The URL can be used to link to this page

11-18-14 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber November 18, 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. Quad Communities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Update 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting of October 21, 2014 2-6 B. Approval of City Check Register 7 C. Licenses: 1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Providence 8-10 Academy 2. Solicitor's License - Back Four L & D 11-13 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - October 13, 2014 14-18 2. Human Rights Commission - August 26, 2014 19-23 3. Open Space and Recreation Commission - July 28, 2014 24-27 4. Joint Water Commission - September 30, 2014 28-29 E. Call for Public Hearing for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 PMPs; Project Nos. 15-01, 16-01 30-34 and 17-01 14-89 F. Authorization to Sign Amended Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 35-38 Co-Operative Agreement 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119 - 7200 and 39-81 7218 Harold Avenue - Peter Knaeble, Applicant 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. First Consideration - Ordinance #534 - Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule 82-101 B. METRO Blue Line Extension Update 102 C. Announcements of Meetings D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA October 21, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Fonnest, Clausen, Schmidgall and Snope. 1B. Pledge of Allegiance 1C. Headway Emotional Health Services Ms. Laura McDermott of Headway Emotional Health Services gave a presentation on Domestic Abuse for Domestic Abuse Awareness Month. 1D. Robbinsdale Area Schools - Volunteers In Partnership (VIP) Ms. Jill Kaufman, Coordinator, from the Robbinsdale Area Schools gave a presentation on the Volunteers In Partnership program. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the agenda of October 21, 2014, as revised to remove item 3H-Acceptance of Donations and the addition of item 3M-Receive and file correspondence regarding 6A- Subdivision Moratorium Discussion and the motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the consent agenda of October 21, 2014 as revised to add item: 3L-Receive and file correspondence regarding 6A-Subdivision Moratorium Discussion and removal of items: 3C1 Planning Commission Minutes, 3H- Acceptance of Donations and 3K-Approval of Kate's Woods and the motion carried unanimously. 3A1. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3A2. Approve Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3131. Approve Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Sons of the American Legion Post 523. 3132. Approve On-Sale Wine & Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License-New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus. 3C. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: granninn September 8, 2014 2. Human Rights Commission - September 8, 2014 3. Special Joint Water Commission - July 25, 2014 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - August 21, 2014 3D1. Authorize Amended and Restated Easement Agreement with Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board for Watermain and Reservoir Purposes. 3D2. Authorize Purchase of One Fire Pumper Truck. 3E. Adopt Resolution 14-83 Waiver Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2014 Driveways. 3F. Adopt 2nd Consideration Ordinance #531 regarding Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) 3G. Receipt of September Financial Reports. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- October 21, 2014 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA-continued 3H. Adopt Resolution AcGeptanre of Donations on behalf ef-r�. 31. Adopt Resolution 14-85 Execution of revised Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment with Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association. 3J. Board/Commission Appointment of Andrew Ramlet to Human Rights Commission. 3K. . 31L. Adopt Resolution 14-86 Extending Payment Terms for Isaacson Park Improvements by Golden Valley Little League. 3. ITEM ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA 3M. To Receive and File correspondence regarding Discussion of Possible Amendment to Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3C1. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: Planning Commission September 8, 2014. Planning Manager Zimmerman answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt the Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2014, and the motion carried unanimously. 3K. Adopt Resolution 14-85 Approval of Plat - Kate's Woods. Planning Manager Zimmerman answered questions from Council. City Attorney Barnard answered questions from Council There was much Council discussion regarding the approval of the Plat for Kate's Wood located at 221 Sunnyridge Lane. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Resolution 14-85 Approval of Plat - Kate's Woods upon a vote being take the following voted in favor of: Snope, Schmidgall and Fonnest and the following voted against: Harris and Clausen and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #532 - Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment No. 2 - 7475 Country Club Drive - Albert Miller, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex located at 7475 Country Club Drive. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Ordinance #532, Approval of Final PUD Plan, Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment No. 2, Albert Miller, Applicant and the motion carried unanimously. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- October 21, 2014 4B. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119 - 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue - Peter Knaeble, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Barnard answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened public hearing. Mr. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, summarized the history of the PUD plans and explained how he arrived at the current proposal. He said he had revised the development project as to what he heard the Council, the Planning Commission and the neighborhood request. He stated he has had a number of neighborhood meetings and that the neighbors support the current plan which includes five custom built homes rather than the other cul-de-sac option. Mr. Perry Thom, 320 Louisiana Avenue N., said he struggles with the Planning Commission's desire to have a dense population. He said he would rather not have Golden Valley be a starter home community, but rather a community that people want to move in to and stay for their lifetime. He said he appreciated Mr. Knaeble working with the neighborhood on the development and the he does not want the cul-de-sac option. He said he would prefer two large homes on the lot but he can live with this plan and would appreciate if the Council would support it. Ms. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, asked what the value of the new homes being built would be. Mr. Knaeble stated the proposed homes will be around $450,000 each. He said the market value of the current homes combined is approximately $322,000 and once the new homes were built the combined value would be around $2,500,000. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. There was much Council discussion regarding the Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119 located at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to send the Preliminary PUD Plan back to the Planning Commission to look at a four home option, upon a vote being take the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Snope and Fonnest and the following voted against: Harris and Schmidgall and the motion carried. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Discussion of Possible Amendment to Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Barnard answered questions from Council. There was much Council discussion regarding the moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include a single Family Residential Component. Council opened up the meeting for public comments. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- October 21, 2014 6A. Discussion of Possible Amendment to Moratorium-continued Ms. Linda Fisher, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., 200 S. 6th Street representing Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, said she thought the question was if Council has the authority to include pending subdivisions in the interim moratorium. She explained the history of the 60-Day Law or Section 15.99 which provides for Cities to act within a certain time period or find a reason to deny a subdivision application. She stated that the Interim Ordinance Act does not prohibit the pending development applications from being subject to the interim ordinance. She said she felt that subdivisions should not be ruled by Sect. 15.99 that only PUD applications should. She said if Council would like to adopt an interim moratorium it could stop the time clock on subdivision applications but it would be the Council's decision. She said she thought the Council could go back to the ordinance and amend it and that other cities have had a moratorium on pending subdivision applications. Ms. Paula Callies, Callies Law, 5500 Wayzata Blvd representing three of the parties with pending subdivision applications, said that the law is clear that you cannot apply the moratorium to pending subdivision applications. She said the 15.99 rule states a decision must be made within 60 days. She gave additional history on the rule and said she felt the law was clear and cities must follow the deadline stated. She said the law does not support a moratorium and to protect the planning process it should not be applied to existing applications. Mr. Mark Thieroff, of Siegel Brill P.A., 100 Washington Ave representing the Lecy Group, 1801 Noble Drive, said he felt that PUD applications should be left out of the moratorium. He said that there are only two PUDs in question and his client's property was never platted for residential use. He stated his client had contacted the City regarding the moratorium before they submitted their application and the City indicated that if the application was submitted before the moratorium it should not be subjected to it. Mr. Drew Dornbusch, 250 Paisley Lane, stated he is one of the pending applicants and that the Council should recognize the other attorneys are representing their clients and only the City Attorney would be watching out for the City. The Council continued their discussion regarding the moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Development that include a single Family Residential Component. