGTHESURFACEWATERNMIST BE TREATED WITN iHEAwROPRNTEBUE5SUDIliRNTTIE PROPOSED IMPEINElUS AREA=1.10 ACRES ILEY0SWPPP BPESPECTICTOR AWMG .GEM Aro GRH RENM'DER OF WE C6GNNCE DOES NOT AOVENSEl AFFECT THE FEC—WATER DWMSTREAM LANDONMAE OR WEiIAN)B THE CW—lDP MUST&SUFE 1HAigYMMAOE MMS NEW IMPERVIOUS ANEA•0.15 ACRES ALL SWPPP INSPEG1pN5 MUST INE PERFGRMFD BYA ,.STRPMIUSTWKHE TOPsdL IDEOUA1ELV PROTECTED FROM E0.05Ox ND SCOUT THE DISCHARGE Mu5TBE05KNSFDOVERHAiuM1 ROCK FBNM,SANO BAGS.PVSTIC 9MATHNG OROTIER OIIANTIYOFSMTOBEMOVEUONSTE=E500CY PERSON THAT NEI:rB THE TRAINING PTDUNEMENrS B.--DF— ACCEPTED ENENGY OIESPATON MEASWES AddNTE SENHENTATFM GOADED,MEASUEB MEFD FOR05CHNRGE WATER THAT CONTAINS SUSPENDED SD,OS SILT PENCE•675 LF M THE NPOES CONSTRUCTION SITE PERMIT. B.,TA IDENUOEDAREASNosrOGwBES NETEROTECTONDEVOES=SEAN TMNNG MEDENTTALS SNALL BT PRODUED By THE IF INSTALL SANITARY SD'ER.WATER MHN SLORA SF D ABEF-ES PETER SA—MATERS MUST G HAIRED AWAY FOR DSFOSAI,RENRIEO TO THE BEGINNING OF THE TRUiMFHI PNOCE93.OR INOOMMATE INTO THE SITE N A EROSIDN CONTROL NANHQT•OSF CONTRACTdRMDKEPTONSRENRHTHESWPPP 11.NETALLSILT—IFIIETI ECTDXMWNDCBNMWE 'S NNERTFUN SHOTCAUSEMOSNNL gSGARGEGIXE BKHWASH WATER tO BAxrtMYSEWENSKLOwED'MTn FE1A1N9GIGMFSWIIMYBEWERMitDRDY. TEMPORARY SEED E WLM-ZACRES UL INS, SECTION ROCK—NOAA15=D EACH SNSTALL CURB AND GUTTER MDITUMTE NOUS OH ETETS INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE(PMT IV.E): US FIN&UNFADE SOF11—,MSTILLSEEDANOYOLL01 1] uoVE AccaAxATm BE—.FBGN BASIN IPHNE WNTRAcro BKR NSSLEATULTNESIORTHEMMSNMCEANOP ERGFHA.TDNGERo.BDNM%s EMwNTRa FACNTTE9.TECONT.M:TOFSHNL PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FNM GWNf PGO'NHTPATOFBA51N6 DONOTLGWAtf ShcSa NLTMiHOHNEASOIPART lCH n N USALl INSPECT.MMTM ANp.EPAm NLpsTUReFD9WFACESANDAJLFRO.SON MpBEWEM CONTNW fACITEs ANO SOIL sTABMNIOx MFASURF90NCE IawHET,uL caMSTRIETDN ARMTYScanETE AFDTHE STrtasTrnL�DerRTHER SEEDa+saMANDSGRNG.REHgVE SET FEXCE AID RESEED AXY AREA NDH NnG.Rscpua»DARaFUE OLS ESDRGEATERArow NTDATSAFreRnNr—TNUE OF PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GSTmPED BY THE REMOVAL OE�RYKVx eA—TEs WrtFF LAND-TUWRNNG nc��MTAY HAS GMED.THEREAFTER THE,CWTRA—BWVL FENFGM THESE RESPW BIBILITES AT LEASTMEEar TIME RECORDS RETENTION(PART IN.Ek VEGETAm6covERS ESTMLSHEo.INSPECTnFIS MSI INLLLDB STMugDIFErs.EnCSDx PRc'VENTONMOSETJIENrWNTAOL N.msAxo IEYTTUTDNABFAS. xu MN MUST USOBE MJFE 5TE 7 MENUNARNAV MODFV TE BNWP UNLESSTUNEVEMPD,LLRNR,FPOMLGMTHE PEE , FR WAIERDY.OR TIG %x THFSArNITTE eFAUS SINduDNG.IIICNAXGFSTO R,AID NSPECiKIMb ANOMMMTENANCf PfpJR05 MUSTNDOm LTTE SIIEDUPoNGCONSTPLICITON Br IOpFIGTOODESDBE UAd wTHN rCILENDM versa TIE NSPECTOXUMESSOTHERAISE REWIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE PERMlIT LEGAL.MDLMTORT.OR TIEPERMIiEEWHO HASOPEP.AiHONN LdTRW RTHATPORMINOF THE SIZE.TIESWWPGNNK®TNERHERTE iELDOFW.E ORMMONSIrEVSNAE DUUO PHVSOA ACCESSCONBTANTS. INSPnC MA1 WOWpIG NOLRs. ELTOxREPoARSISi T EEDONO F VMTxNNX OF SIN WAP NGAND MPi ON FILE BY THE CG11MCipR AS AN'NfrGHALPMTd THE SxPPPON 61TEAND IIEN vwaFRISI MUST KEEP THE SwPW.upO WITH THE FWLONINGMDIrOWI RECONW.ON FIE FGR IHR£E PH AFT.WBNLSAL OF THE HOT AS WT9EON' ipt AT LEAST]YEAR,EBONITE DATE RCp.EIEMPN OF MSPROJFCT. AxT ILC.THIS DOES HOT INauDEANY IECORUSAFTER SUBMITTAL.Of THE NOT. SWPPP ATTACHMENTS: ALL PfREETNCH,% D,MMOST K,B,M,EBYFE,ENEUT00R,UBUWENTED EEDAY FNTEY BEGOFE XONHEREAFEFIASOR OONNEFHE ENTREAGHE61tOFTHfHINNIF C-, t.THE FINAL axPw; aTRE QEVDE.THESE REPMS Misr eEMMEer rxEEwaTHE xFxrWSNFss onvMTAGsmvFFv,DR rxEREAFTn As soQNGFEID ca+pITMSULarwccEss. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ACOPY OF THE FOLLOWING SWPPP vAm omERsraRuwATEa REUTEDPERAFrs REDLINED roRTnEHaECT. BE—DELTAS ADDSEwDT DEPosnEDN WRFACE wA1ERS INCLwNGwMAr-YB uicxarsNs.MD OTMRDRAIJAGE srsTEMs.AHDTEsrMBIJa THE ATTACHMENTS WHICH ARE A PART OF THE OVERALL SWPPP PACKAGE: s REWRIS OFULINSHcrIN AND WINTENANCE WnoucrmWRN CONST.WTrONrsEE PART rvE.NSIECTOHS MDwMEHwcEI: "RFAs"tERESEDEEMREAwuwuuI REscTSINESP-EDTGPBOE.THSREMDSTAau TDNMSTTMEwcEVAdN rD OFOB—RYUHEsswFCLLT]ED ATTACHMENT A.CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE-SITE SPECIFIC SWPPP DOCUMENT BY L£C.BEWLAID.v,GR RrvsOM ACCESS LONSTFMNTS, ATTACHMENT B.CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER INSPECTION CHECKLIST 4.ALL PERMANENT OPERATION UD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS TMT HAVE BEEN IMRBMENrED.—UlDMNG ALL RDnTOF PUFF.CONTAACTs.WVEN.ANTSAND OTHM EBENTTACHM:M A:CONSTRU 11EMPPP TENFUTO FOR WE,PEGFONSFECT—ANDMMNTENANLE REQUIREMENTS. ATTACHMENT C.MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PERMANENT STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS BINDING—MENTEREGA—FERIETUALMAHRENAH E:ANO s.uL NEouRED GucLUTDNs FOR GSIGxaF THE TEWCmARrIHD PERUAXFTI*sroRWlAreR MMMGEM-sysrtMs. POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT(PMT N.F): ATTACHMENT D:ABLESTORUPON R MANAGEMENT REPORT-ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF PROJECT ENGINEER.AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. PART IV.CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS TMEO,N,,U,0 SHALLIMRENMrNEFouoNEDPOLLUTIL.VPREV7MOHuuuGETEMTNr swFs W—SM; ATTACHMENT E:GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT-ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF PROJECT ADL.— sPHIMLT MD coxcRETE LauM:s,FLOArMGDEBRsvMER,PIwsrHc.FABRD.caNsmunDNMDDEuanprNomasM+DOrHaR ENGINEER.AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. EROSION PREVENTION(PART N.B): WASTESMI,TBE GSPpSEp OFNiOPEFILv ANO MSTCpPLY NTH uNxE50TA POLLUIIOHCOMROIAGENCYPHPG)dSPOAt IEWREWMS. THE IS RESPp1•ELE Epi RIMING FOE ANDBINEMEMIHGAPPRCPHNTE CONSTIUCTDN RINSED,VEGfrAIIVFBUFER SINP,.XORFOMAL SLOPE WIARDOUs LNTERMLS:OE.GA,GMf,PNET AND MY HYARW155LE—ES MUST BE PROPERLY SrMED,—L—SECON ,CDMMIMENT.TOPREVTM SELLS. GRADING,AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PON,cTIGESTHATMNMME EROSION.so THAI ENE I—AND MArnENANG REWMEMENTS OF PMT—ME—DN1TH. LEMBORGIHERdscN•RGCBESTRCTEDAODESEMsoRArf MEM MUST BE vxovDEnTO PREVENrvuDUSM.srDP.wE ANDOSPOsrL OF HwrMoouswASTE MUST SUPPLEMENTARY SITE SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES: THE LOGTON Of MEAS NOTTOM DSTUHBEO MCAT BFOEWEAIEOIE.G.xTxFlAGSSTN{ES,BONS,MUFExCE ETC)ONIXEOEVFLOPMNT 911E BEiONENORKBEGNS. SN WUEWHCE--REWUTENN3 THESE NOTES SWEFUMDE ANY GENEML SWPPP NOTES. ALL EKPoSEDSGLAREASMISTEE SIMJUEEDI550 PDSSSUTOLMSOIi.MNl NBUTND UT ERTWNTHEENDOFTHEXExT DAYWxEN EKTEMMLWAWNEICE AND.IHERCONSTRUCIKNI—LES MUST BE LIMBED TO A DEFINED HEA OF THE WE.RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTEWATER EARTHdsTURBNGACTNTRES NEL CEASE FEIAT LEASTDAvs.TENPGuur slDCKHES NTrxoursr+rK:wruT cur GRGNGwccoMroxENTSISAGA.GEM PROPEFILQSPosEDOF.NOENGHEDEGRENSINCS.—ONS- SPECIAL TMDL BMP REQUIREMENTS SITE SPECIFIC(IF REQUIRED): AWPEGTF STWKRES.CEMO.ITON LOHGY ESTOCNF11fS.5ANDSTOLI(ALESIMOIIE LONSTRUC1ED Bl4 COWONfNROFRdD6.PARONGLOTEANDSINM —TE—ALL IAYJD AND901D waS1E8 GENEM1EDBV CONCRETEWGWUIOPEHAlKIN9 MU9i BECONTANONAUAKPROOFCONTMAMENi FACNiYOR I.WHRGCOxsTRUCTON SNPACESAPE EKEMT PROM THE REONEMEM BUT MST ODMALY WITH PMT N.- REENEIBUUNERACG.FACTED—INER THAT DOES NOT—WASHOUT UWDS TD EIDEN THE GROUND S CONBDENED AN IMPDME—E—THE LIQUID AND A.STANDATKN OF ALL EJmOSEO SOIL MEAS MUST ME—D MEDIAELYTO U#r SGL EROSONBUI IN ND GSE WIRETED SOESNIMN]D FEEL OF APueLO WATER IAS WRGNITED BY THE MINNESOTA ONE)MST BESTIEIMED WITHIN N HOURS DUNG FSH SPAWNING TIMES. SOLD-STES MST NOT LGTACT THE GROUND,AND TIRE MUST HOT BE RUNOFF FROM THE CONT—WASHOUT O EUUF016 OR AREAS.UDUD AND SOLD WASHES -AEE RTHAN SEVENTTI DAYS AFTER THE CAST EOH ACTMT'N THAT PORTON OF TH WE HAB TfliOBNELY OR PERMANENTLY IM1IST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND N COME—E WITH MPG PEdRATIONS.ASIGN MUST BE NET—ADJACENT IG EAG!WASHOUT FACILITY TO NHUM CONCRETE CEDED. PERIMTEN OFAM TRNPOPMVORPEaNNFNT DRMAOF DIT[NONSWAIE IIAT DNMSYMTEN FRGAAMPpUONOfTHCONSTRUCION SIIE,OR EUNMENT OPEMTORS TO UTES THE PROPER FACILTIEB OCINCRETE WABIIWI MAY ALSO OCCUR OFF ME NOODUIING TO THE APPROPRMATE PE(AAATDNS. BTEMOMxTSEDIMEMBA8HE0UlEABTIS DESCRBFDNPMTaG.MUSrGUBF COMWNpWW[£LCGTDRSTHAT ON'ERTS AALwETTEp wA1TRARWHO THE SITE.MST BE STABIPEDATTHN.TOINEK fFETFRONTHE PROPERtt EDGE OR FROMTHE GOMOF DSCHARGE MO NRY9UMME WM11SL SEREANMEAMM FEE(SIOR LORE ACRES D167—ATONE TIME. STMLLPATON OF THE LAST 200lPEN FEET MUST BE DGWLETED WTHN 21 FOURS AFTER CDNNECIING TO A&AFACE WALE.. FUEUD OPEMTONMNt N.INGSHILTM2PW:EATTf dSONAlFO FUEIklG LOGTONAIW ACCOPDINGTO BEST PRACTICES FGR TE NDNG OPEMSIpASG POST CON, TO MIAI-E 7HE PoTENTML LOR SHLB. —TION THE WATER QUALITY VOLUME THAT MST BE RETMEDON 911E BY THE HOECTS PERNAVENTSIpafWATER 6TMYIIAtpNG TME REALUFHD FONTOHSOf ANYTSFpNAv OR PERMANENT DITCHES OPSwAUS MUST BECO4RETF N1TXN tY OUTS PETERCWIECiNGTOA THMW.CFNENT SYSTEM DESCRIED IN PMT aD.SHALLBE ONE 111N'CH OF—FNOM TNENEYIIAPERVONS SUENE EFEATEDBYTE /R WRFACE SEE GNS WATERNO CGETNIR:IIMNTNTPoRIDN OF THE DITGIHnS TEMP-1 GR--I CEASED. REVENTDN PIAx:NL SFEIS SHALL BE MIME LY CLEAKD W AFTER GBCOVERY.ME WE SUFNTFAD[EMw, DSFOR DAY�TO REBPGENF DAY RE PER—CL. PMT aD.1.WR MORE WDEAUTION ONNTETMTDN d:RDN,PROENTONB AND APRroPRNTE WE CdMDNE, ( TRLOTONOPE--NEL BE THE SHL PRFNI TIDN OWRGNATGR AND WILL BE NESPGNSIBLE FOR AVLELENTNG CLEAN W RDCEDURES POSTING GEM UP Z MPORMY OR PERMORCHE AAENT S OR—S THAT ME BEING USED AS A SEDILENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM FH PROPERLY DESIGNED 0.0E WCNGEUS.SONWLS, RECOMMENDATIONS AHOENSMDHOPERGEMUPTRVIOOFNOROPRNTErtR,OMEL .—OR TESEAREASWSTNSTANNEDN Nn AFTERHOLONGERBFING DGASEiJIMENTfAN W PERMANENT STABILIZATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC: ` STSTBM. EMPLOYESA—E WASITY.ARY AU SMUNSEMNE.SSMELLBFPROVDEOMDMAMANDNANEATMDSAHTMYCONGION.FORTE USE OFTIE-EUNI4TGR5 / EMROYFES.ALOFGEDGWAM WASTE M•IMGENENTCOMRACTORMREp1FEDBYSTAfr REpAATUD FILL LGLECi SANRMV WASTE FliDIA PORTABLEUOS. PERMANENT BEED Mx Z PINE OUTETS MI i BEPR0.0FD NTN TEMPORMT OR PERMANENT ENERGY DE.9PITION N NWRS AFTER COMECTDN TO A SUFFICE WATER WRTHG PROECI NL AREA,THV,TAPE xDTTO BEBOWEDGRUPDSfM®SMILRFCFFh ANNmEPRBNHEM%EDM E FINAL STABILIZATION(PART IV G): AREG IN aEFERBANDMDJACENT TO OP NrvET AREA MDUTSEED MU]aaB15TORNNATEFspurH—ETIAT asLBS PEn SEED NOTES(PART MAMA)'. MRF. W MNTSNRALTGi MUSTEN,IIRf FOUL KOJaMONOFTHESREACCOFDNG TIE DEFNITONSN THE HPR6IENFRKPLRMTPAMNSfC11ON G.TECOxTPACTON O.r/NFAI—SE FEOMASSNDET-PRYREfSE'ALLHAT aOUS HRMAE MLSEED MxE,AHDAPPLGIOXSHALLBENK[QxbWCE wITHTHE MXDOI SEEONOMANLLLL. WEr SUNAASNOTCE OF IERMHAlI0N H0.T.IN7ON)TODAYSARERFN,ACT FMMSCONR HER NTHN IPERMT ODIFICUIONFORMEORPOOTOTHFME . MAlEHM4E SXNl eEMACCO.GNOE iO THE MOOTSEfONG WVON. O Q N SITE(M.ANAS MOT UxCEFWE RHALSSABIYAION)iOAHOTHR PAfm'.ACOPY OF THS xDTHd di IERNHAION:PERARAIODFIGTLON FOAM WSi W i0 TINE HEW 4. GENEMLIECOMMENGIONS: OVvn ONO1NU LWREM WAFER MUST PRDVDEASYRPP70TIE MwOWNM TI�TBNSF Y MDRESBFS THE REwdnNG CONSTNUCTON ACMry.SEETHE N.ECM1FLr 9EFORE SEEDING THF SOIL 9H•LL BE1LLED TOA MHMIM OEPTN OFJNGES SNPPP PLM SHETSMDS PWHARMINE(ATTAGEENTACpSTRWTONSWPPPRWUI)AxDSPPPPPLWSHEETSFORRNNSTMBBDA MFMURES W W o J TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SEEDING,MULCHING&BLANKET. J O SEED TEMPORARY SEED SHLLLBEMWLSEEDYN2t-it]BVNiFR WHFATCOJEA CROPIFOHI wNTERANJN•1111OA19 COVERGDP)FOR9PNNGSINIBRAPRICAlON3. ACTH SEED LADES SHALL BE MN.ED ATASEEDING RATEaIm Las,rcFE. W W > w w x NN eFTER3EEOI0.NT1HVNxDUG,xMOi TYPE 1 MEGRSNOUDBEMPPEEDID PROTECT AHOENMNCEBEFD CEIMEATpIMACH RWL H ARMED W Ai AO%COJDNGE R TONS PER ACRE OF STRAW NUCNI m m Q J aavEs ' U Q 3:I IHOR W£HT I W RATTER NxN Swi1 BEC—MACH SOPFSSfrEFEE—S:t OR DITCH BOTTOMS WN-1 BURET. SEE RAN FGR MORE OETMID DITGI AND.TES'SLOPE EPOSON CpRRD,TRFATMFEES. Z � W 0 SEDIMENT CONTROL(PART N.C): Q O SEDIMENT CONTROL PN.CTTCES MIST MINNUE SEGMENT FROM ENTERING SURFACE WATFAS.I-HUNG CURB AND GUTTE.SY,TEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS. U OF PBMAN!GUNAGE GTCHS AND SEDINEMM9H5 THAT ARE DESIGNED AS PMT OFA SEDIMENT COMANENT SYSTEM FEB,DITCHES WTIN O K I-N HA GIEGM MDAN)KDUPFSEDIMENT COMNOL PRACTICES ONLY IS APPEN—E Epi SITE cdtlIONS. S.ETHE OOIMGRAOEMIT TITEATNE THESTBMS WEHO•LEDNDED TO TNSE BFLMEMf TRD,RAREESORREWNMNT BM3 MOST BE INSTALLED i0 fLANNre ITE wENLGHD.NDTHE swTwv MJsreE AMENDED ro DENm TxESE AWITDNu PrucncEs ASREouRfO N PUTE,u.ATHRpEH c. c NOFOER OF M MSHEEEANM2E HLS ANGOR GULUES,TERE SHAll&HO UHBRd(EA SLOPE UNGMGGREAhRTMN TS F'EETFOH SLOPES MM A GARDE M]::10R STE6ENFA. SEUENTCOATItD,PEA-ESMISTBEESTMLSHEDWAMLDANTORAOIETPERMETERSBEFOREANYWC ENTLMDDISNPENGMTMIES EEGIN.THESE PMCTICE,SNNL REARM N PLACE LME FIML STABIDAtON NG BEENESTAaSNED NACCORDANCE VATHI PMT N.G. THE TIMID OF TM NSTM]ATON G SEDIMENT CONTROL RACTK:ES MAY BE AMUSED TO MLUNIWAfrFM ALTNITES SM'AS CLEMNG ON GRU—Ll di PASSAGE ACTMTY OPMVFTEOPMTNI� EPTAEwmSHOYRSTS TERMMRACTUO.TYMNISTVBERECSGEGMRMEMTEOMOLLGNMVMH 1NUSTAex0 MTHENEDSEEME THE NEAT—.PFA OBE NSMT EVEN 111 S I- ML STORM DEAN INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED NFS SUES WRNG CWBTRULTDN LNTR ALL SOLACES WITH POTENNA FOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE ENSTABLffO.NET ROIECTMNAV BE FEM]VED FORAPMIOULMNETFASPECFO SAFEIV COxCE0.N rsTRFETFLOoaNCFREEZNGIHA$BEEN DENTILED AND BE TFFENEEMITTLE,E)—CENS FNpY THE.NNRDICTDNALNJTxGBttiEG.GrvHCOMVROWNNIP:MDOTENCLNEENpVEP THE MED FOR FE—..1--N—WONOENG MUST BE DOCUNFITED N THE,WPPP O4 AVMMLEw1TNNRHGAS UPON REWEST,I —N WRRFSPOROEROE CAN NOT BE OBTNMDIN ATNFLYMANVER.THE SPFCFILNET PROfrLTONCM a REMOVED iONLEVl4TF THE ErAF!%4R SPFEtt COH'FAn. A.A DULY HOWEVER EFFONTS TO CBTM vmrtTFH CORRESPOWFHLE NLSi M OOCUAlFH1EOIN THE SWPPP MDAVMAHLE WITHIN R HNNmS UPON REOUST.PERNESON TO L LEND M TA No x289 DtTE D-11111 DATE DE—PT.. HSSUEISUBMITAL SUAFMRY REVISION SUMMARY F GOPHER STATE ONE CALL STORM WATER POLLUTION www.coPE1ERSTATEN.T.U-ORc PREVENTION PLAN(SWPPP) (EW(662-I18B TOLL LOCAL NOTES Ie611 ASYnro2 LocAL .MDT SW1 .1 6� 2D-0 p G R O 1! P 4 B �RIPRAP r,` TA Tm • BALES GEOTEXIILE SILT FABRIC ,2"tSIN TO BENDOT PLLACEDEUNDER C. CATCCH A D A BASIN GRATE, WRAPPED FILTER ASSEM --- AROUND & STAPLED TO POLYESTERWOOD 2x4 SLEEVESTORM SEWERINLFTCATCH BCOVEOPEN THROAT2ASSEMB 4 —__—_ 5D—tel PLAN 2" x 2" WOOD STAKES OR REINFORCING BARS 2� ri2" RIPRAP O FILTER ASSEMBLY BALE, TYPE 1 MULCH GEOTEXTILE SILT FABRIC WOOD 1 POLYESTER SLEEVE (MNDOT SPEC. 3882) (MNDOT SPEC. 3886) 2x4 I 3 14"x18"x36" MINIMUM NOTE: �� MANHOLE COVER SECTION A—A UNERBLANKET FOR EXACT RIPRAP OUANTITES ASSEMBLY ARD PLLAATESER TM3113313 133CNDOT D AND NOTE: 3134C. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE AND r 4• MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL AROUND •t cGRANULAR EA ULARE ASTER INTYPET OR 112 RIPRAP CATCH BASINS AS DIRECTED BY (MNDOT SPED. RIC. REWIRED NOTE: TWO 2" x 2" WOOD ENGINEER UNTIL TURF HAS BEEN UNDER RIPRAP. STAKES OR REINFORCING BARS ESTABLISHED FILTER BLANKET IN EACH BALE AND EMBEDDED IN THE GROUND 10" MINIMUM DEPTH SECTION 8 LINER APPROVED FEBRUARY 1.2007 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1,2007 BALE CHECK TO APPROVED FEBRUARY 1,2(107 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1.2007 TEMPORARY NAMCO toldenValley fi1XY.G PROTECT STORM GEOTEXN FI CATCH ,Iden alley RIPRAP AT OUTLETS I'tolde0fley INLET PROTECTION yya�'�" SEWER INLETS olden-alley BASIN FILTER CITY ENGINEER REG 2J110 CY-EC-M CITY ENGINEER REG 2!110 �'EC-0ECQTY ENGINEER REG 2!110 �• CITY ENGINEER REC 23110 �"�f' � 2 J z Y NOTES. MINIMUM DIMENSIONS A)MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A RESIDENTIAL-20'LONG X 20'WIC: O Q CONDITION WHICH WALL BY 6•DEEP. PREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT COMMERCIAL-50•LONG x IV WIDE --STEEL T-POST: TER EABRK AS SPECIFIED W FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. 5 MIN. LENGTH A- h' W O J BY B•DEEP. F1(ER AS SPECFEo J PERIODIC TOPDRESSING WITH MAX. SPACING STONE MAY BE NECESSARY. N O RL WSTREAM BASE EWE WRH � B)ANY MATERIAL WHICH STILL EMISTINGf ND EMB DRTOR IXAIPOST TO F MAKES IT ONTO THE ROAD �,R�fS SURFACE ELeol-rn OF FL- J W MUST BE CLEANED UP PLASTIC ZIP-TIES IMMEDIATLY. (3 MIN.) WITHIN TOP J m m C)RECYCLED BITUMINOUS cD 8 OF FABRIC `/Q I "'A IS NOT ALLOWED. L = WOODFN STAMES 10—X16'MN.PULED 1a OD. > a F, CONSIRUCI BERM 6" 5' HIGH UNIFORMLY ACROSS �GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MENNSTAUFDory GROUND.IFINSTAUEDON z :7 �aG WIDTH OF ENTRANCE _ 3 FT. WIDE PJMT.PROvIDE SMDBAGSBEIODANDMTOPAT Z ~ S Z ( ) Mrv.tao.c. W j (•'N l Z —E: 1.COMPOST FUER LOOB W ROLLS)SHNL BE FILTREX%ERO510N CONTROL So.OR—VVED EON- O ANCHOR FABRIC IN 2.COMroST FUER TO BEMAOE FROM A CO OST BLEND VV-V%DRADE 2(SPEC aBSD)UI06aa-Taw J n `00 TRENCH WITH TAMPED PARTMLLr DECOMP DWOODCHrs,PERMNDOTSPECSetr. NATURAL SOIL BACKFII VMTER FA SNAUBEMCTEMRLEM DAMTERMLWITHM OPE2MGSMW. 