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Clausen to direct staff to draft an amendment to the interim ordinance so that it acts on new and existing subdivisions applications except for those who have preliminary approval and it acts on new PUD applications that include a single family residential component, upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen and Fonnest and the following voted against: Snope and Schmidgall and the motion carried. 6B. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded Council Member Snope to receive and file the METRO Blue Line update and the motion carried unanimously. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- October 21, 2014 6C. Announce of Meetings Some Council Members may attend the Neighborhood Watch Annual Meeting on October 23, 2014, The Fall Leaf Drop-off will be held on October 25, 2014, from 8 am to 1 pm, October 31, 2014, from 8 am to 4 pm, and November 1 from 8 am to 1 pm at Brookview Park. Some Council Members may attend the Hidden Lakes Neighborhood Meeting on October 28, 2014, at Regency Hospital. The 4th Annual Valley Volunteer Day will be held on October 30, 2014, at various Golden Valley locations. The General Election will be held on November 4, 2014, at the various polling place locations. The next City Council Meeting will be held on November 5, 2014, in the Council Chambers. The Human Rights Commission Meeting will be held on November 6, 2014. The League of Minnesota is offering a free webinar for Council regarding Zoning decisions. 6D. Mayor and Council Communication Assistant City Manager Knauss provided an update on the property located at 2241 Legend Drive, 7. Adjournment MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen, and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 pm. Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk citv of' golde, n MEMORANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) A vrir n .'.p. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 18, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. 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. cityof +, ,I go lden MEMORANDUM Vd. �'� City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 18, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement- Providence Academy 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. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments • Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Providence Academy. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 8/14 Page 1 of 2 LG220 Application for Exempt Permit An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: Application fee (nonrefundable) • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days,and If the application is postmarked or received • awards less than$50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. 30 days or more before the event,the application If total prize value for the year will be$1,500 or less,contact the Licensing fee is$50; otherwise the fee is$100. Specialist assigned to your county. Organization Information Organization Name: Previous Gambling Permit Number: Providence Academ X-34857-14-009 Minnesota Tax ID Number, if any: Federal Employer ID Number(FEIN), if any: Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): 41-1883866 Fraternal Religious Veterans EZI Other Nonprofit Organization Mailing Address: City: State and Zip: County: 15100 Schmidt Lake Road PI mouth MN 55441 Henne in Name of Chief Executive Officer(CEO): Daytime Phone: Email: Todd Flanders (763) 258-2500 dawn.schomiTigr0proyj Nonprofit Status Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status: Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Minnesota Secretary of State Business Services Division 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. an 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. Gambling Premises Information Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): Golden Valley Golf and Country Club Address(do not use PO box): City or Township: Zip Code: County: 1 Golden Valley 55427 Hennepin Date(s)of activity(for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): January 31 2015 Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: Bingo* =Paddlewheels* =Pull-Tabs* =Tipboards* F2 Raffle (total value of raffle prizes awarded for the year: $0 ) *Gambling equipment for bingo paper, paddlewheels, pull-tabs,and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under the LIST OF LICENSEES, or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 8/14 Page 2 of 2 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 The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. Bhe application is acknowledged with no waiting period. T KThe application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting he application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period,and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period,and allows the Board to issue a permit after ❑(60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days. The application is denied. j� i/ he application is denied. Print City Name: a�/l/f� 1/�`l Print County Name: Sig of CPerso nel: Signature of County Personnel: Title: Date: Title: Date: TOWNSHIP(if required by the county). On behalf of the township,I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or Local unit of government must sign. deny an application, per Minn. Statutes,section 349.166.) Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer: Title: Date: Chief Executive Officer's Signature The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will be completed and returned to the Board in/ adate. Chief Executive Officer's Signature: r " Date: Print Name: Requirements Complete a separate application for: Financial report and recordkeeping required. • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days,or A financial report form and instructions will be sent with your • all gambling conducted on one day. permit,or use the online fill-in form available at Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are www.mn.gov/gcb. conducted on the same day. Within 30 days of the event date,complete and return the Send application with: financial report form to the Gambling Control Board. Your a copy of your proof of nonprofit status,and organization must keep all exempt raffle records and reports for application fee(nonrefundable). If the application is 3-1/2 years(Minn. Statutes,section 349.166,subd. 2(f)). postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is$50; otherwise the fee is$100. Make Questions? check payable to State of Minnesota. Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 651-539-1900. To: Gambling Control Board This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e. large Roseville, MN 55113 West County Road B,Suite 300 South print, Braille) upon request. Rose Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety;Attorney General; on this form(and any attachments)will be used address will be public Information when received Commissioners of Administration,Minnesota by the Gambling Control Board(Board)to by the Board. All other information provided will Management&Budget,and Revenue;Legislative determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor,national and international gambling be involved In lawful gambling activities In Board issues the permit. When the Board Issues regulatory agencies;anyone pursuant to court Minnesota. Your organization has the right to the permit,all information provided will become order;other Individuals and agencies specifically refuse to supply the information; however,if public. If the Board does not Issue a permit,all authorized by state or federal law to have access your organization refuses to supply this Information provided remains private,with the to the information; individuals and agencies for information,the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of Information after this notice was as a consequence,may refuse to issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given; and anyone with your written consent. If your organization supplies the information members,Board staff whose work requires requested,the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart- city o go Ide' n MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 18, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - Back Four L & D Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to do SO. Attachments • Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Back Four L & D. Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month. PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ S5. 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler Solicitor (circle one) Enclose the sum of$ `J for (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code nec�essary for obtaining this license. nrf (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) - 7 3J 2,�Z2_6 MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Defin Business Goy Y-4760,E OIL (Corporation, Proprietorship, P rtnership, Non-Profit, State6f Incorporation or Individual) I 4001:r161 (Address) X;dl A, City, State and Zip Code) ql_�_- 71,5 v G61-f Ta.t, (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, flee � 11177 hereby makes application for (Applicant Name) period of �� 1 through 12/31/ Jy, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. ign f i nt/PrincipalOfficer) C-s-c-'roiption of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): iv 64-3s 4C 1�� G✓aa�z �ac.