0 DIRECTION OF RUNOFF AIF MULT RDUSNEEDED.OVER1ir BY MIN.1r AT ENOB MID STNQ. f 5.51.7BN WRBMOVEO ONCERREACHESMOFTIEHDGHTOGTIEROLLORMDEEMEDNEMSSMY r BY WE CONRMCTDR TO MANTNN PROPER FUNCTKIN. { SEDIMENT BIO-ROLL/COMPOST FILTER LOG �..• `, .. a T NTs RESIDENTIAL 6•MDE / ,••, A♦ { ��' `o •: COMMERCIAL 8"MIN. ,( •♦ - `�" 4 SEE MNDOT 2573.3 K �' • ♦.._••♦ •♦ •� �o �• • • �w PLACE GEOTEXTIIE ♦`�- ,t • ♦ m FABRIC UNDER ROCNOT TO SCALE •'♦ ♦ • gEl 11 EXTEND 2'BEYOND EDGE. • • v1 uuoER rHE uwso'THE BrATEOF ♦. • ♦ • . . -4" O 1"TO 3"CRUSHED ROCK FOR •• •• -• MIN. •♦ a RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.(MNDOT CA-1 or CA-2 COURSE AGGREGATE) •♦ _ 3•TO 6'CRUSHED ROCK FOR •♦ •'• t♦ •♦ "o COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION ISSUE/SUBMRAL SUMMARY ENTRANCE.(MNDOT CA-1 or CA-2 COURSE AGGREGATE) • CITY IE—TTAL APPROVED DECEM BE R 12,2013 ROCK APPROVED FEBRUARY 1,2007 CONSTRUCTION oldenvalley TYPICAL SILT FENCE toldenValley - ENTRANCE INSTALLATION CITY ENGINEER REG 2311D i11•EC•070 CITY ENGINEER REG 23110 �•E�.$10 REVISION BUMMARY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL STORM WATER POLLUTION W2WW2.GOPHERSTATEONECA.,ORo PREVENTION PLAN(SWPPP) (800(252-1188 TOLLFRIELOCAL DETAILS (861)t5.L -:- p-0. - SW 1 .2 ,Ba D 2a.c. i ORDINANCE NO. 532, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Final Plan of Development Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment 2 Albert Miller, Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows.- Section ollows:Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, and Section 11.55, by approving the Final Plan of Development for Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) 72, Amendment 2, thereby allowing the applicant to expand the existing vacant 60 unit senior living facility to a 110 unit assisted living and memory care facility. This PUD is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions.- 1 . onditions:1 . The plans prepared by Kaas Wilson architects and submitted with the application on August 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. 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. 6(Q): 1. 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. 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 general 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. Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows.. Lot 2, Block 1, Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72 Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sec. 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 21st day of October, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST.- /s/ TTEST:/s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city o ,9f a ,� MEMORANDUM vallely Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) g" 'NOM,OW"'��x` Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 60 day deadline: October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119 - 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue - Peter Knaeble, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The Applicant, Peter Knaeble, is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit to develop five single family homes on two existing single family lots. The existing single family homes would be demolished and five new homes would be constructed. The property is zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-2) and guided for long-term Low Density use on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area of the two lots is 1.6 acres. The site is bounded by Highway 55 to the north, by Harold Avenue to the south, and is located across the street from Lions Park. There are single family homes on either side of the proposed project. Without a PUD the site could accommodate two single family homes, two twin-homes, or one to two townhomes for a range of two to eight total units. At 3.125 units per acre, the density of this proposal is consistent with both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Issues Raised at Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their September 22, 2014, meeting and voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend denial. TREE CONSERVATION The Applicant proposed the establishment of a Tree Conservation Easement across the northern portion of the site, in part to provide a buffer for the proposed homes from Highway 55 and in part to maintain the existing "green" viewshed when driving along the highway. It would range from 120 to 175 feet deep across all five lots. A preliminary tree inventory indicated approximately 30 trees in this area, many of them cottonwoods and box elders. While Staff and the Planning Commission applauded the effort, neither felt that the preservation of these trees rose to the standards typically associated with a City-maintained conservation easement and that a private covenant would be a better vehicle for preservation. UTILITY EASEMENT Engineering Staff raised a concern regarding a proposed easement along the eastern edge of the site. An existing 15 foot drainage easement lies over an 18 inch storm sewer pipe that runs north- south. A new 20 foot easement is proposed as part of the application; Staff feels a 25 foot easement is required to provide future access to the 12 foot deep pipe. The Planning Commission cited this fact in their recommendation for denial. SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT While a PUD allows for flexibility from many requirements of the Zoning Code, there are certain standards and guidelines provided in Subdivision 3 of the PUD section of the code to which flexibility cannot be offered. Subdivision 3(C)(1) states that no principal building shall be closer than its height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts a single family zoning district. It appears that as the building envelope of Lot 1 lies only five feet from the westerly lot line, the home built on this lot would almost certainly be in violation of this requirement, though this would not be known until specific building plans are submitted for review. In Golden Valley, the R-1 zoning district is a Single Family Zoning District. This area is zoned R-2, which is a Moderate Density Residential Zoning District. However, the purpose of the R-2 district is to "provide for single and two-family dwellings." The Planning Commission, as part of their findings, determined that the distance from the proposed single family home on Lot 1 to the westerly lot line would be in violation of this requirement and felt that the existing single family home on the neighboring property would be impacted by the construction of a new building only five feet from the lot line. ACCESS ONTO HAROLD AVENUE Five curb cuts and driveways are proposed to replace the two driveways that currently exist. Current zoning allows for a twin-home to be built on each lot. The Applicant has stated that this would allow him to construct up to four driveways by right and that the current request only increases by one the number of driveways that would be constructed. Staff believes that as part of a twin-home development a request would be made by the City to consolidate the two driveways on each lot, therefore maintaining two access points onto Harold Avenue. As a Municipal State Aid collector street, Harold Avenue carries approximately 1,200 vehicle trips per day. Engineering Staff raised concerns regarding the impact of additional driveways on a street where traffic volumes could increase through additional development within the Harold Avenue corridor. In a pre-application meeting, Staff suggested the Applicant pursue the option of providing a public street with cul-de-sac to serve all of the proposed homes, thereby minimizing the curb cuts onto Harold Avenue and centralizing the utilities under a newly constructed public right-of-way. Staff also felt this would establish a pattern for the area that could be replicated to the west along Harold Avenue in the future. In front of the Planning Commission, the Applicant commented that the construction of a cul-de-sac would significantly increase the costs of the project, requiring the construction of additional homes, an increase in the percentage of impervious surface, and greater tree loss. The Applicant displayed an option that clustered eight homes around a public cul-de-sac and stated that it was not the preferred concept. The Planning Commission suggested the Applicant consider shortening the length of the cul-de-sac in order to reduce the percentage of impervious surface and to allow for greater tree preservation along Highway 55. While the Planning Commission was intrigued by the idea of a denser neighborhood fronting on Lions Park along Harold Avenue, they ultimately felt the proposed PUD concept in its current form of narrow lots with small side yard setbacks was not compatible with the surrounding single family homes and recommended denial. Evaluation 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. The Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5(E): 1. The PUD plan does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design as it simply replaces two existing single family homes with five new single family homes on narrower lots. 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 general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and would likely result in conflict with at least one PUD ordinance provision of minimum required side yard setbacks for principal buildings. Also, the proposed easement on the east side of the property should be 25 feet in width as opposed to 20 feet as proposed. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Applicant's Narrative (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated September 22, 2014 (8 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated September 22, 2014 (5 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department dated September 15, 2014 (1 page) • Memo from the Engineering Division dated September 18, 2014 (6 pages) • Memo from City Attorney Allen Barnard, dated September 22, 2014 (2 pages) • Email from Thomas Ruble dated September 22, 2014 (1 page) • Site Concepts handed out at the September 22, 2014, Planning Commission meeting (2 pages) • Home Design Renderings handed out at the September 22, 2014, Planning Commission meeting (3 pages) • Site Plans received August 22, 2014 (9 pages) Recommended Action Motion to deny the Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119. 7460 7458 7438 - ---_- -__ Z. _. _ ----( ..7100 1 7456 74- 7151 7436 511 510 I 7040 702 7454 7434 5225'20 512510 7101 3112:100 7452 7432 501 8 7330 115 7500 7450 7430 m -State Mt.,y No. Subject Properties: 7200 & 7218 Harold Ave. 704 ..::-vlu 7045 p .•., :_.,•'a>atv.. ;4y{:i :,:yam:?:: 71 7340 `::•.. ....... 7031 7600 7420 • 7430 •::'y� ' 7236 7182 7218 7200 7025 7330 .7324 7156 7146 �. f MA Harold Ave 525 751175157505 7465 7445 7425 7300 /;;(.3 340 i i carte; 7501 G9 75231509.1 1 . 7751:75117503 7320 7309 330 7521 7507u 7310 7310 519—.,. : vL / �• ._• 7315 320 `•�; .r •'=yk.. 330\ fya/ : •9kr.'.':.-'aiViia(' /Mpoh pr 7325 370 vkr ._•i:•yjv::: -, ^- 7340 7325 7327 U is Park ::v_da.:'::::• 300 2 ylv_. ail 7340 7350 / 7329 yam '_;:. :.:,r a 7335 Kentucky t _.?21r� '- ='.' •_-• 7350 .?• :•�te,�c 7360 3� 245 7345 151 -- .��7400� 200 „f-,-•,.•.•�.�Li'.,�_-_-•.�:�.".,,�IV-�,^',-�.'�v' �.- 740 Werra Engineering,Inc. Civil Engineering Land Planning■Consulting 8/22/14 Re: Marie's Woods PUD Golden Valley, MN TE #14-103 This property, and its entire block, is currently zoned R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning. This zoning district allows single family homes, twin homes and townhomes, up to a maximum density of 8 units/acre. Our proposed single family development has a density of 3.1 units/acre. We are proposing five single family homes, with lot width and lot setback variances. Two twin homes (four units) could be built on this site without variances. The site density would be only slightly higher whether four twin home units or five single family homes were built on this site. The building coverage, impervious area, site grading, tree removal, number of drives, and utility service construction would be very similar with the construction of either four twin home or five single family homes on this site. We believe this five lot single family development will be a high quality project and an asset to this neighborhood and the City. The proposed Tree Conservation Area will protect a substantial portion of this property. This PUD will meet the City's housing density goals, and satisfy the need in Golden Valley for a variety of affordable residential housing types. This project is taking an underutilized site and converting it into a beautiful single family residential development for five new families to live in Golden Valley. Peter J. Knaeble, PE Terra Engineering, Inc. 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763-593-9325 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 4 3. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods — 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue — PU-119 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the two existing single family properties into a new five-lot single family development Zimmerman explained the applicant's proposal to develop five single homes on two existing single family lots totaling 1.6 acres. He stated that the density would be 3.125 units per acre and that the R-2 zoning district allows up to 8 units per acre. He noted that all five proposed new homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue and that the applicant is proposing a tree conservation easement area on the back (north) half of the properties. Zimmerman discussed how this PUD proposal varies from the R-2 zoning district requirements. He stated that the lot width requirement in the R-2 zoning district is 100 feet. Four of the proposed lots would be 42 feet wide and one lot would be 55.2 feet wide. He stated that the side yard setback requirement in the R-2 zoning district is 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback on the west side, and an 8 foot setback on the east side of each lot. Zimmerman added that there is also a requirement in the PUD section of the Zoning Code not being met, which states that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line abutting a single family zoning district. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of the PUD proposal because it does not meet the necessary findings to approve a PUD. Specifically, it does not achieve a high quality of site planning, it fails to preserve high quality features, it does not demonstrate efficient use of land, and it does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision. Kluchka referred to the PUD language stating that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line and asked if the intent was not to have a building next to an R-1 property. Zimmerman stated that the City can't offer flexibility from the PUD requirements like it can from the underlying zoning code requirements. Segelbaum said it is an interpretation issue. He noted that the language says that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line abutting a single family zoning district. In this case the subject property abuts an R-2 zoning district. Zimmerman agreed that an interpretation is needed and added that both single family homes and twin homes are allowed in the R-2 zoning district. Segelbaum asked if it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer an interpretation. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked about the distance between the existing home at 7236 Harold Avenue and the proposed new house on Lot 1. Zimmerman said there would be approximately 15 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 5 feet between the existing house (7236 Harold Avenue) and the proposed new house on Lot 1. Segelbaum referred to the site plan and noted the staggered front yard setback lines. He asked if the applicant will have control over where the houses are placed on the lots, or if the City would just be approving a building envelope area. Zimmerman stated that the PUD Permit could say where the building envelopes can be located. Segelbaum asked if a cul-de-sac plan is viable. Zimmerman said staff has seen plans for a cul-de-sac with seven or eight homes. He said there is some concern about the neighbors objecting to the density and there has been some push-back from the applicant about the cost of the cul-de-sac plan, but a cul-de-sac would be staff's preference. Pete Knaeble, Applicant, said he has spent months trying to appropriately develop this site. He handed out drawings of other options he has proposed that were not looked at favorably by the City Council. He referred to the cul-de-sac option, and said he likes the idea of more density, but there are some significant issues that are not appropriate for this site, and the neighbors are adamant about not wanting a cul-de-sac. He added that the cul-de-sac option would also place the homes closer to Highway 55. He said there will be five unique, custom built homes and he already has three interested families who like the cluster of trees in the back, and the park in the front. He said he disagrees with staff comments especially that the proposal does not meet the findings necessary to approve a PUD. He said this type of project is a perfect use for a PUD and the neighbors will support this proposal because of the high home values. Knaeble referred to staff's concern about five curb cuts on Harold Avenue and said he would be able to build two twin homes on this property without any approvals, which tells him that he is entitled to four curb cuts. He is asking for one more curb cut which should not be an issue. Knaeble referred to the wooded area along Highway 55 on the north part of these properties and said he thinks it is an important buffer to this neighborhood that is being downplayed and discouraged. He added that he thinks this green area along Highway 55 should be protected from Glenwood Avenue to Winnetka Avenue because the green space is critical. He stated that these trees are not just low quality trees, there are some high quality trees that have a high value and are an important part of this proposal. He said 70% of the trees will remain and 60% of the trees would be in the proposed tree conservation easement area. Knaeble stated that another issue with the cul-de-sac would be the amount of impervious surface. He said he is proposing 16% impervious surface coverage, and the cul-de-sac would be double that amount. He stated that the City Engineer has said there are downstream flooding issues and he thinks adding additional impervious surface is not a correct response to that issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 6 Knaeble referred to staff's comment about the majority of the view of the proposed new homes from the street would be garage doors. He disagreed with that and showed the Commissioners drawings of possible types of homes that could be built and reiterated that the homes will be custom designed. Knaeble referred to the findings used to approve a PUD and said he disagrees with staff stating that he doesn't meet four of them. He said he thinks this is a unique project that does have a high quality site plan that preserves and protects site features by placing half of the property in an easement area, and protects wetland areas and steep slopes. He said he is shocked by staff's recommendation and he doesn't know what else he could do above and beyond what he is proposing. He stated that staff needs to remember the scenic view that will be protected along Highway 55. Knaeble referred to the finding regarding the efficient use of land and said the way he designed this proposal couldn't be any more efficient because he is using existing streets and utilities. He said from his perspective, he is being efficient because a cul-de-sac would be $250,000 and it is not necessary to spend that money for a cul-de-sac that the City would have to own and maintain forever. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to comment on the PUD language which states that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line. Knaeble said he spoke with his attorney and other planners and engineers, and they all think that language pertains to taller buildings being placed next to single family residential properties. He said he thinks that part of the PUD language is not appropriate for this development. Segelbaum asked Knaeble about the distance between the houses. Knaeble said the distance varies from 13 to 20 feet. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to discuss other reasons he has discounted the cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said he wants to redevelop this property, and he may end up doing the cul-de-sac option, but he doesn't think it's appropriate in this case. He said the lot sizes wouldn't meet the standard in the R-1 zoning district, a cul-de-sac would double the amount of impervious surface, and would not be a good use of this site. He added that if Highway 55 wasn't an issue he would agree with the cul-de-sac option, but the homes won't be as valuable if they are placed closer to Highway 55 so he thinks his current proposal is better. Cera asked Knaeble if he has given any thought to acquiring additional lots. Knaeble said yes. He said the neighbors to the east are not in a position to sell, and he hasn't pursued the neighbor to the west. He reiterated that he thinks small, single family lots are the best way to develop this area, not multiple cul-de-sacs that remove the buffer of trees along Highway 55. Waldhauser asked Knaeble why the neighbors have said they don't like the cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said that the average value of the homes would be significantly lower with seven lots on a cul-de-sac, closer to Highway 55, than five smaller single family lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 7 Waldhauser asked about the size of the proposed homes. Knaeble said they would be approximately 2,000 to 2,400 square feet in size. Cera asked Knaeble if he has considered building a shorter cul-de-sac, further away from Highway 55. Knaeble said yes, but from a cost and design point of view, it is more efficient and better for the environment to develop five lots. Baker noted that Knaeble said he would not be able to sell the proposed homes because they would be closer to Highway 55, but then he said he wouldn't consider fewer homes in a shorter cul-de-sac format that would place the homes further away from Highway 55. Knaeble said the cul-de-sac would still have to be built, and he doesn't think that is a good trade off. He questioned building a new cul-de-sac to serve five homes when the infrastructure already exists on Harold Avenue. Baker stated that of the nine homes on the north side of Harold Avenue, only one of them is close to Highway 55 which tells him there is a desire to build away from Highway 55. Knaeble agreed and added that there is also a desire to save trees, and to build the homes closer to the park. Baker said there appears to be little market for homes close to Highway 55, so the idea of a tree conservation easement is not so much an amenity, as it is a necessity to make the proposed development marketable. Knaeble reiterated that the view of the trees along Highway 55 is important and should not be downplayed. Kluchka asked who currently owns the properties in this proposal. Knaeble said he owns the lot on the west at 7218 Harold Avenue and Fred Gross owns the lot on the east at 7200 Harold Avenue. Kluchka asked Knaeble if the City is asking him to develop these properties. Knaeble said no. Kluchka stated that nobody is asking for these properties to be redeveloped except for the people who own them. Knaeble said he doesn't think that's true because the City rezoned these properties to R-2 to encourage higher density and additional housing in this area. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said nobody in the neighborhood wants the cul-de- sac option. He said the ideal plan would be to tear down the two existing homes and build two new homes, but the properties are zoned R-2 and the City wants higher density. He said the houses will be very close together, but a good architect can make it look nice. He said he loves the existing buffer of trees on these properties and if they are cut down he will be able to see and hear every car on Highway 55. He said the proposed plan isn't perfect, but he supports it. Segelbaum asked Kueny if he is concerned about the parking situation in the neighborhood with the proposed additional curb cuts and the number of events that are held at Lions Park. Kueny said no. He stated that there are four softball tournaments a year and two or three soccer tournaments a year, but the parking is not a problem by his end of the park. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 8 Perry Thom, 320 Louisiana Avenue North, said he wouldn't be concerned about the parking issues with the addition of five driveways because parking isn't allowed on the north side of Harold Avenue so nothing would be affected. He said he really appreciates Knaeble's efforts to include the neighbors in this proposal. He said he loves the neighborhood and there is an opportunity to have a real gem here. He said homes in a cul-de-sac would be less than desirable. He said they would not be high valued homes and he sees that as nothing but a drag on the neighborhood, and a transient opportunity. He said the City forcing the community to take homes they don't want isn't appropriate and he doesn't appreciate the cul-de-sac idea because it will eliminate almost all of the trees and lower property values. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, said he has been renting out this property for the last 13 years. He said he is ambivalent about selling his house because if this proposal doesn't happen he will just continue to rent out the house. He said the irony of this whole thing is that the best time to approve a proposal is when you have a good proposal, even though it doesn't meet all of the requirements. He said there isn't one cottonwood tree on these properties and thinks this would be a wonderful project. Lynn Schneider, 310 Louisiana Avenue North, said she loves the wetland area and the buffer of the trees, and she thinks it's pretty when she sees trees on Highway 55. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, stated that the last proposal for this site was recommended for approval by staff but was denied unanimously by the Planning Commission, and now this proposal is being recommended for denial by staff. He said to look at the viability of the project and approve it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Cera said he thinks the Planning Commission's concerns are the width of the lots and the setbacks. He asked Knaeble if he had considered four lots instead of five. Knaeble said he did consider four lots, but he thinks five lots fit, are appropriate, and maximize the density. Cera asked if four lots would allow for larger setbacks. Knaeble said he doesn't think there is a setback issue. He said his proposal is not unlike the recent development on Rhode Island Avenue just down the street. Those homes are 15 feet apart, and his proposed homes would be 13 feet apart. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how they felt about four lots, versus five lots. Baker said he would like to hear about the applicant's other options. Segelbaum said this is the option the applicant prefers, and he would like to focus on this option in front of them. Waldhauser said she believes part of the reason the City is trying to encourage higher density is for affordability, not just for increased density. She said it concerns her that when the City has these opportunities to increase density they continue to keep trying to maintain the same size and the same price point for new homes as the homes in the surrounding neighborhood. She said she can understand why the developer and the neighbors don't want that, but it flies in the face of the goal of increasing density. She Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 9 said she would like to have a conversation as a City, and not just as each new development comes up. Baker agreed and said that is why he wants to see the other options. He said the City needs other affordable options. Segelbaum said he doesn't want to discourage the conversation, he just wants to explore the options amongst the Commission, not necessarily with the applicant, because the applicant has submitted what he wants to do. Kluchka said unless there is an economic incentive from the City, more affordable houses aren't going to be built. Baker said affordable housing has many euphemisms. He said he is not talking about low income, subsidized housing, just something other than $500,000 homes. Kluchka said the economic reality is that a house can't be torn down and replaced with a new $200,000 house and still be profitable to a developer. He added that the expectation of replacing homes with lower priced homes is not the right expectation to have. Cera asked about the price of the recently constructed homes on Rhode Island Avenue. Zimmerman said he thinks they were approximately $350,000 to $400,000. (Clarification after the fact, the homes referred to on Rhode Island Avenue sold for $400,000 to $450,000.) Kluchka asked about the width of lots and the setbacks in the Laurel Ponds proposal on Pennsylvania Avenue. Zimmerman said the lots in that proposal are 36 feet wide with 10 feet of separation between the houses. Cera stated that the Laurel Ponds proposal is a transitional site and that this proposal is in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood. Waldhauser said she understands the economic difficulties with the cul-de-sac, but it would seem much more appealing to her to have a couple of cul-de-sac developments than row housing. Baker said he is a fan of trees, and he believes they are a buffer for the neighborhood, but he feels that saving the trees isn't driving the decision to build the houses further away from Highway 55, there just isn't a desire to build the houses right next to the highway. Kluchka agreed and added that asking the City to maintain a tree conservation area isn't viable when the houses would more than likely be built further away from Highway 55 anyway. Zimmerman added that the City isn't saying that the trees aren't important or should be removed. The City just doesn't want to be responsible for the conservation easement when private covenants could accomplish the same goal. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how to interpret the language that states no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line. Waldhauser said she feels a residential PUD is very different from other types of PUDs. She questioned what should regulate height versus setback for this property because in the R-1 district there is a tie between the height and the setback so she is not sure what to use as a guideline in this case. Kluchka said there was two years of research and debate on correct setbacks and massing management, and the character of neighborhoods. He said he'd rather see a high quality development of the area as a whole, and he is not sure this proposal fits. Baker agreed and said having homes that are 13 feet apart is dramatically different from Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 10 what is there now. Kluchka said he thinks the PUD language regarding height and setbacks is relevant. Segelbaum said he thinks the height/setback language was meant for a larger development PUD next to a single family home. He said this isn't a large development, but it is right up next to a single family home. Baker said they need to think about ways to encourage overlay districts to make this type of development more possible, but this proposal doesn't fit today's situation. Kluchka questioned if the City would rather have this design, or a twin home design as intended in the R-2 zoning district. Baker said a twin home might be a more efficient use of the land. Kluchka agreed. Waldhauser stated that developers have said it is much more difficult to market a twin home than a small house on a small lot. Segelbaum said he's not sure what type of development would fit here. He said it is clear the neighbors don't want a cul-de-sac, but that doesn't mean there aren't other possible uses, including not developing it at all. Kluchka questioned if this proposal rises to the level of a PUD in terms of allowing flexibility, but also getting something for the City in return. He said for him, this proposal does not rise to that level and he would rather see the property used as intended for twin homes, or maybe four single family homes instead of five. Cera agreed that the development doesn't feel complete and maybe if the proposal included more properties he might feel differently. Waldhauser said she doesn't think that the City can ask a developer to wait until every property is for sale. Baker said that is why he is interested in overlay districts. He said in its current context, this proposal is hard to accept. Blum referred to the quality of site planning and design as required by the PUD ordinance and noted that the applicant has said that language is subjective. He said he thinks one way that could be more objective, is by comparing the proposal to other homes in the area. He said that this proposal doesn't rise to the same level of quality as other homes near the park. He added that this proposal also achieves no higher density, or at least the level of density the City would like to see. Kluchka summarized some of the potential findings including: the Planning Commission's interpretation relative to this proposal, is that Subdivision 3 in the PUD ordinance does not offer flexibility in this instance, the appropriateness of the setbacks for the planned height in an R-2 zoning district, and the proposed easement on the east side of the property needs to be wider than proposed. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of Preliminary PUD Plan for PUD #119, Marie's Woods based on the following findings: 1. The PUD plan does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design as it simply replaces two existing single family homes with five new single family homes on narrower lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 11 2. The PUD plan does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and would likely result in conflict with at least one PUD ordinance provision of minimum required side yard setbacks for principal buildings. Also, the proposed easement on the east side of the property should be 25 feet in width as opposed to 20 feet as proposed. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman reported on the September 16 City Council meeting where the Council voted to approve a six-month moratorium on single family residential subdivisions and PUDs with a single family residential component. Waldhauser reported on a recent Bottineau meeting she attended. 5. Other Business * Council Liaison Report 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city 0f goldenlov4.1 � MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) N 3 Date: September 22, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119- 7200 & 7218 Harold Avenue— Peter Kneable, Applicant Background The Applicant, Peter Knaeble, is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit to develop five single family homes on two existing single family lots. The existing single family homes would be demolished and five new homes would be constructed. The property is zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-2) and guided for long-term Low Density use on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area of the two lots is 1.6 acres. The site is bounded by Highway 55 to the north, by Harold Avenue to the south, and is located across the street from Lions Park. There are single family homes on either side of the proposed project. Given the frontage of the two existing lots, without a PUD the site could accommodate two single family homes, two twin-homes, or one to two townhomes for a range of two to eight total units. The R-2 Zoning District allows single and two-family homes at a moderate density of up to eight units per acre. The Low Density land use in the Comprehensive Plan allows for a density of less than five units per acre. At 3.125 units per acre, this proposal is consistent with both the Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD would allow the Applicant to replat the existing two properties into five lots that would run north-south between Highway 55 and Harold Avenue. The result would be long narrow lots with five single family homes built on the southern end. The Applicant proposes to establish a Tree Conservation Easement across the northern portion of the site. As proposed, the five homes would be staggered in the their front yard setbacks—anywhere from 35 to 45 feet—with the intent to break up the visual effect of a wall of garages along Harold Avenue. With a 30 foot building pad and a two car garage, the majority of the front elevation of each home would consist of a garage door. Five curb cuts and driveways would replace the two driveways that currently exist. Current zoning allows for a twin-home to be built on each lot, so the proposed number of driveways increases the number that could be constructed under more conventional development by one driveway. Four of the lots would be 43 feet wide and one lot would be 55.2 feet wide to accommodate an existing stormwater pipe. Side yard setbacks are proposed to be 5 feet on the western edge of each lot and 8 feet of the eastern edge, except for the wider Lot 5 which would have a setback of 20 of the far eastern edge of the site. The proposed Tree Conservation Easement would range from 120 to 175 feet deep across all five lots nearest to Highway 55. A preliminary tree inventory indicated approximately 30 trees in this area, many of them cottonwoods. In a pre-application meeting, Staff suggested the Applicant pursue the option of providing a public street with cul-de-sac to serve all of the proposed homes, thereby minimizing the curb cuts onto Harold Avenue and centralizing the utilities under a newly constructed public right-of-way. Staff also felt this would establish a pattern for the area that could be replicated north of Harold Avenue in the future. The Applicant evaluated this option and has chosen to apply with a different layout. The Applicant presented the proposal at a Neighborhood Meeting on Monday, September 15. One resident attended (residing at 7303 Ridgeway Road). In general, the attendee was supportive of the plan. He stated that he did not support a cul-de-sac plan. N0 " 0 l 7101 UO to LO 10 501 7330 � r _ SO nen�ortal 1 e_ ° ,w X .. 7040 s..7045 7031 690 04 O Oo la N M00 O N CO ti fM ti N N N T- � N ' .. r` ti ti c, rol ANrk�- ��h oo 7303 340 UI, 1 ' 5 } 7309 `° 330 P) W,� 7'21 oJ PUD 119 - Site Map Land Use and Zoning Considerations The Moderate (R-2) Density Residential Zoning District regulates various aspects of development. As a PUD, the City can offer flexibility from the regular zoning requirements in order to achieve a better development. The following table summarizes how closely the requirements of the R-2 Zoning District are met under the current proposal: R-2 Zoning District Marie's Woods PUD 119 Dimensional Standards Lot area 11,000 square feet From 12,225 to 18,668 sq. feet Lot width 100' Four lots at 43'; one lot at 55.2' Front yard setback 35' From to 35' to 45' Side yard setback 15' 5' on the west, 8' on the east Rear yard setback 20% of lot depth Meets requirements Density Up to 8 units per acre 3.125 units per acre Lot coverage 30% of lot area maximum Meets requirements Impervious surfaces 50% maximum Meets requirements In addition, there are certain standards and guidelines provided in Subdivision 3 of the PUD section of the Zoning Code to which flexibility cannot be offered. Subdivision 3(C)(1) states that no principal building shall be closer than its height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts a single family zoning district. It appears that as the building envelope of Lot 1 lies only five feet from the westerly lot line, the home built on this lot would almost certainly be in violation of this requirement, though this would not be known until specific building plans are submitted for review. Engineering and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities and that traffic issues are resolved. A memorandum from the Engineering Division that addresses access, easements, utilities, grading and stormwater management, and tree preservation is attached. It should be noted that under the City's Subdivision Ordinance, 10 foot drainage and utility easements are required on all plat boundaries and 12 foot easements centered on all interior lines. The proposal indicates a only a 5 foot drainage and utility easement along the westerly lot line and the 13 foot easements on the interior lot lines are offset rather than centered. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal and confirms that the lots as proposed meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method 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 does not qualify as a PUD because it does not achieve the following standards established in City Code: • Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. • Encourage preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, water ways, wetlands, and lakes. • Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities, and other public facilities. • 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 the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design as it simply replaces two existing single family homes with five new single family homes on narrower lots. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan fails to preserve one of the more desirable aspects of the site— namely, the mature oaks near Harold Avenue—and instead proposes to protect lower quality trees at the rear of the site closer to Highway 55. It does protect the existing wetland on the site, but this would be required regardless of the type of development. 3. Efficient– Effective. The PUD plan does not include efficient and effective use of the land in that it utilizes five individual curb cuts and driveways onto Harold Avenue within a short distance rather than consolidating both access and utilities. 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 does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and would likely result in conflict with at least one PUD ordinance provision of minimum required side yard setbacks for principal buildings. Recommendation Essentially, the Applicant is asking for flexibility in the required lot width and side yard setbacks in order to construct five single family homes on narrow lots instead of the twin-home structures (four units total) or townhome structures (up to eight units total) that would be allowed by right in the current zoning district. In exchange, the Applicant is offering to the City a Tree Conservation Easement across the back half of the site, which—while it provides some assurance of permanent tree preservation—places the burden for long-term monitoring and enforcement on the City and protects only lower quality species. The number of new curb cuts along Harold Avenue, a collector street onto which residents would be backing their vehicles; a new streetscape of five garage faces along a frontage of 227 feet; and the loss of seven mature oak trees—in addition to the side yard violation that would likely be created—seem to outweigh any advantages provided by the creation of this PUD. Staff recommends denial of the Preliminary Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Memo from the Fire Department dated September 15, 2014 (1 page) Memo from the Engineering Division dated September 18, 2014 (6 pages) Site Plans (9 pages) �� ~°° if ", ��y �� Vo -- 0 � K K � �~ � 0 valley Fire Department 763-593-0079 / 763-593-8098 (fou) Date: September l5, Z0l4 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: John [re||y, Fire Chief Subject; Preliminary PUD #ll9-720Oand 72l8Harold Avenue—Marie's Woods The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the preliminary PUD plans submitted on August 22, 2014 for 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue— Marie's Woods. This is the fourth version proposed for this site(s) which included a duplex design, a flag lot design, a cul-de-sac design and now this proposal. Even though this is a compact design it does meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code provided that the homes are constructed asshown. Listed below are the fire department comments: 1. Lot 1a proposed meets the requirements ofMinnesota State Fire [ode. Z. Lot 2 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 3. Lot 3 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire [ode. 4. Lot as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 5. Lot 5 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire [ode. |fyou have any questions, please contact nneat76]-593-8O65orbye-rnai|, city 0 golden MEMORANDUM I Public Works De artment V�. e� P 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: September 18, 2014 To: 0son Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ° Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist ] Subject: Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods (2nd Submittal)— 7200 & 7218 Harold Avenue Engineering staff has reviewed the application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), called Marie's Woods, located at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue. This is the second Preliminary PUD Plan submitted by the Developer for this site. The new plan involves the demolition of two existing homes and the construction of five new single-family homes fronting on Harold Avenue. The comments contained in this review are based on plans submitted to the City on August 22, 2014. Engineering comments are as follows: 1. Site Plan and Access a. The Developer is proposing five curb cuts for driveway access onto Harold Avenue. The new driveways must meet City standards including the installation of concrete aprons. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. b. Harold Avenue was reconstructed by the City as part of the 2012 Pavement Management Project. Since the pavement is less than five years old, the Right-of- Way Management Ordinance requires an advanced level of restoration. According to the City's restoration standards, cutting open a pavement less than five years old requires a full-width pavement mill and overlay at a length determined by the City Engineer. The extent of the mill and overlay will be determined by the City Engineer at the time the Developer applies for a Right-of-Way Permit to install the driveways and utilities. G:\Developments-Private\Marie's Woods-7218 Harold\Memos\Memo_PreliminaryPUD_Review_2nd_submittal.docx c. Harold Avenue is a Municipal State Aid collector street with traffic volumes around 1,200 vehicle trips per day. Staff is concerned about adding driveways on a street where traffic volumes could increase as development occurs within the Harold Avenue corridor. Staff recommends that the Developer explore alternative site designs that would consolidate access onto Harold, including a previous option shown to staff that includes a public street with cul-de-sac. 2. The existing homes will be demolished to make way for the proposed development. The Developer must obtain all necessary permits to demolish the homes and cut off the existing utility services. 3. Preliminary Plat a. The existing properties proposed for development are part of Auditor's Subdivision Number 322. It appears there are no platted easements across these properties. City records show that the City obtained an easement for drainage and utility purposes in 1985 over the east 15 feet of the property at 7200 Harold Avenue for the construction of an 18-inch storm sewer pipe within a 24-inch casing pipe. According to the record drawing, the pipe is up to 12 feet deep. Maintenance access to this storm sewer pipe must be preserved as part of this development. The Developer is proposing to dedicate a new 20-foot easement as shown on the preliminary plat. However,the City recommends an easement of 25 feet to accommodate future excavation and maintenance near the proposed home (the easement would be twice as wide as the pipe is deep). In order to preserve access to the pipe outlet, and the integrity of the pipe, the existing trees would have to be removed and new trees would not be permitted within this easement area. The existing 15-foot drainage and utility easement may be vacated as part of the development process. b. There is an existing wetland on the property located at 7200 Harold Avenue that, upon platting, will be situated on Lot 5 of the proposed development. The Developer will be required to dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the wetland that is a minimum of 10 feet upland of the delineated wetland edge, in order to accommodate a 10-foot native vegetation buffer zone. The buffer requirement is discussed in more detail in the stormwater management section of this review. c. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all 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. d. The proposed development is adjacent to Trunk Highway 55 and therefore MnDOT will review the plans and may provide additional comments. 