�A. �/t� ter' ��`/G� � T NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of names and addresses of all pergons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City: Ps'f atWlAflple"A�20M 60*/Z— Z4-- -?'?7r (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF IN Pf.5AA' ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WtVP W ) I, Ad rods- J-474,h/rte of 9944 41/1-- 4-V-O (Officer/Individual) (Name of Organization) being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. t of Appl' ant/Principal Officer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 100—day of J VeMbf-o' 20 Qk&�' 611L-Pgq�x (Signature) JUDITH A. NALLY My co"arissimExpirei sa».Si,2415 P/iSl t Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 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, October 13, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Baker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes September 22, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on page 9 and said she would like to make a clarification after the fact that the homes referred to on Rhode Island Avenue sold for $400,000 to $450,000, not $350,000 to $400,000 as discussed. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 22, 2014, minutes with the above noted clarification. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 108 Brunswick Ave N — Brunswick Estates — SU12-17 Applicant: Wooddale Edina LLC Address: 108 Brunswick Avenue North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to subdivide the lot at 108 Brunswick Avenue North into two new lots in order to construct two new single family homes. He referred to a site plan and stated that Lot 1 will be 19,100 square feet in size with 113.62 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 will be 19,510 square feet with 126.75 feet of width at the front setback line. He stated that the proposed subdivision meets all of the requirements outlined in the City Code, therefore staff is recommending approval of the proposal. Cera asked how many subdivisions have occurred in this neighborhood. Zimmerman said there have been four or five subdivisions in this area over the past few years because the lots are large enough to divide. Cera asked how many of those subdivisions have torn down the existing house versus keeping it. Zimmerman said that is something that can be reviewed as part of the moratorium study. He stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page 2 existing houses are typically torn down because they are located centrally on the lot and added that in this case the existing house was in need of significant remodeling. Segelbaum referred to an existing shed located on the property and asked if it is in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements. Zimmerman said he would verity that it is located 5 feet from the side and rear yard property lines. Waldhauser referred to item six in the City Engineer's memo which reads in part that the developer must ensure that existing drainage patterns are maintained or improved and that stormwater runoff is accommodated within the property to the extent practicable. She said to her "drainage patterns" means the direction of flow wouldn't change, but if more impervious surface is added, the amount of water will change. She said it doesn't protect the neighbors at all if the patterns or direction can stay the same, but the amount of water can increase. She added that her concern does not apply in this case, but in the overall subdivision process. Zimmerman said that a number of grading and stormwater techniques are used to accommodate stormwater runoff within the property. Kluchka suggested the language be made clearer. Cera suggested that language regarding stormwater be added to the conditions of approval listed in the Subdivision Code because he has seen the problems runoff can cause. Kluchka said it is alarming if there are significant drainage impacts that aren't being accounted for. Johnson referred to the applicant's plans and noted that they were received after the moratorium effective date. Zimmerman stated that the initial submission occurred prior to the moratorium effective date, but the applicant submitted some additional information later. Kluchka asked about the time line of the project. Steven Schwieters, Wooddale Edina, LLC, Applicant, said he hopes to start the project in December, with completion in June or July. He added that he is very familiar with this street and said that the homes will be approximately 4,500 to 5,500 square feet in size. Cera asked about the price of the proposed homes. Schwieters said they will cost approximately $1,150,000 to $1,350,000. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Blum said it is refreshing to see lots that aren't the minimum size and he thinks this proposal will fit in with the neighborhood. Cera agreed and said the proposed lots meet all of the City Code requirements. He said the City generally strives to see more moderately priced homes, but he understands the prices in this situation. Segelbaum said he agrees that the homes will fit with the neighborhood even after the subdivision. Kluchka said all the findings are met and that this is a pretty straightforward proposal. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Brunswick Estates Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page 3 Findings: 1. Both 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 City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$3,080 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated October 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 3. Discussion Regarding Recycling Centers Goellner explained that a moratorium was adopted by the City Council on July 1, 2014, to prohibit the establishment of any new recycling centers for six months to allow staff time to research the possible need to update both the definition of Recycling Centers in the Zoning Code, and the reconsideration of the appropriateness of Recycling Centers as permitted uses within the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts. Goellner discussed staff's recommendations including: creating two definitions, one for major recycling facilities and one for minor recycling facilities, removing metal shredding and car crushing from the current definition, adding definitions for compostable waste and yard waste, requiring a Conditional Use Permit for minor recycling facilities in the Light Industrial zoning district, allowing minor recycling facilities as a permitted use and major recycling facilities as a conditional use in the Industrial zoning district, and prohibiting outdoor storage. She added that staff is also recommending that the existing distance requirements for recycling centers remain. Kluchka asked about noise issues considered in staff's research. Goellner stated that truck traffic, and the picking up and dropping off of materials, among others were considered. Kluchka asked what "indoors" means and if the City would allow recycling in a covered space or with windows open, both of which may cause noise issues. Segelbaum questioned if collection, sorting, and disposing should also be restricted along with outdoor storage. He questioned if the proposed ordinance captures what these facilities do. Cera questioned what is trying to be accomplished. Cera said he has dealt with recycling in his job for many years. He discussed various types of recycling facilities, scrap metal facilities, drop-off facilities and hazardous waste facilities. He stated that Golden Valley does not need a drop-off facility because of how the recycling is picked up. He said that Golden Valley also doesn't want to have a hazardous waste facility or a typical recycling facility. He stated that permits may need to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page 4 be obtained and that any ordinance the City adopts should be consistent with the state statutes. Kluchka asked about the size of a typical recycling facility. Cera said they are usually in a warehouse. Segelbaum questioned if it would make sense to refer to the state requirements regarding the definitions. Cera suggested not having major and minor categories and just calling them recycling centers. Kluchka suggested offering specific language in the conditional use and permitted sections in the ordinance. Cera agreed that would make it simpler. He suggested eliminating the language pertaining to household hazardous waste, car crushing and appliances. Segelbaum said he would like to have the major and minor levels in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts, but he is not sure how to distinguish between the two. Kluchka suggested issues such as size, hours and truck access areas be considered. Cera stated that volume and quantity should also be addressed. He reiterated that he is in favor of one facility that could go in the Light Industrial zoning district and the Industrial zoning district. Segelbaum said he is concerned about inconsistencies. Waldhauser said she likes the idea of having major and minor categories because there is already a logical relationship with the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts. Cera said the City is going to want to look forward on this issue because the whole system is evolving. He added that he thinks the language should be kept to collection, storage, transferring, and sorting because the City won't want to have incinerators or chemical plants. Johnson said he thinks consistency is important and said the terms should be better defined so there isn't a danger of excluding something. He added that the Commission should decide what they want, or don't want, to see happen. Blum said he is concerned about the words "short-term storage" because they are ambiguous. Cera suggested short-term storage be defined as 90 days or less. Blum suggested that the word in the title not be used in the definition. He also questioned if "garden waste" and "yard waste" are duplicative and asked about recycling dirt. Segelbaum questioned if yard waste was being excluded. Cera suggested the ordinance use the words "as defined in state statute." Segelbaum asked if staff did research on pollution. Goellner said no, and added that some cities define recycling centers based on the volume of recycling, and the number of trucks per day at a facility. Kluchka questioned if any type of recycling should be allowed in the Light Industrial zoning district. Waldhauser said it makes sense to allow consumer household items like Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page 5 electronics or small appliances in the Light Industrial zoning district. Cera suggested allowing collection and disassembly in the Light Industrial zoning district and more processing types of uses in the Industrial zoning district. Segelbaum said excluding yard waste makes sense. Cera suggested excluding household hazardous as well. Goellner suggested listing conditions in the ordinance regarding traffic volume and material volume. Zimmerman said staff would work on revising the proposed ordinance and bring it back to the Planning Commission for further review. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the most recent Community Center Task Force meeting. He stated that the agenda was more about costs and not the final designs. Waldhauser gave an update on the last Bottineau Station Area Planning Committee meeting. She stated that it was their first opportunity to respond to specific details about the stations and what could happen at each station. 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall gave an update on the recently adopted subdivision moratorium. He stated that Council is going discuss, at their next regular meeting, including proposals that are already in the review process. Kluchka questioned if the Council has been educated at all on the research done by the Planning Commission in the last five years. Zimmerman said that will be one component of the moratorium review, along with reviewing existing codes and listening sessions. Cera asked if the Council is going to be discussing organized hauling. Schmidgall said yes, he believes that item will be discussed at the November Council/Manager meeting. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant MINUTES Human Rights Commission (HRC) City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Council Conference Room August 26, 2014 Commissioners present: Teresa Martin, Chair Adam Buttress Carla Johnson Payton Perkins Susan Phelps Michael Pristash Commissioners absent: Jonathan Burris Staff: Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant The meeting was convened at 6:30 pm by Vice-Chair Martin. Introductions Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. Approval of June 24, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Pristash, seconded by Commissioner Buttress to approve the June 24, 2014 minutes. Motion carried 6-0. Council Updates Resiqnation from Commission Chair Cook Knauss acknowledged an email from Brian Cook which stated he was moving out of the City and his resignation is effective immediately. Teresa Martin, Vice-Chair will take over as Chair due to the resignation of the former Chair. The Commission will need to elect a new Vice-Chair. Motion by Commissioner Pristash, second by Chair Martin to table consideration of electing a Vice-Chair until the September meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Old Business Planning for September 11 Day of Service and Remembrance Commissioner Johnson stated she attended the August 19 City Council meeting where the Council adopted a proclamation for Hunger Action Month. Johnson promoted the Human Rights Commission (HRC) September 11 Day of Service and Remembrance event. Human Rights Commission August 26,2014 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 Johnson stated that forty spaces are reserved at Second Harvest Heartland West for volunteers. The event is scheduled from 6-8 pm. Johnson encouraged HRC members and their families to register for the event. For registration go the City's website under the Human Rights Commission Conversations and register. Knauss stated the event was advertised in the City newsletter. The City will also put information on the front page of the website after Labor Day. Commission Members could write a letter to the SunPost Editor, using your own name, to highlight the event and/or post information on the City's or their own Facebook page. The two hour volunteer shift will start with an orientation and information on how to sort and pack the food. Anyone over the age of 8 can participate. Knauss stated that Channel 12 filmed a video spot on the September 11 and October 9 events. Council Member Snope was the spokesperson for the video as it was after Chair Cook had resigned. Planning for October 9 HRC Conversations Event Knauss confirmed the attendance of Ken Barlow, KSTP Meteorologist as a panelist for the event. Knauss distributed an article from the White Bear Press, regarding his attendance at a Stomp Out Suicide Event in Wyoming, Minnesota. Hugh Aylward, President, Kelly-Norton Programs, and Outpatient Therapist at Headway Emotional Health Services (formerly Oasis) has confirmed as a panelist. Cynthia Fashaw, Director of Children's Programs and Multicultural Outreach, NAMI Minnesota (National Alliance on Mental Illness) has confirmed as a panelist. Mary Weeks, Executive Director, Walk-In Counseling Center is also a panelist. Martin will introduce the Robin Williams' YouTube video where he talks about mental illness. Martin will try to find the link to the Robin Williams YouTube video and send it to Knauss and Knauss will forward the link to the entire HRC. Martin will welcome and introduce the dignitaries and elected officials. Pristash will have the panelists introduce themselves, panelist will talk about their organization, educational background and open it up for questions. A brief bio of the panelists will be listed in the program. Martin will close out the program, talk about resources and request that everyone fill out a survey. Knauss will contact Ken Barlow and let him know he is first on the agenda and he can leave whenever he wants and inform him who the other panelists are. Informational materials from the panelists will be made available on the tables outside the Council Chamber. The event starts at 6:30 pm but Commission Members will be there at 6 pm to help set- up. Panel members should come at 6-6:15 pm to meet the HRC members and other panelists. Coffee and cookies will be provided. Johnson will pick up cookies and will be reimbursed from HRC funds. Human Rights Commission August 26,2014 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 HRC members will forward questions for the panelists for Pristash to ask just in case there is a lull in the program. The questions will be discussed at the September meeting. Staff will prepare the survey for distribution, with the following amendment: How did you learn about tonight's event? Was tonight's HRC Conversation Program worth your time in attending? What other Human Rights issues t0pis(s) would you be interested in having the HRC host a Conversation event? Additional comments: Update on GV League of Women Voters (GVLWV) Plans for "Toward a More Perfect Union: Talking About the Constitution," Equality Event Knauss confirmed with Marti Micks, President, GVLWV, the date of the event as Thursday, November 20 at the Brookview Community Center. The HRC is co-sponsoring the event. The event will run from 7-9 pm. HRC members are requested to come at 6:30 pm to help set-up, greet visitors and help with clean-up after the event. Knauss will email any additional information out to HRC members about the event. New Business Golden Valley Citizen Police Academy Johnson stated she signed up to attend the GV Citizen Police Academy, which runs Tuesdays from September 16 to October 26, and she will not be able to attend the September and October HRC meetings if they are held on their regular dates of the fourth Tuesday of the month. The Academy is held in the Police Training room from 6-9 pm. The Academy provides a greater awareness and understanding of law enforcement's role in the community through education. Knauss invited all HRC members to attend the Academy. Motion by Commissioner Pristash, second by Commissioner Buttress to change the September and October Human Rights Commission meetings to Thursday, September 18 and Thursday, October 23, 2014. Motion carried 6-0. HRC Banner Martin asked if the City has a banner for use in marketing, visibility and if one is available if the HRC marches in any parades. Knauss informed the HRC that a banner could have the City logo but would have to be approved by the Communications staff. The HRC Conversations logo can only be used for those specific HRC Conversations events and not on a general HRC banner. Knauss reviewed the Donation Policy and also advised the Commission that any donations would need to be approved by the City Council. Martin will bring back cost estimates for a banner/table runner at the September meeting. Golden Valley Arts & Music Festival The festival will be held at the City Hall campus on Saturday, September 13. The City does not have a booth at the festival. There will be craft beers, food trucks, live music, local artists, information sharing and games for children. Human Rights Commission August 26,2014 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 2015 Work Plan The Commission discussed having Council Member Snope attend the next meeting to provide an overview of the issues facing the City and what the Council thinks the NRC's work plan should include. Knauss will contact Council Member Snope and invite him to attend the September HRC meeting. Martin will contact her sister, who now works for the Human Rights Campaign in Washington DC, to see if there are any hot topics or topic suggestions. Knauss will email the May 8, 2014 HRC Conversations survey results to the HRC members. After the HRC Conversations held on May 8, 2014 the survey asked what additional topics at a future event. The topics suggested are as follows: Helping people who end up being incarcerated Mental health and vets What parents can do to continue with their child's care and treatment (i.e.: re- evaluate) Cult or class