4. Utilities a. The City's water system that provides service to these properties has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. b. The proposed development is within a sanitary sewershed that is tributary to system capacity issues in several locations including near the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Turners Crossroad. The City's sanitary sewer is effectively at capacity in this location and there is minimal capacity available for future redevelopment along the 1-394 corridor unless inflow and infiltration can be reduced throughout the sewershed. The City is putting plans in place to reduce the inflow and infiltration in the City's portion of the sanitary sewer system over the next several years. In addition, the proposed number of units at this location will likely contribute minimal wastewater flows to the overall system. Therefore, the number of connections to the City's sanitary sewer system should be acceptable as proposed. c. There are existing sanitary sewer and water services serving the existing homes. Plans show that the existing services can be utilized by Lot 1 and Lot 5. New services will need to be constructed to serve the remaining lots. It appears the Developer is proposing to consolidate the services into one pavement cut to reduce the impacts to Harold Avenue. However, staff has concerns about the grouping and alignments of the new services, and private sewer easements would need to be recorded against the affected properties. The Developer is encouraged to consider alternative designs for the utility services. d. The City has a Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction Ordinance. City records indicate that the property at 7200 Harold Avenue has obtained a Certificate of Compliance with the 1/1 Ordinance. The Developer has entered into a deposit agreement with the City for the property at 7218 Harold Avenue to ensure future compliance. All existing and new sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. 5. Grading and Stormwater Management a. The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. However, due to the size of the development, the project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water for nutrients (phosphorus) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Review by the City will include an evaluation for compliance with the Sweeney Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan. The Developer is encouraged to incorporate best management practices into the site that will assist the City in meeting its TMDL goals for Sweeney Lake. b. There is a wetland on the property being developed and therefore the Wetland Conservation Act will apply. The Developer submitted a wetland report as part of a previous plan submittal. The City issued a Notice of Decision on June 9, 2014 approving the wetland delineation and report. According to the grading plan submitted, there are no proposed impacts to the wetland. However, the overall stormwater management plan for the site, as well as the individual stormwater plan for Lots 4 and 5, must show protection of the wetland, and care should be taken during construction to ensure that the wetland is clearly marked and protected at all times. c. The Developer is proposing a buffer of native vegetation around the portion of the wetland within the PUD, consistent with the BCWMC's Watershed Management Plan and the City's Surface Water Management Plan. This buffer must be a minimum 10 feet in width and the proposed vegetation type must be shown and described on the stormwater plan or landscape plan for the development. The Developer will be required to deposit a financial security guaranteeing proper establishment of the buffer and its maintenance for the first three growing seasons. Although proposed to be located in a public easement,the wetland buffer will be owned and maintained by the Developer or future owner of Lots 4 and 5, respectively. d. The preliminary plans show that the normal water elevation of the wetland is controlled by an 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe that is located within a public easement on the east side of the property. The pipe provides drainage from the wetland to the south into the City's storm sewer system in Harold Avenue. City records indicate that the pipe is owned and maintained by the City. The City will inspect the pipe outlet in the wetland to determine if it meets current City standards. The City will also inspect the entire length of pipe to determine if the material, size, and condition meet City standards. If it is determined that the pipe does not meet City standards or the needs of the development,the developer may be required to make the necessary repairs or construct a new pipe as part of the project. It is anticipated that the City will continue to own and maintain this storm sewer pipe upon completion of the development. e. It appears the development will include a two-phased grading approach. In the first phase, the overall site will be graded to cut down the existing hill in the middle of the development, construct a berm along Highway 55, and prepare the lots for construction. In the second phase, individual lots will be graded by each builder as the lots are sold. The Developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permit for the overall site grading. In addition, the Developer or Builders will be required to obtain individual Stormwater Management Permits for each lot at the time of permitting for home construction. A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of the Stormwater Management Permit submittal. f. This PUD is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of this permit must be provided to the City, prior to issuance of any permits to begin work on site. g. The Developer must submit stormwater calculations to the City showing how it determined the calculated high water level of the wetland. This elevation is used to help determine the lowest floor elevation of the homes, which must be 2 feet above the calculated high water level. The overall preliminary grading plan appears to meet this standard. However, if each lot is custom graded and plans are subject to change, the Developer or Builders must ensure that each stormwater management plan submitted meets this requirement. h. New principal structures must be set back 25 feet from the delineated wetland edge. The plans submitted are in conformance with this requirement, and the Builder must ensure that individual stormwater management plans for Lots 4 and 5 is also in conformance. 6. Tree Preservation Plan a. The two-phase grading approach will include a requirement for a Tree Preservation permit at the time of overall site grading, and separate Tree Preservation permits for each lot at the time of home construction. The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan showing the removal of a number of significant trees. A tabular inventory of the significant trees proposed to be removed and replaced must also be submitted. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail to determine if additional information is required before Final PUD Plan submittal. b. Tree Conservation Easement—The Developer has proposed the dedication of a tree conservation easement in the north portion of the site. Typically, the City has required tree preservation easements and conservation easements over areas containing high quality trees and vegetation, or shoreland management areas adjacent to lakes and creeks. According to the tree inventory submitted by the Developer, most of the higher quality trees, including several large oaks ranging from 20 to 36 inches, are located in the south portion of the site and will be removed during the preliminary grading phase discussed above. The trees located in the proposed tree conservation easement area (north portion of the site) are generally of lower quality. These trees include cottonwoods and other softwoods, and only a few oaks and maples. The easement is not within a shoreland management area. In addition, the City's experience with such easements is that they can be very difficult and labor intensive to oversee and enforce in perpetuity. Therefore, staff recommends against the dedication of a public tree conservation easement, as it does not appear to be warranted in this case. 7. The Developer must obtain Stormwater Management, Right-of-Way Management, Tree Preservation, Sewer and Water, Demolition, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site C: Tom Burt, City Manager Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager/Interim Physical Development Director John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Al Lundstrom, City Forester Sue Virnig, Director of Finance Allen D.Barnard BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9715 225 South Sixth Street,Suite 4000 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 abarnrard@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAx 612.339.5897 BESTLAWCOM BEST & FLANAGAN Memorandum DATE: September 22, 2014 TO: Golden Valley City Council and City Manager FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Application Review During Moratorium This memorandum summarizes what state law and city ordinances say about reviewing subdivision and PUD applications during the recently enacted 6 month moratorium. Statutory Authority for Moratorium Under state law, Golden Valley has the authority to enact an "interim" or temporary ordinance that "regulates, restricts, or prohibits any use, development, or subdivision" within the City for up to one year. Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(a). During this time, the City must conduct a study or hearing to consider changes to the City's subdivision, zoning and/or Comp Plan regulations. Moratorium's Scope and Time The moratorium passed by City Council on September 16 precludes the City from reviewing or approving any new subdivision or PUD application filed after the effective date of the moratorium that has a "single family residential component". The moratorium lasts for 6 months, during which the City is to study the issues highlighted in the moratorium, and make any changes to the zoning and subdivision regulations warranted by the conclusions of the study. Limits on Moratorium—Applications in the Pipeline Subdivision Applications with Preliminary Approvals. Under state law, a moratorium cannot "halt, delay or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval." Minn. Stat. §462.355, subd. 4(c). The regulations that are in effect at the time the application was preliminarily approved applies to the review of the final plat. Minn. Stat. 5462.358, subd. 3(c). All Applications Submitted Before Moratorium. Under state law, a moratorium does not stop the 60/120 day clock on applications filed before the effective date of the moratorium. Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(c). This means that the City should act on all applications in the pipeline within the time limits set by state law or risk having those applications automatically approved under the state's 60/120 day rule. Minn. Stat. 515.99. Review Standards. Subdivisions must be approved if they meet the conditions of approval in the subdivision ordinance. In addition, Golden Valley's ordinance makes it clear that the conditions spelled out in the subdivision ordinance "provide the only basis for denial" of a minor subdivision, and that "approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions." City Code 5 12.50, sudb. 3.I. With PVDs, Council has more discretion, and can deny PUDs if there is any rational basis for the denial under the applicable PUD standards in City Code. City Code 511.55. 000090/480568/1947143_1 Wittman, Lisa From: Wufoo <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:32 PM To: Planning Subject: Email the Planning Department [#186] Name * Thomas Ruble Email * tandsruble@aol.com Comments * Harold Ave N development; NO! the neighborhood is NOT against a cul- desac. This is actually a better idea then the other ideas proposed. He is just squeezing as much $$ as he can. The busy-bodies that are against it do not represent others. NO Flag Lots! Thank you, Tom Ruble 1 Nmolej ov-f O MARIE ' S WOODS ` . z?- -14 PG Golden valley I I ► + _ WETLAND I - I BERM - I B OCK 1 ( ' I ► �J A ► I 1 4 oc I + ► � I + --- I #7236F--q ► ► ► I #7182 C)l I I I + --� HAROLD AVE. LIFINS PARK �j - _� s� 01 t io #7236 E } I 01 k- E E I I j 1 E I E 1 HAROLD AVE, LIONS PARK c/Z'dv( (�rly ..� J . k • yam, •. e �0 a , s ty� • iF lw ,<4i• _ C.» r^�. �'. P a .; 'M ani� .'fl,•Fft' MFA AMMON r; 7 x h k h k• � t ,* f + h s - fl y .0 r ' a t� X r� Y .f 4 t i a j II IRI It =,1 son _ � X I 3 r; { I r jfJ t S r ti r N N N � V7 tf) M y m N w > � m 4 C � C_ � s � 3 m L cl � m m o 10 SUBDIVISIONPLANS re W 0 FOR : Hoose lrnted &lrthodrsi Church � �k Pink • a. =_ kA MARIE' S 1 � ., We�terrt PUD kvcr uc hidrah r:,. �iz.�.r�.� a GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA L� DESIGWB PJX t ►noN MnP SITE BRA WN HAI. NO SCALE o1rcwu ailc cod $ SHEET INDEXaE SHEET DESCRIPTION gas w 1. COVER SHEET / SHEET INDEX hass s o a 2. EXISTING OVERALL AREA PLAN rte- a� 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN �m9 0§� 4. PRELIMINARY PLAT ,,j t E 8 m 5. UTILITY PLAN 'e 6. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN �t�� o ..win n 7. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN is 8. SITE PLAN 9. CONFORMING TWIN HOME PLAN dVIL ENC-NEER / LMtD PLANNER APPLICANTZ GV R-2 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING TERRA ENGINEERING INC. SING. FAM., TWINS. TOWNHOMES PETER KNAEBLE Q. MIN. LOT AREA 11,000 SF (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) 6001 GLENWOOD AVE. 6001 GLENWOOD AVE. MN 55422 MIN. LOT WIDTH 100' (AT 35' FSB) (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) GOLDEN VALLEY, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 V) 763-593-9325 MAX. BLDG. COVERAGE 30% PETER KNAEBLE, P.E. 612-30 W X 0 J MAX. IMPERV, PER LOT 50% peterknoeble®gmail.com PETER KNAEBLNAEBLE 35' FSB peterknoeble®gmail.com w W 0 20% RSB = Q 3 15' SSB (35' STREET SIDE) (OUTSIDE SSB ONLY) SURVEYOR Z JNETLAND CONSULTANT ( � 30' MAX. HEIGHT REHDER & ASSOCIATES INC. N Z JACOBSONNVIRONMENTAL, PLL( 2.5' MAX, EAVE PROJECTION 3440 FEDERAL DRIVE, #110 582121 HUMBOLDTHUMAVE. N0. � ~ to W W EAGAN, MN 55122 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 651-452-5051 612-802-6619 0 = Q 0 GREG GENTZ, RLS BEN CARLSON, WDC Q N (' GGentz®rehder.com jacobsonen vOm sn.com SITE ADDRESSES: 7200 & 7218 HAROLD AVE., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN SOIL ENGINEER HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES A rE /''� E \ 13570 GROVE DRIVE, #278 8/22/14 SITE AREA: 70,889 SF (1.627 AC.) E V ' �/ E MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 PAUL HAUGO Mazer m LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE EASTERLY Y2 FRONT AND REAR, OF LOT 40, AUG 2 2 2014 phougoOhaugogts.com 14_103 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 322, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.; AND ' LOT 039 AUDITOR'S SUED, NO. 322 W. 118.15' EX. HWY. Er"" BY: 1 LLLO ZtiS£9L:XeJ SZE6 669 E9L 00801 'ON 6"---TT7rZ7V:sioa NN 'Jl3llVA N30100iw. ZLVgg eiosauujjN 'SlJOdeauuijN 3'd 'IQsa+N 'f�sied anuany pooMualg ti009 + i v and SGOOM S 318VVV �� N o •ojo uwp 3o Ic4s au�`$uua9u1�3 0 841 io"Di e4i jepun Iseul6u3 NV VN3A (V e pesueo!l Nnp o wo 1 1041 N Y ld ��Y vim!\0 puo :"slnledns ioenp A. �epun s .�uaa slAq od id a"pao a od; SNOLLIONOO ONIISIX3 $� g w A t� S z � N w YIJh"'1 ILI Z r--------- - I I 1 1 L_______—J o 'and VNVisIno-i w J r-------- a Lj I I I I �Ne I I 2 H I I I I I x 1 I W u I I R4 sNU sN� sou '�R L___J ~ \ osgre r---i 1 w 1 � I L---J } x�a i d I I C I i� �.. t 1. a :::: ::: ::: :::::::::::::: : l:: ::::::::: WCL 3 3 rma.ss n Z ED o H W tn . J rLn in 3 u� w = r �. . . > 3 r a 3 = = o W N C I I II sou L----J \ \41- i>m W L---J m y j I � a J� 1 I v A� it g I i 1 �HmN N 1 I I I I 3nIYC A22 �� ,� I I F -1 v 241Pf1 I nY ZP P Ln %NUN N L_—__—J L_I _J n v � n oy \YO XY LTL0 LT5£9L:Xud 5ZE6 E65 E9Lan�z��,ai No 41»?3�'ON°"BeM-3T/rW:a;o0 ZZY55 eiosauuly'spodeauy '3'd waaN r�si�d NW 'ATMA N30109 It Ofd SQOOM S 3(gtW N o anuany pooMualg T009 olossuu lui$ wl'$uu9eu{$u3 043 to suq eyi jepun jeul6u3 M \ �j g uo��'i-�P A--pug Ntlld SNOIlIONOJ JNt1SIX3 op � i io 'ew dq pwodaid am pods W w vrmstnar $ 6 uqa st43 1043 3!imo A4aus4 I $ m 4 W>z4 domaF rcQw(V wF OWZO NgJ 'z els§s z N z zW8wir aF= 0 5iZ6 w7o� W= 3 Wo�J< a FQY > N V F= W< L7 I I Z�. � K Z to L----� ag�a whoa zgo<< r - _ 0002WW z Ozl- � FFinao 51> �WF=MQQ VOS I o WWMW S j \ \ O !/� 0iF0 i I Frz NFO JW I I � 0N6X�W x I J W�7 w > Wa J CD4 w L--- x �3aLLv 1 / I I r— _ o _ D� uiZ I j Z qtv °° 3:$0,4£. m _ o N cu voa wads .81 tz C3 3S $ p Ln CD L-5 06 Gc$� a,oOIC o�ao { z H N~ X WWim'OLJZO d � wz Ou y3S IS K3 Y y �, y R ---- - e .I 1 Z� incul W ( �N y V C7 Q� n 1 pp$ Oa ` ,, M cn a M n i 3 ,LTOV p- - - oa 199 i a M.80,i£.00N a�.'8 ~; �r^1 .+ ED.O I O ` (U a • (1 `� 2135 A 7t3 — M 1 WODt 310W ZD OD XR! Z N 2 /m-�,�,\ fN U N < / ,u �— -- r— —e+-- �� Cb 3 CO VJ N = 1I ofcu 0 W k 0� U, I w 2 2 CK) 00 a0 V I U _6 V O'Sit &_ L_�...