oppression and its effects on mental health Trauma and its effects on mental health How could we advertise mental health and physical health as equals Other mental health topics Adult mental health CIT officers information How to get school-linked mental health disorders with Robbinsdale district. It appears to already be in Hopkins - but not sure. The changing demographics of GV.... Who are our neighbors and how can we make them welcome. Knauss stated that the Commission should start the discussions for the 2015 Work Plan. The 2015 Work Plan and 2014 Annual Report will be presented to the Council at their January Council/Manager meeting. The Work Plan includes two HRC Conversations a year which are generally held in May and October and service events. Staff prepares the Work Plan and Annual Report and brings it to the HRC for discussion and approval before it goes to the City Council. Knauss will send the 2014 Work Plan to the HRC members. Knauss stated that not everything needs to be finalized for the Work Plan but the HRC should decide on a general topic. The topic for 2014 was going to be the broad issue of Abuse, but was put on hold when the Council requested the topic be changed. The HRC decided to start the discussions for the 2015 Work Plan at the September and October meetings. Human Rights Commission August 26,2014 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 Youth Members Payton was asked how to reach the youth population in order to get more interest in the HRC. Payton suggested contacting or sending information to the high school guidance counselors, government/economics teachers, and service organizations. Payton will prepare a youth member marketing strategy and present it to the HRC. Upcoming Events 2014 Youth & Addiction Conference - Cultivating Resilience Information Knauss provided information on the conference which is being sponsored by the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation. The conference will be held on Thursday, November 13, 2014 at the Minneapolis Marriott Southwest in Minnetonka from 7 am - 4 pm. Knauss stated HRC Members could attend the conference and asked that Members let her know if they wanted to attend. This topic could also be a possible topic for an HRC Conversation in the future. League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission Annual meeting Knauss distributed the invitation to the Annual Meeting which will be held on October 25, 2014 from 1-3 pm at the Maplewood Public Library. Adjourn Motion by Chair Martin, second by Commissioner Phelps to adjourn the meeting at 7:38 pm. Motion carried 6-0. Follow-up Items: • Knauss will contact Ken Barlow and let him know he is first on the agenda and he can leave whenever he wants and inform him who the other panelists are. • Martin will find the link to the Robin Williams YouTube video and send it to Knauss and Knauss will forward the link to the entire HRC. • Knauss will email any updated information out to HRC members about the League of Women Voters Constitution Event. • Martin will bring back cost estimates for a banner/table runner at the September meeting. • Knauss will contact Council Member Snope and invite him to attend the September HRC meeting. • Martin will contact her sister, who now works for the Human Rights Campaign in Washington DC, to see if there are any hot topics or make topic suggestions for the 2015 Work Plan. • Knauss will email the May 8, 2014 HRC Conversations survey results to the HRC members. • Knauss will send the 2014 Work Plan to the HRC members. • Payton will prepare a youth member marketing strategy and present it to the HRC. Teresa Martin, Chair ATTEST: Chantell Knauss, Staff Liaison Approved by HRC: October 23, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Human Rights Commission August 26,2014 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting at Brookview Community Center Minutes July 28, 2014 1. Call to Order Mattison called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Roger Bergman, John Cornelius, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Jerry Sandler, Dawn Speltz and Dan Steinberg. Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation; Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor; Brian Erickson, Recreation Supervisor and Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant. Council Members Joanie Clausen and Larry Fonnest. Keith Hiljus, Golden Valley Girls Softball and Andy Bukowski, Golden Valley Girls Softball. Golden Valley Lions Park residents Riva and Craig Kupritz, Eve Miller, Craig and Carol Paschke, Perry Thom, Steve and Nora Tycast and Laura, Larry and Jaclyn Kueny. Absent: Commissioners Gillian Rosenquist and Anne Saffert. 3. Approval of Minutes — June 30, 2014 MOTION: Moved by Sandler and seconded by Cornelius to approve the June 30, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Lions Park Field Allocation History — Bob Mattison Mattison gave a history of the field layout and use. He also shared the history of Golden Valley Girls Softball and their use of Lions Park. Sandler added the use history for Golden Valley Little League. Sandler said the object at the time was to get more kids using the fields and move adults to another location. 5. Lions Park Field Use Kueny and other residents expressed admiration for the Golden Valley Girls Softball program. Kueny added he also enjoys all the activity at Lions Park. Residents then expressed concerns with: - Illegal parking, parking in front of driveways and fire hydrants - Not receiving mail due to cars parked in front of mailboxes - Safety issues with the amount of traffic in the area - Too many people in area at once - Property damage - Littering and loitering on resident property - Lack of Police response - Emergency access to area - Not enough parking - Not enough time between games Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation Commission July 28, 2014 Page 2 Hiljis and Mattison added that the association works hard to communicate with softball families on being responsible and respectful at the parks and with parking. Commissioners and residents were in agreement that there is a problem that needs addressing. Discussion then focused on ways to improve the situation based on the volume of people and traffic. Speltz suggested inviting Golden Valley Police to a future meeting to discuss the concerns and get their feedback. It was also suggested to invite the city engineering staff to discuss the traffic and parking history for that area. 6. Lions Park Tennis Windscreen Resident Thom thanked the City for all the improvements to Lions Park. Thom expressed his concern with the new windscreens on the tennis courts a Lions Park. He would like them removed. He said there was no communication with residents before they were installed. Birno explained that Twin City Tennis Camps paid for them for their tennis program and the Golden Valley tennis community. Thom asked if raising and lowering them was an option since they cannot see through the screen. Lundstrom said installation is very labor intensive. He said to have them raised and lowered on a regular basis would require significant staff time and resources. Discussion focused on moving the tennis program to another location. Sandler said they should also find out if there is a city policy regarding windscreens. Commission members said they would like to hear about the benefits from Twin City Tennis Camp before they can recommend any kind of action. A representative from TCTC will be invited to a future meeting for discussion. 7. Winter Ice Rinks update — Brian Erickson Erickson distributed seasonal rink numbers and discussed briefly, He expressed concern with the ongoing low attendance at Lakeview Park. Discussion focused on Lakeview Park. The cost for keeping it open and the maintenance required. MOTION: Moved by Sandler and seconded by Bergman to close Lakeview and not maintain as a city ice rink and reevaluate in the future if necessary. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation Commission July 28, 2014 Page 3 Speltz expressed concern with the city charging hockey association's a maintenance fee of$3 per registered player. She said the association has taken their practices to surrounding city's that do not charge the association a fee. She would like to see the fee removed to help increase use in Golden Valley. MOTION: Moved by Kuebelbeck and seconded by Cornelius to no longer charge recognized youth hockey associations to use ice in Golden Valley. Motion carried unanimously. Erickson asked for feedback regarding Sunday and winter break hours. After discussion with the Commission, Lundstrom and Erickson agreed to evaluate the hours and make changes as necessary for next winter. 8. Mowing in the Parks — Al Lundstrom Lundstrom explained since the proposal in 2012, Park Maintenance has been keeping some portions of parks more natural by reducing mowing. He said the goal is to maintain grass in certain areas at knee height. He said they recently expanded the process to other areas in the city and said it's going well. Lundstrom said he understands that not everyone is going to like the new look, but explained that he was asked to save time and money and this is one way to do so. Plus, it's more natural. Speltz inquired about how often the city uses Sentence to Service to mow the parks. Lundstrom said they use them for maintenance purposes in the parks on a regular basis. 9. Community Center Update — John Cornelius and Kelly Kuebelbeck Kuebelbeck said at the last meeting they toured four different community centers. She said to help define the vision and scope of the project, more meetings with the consultant have been added. Birno added that the consultants will be using a real time tool for seeing a real picture of the facility with costs at the next meeting. Clausen expressed appreciation for all the time and work from the committee members. 10. Bottineau Update — Gillian Rosenquist and Dan Steinberg Steinberg said at their last meeting on July 16 they discussed station planning. He distributed document with ideas for the station planning. He said the county will host open houses in September, December and February. Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation Commission July 28, 2014 Page 4 11. Open Spaces and Rights of Ways Birno distributed a map of all open spaces and rights of way in Golden Valley. Mattison asked the Commissioners to look at the map so it can be discussed at a future meeting and a recommendation can be made to the Council. 12. Updates Birno announced the Lawn Bowling VIP Event on Thursday, August 14, a soft opening weekend is Friday, August 15 thru Sunday, August 17 with free lawn bowling all weekend, and the official opening day on Monday, August 18. He added there are already twelve corporate events planned and all three leagues are full. 13. Adjournment MOTION: MOVED by Bergman and seconded by Sandler to adjourn at 9:50 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Mattison, Chair ATTEST: Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Meeting of September 30, 2014 The Golden Valley — Crystal — New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to order at 1:09 p.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 Randy Kloepper, Utilities Superintendent, Crystal Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works, New Hope Bernie Weber, Operations Manager, New Hope Dave Lemke, Utilities Supervisor, New Hope Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, Golden Valley Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor, Golden Valley Pat Schutrop, Administrative Assistant, Golden Valley Others Present Regan Murphy, Mayor, Robbinsdale George Selman, Council Member, Robbinsdale Pat Backer, Council Member, Robbinsdale Marcia Glick, City Manager, Robbinsdale Minutes of August 6, 2014 Meeting MOVED by Norris and seconded by Burt to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2014 meeting as presented. Motion carried. 36-Inch Watermain Emergency Repair On September 18, a break occurred on the JWC 36-inch water transmission main in the City of Robbinsdale. The main was constructed in 1963 and this is the second failure on the line within the last 15 months. It was thought the first break occurred due to construction damage, but with this recent failure, staff is concerned there may be more serious issues. In December 2013, JWC contracted with Pure Technologies to use its Smart Ball technology to inspect the line for leaks. No leaks were found at that time. Tom Mathisen presented a new proposal from Pure Technologies to inspect the joints and look for indicators of pre-stressing in the pipe. The inspection will include a manned visual inspection, manned electromagnetic inspection, and engineering analysis and report. The total cost for this inspection is $85,000 and will cover the area between Lake Road and Highway 100. Chair Burt asked if the JWC should conduct an operational audit. Crystal staff did not believe the failures were due to transmission operations. Randy Kloepper said operations was taken into consideration when considering the cause of the break. With the manned visual inspection, broken pre-stressing wire wraps will be identified and the impacts of those breaks on the structural integrity of the pipeline evaluated. Test results are expected by October 17. Joint Water Commission September 30, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Representatives of Robbinsdale City Council attended and asked if the JWC is financially able to fix the pipe. They also asked for an insurance update regarding homeowners who had sewage backups in their homes as a result of the break. Chair Burt reassured Robbinsdale that repairing the line is a priority and the JWC will redirect CIP projects to fund the repair. Sue Virnig added claim information has been forwarded to the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and more information should be available next week. There were 11 names and addresses on the list and the LMC has not heard back from all the residents on that list yet. Robbinsdale contacted the LMC about the liability concern and was told the adjusters do not assign liability until their investigation is completed, which is confusing to the homeowners. Robbinsdale asked the JWC to continue to update them as information becomes available from the LMC. MOVED by Norris and seconded by McDonald to approve the contract with Pure Technologies in the amount of $85,000 for emergency repairs of the 36-inch watermain. Motion carried. Emergency Backup Water Supply Project Update Crystal's two wells are excavated to a 400-foot depth and the contractor is currently finishing the casing installation on the second well. Crystal expects the contractor to be completed by the end of October and the wells will be operational. The Golden Valley well is on schedule for construction in spring 2015. County Road 9 Project Update Mathisen attended the pressure testing of the new 24-inch pipe in Robbinsdale. He requested approval from the JWC for Total Controls' invoices. MOVED by Norris and seconded by McDonald to approve the invoices from Total Controls. Motion carried. Other Business • KLM Engineering completed the inspection of the New Hope South Tower and initial results showed no issues. The North Tower will be inspected on October 16. After completion of the inspections, KLM will submit an official inspection report of both towers. • Virnig will revise the GIP to indicate the inspection and repair costs for the 36-inch main emergency repair and send out for JWC members to review for discussion at the next Commission meeting. Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 5, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Adjournment Chair Burt adjourned the meeting at 2:11 p.m. Thomas D. Burt, Chair ATTEST: Pat Schutrop, Recording Secretary t i' OJ %41 g ldcn 'V*" MEMORANDUM o valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 18, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. Call for Public Hearing for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 PMPs; Project Nos. 15-01, 16-01 and 17-01 Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary At the July 16, 2013, Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 Pavement Management Programs (PMP). The proposed project included rehabilitation of 2.3 miles of local streets. At a subsequent Council Manager meeting, the Council directed staff to split the initial project into two projects. The resultant feasibility report for these projects includes rehabilitation of 0.71 miles of streets in 2015, 0.50 miles of street in 2016, and 1.0 miles of street in 2017. The streets included in each project are shown on the attached project location map. The feasibility report for these projects has been prepared by the consulting engineering firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. and will be presented at the public hearing. The feasibility report outlines a project that includes reconstruction of the subject streets, replaces and repairs portions of the sanitary sewer and water systems, and includes storm drainage improvements throughout the project area. The estimated total project costs are as follows: 2015 PMP = $2,570,000 2016 PMP = $1,845,000 2017 PMP = $4,000,000 The special assessment for the proposed projects is $6,630 for each residential unit. Consistent with past PMP projects, neighborhood open houses and issue specific neighborhood meetings have been held throughout 2014 regarding this project. The public hearing for the proposed projects will be held at the January 6, 2015, City Council meeting. Attachments • Project Location Map (1 page) • Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Certain Proposed Public Improvements, Project 15- 01, 2015 Pavement Management Program; Project 16-01, 2016 Pavement Management Program; and Project 17-01, 2017 Pavement Management Program (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Certain Proposed Public Improvements, Project 15-01, 2015 Pavement Management Program; Project 16-01, 2016 Pavement Management Program; and Project 17-01, 2017 Pavement Management Program. T- u) UNIMPROVED- 5 DULST O°'V 90o ZUTH 211 211 BBJ 201 201 201 2a16 201 -9111.1 201 2016 a \ BBc 201 ZOJ 200 Zp1 .201 ZD> 201 ST 200 200 200Z 200 ZDO 200 200 ZOD 200 200 200 200 200 200 'gle 2,90 1916 200 200 Z 1.91 191 l917 C191 1916 1917 Lu (/ J9> 191 1912 1915 191 1913> 190 1909 190 1908 190 190 < 1 190 190 190 1904 190 190 19 Q 190 940 935 930 g s 920 9150 1901 LL loge, 9178 934 7TI,-37 >B16 17 >B1 181 1812 J �5 >BD 1Bo 1818 X18 ��.� o 180 >BO 1804 �Q. V Ld NTS >BO 180 1800 !`� 0 Z 71 9300 Z? 70 1 D 700 1901 1636 934 1636 163 1636 163 1632 163 1630 163 1632 163 162 162 1628 162 162 162 1624 162 162 162 1628 162 162 > 1620 162 16'2 16.24 162 1620 1621 1620 16.2 161 1617 1616 161 2 1616 161 1616 161 161 1613 1612 161 1612 J6>3 16 1614 0 160 1608 160 1608 160 1612 J60 160 160 Z 1604 160 1604 160 160 W 94 1601 1600 160 920 160 � 1600 1fp 1517 940 153 152 1529 1530 9145 152 >SZ 1529 1526 1529 152 1521 1525 151 1517 1521 1520 J521 /5J7 Z 75> 115117 1512 1516 151 73-K1513 151 150 150 -150 >S1 > 150 > Q ui ui 94 501 150 SO> 15pp 1501 ��9 1409 41 413 1412 1413 J 1405 40 40 > 14 LL 1401 140 1405 4 q > J a 140 1401 32 401 1q N 1325 W 132 325 324 172 13 132 317 p 1321 3 321 1 0 313 Z 131 13/7 31 317 131 131 1313 31 � 309 131 \ ip 130 1309 308 0 1308 130 305 3 `� M0 A 2� PLYMOUTH AVE N 130 91 E I 0 9303 a � N = F. 90D0 i U) 3 % PLYMOUTH AVE N 3 �I LEGEND PROJECT LOCATION 2015 PMP PROJECT LOCATION 2016 PMP PROJECT LOCATION 2017 PMP FILE NO. 2015/2016/2017 STREET 125641 cifyo PHONE: 651.490.2000 ,Old ri 7 REHABILITATION / PMP EXHIBIT ST. UL, M S CENTER DR. Valley LOCATION MAP NO. i ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196 DATE: 1 SEH www sehinc com 10/9/2014 Resolution 14-89 November 18, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON CERTAIN PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 15-01 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PROJECT NO. 16-01 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PROJECT NO. 17-01 2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. In conformity with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, this Council proposes to construct certain proposed public improvements within the City as stated in the form of notice included in paragraph 4 hereof. 