- ar O'Otr 0 890 .�•..�• -•\ \ F ZO cu CV) Z � , 0 V)z r O?ij Q�� 'gtuft� m W 2`nj��crZoo ztL Va)w W a(n 1!1'T W Q W IJ '1[��),I�+t US` .n.• Vf 41 VI N Vi fn N fA!A f/I 0 1 zzzzzzW wwww 000000 o1 1 0 000 1 <p --/ / p '. = M 2 I I i A I � .,111 � I or �i I I I I � • � I ) LTLO ZS9£9L:xej 9Z£6£69£9L a'-- --Idw ! rcarl 'oN -6ea--3T]ZZ7g-.Blop S NW '��IVA N3010`J ",— jn 3'd 19aouN 'f salad ZZb55 elosauu)N!'Spotleauupy 61 Ly s000nn s 31abw o anuany poomualg 2009 o a CV ' U a1o35 ,-I`�l1��17�3 a e43 to"01041 eyl ja�apun j"u(6u3 (V N o pasua�Rlnp o wo I pun VV/l� pua S,,�adns de d �w spun lb�d Jl2�VNIWll3�ld 6� f� �o 'aw ,tq pe,oea�e soa=Oj, 00 �S y Md=A7M $ Lt uqd . loUl ;!Yao Fga,ay I $ 7E is x omF W OF=-.:3 a�<( = <JNO N ZF-Q<Z 4V U� ZxjO� Z Z ,Z W4mW — O�j F'z mmm Z( O 2 < a�wx 3 `-'z N =� ow z< z p: z D VyZjJW w<�<a w- OZOZZ =) O(DOZ ZZW« P= ,6� J WUWLL} Owemu (nWOZ5ZX 1 pF-OOW FZZdO '1 M <Z,Fwr- 3 ` �Ld 1 ! g ZZ 1 I m M \ COw CO U` l 3.80,x.0 ) 1£2'0bE �LZj CC3 m w N ( HSS ,OZ 3Sd3 n 80_Oz °y CL Z 00 'o — Ln I l ti Ln LALn r / �ao / I c n C') I 5 �� 1 3c:l xWz / M IU- Li N — — — — — — — — ' b -- ----- ¢ 44ff I � — — — — — — — — — — — U — �-- — - - - --- 1 — — — — — — — — A T — w —a � 3 z 0'017 °° cv)o ICI) MON 199 M.80,Y£.00N N M w z W ML— t..s._ �...� ... o ¢ 4 n>T,6'882 _ 0 CU L�!n. f7 CL �Lo 11 N I o � vw _I M U1 Sao �� W <dJ 1�33Sd3 n as �_'�a�_ s ,�.—_ _.. - - c`u°C Cd ki) 3Sb3 n'8Q ,8 <dl�l) HSS ,8,8'S82 N z Q Z N N N� QCI) Ln 1N N co a L !(n a, cu N D W —..� — -j L — — — — d�,s— - —�—gam;---— —--- <c Q I--- rIN 14, 0 0 ,o'sit 0'017 0'SL LTLO ZT9£9L:XBJ SZ£6£69£9L 211W-10-%-wdPa 449" 'ON B" `sioa NW '�t3l�Vn N30109 1 Nua OU3IwJ V ZZb55 elosauuihi 'siiodeauuin • ,� '3"d gau+x "f+clad rt c anuany p00mua19 T009 ¢ ' and S000M 31WK �� N O '^ • I`-RUP—203 is a4�!o aMq aya+spun+aeui W3 (1) ' �� o pasuagl Alnp D wo I pun puo •uorslaadns 3oaulp Aw-pun Nv"ld .linin y +o •aw Aq pwode+d som Node+ 1W00 1y" L1 m uqd spp lo44 Agliao Aga+a4 I IlAwla �s O t N WfW � U`) W QOmYW F u MomF Z§ OF 0� t o W W ¢caaoQ�w Wz? g o0w 0 N <y 3 h Q�'NZ a w Jo N < aQ�o ZZooW W r o o Z N Z zWUwlx (7\O O W,z tail GoImo` z 0 3 Q 7c ZL K Z O tN O �Z02 QZQ FW-(�A�((p W W 2 a til oWd(A Vl Wa.W 3 W W � Q 4WW1 WVI WG]F N WNNW fWWA(ANW4W1 Q F y r F F F F 0000000000 Fq4 W W W W W W W W W W =NZQK 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 O O~WJW n N OZUZZ mW 1 O_ oO OUW QQ - I -X 0U•OZF I Y Zzm�Q I W XaN � _ Lu W} OWFm NQ W=) o��W 1 \ I cD I 1<= z a.o UJNW~ Of, >��-+ ¢� L---J / oc / £Z I f T -- o I � I r l WJE I z I w l aD00Om W m — ---------- v W00 I ^3 °J `1 \ 3.80.b£.00S `" .£2'0KID �\ Cl) O&v (14 I '/.9'01B W2101S .8I ? � w r<L-o m 00 Z w / I — — — —'3Stl3 n 8Q ,OZ— — — II Ww�ozza / cn I �3\ �_ 3a��fwzco / I UN y G _ _ _—_ _ _ r I S_ S_)(3 <L�� Z M n\L u 06 I I ^ L� v� o� - - - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - - - - --_ `+ o� a. —T— — — — — — �� ym h an Mal — � - - - - - - - - - - - y� fm " VJ �j L0'017 I- - - - - - - -M i - - - Qo-°� ❑N ,99� Q M.SO.b£.00N N w — — — — — — — c v l w a 0 Q > (4z 0i _ N d �� /tel (4 v ! _a3s_A_)8 s _x3 _ --- 13 1 U caul 3 v of v W I o rko 0 r5 I v \Li (dAl) 3Sd3 ma .e z Q w_ ! �W I ( (U Q IA N cu O W - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - -�� - - - - d n'8 ,s Q �-- W _ W 3 W ---- r-- to f i 3 to xac (U I I WaDiS f I w o o I I o I I � O'STI I U W601s L----J co ,0'017 1 0'9L 890 LTLO ZT9£9L:x03 9Z£6£69£9Laur app, 0000! 'ON 'bJ-Fi/7Z79-:sioa ZZ1,99 elosauuiw'SpK odeautkiA '3•d 3MqQDUA v,atad NW A311VA N30109 and SOOOM S 31wri o anuany pooMual9 T009 ® c ° olowuur olds C14 3ul';ulaaaul$u3 a sW/o s>Aq sW japun Js$u!Bu3 (� 4 pun •uo!s!.jW ),-!!p AW-pfn NVId 101NO3 NOIS083 V 9NIOV2l9 �� y se Jo '6W XQ Wodoid so^ podw w ANY& SAUSLAaa $ a m uqd s!W IoW Ri!Vao !QaJa4 I d to Z W <VmrW F lWi. 5z6omr- Z w gra(� wZF 0 F W W 0. J <3 <JW�O > Z Z 7 W J O lV QU<03 o �f 0 0 0 z N z =W0�O 0. yy�f _ U ZZ N 0 } 1--Z K Z1�f V Wq tW/1 r U.W W Z O 2WZ�� m l�Z O 36�'i o G7 tWAgU�a vai?��iO t'nn31RO iii 3 < W tnW < 0 H VI 0 fA y 41 N N Q FQy f,,, F N tuff RAP 0 0 0Z 0 0Z z 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 F< �< 0000000.3 0 0W O 0�V 2wi Z<M Z UmN Q VUW_W I � K zzd m 1 023 0�} wr 1 -x cocoozw >m�� JC .w ...... - - u.xF-ff- ,09,8i7CoF-.6W — - F}ZNo a`ZO6Dww ci o / r0 I I Li F C7m WX i 3 °J ri 4 l 3,80.4£.O4 ,£2'04£ u co r3 V3 ma .91 t5 or Q^'yGDW ,O 3aCG�iwz / / �� ! 4 m X68 aSD / zM d' Iwm otic oyse _ - - - - - - - -�,- - 0'SL 00 r of� v J AGN 199 3 A.80.ti£.00N a 8l ru 0 pkv ! o W I �----I J 0i i \W �J (U t..ti I � e vJ z I o _J Cf, 0u mo.a 3! ljS 11 N o I - Jmcco ' U� vWl al C9 W ` 7¢R1 t 0t- (c i \ lL VNPI M y W t - - - - T - -�- - - OD Z 3 ON F�1 z`� W co Jmw cu 1 �ti1 U a`f elb I �%m cmi a LLI " 10 33N33 ITS/lIW l 'a?39 r.----I -- --co — Q ^ Ito = W I� 0 L- --- --- -- W I w I CR M a, D I I ON 00 I / v ` I I co 968 75.0' 40.0' ----, 115,0' I I i I C) I I a I I _ v II - - -- - - z � � til m _ � GRD LIMIT/SILT FENCE �� D �' D -- -------� M �7 o ro ..�, 'oil N \ :;: :;:.::: Z \ :: LA ::::::' O LJ s 1�7 A C1 O y.... O` :::�:::::::::::::.: - = - - - ---! >: :;: o ;::.-:::u :. N tiQ : ; �: ..::N a ��-��IDN a�itu:� ��'�'�'�'�'�'��'�� J N00°34'08'W 66' ROW a ro D ��° ��•�:� 40,07' w 7510' [� W W 11 TI I �: V r W <a Z o D '�/ .:::: :::;.«-" ::;t,rte.. .:.:. . .. .: -U1 N b t1e D n A O4 3 1 Y =o iii i4� 'i'i'i:i�i:i::�: :: ::�:�:�::::c:i: :�i:::i:i:::i:i:::i�::i�:::�� / V Y / N : : : ::r. . . . . . . . . . . '. to ((//--��)) �: ��2 W ZX�C{Yjf p! Dip tBTD � Ln W /W W� N.W., 'p J 340.23' k S °34'09'E 1 0ODCo wo, A — — ———— —— — — — T— 1 y ID U1 D I x I < ��N I I Z A 1 Z3 DAF m —— ——— — — —— — — 3 �+D mmDD� r———'1 I MX co mr'N�?O -I {> 2 N O�Z' Xz o s D�cmN o < m>m oAmso-i-i �-———J m�� 348.60' >DTZZ R1Z 00 0 �m9c oclm -o>isai mFzoc M 0 0 n5>ISOc <y;F� > U 0 00��> m Zm c�ZmN o Z 5j o cm;imoZ V1 Z ;app C >0D 12 v ZOO r> N In _° �o V) C ��0 Un L =Jai OZ- m to<m D m g i hereby certify that this plan ar Lt REVISJOC report was prepared by me, or 4b. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN ander a a du sLicens d and Terra N that.1 r a duty tiro"o b V Engineer under a bws of the Engneering,lrte. i N State Minnesota. t 6001 Glenwood Avenue o �_ "Ra"' MARIE'S WOODS PUD n _ CA -P GOLDEN VALLEY MN peter Knee P.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 Dater/22/14 Reg. No. 14844 �aPi��mq•com� 763 593 9325 Fax: 763 512 0717 N o N N C m � M Go � N STATE HWY, 55 ROW a .......................... 0 ............... . _.._..� -- _ I I I I1 ' .....:.... I I Itl tjj r f WE7LAN 9CBASI 1; TYPE 2) i :. i. r:.l :: (. : . ... '.. { +. ( AEI, 4 1 -'141 L W QUALITY MnRAM 1Ii0 YR.S887.7.. 1 4385 SF ON-SITE . 9.9 it MIN:,:tlPEtdlFLL1b 88 \ . ' .. G © 0 {. EX. RD E F 8 3, I I r:`4:'.'. . .:.' .... ... FES INV.) I IJ I I _ t __.a........ I / i I .'.'......::'::':': :ON ............... :':::: : i I 4 ; ' ....... _... P❑SS, WETLAND ` _.._.._.._.. ..�. .. I + css 4na'.'sFm, AC? i4 N TREE CQNSERY EASE .. .. ..... ........ . .... .. fiEslawD Aix. BRA VN HAL, OC 1 / 4y1 161 0 C* �� -7 I I I I DO �QC)5 I I I I I I I D. w #7236 I J L T I I I I I p trs I • _ u I i ' 1 � 1 , I � I71612 --- I I I I I I I I _ I I ( I own a #73qI0 — #7-F4I I L J I I_' I I J #7156 I —� I J I I__J I I J , ' 1 1 L ——� I L 7— L LI I I I L_J I I 1 I I I L—i I I 1 D V) � LJ 8.0 130.28' 109.07' 100,00' 101 O -j Z 3 > a cn Z N a W p HAROLD AVE, 0 U W E LMNS PARK BAr8/22/14 7303 s 25 0 25 50 PROJECr Aa / ^ WARNIu/�. SCALE IN FEET 14-103 (\\f� THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE JIT Na WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF O ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. LLLO Z69£9L AU SZ£6£69£9L �'��a `iN�a° , 4v841 'ON 6aa�2Z79 :eaeo � •3'd "-N T 1.010d NW ,1311Vn N30100 It ZZG98 elosauulw 'silodeauulyy .. r— 0 anuand pooMua1O ZOOg � i � Ofld SODOM S 312lVW J7TLHN \ o e3oe.�� e3e}S N �1 TUP-u$a3 e4i;o"Ol 841 Jepun Jeeu!W3 (V �J o ps!Aaed �(1 o wo 11041 g �e 81�,e.1 jnP D -D�pun NVId 3WOH NIAAl 0NIW2l03N00 W < ,0 •ew Aq peJodaid sow.}rode, loo s�stnar $ Jo uqd s!41 1047 Appoo Agaje4 I ff 4 XZ rW C0cop Mzl Z W <.Wp 0- N� 4J�y0 F N ZFQ<� Z x } aU 00 J zXO�O� •Zig Z z WOWW rl fwamo 3¢ ti o'x'Z z F H OWp =O Wzv5� W 0%wWM J 0 V!F- < Fm r ¢li p J V1 N fA Z34y z Ov M.�O'O G •�„� Z Z((477{0�: 1,H(h I!7 I- 000 V8 N a W H N W 0 a W p�LL QO W .._.._.. n pZZZ W r F- ..` w =>o Ck � ~Qc�Jj ��> 09'8bE izmaa ¢ F<W O ¢3d"W IchW=W WaW r �-H JasMXX i� — \ \ O LLXF�FQQu �D�f Of x (1vi� `�� \ O fZ/1W�ZmX ZZ¢¢` � �� 1 \ C) 0 C.7OW Oz�KW 1 oOwrw \`> 1 `` WrJJJ \ 1 <vi I �3Q�lai fz C3 ' / W d Q U7 as 'Doo 6 N CD 0) dp W �3v Co \ ¢�x-319 � ass ,sT \ oa��^moo �.Z��.._.._.._.._.._.._._.._.._.._...�..._.._.._.._._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._-'—'--.._.._.._.._.._..� ` 14 d Z I L7 co .R oafm \ I WJ�:oZ \ AN, f WZLAJ J + \ / ao V.. 1 � z oCIL i _.._.�_.._.._.._. hI - 2 3w �I ~N i I I IL ass ,ST 3 Moa ,99 SSS_,ST._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. Ld I z Ln ; � i H Li ipq L� iN =0 i -—- - --—-—- - - -—- + - i� z i W pq 3 �N �0d _ `'n L.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..-.--.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. J ass ,ST W Q Q � co r\ 0 0� FT0 \ 1*1� !cu b �. C) C) O M z J � I W 3 Cit 0� g 1 de n - - � MEMORANDUM EMORANDUM a Planning Dp@rtn »t 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) ��K��~�� U�� "�� ~~~~~~.~~~~. ~ ~~ Summary For ~ ~.~~..~.. Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 6. A. Discussion ofPossible Amendment to Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the October 7, 3014, City Council meeting, Staff was asked to bring the recently adopted Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) with Single Family Residential Components back for discussion and possible amendment. Attached to this Executive Summary are four documents related to the moratorium: l. A memo from the City Attorney that summarizes what state law and city ordinances say about reviewing subdivision and PUD applications during the moratorium. 2. A nnerno from a lawyer representing some residents of the North Tyrol Hills neighborhood that argues that the City has the authgEL toapply the moratorium tosubdivision applications submitted prior to the moratorium that have not received preliminary approval, and that the deadlines set by state law for City action on such subdivision requests do not apply during the moratorium. 3. Two letters/memos from lawyers representing some developers and landowners with applications inprocess that argue that the City does not have the authority toapply the moratorium to applications submitted prior to the moratorium, and that the deadlines set by state law for City action on such subdivision and PUD requests do appl during the moratorium. Attachments ~ Memo from City Attorney Allen Barnard, Best and Flanagan, doted September 22, 2014 (2 ' pages) � Memo from Linda H. Fischer, Fredrikson 0i Byron, dated October 6, 2014 /@ pages) � Letter from Paula A. [allies, [allies Law, dated October 15, 2014 (5 pages) Allen D.Barnard BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9715 225 South Sixth Street,Suite 4000 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 abarnrard@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAx 612.339.5897 BESTLAWCOM BEST & FLANAGAN Memorandum DATE: September 22, 2014 TO: Golden Valley City Council and City Manager FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Application Review During Moratorium This memorandum summarizes what state law and city ordinances say about reviewing subdivision and PUD applications during the recently enacted 6 month moratorium. Statutory Authority for Moratorium Under state law, Golden Valley has the authority to enact an "interim" or temporary ordinance that "regulates, restricts, or prohibits any use, development, or subdivision" within the City for up to one year. Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(a). During this time, the City must conduct a study or hearing to consider changes to the City's subdivision, zoning and/or Comp Plan regulations. Moratorium's Scope and Time The moratorium passed by City Council on September 16 precludes the City from reviewing or approving any new subdivision or PUD application filed after the effective date of the moratorium that has a "single family residential component". The moratorium lasts for 6 months, during which the City is to study the issues highlighted in the moratorium, and make any changes to the zoning and subdivision regulations warranted by the conclusions of the study. Limits on Moratorium— Applications in the Pipeline Subdivision Applications with Preliminary Approvals. Under state law, a moratorium cannot "halt, delay or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval." Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(c). The regulations that are in effect at the time the application was preliminarily approved applies to the review of the final plat. Minn. Stat. 5462.358, subd. 3(c). All Applications Submitted Before Moratorium. Under state law, a moratorium does not stop the 60/120 day clock on applications filed before the effective date of the moratorium. Minn. Stat. §462.355, subd. 4(c). This means that the City should act on all applications in the pipeline within the time limits set by state law or risk having those applications automatically approved under the state's 60/120 day rule. Minn. Stat. S15.99. Review Standards. Subdivisions must be approved if they meet the conditions of approval in the subdivision ordinance. In addition, Golden Valley's ordinance makes it clear that the conditions spelled out in the subdivision ordinance "provide the only basis for denial" of a minor subdivision, and that "approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions." City Code 512.50, sudb. 3.I. With PUDs, Council has more discretion, and can deny PUDs if there is any rational basis for the denial under the applicable PUD standards in City Code. City Code 511.55. 000090/480568/1947143 1 TO: Mark Dietz FROM: Linda H. Fisher, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. DATE: October 6, 2014 RE: Advice Regarding Potential Applicability of Golden Valley Interim Ordinance No. 530 to Pending Applications Introduction On September 16, 2014, the Golden Valley City Council (City Council) adopted Ordinance No. 530, 2nd Series, AN INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Imposing a Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components (Interim Ordinance 530). Section 1 of Interim Ordinance 530 states that the City Council "finds that the subdivision of property zoned `single family residential' to create small subdivisions, often with irregular lots, and the use of residential Planned Unit Developments (PVDs) to create small subdivisions that sidestep many of the controls of the City's Zoning Ordinance, have the potential to negatively impact the `green' space, property values, traffic and pedestrian safety, physical environment, orderly pattern of development, and official controls in the City's single family residential neighborhoods, as well as the historic and aesthetic character of those neighborhoods." Section 2 directs City staff to undertake a study, in coordination with the City's Planning Commission, " to determine whether, or to what extent, the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances should be revised to address the foregoing concerns, including the creation of a new zoning district that establishes a larger minimum lot area; new standards for preserving ` green' space when subdividing lots; new standards for the clear interpretation and application of lot measurements standards to minimize or eliminate irregular lots; the ability of the City to evaluate the potential impact on neighborhood character when reviewing subdivisions; and the use of residential PUDs to create small subdivisions that sidestep many elements of the zoning code." Section 3 establishes the limited duration and general applicability of Interim Ordinance 530: a six month moratorium "prohibiting the approval of any new subdivision or PUD that includes a single family residential component. " [emphasis added]. During this six month moratorium time period, "no new applications that would permit such single family residential subdivisions or PUDS shall be considered or approved by the City." [emphasis added]. Section 3 further provides that Interim Ordinance 530 shall be in full force and effect "from and after its passage and publication according to law." [Consultation with the City Clerk indicates that this interim ordinance took effect on September 25, 2014, the date it was published.] October 6, 2014 Page 2 Question Presented You have advised us that at