2. The Engineer for the City has reported to the Council advising it in a preliminary way that the proposed public improvements are feasible and that they should be made as proposed and not in connection with some other improvements. 3. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvements on January 6, 2015, in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 pm. 4. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting to be published for two successive weeks in the NEW HOPE/GOLDEN VALLEY SUN POST, the official newspaper of the City, the first of said publications to be in the issue of said paper dated December 11, 2014 and the last of said publications to be in the issue dated December 18, 2014. Such notice shall be substantially the same as in the attached form. ATTEST: Shepard M. 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 ame:whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 14-89 (continued) November 18, 2014 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CERTAIN PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 15-01 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PROJECT NO. 16-01 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PROJECT NO. 17-01 2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRORAM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, will meet on Tuesday, January 6, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. at the Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing on certain proposed public improvements. The City Engineer's estimated cost and the area where said improvements will be constructed and which it will serve is as follows: 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT: All properties in the SW 1/4 of Section 30 Township 118, Range 21; within the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that are adjacent to the following streets: • Flag Avenue North • Gettysburg Avenue North • Winsdale Street • Olympia Street 2015 PMP Total Project Estimated Cost: $2,570,000 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT: All properties in the SE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 118, Range 21; and NE '/4, Section 5, Township 115, Range 21; within the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that are adjacent to the following streets: • Independence Avenue North • Winsdale Street • Hillsboro Avenue North 2016 PMP Total Project Estimated Cost: $1,845,000 2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT: All properties in the SE '/4 of Section 30, Township 118, Range 21; and NE '/4, Section 5, Township 115, Range 21; within the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that are adjacent to the following streets: • Wheeler Boulevard • Naper Street • Independence Avenue North • Hillsboro Avenue North • Gettysburg Avenue North • Olympia Street 2017 PMP total Project Estimated Cost: $4,000,000 city of go1denVvVv *'k' MEMORANDUM valley y Police Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 18, 2014 Agenda Item 3. F. Authorization to Sign Amended Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co- Operative Agreement Prepared By Stacy Carlson, Chief of Police Summary The Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co-Operative Agreement has been amended to reflect the oversight board's decision to purchase insurance to specifically cover officers in their work on the task force. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) recently advised the oversight board the insurance held by each individual city would not cover the actions of task force officers, hence the need to purchase insurance specific to the group. Attachments • Amended Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co-Operative Agreement (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Amended Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co-Operative Agreement. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. A141147 The HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE 2014 CO-OPERATIVE AGREEMENT, executed by Hennepin County, on behalf of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, the City of Richfield, the City of Brooklyn Park, the City of Brooklyn Center, the City of Golden Valley and the Drug Enforcement Administration (may be referred to herein as the "parties"). IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Agreement No. A141147 between the herein-named parties is hereby amended in accordance with the provisions set forth below: 1. Section 6, Powers and Duties of the Task Force, of the original contract shall be amended by adding a new Section 6.15 which reads as follows: "6.15 Effective October 16, '-014 and2014, or as soon,thereafter upon an a4iFFnative vote bas is possible, the Board as set forth R SectieR 5.6, the Task FeFeewillshall acquire and maintain liability coverage for the Task Force thrown insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) with a limit of at least $1,500,000 per occurrence, under standard LMCIT liability coverage forms. Alternatively, the B elect to obtain such liability coverage. Sue4 from a private commercial insurer, provided such commercial policy or pQliGies contain coy!erages that are generally equivalent to, and as broad as, those provided under the standard LMCIT coverage forms. If coverage �through sepaFate pelleies ,�- FaRee Policies must _mmercial insurer, such policies shall comply with the following requirements: • Each policy shall have a limit of at least $2 million per occurrence. If the policy contains a general aggregate limit, the general aggregate limit shall not be less than $1,500,000. • The CGL insurance shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and contractually-assumed liability. • Each EprMember, and each -T^m"TMember's officers, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional covered parties on each policy for all claims arising from Task Force activities or operations. The Board shall manage the policy andpolicies acquired under this section, and any matters related thereto -is FequiFed by MiRR. Stat. §^�1-,, accordan with law and as needed to ensure suffici(,nt in,,ur.incF,. coverages remain in places The cost for any such policies shall be paid solely from the forfeiture, seizures, fines and other proceeds generated by the Task Force as further described in Section 10." 2. Section 7, Liability, of the original contract shall be amended by adding a new Section 7.05 which reads as follows: "7.05 To the limit and extent that coverage is available by and through any policy of insurance obtained pursuant to Section 6.15 herein, the Task Force shall defend and indemnify its Members, the Task Force Board including but not limited to the Chair, the Directors, the Task Force Commander, peace officers performing hereunder and any Member personnel, including but not limited the Member's officers, employees and volunteers, for any liability, claims, causes of action,judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from Task Force activities or operations and/or decisions of the Task Force Board. Nothing in this agreement shall constitute a waiver of the statutory limits on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 166 GFA6 �s a waiver of any Stat + Chapter+ n 6C f r r II ,f the pties m nom+ be rl a�Jrla +r .l+ham +G immunities or defenses available to the Task Force ox any of the Members under law, or as any of the Members accenting liability for the acts or omissions of any of the other Members under Minnesota Statutes,se 'on 471.59,subdivision 1a. To the fullest extent permitted by law,this agreement and the activities carried out hereunder shall be construed as a "cooperative activity"and it is the intent of the Board and the Members that they shall be degM!Cd a "single governmental unit" for thr, of determining total liability as int forth in Minnesota Statutes.section 4 7159, subdivision 1a." 3. Section 7, Liability, of the original contract shall be amended by adding a new Section 7.07 which reads as follows: "7.07 Except as set forth in Section 6.15 and 7.05, Sections 7.1 through 7.4 shall remain applicable. For clarification and not limitation, Sections 7.1 through 7.4 shall apply in the event (i) any claim is based on an event that pre-dates the coverage offered by the policy of insurance; (ii) based on the nature or circumstances of the claim, the Task Force's policy of insurance does not cover a claim; (iii) the insurer denies a claim for any reason; (iv) a claim exceeds the limits of said policy of insurance; or (v) any other situation or instance not specifically addressed by Section 6.15 and/or 7.05. If there is a conflict between the provisions of Section 6.15 or 7.05 and any provisions of Sections 7.1-7.4, the provisions set forth in Section Sections 6.15 and/or 7.05 shall prevail." Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of A141147 shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. A141147 shall be effective upon approval by the authorized Hennepin County Officials. HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE AGREEMENT CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY The Golden Valley City Council duly approved this amended Agreement on the day of , 2014. Approved as to form and legality: By: Golden Valley City Attorney Its Mayor And: Its City Administrator (signatures continued on the following page) cit o go y ,.F n M rF. .14 0, A y valleyUM Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) RMP-M" `NWWU.°-�sei,, Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 18, 2014 60 day deadline: October 21, 2014 60 day extension: December 20, 2014 Agenda Item 4. A. 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 This item was heard at the October 21, 2014, City Council meeting. At that time, the Council voted to send the item back to the Planning Commission and encouraged the Applicant to explore reducing the number of proposed units from five to four. Subsequently, the Applicant has determined that the project does not work financially with only four units, and so is looking for a final ruling from the City Council on his five unit proposal. 