the September 16, 2014 City Council meeting at which Interim Ordinance 530 was adopted, there was considerable consideration as to whether the City Council had the legal authority to apply the proposed moratorium to pending applications. You also indicated that one version of Interim Ordinance 530 then under consideration would have applied this development moratorium to "new or existing applications" (emphasis added), but the italicized language was deleted on the advice of the City Attorney, thereby limiting the enacted moratorium to "new" applications, presumably those filed after the effective date of Interim Ordinance 530, although the modifier"new" is not defined in the interim ordinance. You are concerned that the exclusion of all pending applications from the scope of Interim Ordinance 530 has the potential to undermine the study the City is undertaking and be detrimental to achievement of the goals of future regulatory changes. This could adversely impact the ability of the City to effectively and comprehensively address the concerns enumerated in Section 1 on which the adoption of Interim Ordinance 530 was based. In view of the foregoing, you have asked us to advise you regarding the following narrow two-part question: Did the City Council have the legal authority on September 16, 2014 to apply the substantive provisions of Interim Ordinance 530 to pending subdivision applications and to pending applications for approval of PUDs that include a single family residential component? If the City Council has such authority in whole or in part, is there a procedure available to now apply the moratorium to specified pending applications, assuming the City Council decides to exercise its discretion to do so? Analysis Consistent with the scope of our limited engagement, we addressed this question through analysis of state statutes; pertinent portions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations; the text of Interim Ordinance 530; the City Attorney's September 22, 2014 Memorandum to the City Council and City Manager, entitled " Application Review During Moratorium;" League of Minnesota Cities, Handbook for Minnesota Cities, Chapter 14- Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City-Owned Land; League of Minnesota Cities, Zoning Guide for Cities; and limited case law review. While we did not do extensive legislative history research, we did consider known, available information regarding the history of the unsuccessful attempt in the 2011- 2012 legislative sessions to amend Minn. Stat. Sect. 462. 355 (and the companion county enabling statute) to, among other things, specifically prohibit application of a moratorium ordinance to pending applications. We also spoke with the City Planning Director and the City Attorney regarding the nature and type of development applications pending on September 16, 2014 and the legal question you asked us to address. Finally, we consulted with the same League of Minnesota Cities land use attorney/loss control staff the City Attorney spoke with after our initial conversation. October 6, 2014 Page 3 1. Backeround Regarding General Purpose of Interim Ordinances Establishing Development Moratoria In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of an interim moratorium ordinance as a valid land use planning and zoning tool. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002). Many cities across the country and in Minnesota have utilized development moratoria in order to protect the municipality's planning process. Moratoria (interim ordinances) are expressly authorized by Minnesota law "for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens." See, Minn. Stat. Sect. 462. 355, subd. 4(a). This statute authorizes the regulation, restriction or prohibition of any "use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective." Id. It further provides that the city must be in the process of conducting a study or scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls in order to adopt an interim ordinance. No notice or hearing is generally required before an interim ordinance is adopted. However, a ten-day notice and a public hearing must be held if the proposed interim ordinance regulates, restricts or prohibits activities relating to livestock production (feedlots). A development moratorium is the only vehicle for preserving the status quo for the limited duration allowed by Minnesota law during the formal study process and prior to adoption of new official controls. Often, once a study and possible regulatory changes are made public, property owners try to create vested rights in the existing official controls by filing intervening development applications. These applications may be detrimental to the planning vision of the study and to the achievement of the goals of the regulatory changes being formulated. This is why some municipalities frequently adopt development moratoria whenever they initiate a significant study of potential amendments to the comprehensive plan, zoning code or subdivision regulations. By limiting the duration of a moratorium, Minnesota law endeavors to balance the property rights of landowners to develop their land with the goals and objectives of a comprehensive land use plan and official controls that promote orderly development of the community in accordance with a planning vision. 2. State Statutes The question you've asked us to address involves the interaction of three different state statutes: (1) Minn. Stat. Sect. 462.355, subd. 4 (Interim Ordinance Act); (2) Minn. Stat, Sect. 15.99 Time Deadline for Agency Action ( 60-Day Law); and (3) Minn. Stat. Sect. 462.358, subd. 3b (Subdivision Review Procedures Act.). The Interim Ordinance Act is the statutory authority for municipal development moratoria. As previously noted, it authorizes a city to adopt an interim ordinance that "may regulate, restrict, or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision" within the city's jurisdiction for a period not to exceed one year (unless extended in accordance with the Act) from the effective date of the interim ordinance. (Emphasis added). Minn. Stat. October 6, 2014 Page 4 Sect. 462.355, subd. 4(a). It is important to note that the Interim Ordinance Act does not specifically prohibit application of a development moratorium to pending applications. However, subd. 4(c) of the Act does establish some limits on the scope and effect of a duly adopted interim ordinance. It provides: "In all other cases, no interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval, nor may an interim ordinance extend the time deadline for agency action set forth in section 15.99 with respect to any application filed prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. " The first clause of this provision, as a practical matter, exempts subdivision applications that have received preliminary approval, at least insofar as the interim ordinance would otherwise "halt, delay or impede" such preliminarily approved plats. This is consistent with other provisions of state law that establish vested rights of varying duration for municipal subdivisions that have received preliminary approval (one year) and for municipal subdivisions that have received final approval (two years). See, Minn. Stat. Sect. 462.358, subd. 3c. The second clause of this provision refers to the 60-Day Law; it does not exempt any type of application from the interim ordinance, it provides only that the interim ordinance may not extend the time frame for action on pending applications otherwise governed by the 60-Day Law. The 60-Day Law is a state statute that requires cities to approve or deny a "written request relating to zoning" within 60 days or it is deemed approved. The 60-day time period does not begin if the city notifies the applicant in writing within 15 days of receiving the application that the application is incomplete. (Sect. 15.99, subd. 3(a)). The law also allows the city to give itself an additional 60 days (up to a total of 120 days) to consider an application if it follows specific statutory requirements. (Sect. 15.99, subd. 3(f)). The 60-day time period is also extended if a state statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur before the city acts on the request, and the prescribed time periods "make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days." In those cases, "the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law or order." (Sect. 15.99, subd. 3(d)). An applicant may also request in writing an extension of the 60-day time period. (Sect. 15.99, subd. 3(g)). The 60-Day Law includes a specific exception for subdivision and plat approvals, because these processes are subject to their own time frames. ("Except as otherwise provided in... section 462. 358, subdivision 3b...," Minn. Stat, Sect. 15.99, subd.2(a)). The Subdivision Review Procedures Act (Sect. 462.358, Subd. 3b) establishes a 120 day time line for preliminary approval or disapproval of a subdivision application, unless the applicant has agreed to an extension. If no action is taken within 120 days following delivery of a completed application, the application shall be deemed approved. The Subdivision Review Procedures Act also establishes a 60 —day time line for review and approval or disapproval of a final subdivision application. October 6, 2014 Page 5 3. City Zoniny, and Subdivision Regulations Interim Ordinance 530 relates specifically to subdivisions and planned unit developments (PUDs) that include a single family residential component. PUDs in Golden Valley are governed by Section 11.55 of the City Land Use and Zoning Regulations (PUD Zoning Regulations). While an application for approval of a preliminary PUD plan requires all data required for a preliminary plat under City subdivision regulations (Sect. 11. 55, subd. 5(A)(2)), final PUD approval requires approval of an ordinance by the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council, See, PUD Zoning Regulations, Sect. 11.55, subd. 6(R). Based on consultations with City planning staff, it is our understanding that after City Council approval, the PUD designation for the particular parcel or parcels of land is shown on the City Zoning Map. In view of the foregoing, an application for approval of a PUD including a single family residential component under Section 11.55 of the PUD Zoning Regulations is a "written request relating to zoning" subject to the 60-Day Law. City subdivision regulations are found in Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting) of the City Code (City Subdivision Regulations). Subdivision applications that do not include a written request for approval of a residential PUD are governed by the City Subdivision Regulations, not by the PUD Zoning Regulations. They are not shown on the City Zoning Map upon approval, as is the case with approved residential PUDs. An application for approval of such subdivisions is excepted from the 60-Day Law pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sect. 15. 99, subd. 2. The time frame for approval or disapproval of non-PUD preliminary subdivisions is 120 days pursuant to the Subdivision Review Procedures Act, Minn. Stat. Sect. 462.358, subd. 3b. 4. Subdivision and Residential PUD Applications Pendiny- on the Date of Adoption of Interim Ordinance 530 In response to our request, on September 23, 2014, the City Planning Manager provided a table documenting the number and type of subdivision and residential PUD applications pending on September 16, 2014, the date the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 530. (See attached Exhibit A). A total of six (6) applications that have not been acted on by the City Council were then pending for five properties: four were minor subdivisions; two were preliminary PUDs. The application dates ranged from August 7 to September 16; it is interesting to note that four of the six applications were filed after September 9, the City Council/City Manager meeting at which (per the Planning Manager) the possible development moratorium first was made public. Two applications were filed on September 16, the same day the City Council considered, and ultimately adopted, Interim Ordinance 530. Exhibit A is summarized as follows: * 200 Meadow Lane is a minor subdivision application filed August 7; Planning Commission recommended approval September 8; City Council to consider on October 7. October 6, 2014 Page 6 * 7200 & 7218 Harold Avenue is a preliminary PUD application filed August 22; Planning Commission recommended denial September 22; City Council to consider on October 21. * 108 Brunswick Avenue is a minor subdivision application filed September 12; application determined complete on September 19; Planning Commission to consider October 13; City Council to consider November 5. * 1801 Noble Drive is a preliminary FUD application filed on September 12; application determined complete on September 19; Planning Commission to consider October 13; City Council to consider November 5. * 250 Paisley Lane is a minor subdivision application to split one lot into two filed on September 16; completeness determination not made as of September 23; City Planning Manager advises Planning Commission could consider the application on October 27 and the City Council could consider it on November 18. * 250 Paisley Lane is a minor subdivision application to split one lot into three also filed on September 16; completeness determination not made as of September 23; City Planning Manager advises Planning Commission could consider the application on October 27 and the City Council could consider it on November 18. Conclusions 1. The Interim Ordinance Act does not specifically prohibit application of an interim ordinance to pending development applications. We are not aware of any Minnesota appellate court decision that so holds, either. Rather, the specific language of the Act allows a city to "regulate, restrict, or prohibit any use, development or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective." [emphasis added]. Minn. Stat. Sect. 462.355, subd. 4(a). 2. Subject to the limitations discussed below, the City had the authority to apply the substantive provisions of Interim Ordinance 530 to pending development applications on September 16, 2014. Since Interim Ordinance 530 is in effect and, by its terms, applies only to "new" applications, the City Council would need to either amend Interim Ordinance 530 or adopt a new interim ordinance to apply the moratorium to certain pending development applications. No notice or public hearing would be necessary to so amend Interim Ordinance 530 or to adopt a new interim ordinance, provided the duration of Interim Ordinance 530 is not extended. Minn. Stat. Sect. 462.355, subd. 4(c). 3. The Interim Ordinance Act specifically provides, however, that an interim ordinance may not "halt, delay or impede" a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval. See, also, Semler Construction, Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W. 2d 457 (Minn. App. October 6, 2014 Page 7 2003). This means that Interim Ordinance 530 could not apply to subdivision applications that have received preliminary approval. 4. The 60-Day Law specifically excepts municipal subdivision and plat approvals (Sect. 15.99, subd. 2), since they are governed by the time lines prescribed in State Subdivision Regulations. Minn. Stat. Sect. 462.358, subd. 3b. While the courts have read the 60-Day Law phrase "written request relating to zoning" broadly to include, for example, a certificate of appropriateness under a municipal historic preservation ordinance 1, we are aware of no Minnesota appellate court case that required the 60-Day Law to be applied to municipal subdivision applications or that relied on the 60-Day Law to prohibit a city from adopting an interim ordinance freezing consideration of a pending subdivision application that has not been given preliminary approval. Under this reading of the statutes, the City Council would have discretion to amend Interim Ordinance 530 to apply its development moratorium to the four pending subdivision applications (Exhibit A) that have not been preliminarily approved. 5. An application to create a residential PUD that includes a single family residential component under the City's PUD Zoning Regulations is a "written request relating to zoning" (Minn. Stat. Sect. 15.99, subd. 1(c)) subject to the 60-Day Law. The time line for City action on the two preliminary PUD applications filed prior to September 16 (see Exhibit A) is 60 days, unless extended to 120 days under the conditions prescribed in the state statute. This time line would likely expire prior to the six-month expiration date of the existing Interim Ordinance 530. In reviewing the pending preliminary PUD applications, one interpretation is that the City should apply the official controls ( e.g., zoning and subdivision regulations) in effect at the time these applications are acted on and that no consideration may be given to Interim Ordinance 530. Another interpretation is that the official controls in effect at the time the PUD applications would be considered include Interim Ordinance 530; consequently, provided the City acts within applicable 60-Day Law time lines and adopts written findings, it could base a denial of the pending PUD applications upon Interim Ordinance 530. LHF:blj: 51527236_1.docx ' 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287(Minn. 2013). 2 While the Minnesota Supreme Court in Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Board of Commissioners, 756 N.W. 2d 716 (Minn. 2008), determined that a county's denial of a subdivision application within the time frames of Section 15.99 was valid and timely, the Court declined to reach the question of whether Section 15.99 applies to subdivisions. (Note, further, that the above-quoted exception to the 60-Day Law applies only to municipal subdivisions governed by the Subdivision Review Act Procedures (Section 462, 358, Subd. 3b); and not to county subdivisions governed by Minn. Stat. Sect. 394.261. October 6, 2014 Page 8 Exhibit A Plannhi; aty Address Type Description Date Received Status Commission Comcm 221 Sixryricife L, minor subdivision split ore lot into two 21 Feb preliminary Plat approved 23-lar 15 ki 221 Smyrldge Le minor stlbowisio, revise irteme lot lire NA FVVLW, peolimirafy Plat approved;Waitirlitot 25 Atg 16-Sep st,bontump,of Final Plat Wer isio property tcwth of minor s6,licirrisor split Dee,lot into two 27 Feb preliminary Plat approved;waitirp,for%cmisior of 14-)Ll 2-Sep Major/Noble D—r, Fir.,I Plat 221 Paisley Lane enema,t,tbowniop SPIFT one lot Into two 13 it., Prclirnirary Piatappfoyeo,w.iittrn for s,tmsior of 1410 19 Aeg F,ra I Fiat .3058345 Per,sylva—Ave p,,,hm,n.,y PUD redevelop offke lb'iI—garct"Rle fatuity 161" Prelimirari PUD approves,wamrg for s,bmi.s5mr of 28 J'l 16 Sep home Inco 27 Celarne'o Towr"Mes Final PLJD 200 Meadow Lr N minor s'bCnrI"xhr spilt ore ktwto three 7 Akit reromnwrcatiar of approval from Planning 8 Sop 7 Ott Cnn,..s,.r 72008.7218 haroic Ave p,elimtrarr PVD roplat two ungie family lots into fner, 22 At,g recomowroatior of cerialfrom Plaertop,Commission 22 Sep 21 On family lots 108 6--Ck Ave N rnmmst:tbp-swar split one for I'm two 12 Imp appl—t.r determined to be complete or 19-Sep 13 Ott S Nm 1801 Noble 01 ph0m,ahr PUD hr"Plat one single famft lot Into three 12 Sep applicartor determined to be.complete or Iq Sep 13 Oct 5 Nov strilk,fomnry lots 250 kvsMy Lr m.,subdwi , split Oro tot i1toiwo 16 Sep complolere%of appliniticr rot yet dMormirm 250 Paisley L, minor"bom,*or spilt ore tot irrolhice 16 Sep complptemtscrf application not yetrietcrrnr,ea one of these two apphestorl will proceed p—owil;ferthrr conversations 0 Staff CALLIES Paula A. Callies MMEMLAW .......... in,,dIie�, t I Ije,.IKtw,on, t w t�,%v t Ballom 1,7639 54-8020 d )a it lhcr I �1 ON 1'111:lil %1.1%or .md ( itt "O(tii€.il ( it`t ttl t.rt*Iltwia 4 atllc♦°� 'ht9ti i<ticictt '<lllc° Road Dear Va%or- I barn's Iallcl t; tEitllcil: I I-CpiI`csQtlt :, latlrtle's %tiIII pt:lldIilL� ,t.didIIslot I �i ppI icat ions i 1 deka C°iIN tIt' ia)ldell Val IeN, M cIIcIII--s a1"ta 1lei er KnaicbIct I)ro: I)tlriibtiscIi ,tIitl Pel - .late--,IS N ooddjic° RItiIdeI-S. I kill he presc111 it udklre,°s t.l'1t; ( tt in iI 6ai ti-; rlla`i°t n,t, on ()c'tobcar _,1 . , til mt ,Ind am *+obliilion— th,, Idle it Od\anot Iiir \astir a:`titisicl2r atitttl. �taliitll<Il�. Nl lit'ili .I II �,r_:hfn0ttJ tela: r rcspecti\a� applic,itions 10f 1111nor ,Llhdi�OSI II �Ipprw,J1 I"rriol It �°1 is fell>cI , .fit}14, tlW f'i ° 'tl t "hitt: of data (A\ iil ti<-1 ell ValleN's, Iraterl"i { )rditl mo- No. haii?c wiz€tutor% awthOT11% tl> ,loopt an Interim -ITItlriiittriaitll +trt{Tri; no" to prohibit i6 t do i*ion,,. l Ittt$'t,`k.era a moratorium i`a invalid it the Citv acts till1%al�cttlta 1\ xar ltraril� or t.Ii ria:itsti,l,, Ili iadoptint, it. A moratorium c°:anntii he W--,ed to stop, cls.=late Or 1111pede a wrlb i%ii,it7ir that li:is eel prt~lirtximir� ;.pprw al, nor can the lc"Iat, tlw, IIIIIt: t,le'�4,;`rdhed III M I I I n, `ti:t4, atal ImIk !w a i.lta"cINIttli Orl W 7V tippIltatiti?' lIio,f VIit9r lit ilio' ted ttuoi t c" khtc` 01 ills' iO'dI iiafllt,' `. I here r, it&T je.-!af I"iasl� , 1,01- the Clt% of ttsldo—, its nloh'hn— of dt'? b f('I i'+ �itl iso <t �td�lClit I ;lttlt, t?1 1) Ipplicittittrl filed Prior to '- -01-1 lily ..t+ titan h,% tilt; (�it� to al',q)k tllz I.:tt!'.ilt}ilii ? lit t114` l'a ,t :eelsµ { °i?iEl':.iliti}t4 t'sl reit l;c`€1i" t id"ib alacl iilidi salbiccts the t, Ise to the risk of pots. i"s,it hilLual ttrl Dist w3 sItM: Mr. Knachic submitted iIli applictatataa Isar, slit.` iiiiilt>r ttl"liroptWrt�, loi: atcd at 2(,)0 }t~atcltict Lane N, on At:a tilt 7. 2014, Mr. l llachI `, application ialt~as all req Ili IvIllents of illi. C'1\ ( ode l lit: 191iir1iiitl�- commission reL:ttrT7Tllt;ila.ed ap roe al ot'his applit: atiitri tiit Seplenilm ?t)I-w. Mr IIacb1c's prehn,elan\ plat applic°<al101t \111ct, =~tw"hCdtll d l'O;' CiI\ c"Oai CII t-t%ie%+ tit d ii.°tttltc`i 7". -`1114� but itlstc`Iitl tilt: t oulloI t1il>ied c.olusiderllnon sIt 1'0111c',t zil deist rileetlllfu':. Nlr. DortibLv'Ch I [lie taae�lici Jilcl ;apl:,hcd ltsr 11111ittr til> ie t•itrra 1171'ti't)e<ii t't tithe pr4 pe!'P till t`l tc'itll? 'I d0, w'iil""l 1 lit' ( 1i% l tllllt �'lt' Dor111"tlis;h s %%tar and (1, Linfrid I October 15, 201-1 Page T"o '1111)1 ical ioll is Cott plete. but it(.) hwiring dates have been we he Mr. Dorribusch's application is aim; a simple stAlivikion request that complies with all pro4 isions orihe Cit) (. ode, fAkithile 11trildeN :yp"ed aa nOw"—whN own apprt"A 4 jvopertl located at 108 Rrurrslit Avenue IN mi Sepiemhcr 12. 2014 A InTlic 1wany "as scheduled before tire pLinnilq! c:orura!'Ssion on i )cioilcr 1.�, _'(1 14 "it cull counal reN in, planned for No%ember .77,. 2014. 1 he Mmnwota legislature allm"! than 1441 x coma of Mint, W. 1,462.3 5. stilid, 4 graining municApahiies Ow natuftw, m"Why to alyi iinninn ordinances in 1976, 1 loltcvcr. tile MinuCsOtil StAprenic Court has Wed that "hile a ch y Iran the authority w enact wi interim moratorium ordinance, die ordinance is inNalid irthe chy acts unreammah1j. OWN!), or capriciow,ls ill aTTIOU it. 111rivAnterhii ifY v f WY OR binis Awk 787 NAV,21d 565 f NTinn, 20101, Vinnv,,out StaiotQ `462.355, suKL4W) pno its than 'm hve% ordhunce may halt. W) or inipNe a Nulxli%ision that Ira s heen 16yen lyehtninarl appro%tfl. nor fmtv ut?v interim w-dillonce ;jgvjhj j"jupi set voyh j" wjqh"I /5,0) "Idl rVVh%j h;10'j qj4hinuni Id"I 1wior ho W y/k,tive triad v tri the 11MC101 Inihinuive", Mx client-, each stibillitted their zWplications for n6nor :,ul"a<Iilisicria alallrtalal prior to the effectivc date Of the hitcrim ( )rdinanct 'ItL 53M lbe aflAicatiors are naraighwAr"ard and amriply %0h the real here of (A Wde. It lit ukJ b oviAtraq and unwasmable Or the Citi to prevent my clients Wil prk weeding 11 ith then- pn)posfl-, under the guke or studying the Citl's /oning and suhdi-vision Orcfinanos and adolmion of the intairn nwmao6wn orx"Imince, With rcLmrd to the time deadlilw for a-e _frcyaoion. Nfinn. Sua. 15.09, subd,2 (,if states that: -Iclxcept as Awrwise pwvrtled in thk sectim. veabin W 3XI AwhdOwn; A or 471171 or tjuqver 501, and no"i1suumfin: any w1wr W\\ lo the conlrar' --, an agency niust appr(:ive (:)I- ,len, a "rinen tekluest related ho /omin�t! 41ufitn (01 tin,N. Section I � ,1)9 k often rcltrred to if) -Awl-hand- an file 60-da) rule hocausc 4 w IWOVA111 that n !`t`tjlle-lt related 10 /011ifllt;, OT other gowniment apprt"al is autoniaticA, aprii,Cd it An :iM;enethils it, dcn, a request tv idik (0) da)s. I lo"ewL Minn. Son. q I 5AW aflovk", more than of da\, ill sonle tJrcwwslonce,� and specifically incoarponaes the thic deaThws 1Q. ,:art ..otho-"I ;4c 1wortalc"i t Set'llot; /,i 99, wclioll 461314 subt3h, or 4-3 1-A or ( hapwr 5(/. , '1 lie kk,adlines ,)ihcr%kisv pro�ided" includc mher time limits irripsed h) SectOn 1501 suNL 3 (mwh as "hen an application is incotl plete. or appro%a! ofinore than tme agow; is reqWrcd) and the I 20-daN deadline f6r preliminay Wdivkhmi approval in ween n 46235& sub&T, I lie Minnesota '-.mprenic Cotwi has applied Minn, Stat. §15,149 hroadlr, It has made ab*flutely clear thin the sunuks reference to a *Vriucn requ,,!st Wded hi zonind' is unarrifiguous and ratirs h, an,L rtqLrC.-,1 111-al -has a connection, rise-wiation. or lovical relationship to the 1-COUlati011 ot'huddino de,eehopment tat`the tins of pnivn):' Am NA ' v f, 'iij'ot 8,17 2d Ma w v and Cir ('oullci I (-)Clohet 13. 2()14 loge !free 287. 291 INTinn 2013v In the crischl4m Him M n Kamdwr ( QW (PlAmmil, 73(i % " ,2d 716 1 Minn- -1008). the NfinnesoLa ',"upi-cilic Court assiirlwd that the 60day rule appild u) ,111 typlicilliml approital loactnumy. 'llms, the clear trend ol'IN-linneSOU'l COM ticckiow, k to hold kwal tou high stanthux] tilien appl�ing timedeadlines f6r responding to appLicationy Or goverlimcni appirtivAs. �:'i nc]IJA€)-Fl: Accordim-, Io th': ewlicit terms otAlinn, Stat, §46135 ,W(ck a nuirwo6urn ny not he u,-,ed to po,'stpone, or e\tend the tivies,set in section 15,99 t+)r the cit� to make a decision oil an� api'llication that has hecii Bled bet6re the eff'eciive data. of oul interini ortliwince, I'lle deadliw' Q is Oil a Nuhdivkiml applicatkil under mac titin KIM Suhd-4b are rele,rented it) -'ectioll 1509, klinneststa courts ha Ne bn)*Uy iriterpivied the 11pv A'apfAications sulyiect it, section 1509, Mile lvddin� lovai go ,,*rnniciW, -icamudAile ro the bric ddlirics fir agerip ankil, Sivcifically repaAhng the allAicatitwo ofm, c1brits in the Ivesent ca,,se, the(,'its must compll t,\illl 111C existing reqwrvnwms oraq tv�dc :Incl ilia dcadhnk�s ol'sections 402,358. stilid.3h and 1591 Any incira"Quirl pnxhihiiin4= TJlC "Appliml of a SUINlit,isikill. or conidcrami,ll ol'a SLRX,h',iSikifl aI)[)hCZlli0lj nlanot lcg'all) by applick! U, mc IWOP 1wPhCOWS I,A ;UMN Win apImmal (-)I ru.,� I'lit: Cil1 wjusl flet 61 a BUY Inalincr to proeess the applications ofnl1 clients in accon"fanix ac ith Cil� to and 'la rc lame I hank �,m for �ouv Sincereh . Paula A, ("allies Jam /immer AM Ibirmn-d T(612)337-6100 F(612)339-6591 100 Washington Ave S I Suite 1300 S E G E LYOUR Minneapolis, MN 55401 siegelbrill.com BRILL PA BUSINESS el ATTORNEYS AT LAW MATTERS October 15, 2014 Via email (JZimmerman(c)goldenvalleymn.gov) Members of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re; Moratorium on Planned Unit Developments Our File No. 26141-004 Dear Members of the City Council: I represent the Lecy Group, which owns the property located at 1801 Noble Drive. My client has been working with City staff for many months on its plan to redevelop its property, and to that end has submitted a complete application for preliminary approval of a Planned Unit Development ("the Application"). The Application remains pending at this time. In the first part of September, my client learned that the City Council would be considering a proposed moratorium on subdivisions and PVDs that include a single-family residential component. As my client's application includes a single-family residential component, we inquired with the Planning Division about the proposed moratorium, We were assured, in writing, that the moratorium, if adopted, would not apply to the application provided that it was complete by September 16. In reliance on that assurance, my client completed and submitted all of the necessary plans, engineering data, and other required documents by the September 16 date provided by staff. In the evening of September 16, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 530, which imposes a six-month moratorium on PUDs. But consistent with what we were told by the Planning Division, the Ordinance by its terms applies only to new applications, not pending applications. Over the past month, my client has accordingly moved forward with its efforts to gain approval of the Application. This week it came to our attention that the City Council has received communications urging it to amend Ordinance No. 530, or adopt a new ordinance, to extend the moratorium to the PUD and subdivisions applications that were pending when Ordinance No. 530 was adopted on September 16. It is our understanding that the City Council will consider this proposal at its October 21 meeting. We believe it would be inappropriate to expand the moratorium to include the Application, for at least three reasons. First, placing a moratorium on the Application would exceed the City's statutory authority to adopt interim ordinances, which is set forth in Minn. Stat. § 462.355. Subdivision 4(c) of that statute provides that "no interim ordinance may . . . extend the time deadline for agency action set forth in section 15.99 with respect to any application filed prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance." Subjecting the Application to the moratorium would have the effect—indeed, the intended effect—of extending the current 60-day deadline under section 15.99 to at a date at least six months into the future. Even if the City exercised its authority to extend the section 15.99 deadline by an additional 60 days, with the moratorium in place it could not act on the Application within that deadline. It has been suggested by a party that is advocating for an expansion of the moratorium that the City could comply with the requirements of section 15.99 simply by denying pending applications on grounds that they are barred from consideration by Ordinance No. 530. That way the City would have provided the decision required by section 15.99. Even if this argument could be reconciled with the text of section 462.355, which it cannot, the argument is plainly contrary to the spirit and intention of that statute, which is to ensure that pending applications are not delayed by a moratorium. If a city could comply with section 462.355 by simply denying a pending application on the basis of a moratorium, the language from subdivision 4(c) quoted above would have no practical effect and the legislative intent of the statute would be thwarted. Second, it would be inequitable to apply the moratorium to the Application because the City specifically advised the Lecy Group that if it completed work on its application and had all required submissions on file by September 16, the Application would not be subject to the moratorium. The Lecy Group relied on this representation by the City and incurred significant expense in time and resources in completing its application materials and moving forward with the approval process. Finally, to reopen discussion on the retroactive application of Ordinance No. 530 would be bad public policy. Finality and certainty in the law are essential to the smooth functioning of local government and are key to a prosperous local economy. Ordinance No. 530 expressly provides that the moratorium applies to "new" subdivisions and PUDs and that approval would be withheld only from "new applications," and it would set a bad precedent for the City to consider reversing those protections just weeks later based not on any new information or developments in the law, but simply on reargument of issues that have already been fully aired and considered. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Mark Thiero 612-337-6102 1 Direct markthieroff@siegelbrill.com Cit0 Yi.; golden V-v %� MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 21, 2014 Agenda Item 6. B. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary Concept alternatives for the four station areas were unveiled for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on October 1 and for the joint Golden Valley/Minneapolis Community Working Group on October 8. Feedback on the scale, location, and intensity of potential development was provided to the consultant team and revisions to the concepts will be made prior to the public Workshop scheduled for Wednesday, November 12. Updates to the Golden Valley website are underway to present new project information and to inform residents about the time and location of the Workshop. More broadly, the engineering firm of Kimley-Horn was selected by the Metropolitan Council to lead the upcoming two year Project Development phase of work. Staff will be meeting with Kimley-Horn at the end of the month to provide background and comment on areas of concern and opportunity within Golden Valley. Recommended Action Receive and file METRO Blue Line Extension Update.