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 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 ; . -. —._....._'_.... .. 7456 74'. 7436 511 1510 ,Y 7151 7100 7040 702 7452 7432 501 7330 3k 12!100 7454 7434 522 52 0 512510 710 ` C' �\ 115 7500 7450 7430 m Y --State Hwy No Subject Properties: 7200 & 7218 Harold Ave. + 704 7045 O 7340 ::.c• ._.. � .�• .. 74 7031 7600 7420 ;I'•: ": !, 7430 -: 7236 7200 7218 7182 :`7330 7324 .7025 :. 7156 7146 Harold Ave 52 5 751 751 S 7505 7465 7445 742 5 7303 340 7523 T509 7501 73 69 Z 751'75117503 7320 7309 > 330 752 1 1 7310 519_7507 7310 c _ 7315 1, 320 vVi• 7330 HalfM c 'vli�'4,`• _ ooh pr 7325 310 .�.y •••.. 7340 73zs 7327 �d is Par 300 2 :y�...=7 _. ..'al 7340 -msµ ?_ • q%« 7350 7329 7335 7350 .-.yyr �Iri•. 7360245 73451'` 151 M ...•��; J,.•a ::::: 200 ....�.._; 0� 7401 Werra Engineering,Inc. 0 • 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 H sing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmer n reported on the September 16 City Council meeting where the Council voted to approve a six-month moratorium on single family residential subdivisions and a PUDs with single family residentialicomponent. Waldhauser reported on a recent Bottineau meeting she attended. a.= 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report ,r 6. Adjournment fi The meeting was adjoa ned at 9:35 pm. N" i; CharleEk. Segelbaum, Secretak Lisa Wittman,'yAdministrative Assistant city, 0 golden*vkV##k� MEMORANDU vat . ey 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— 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. 0 CN O N O 501 7330 N N 7101 U-) U-) u7 u� r jso � ., 7040 w. `3 7045 17 7,031 690 t0 00 O (y N th p O LO IT CO CO oo `7303 340 LO ` 330 7309 CO o � . 3 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) city o go 1 d e* nvkAr M F t 9_3 R A N Df.,"P" 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: Preliminary PUD #119—7200 and 7218 Harold 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 as shown. Listed below are the fire department comments: 1. Lot 1 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 2. Lot 2 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 3. Lot 3 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 4. Lot 4 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 5. Lot 5 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, icrelly@goldenvalleymn.gov City of goldenVEMORANDUM v , Public Works Department f 763-593-8030/763-S93-3988(fax) Date: September 18, 2014 To: son 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 BESTLAW.COM 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. 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 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 S11.55. 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 $$ as he can. The busy-bodies that are against it do not represent others. NO Flag Lots! Thank you, Tom Ruble 1 an o�coQ owf- a-4 -4-e MARIE ' S WOODS q . zz -' 4 PG o en Valley I I I � 1 WETLAND �/ 1 � I BERM B OCK 1 I i C) i . 1 3 4 I i � I I I oc I 1r --- I x{7236 + f 1 1 r � i �y7t 82 r it I 1 I I---j I r- I L -J I Lj H cl I 1 I -� HAROLD AVE. LIONS PARK 0 i r i ro 10 0 I � I C X7236C) 1p l j 1 I HAROLD AVE, `i ~Alk I may. _�:; •� � ti. `�� h �< �:y.:r vve r �R• • + � .c� p a l "� .•v. per' fir` tk 6 ? } Fyyy i , 1l 1 f ' y q, !F F •, h� Z Y. 4 •- - - �_�'._" .tee. t �a yy L 3 g 5 i 1 'alms- 1 4 ` I . 1 t N }�s 1 j- i ,4 lww M" ry O N N � M co � y o � � o _ N c _ c � � n PLANS SUBDIVISION � W �n FOR: MARIE' S , WOODS PUD GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA - J,I�SlLRED P.JX, MAL LOCATION M& SITE `RAWWCC lax a✓x NO SCALE hag $ u SHEET INDEX E. Z SHEET DESCRIPTION saY� 1. COVER SHEET / SHEET INDEX 2. EXISTING OVERALL AREA PLAN 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANa90 Y� 4. PRELIMINARY PLAT r^o m 5. UTILITY PLAN b-8 s a 6. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN $$gN a° 7. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 8. SITE PLAN 9. CONFORMING TWIN HOME PLAN ,CIVIL ENGINEER f LAND PLANNER APP RANT M Z GV R-2 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING TERRA ENGINEERING INC. PETER KNAEBLE CL SING FAM TWINc TOWNHOMEc 6001 GLENWOOD AVE. 6001 GLENWOOD AVE. MIN, LOT AREA 11,000 SF (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 >" MIN. LOT WIDTH 100' (AT 35' FSB) (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) 763-593-9325 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 NW MAX. BLDG. COVERAGE 30% PETER KNAEBLE, P.E. 612-309-9215KNAEBLE F. O J MAX. IMPERV, PER LOT 50% peterknaeble mail.com PETER KNAEBLE w X 0 J 35' FSB � peterknaebleOgmail.com W W 0 Q 35' RSB Z 0 3 > 15' SSB (35' STREET SIDE) (OUTSIDE SSB ONLY) SURVEYOR MTLAND CONSULTANT (A Z 30' MAX, HEIGHT RENDER & ASSOCIATES INC. JACOBSON ENVIRONMENTAL, PLLC Z 2.5' MAX, EAVE PROJECTION 3440 FEDERAL DRIVE, x!110 5821 HUMBOLDT AVE. NO. � �j W Q EAGAN, MN 55122 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 651-452-5051 612-802-6619 0 = w Q GREG GENTZ, RLS BEN CARLSON, WDC o (n 2 0 GGentz®rehder.com Jacobson env®msn.com a HAUGO GEOT SITE ADDRESSES: 7200 & 7218 HAROLD AVE., GOLDEN VALLEY, MIN SO GO GEOT EER ECHNICAL SERVICES DATEE C E Id�! E 13570 GROVE DRIVE, #278 8/22/14 SITE AREA: 70,889 SF (1.627 AC.) MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 AUG 2 2 2014 PAUL HAUGO PR&ccr ea LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE EASTERLY Y2 FRONT AND REAR, OF LOT 40, phaugo®hougogts.com 14-103 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 322, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.; AND LOT 039 AUDITOR'S SURD. NO. 322 W. 118.15' EX. HWY. BY: '�"r"° LLLO U9£9L:Xej gZE6 E69 E9L A---31—d WP >�tI oN 'US----VUU7V:RWp NW � � , 11�//1 N30100 Auaau8u3 hv] ZZ799 elosauujjN 'spodeauuiyy 3 d C oanuany poomualg ti009 and SGOOM S 3radw 61 o CVioaauuiu5 ay �apun N y � 1-q INW—Pus ata io"Cl Y r. I pasua�l Nnp o wo 1join - PUG "Aq p' dsjd m�" SNOLLIONOO ONLLSIX3 goo � yy io 'aw /?q paodud awn u � W S1a37n]0r 0 m uo,d slta iota f4poo Fpaa4 1 r Q w tl � : �uti m r7 z I 1 I I L--------- o '3AV VNvisi o-i w a r---------1 W n I I I I I I $ 1--iL �� i 9 Z -------_J Fh ( 1 I I � N 1 1 n i 1 I I I sou L--_J lv ° I 1 3 1 1 x = I I Rhc mym I I rizr�ZP sNtf sa8 I I $L---J pF I a 1 i 5a ? �. r ! Q 3 3 M 0 0 z Lr) ED w I4 ru, ::::::::.: :: 3 u) r .:.: 3 = J _ M W V) b I p I I B 1 1 1 $ I I ski L----'I L–_J m + n I✓ � i i i y y m NH I 1 `� I I � F------ P I -- x cu I v n A "gym I I �cl m In v> .rte yJ� 96 894---- — -- - - Lo 896 ----- --- _ --- ¢ ----- 1— _ _._._ 894_-_.�--------- __---____ -r --- -i-- _. , � Ycn 894 _.- �� 89c" << 893 E8F >> l 892- -_-._r - - CB-N85'4616' _.C-11'&39'-- 89Q1� a e HW ,v - - - - .. -- — H W { R❑ W r 18.39' `11575.20 1.O ' ' : o � m -- Q 00'3 _-_ --� 1 1 _ -892 _ -��T ATE - _ - H Lr) Scn �y �o -91 --896..-_- , 1 4 9 .a p 2'Mople ` /'`7 n Z +.i 50 017,On ` 1 048 I CB=N86'20'S0' C=T0926_00'32'27' 51 886,. �:\ �� \ _89 109.26' ;11s� .2o t3r 12, ` \ ' 6 TREES AND BRUSH .1O ..053 54 (I co OD C j coWETLAND BASI 11 TYPE 2) \ J I DEL, 4-19 141 L W QUALITY MnRAM j i 1 ( 12,916 SF TOTA 1 4385 SF ON-SITE 100YR. 8 7.7 cw; I f 1 MIN. OPEN�FLOO 889.9 i \. i 22 � j EX, GRD. OF 8 3.0 J 26 CNOR,i • 1886.�w< SH FES INV.) 7`AS 2 C 13 047 12Cw 91 89 4612' / ! 7"ASIl iec20 �3 IE.3 j 20VA 'CWl8 ('4414' TR AND BRUSH `I�\ SF�EIT — ! 17, \ 431r INV. 22 W j /��j12 f2 CW 16 . co 15-TR i 15'OA'L,IOW 421 PBSS. QtTLAND J ! ai� to _ - - / 28 OA�`� `` � 34 9 14 \ L 40 3 ,1 asrarn PJ / ! 6"OA TR I .92 9tS. 1 ' ... � EX. FENCE MAt7t 9a �. �-- pCd:ED P.JK a SP 15 APIU �n 35��9`f A d 89 � � � � � 890` m I 16 ° I0"SP 8 .�'�� \ `3- - -891. 9 - 8 185'iwRl 89 94- 'ass ENS_G_ SE ' ".. Aj Ir 8.o#7236 6� 0. �'�—.. — —�� FI ------ rn8 i i —— dri °€gTvr-t'oEXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE e� 7182 EXISTING HOUSE 0 ------- 904----- #7156 I-————— 324 5 ---90c�0o Q7330 ( 89 224•CAT 30 ' Ng a I i I Z 1#Ash oa ( I I I Q ' 898 _ - 1 896 1 CL r �,��3`SP .i I I in = Z 4 896 `3 SP 2 7.25 NB -34=16'W-1 Id 130,28' 109,07 I 892_. i i i i ' 100,00 Z Q __ I I o o a CHMH260 CB -. 11892 V 3 > STORM OJ891.77/87537(16.4 I W I I I Z __..__. WER 893.18/875.6(17.5') 09 12' RCP SAN SEWER '15- Ok1 1 1 MH1484 SHO I ..--,_- z W Q 1 OC ') 1 N 8, WM ---- N MH2s H A R E L-D8�YE, w CB259 E HYD,162 B-5 LEGEAM DENOTES SOIL BORING �, ' S P R K WE ——————— DENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING LIMIT �- __ DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS INV, 884.46N STORM 8/22/1 A DENOTES STORM SEWER S v LL 'P —>-->— DENOTES SANITARY SEWER 25 0 25 50 PRaxcr Ac —8'�—W— DENOTES WATERMAIN •iosc.zs DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION yy��pp��,11��±± SCALE IN FEET 14-103 X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION THE LOCATIONSRIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE EOF« 059.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF srctr Aa 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. 75.0' 40.0' 115.0' 0 �0 0 V N (3 Y�J —I PRP —' B _ �' &u A _ - - - M U) r VA UI; D Rhe I I A Lnno `Ctnl d �w � C�0 Z m 285,8'8' SSB (T P) 8' D&U EASE (TYP) _ A No _ _ - - ——_—.-5.'._SSA ---73-D&U EASt=Y I I a' I o m o ro Cl) t na N b I WI IQa ^ X10 D tj I'ZN Ou V' D D T C V 1 CD mD-D- — r..—.—__._—.—..—.— N00134'08'W 66' ROW S.) �� o mm ro w —, 40,07' 75,0' 332.2'_� _ _ - _ _ - o— c ------- — — — — — — — — — — — — �`� s� D w [ Il�st°w ym N� � 0D a w ce: 30 �.._.. _ _ v 2 �� e ti m Vii/ 335.7' I �G'.' i--.._._ __�,_ - -4 (V 11 UIT GO 10 90 13 it bNo� D / 0D( / AM?.l err O tA�n\ o Ln t7 Tyl a,tJ�-`?o I z \GT \ A W L — �..—.---.—..—.---.—..�L d 20' D&U EASE. 20' SSB } / N o?m Nmov[3Arn x aDO D 340,23' 01341081E \ b m ` m 00 w,0, fn �D U1 CD D I , z yam i 1 , ?: I Ilk01) i y�< N) t m203!z \ L"cmN 0rm 5:x < mj LTLO LTS£9L:XeJ SZ£6£69£9L a4k-10•21-wid wn 4CB91 'ON 'ma g–=olo0 2—0,11-,1 3'd Igeoux 'r ionod NW )L311VA N3O100 zzv99 elosauuiyy'si odeauuiyy —. � and SOOOM S 318YR anuany poomualg T009 ° ° onowuury ojonS N —Ilup-0503 041 M srol 041 upon Jaaul6u3 N 4 1 o puuaar7 4np o wo I loyl puo 'ualauuadns 1�! Aw�pun 4 Ndld �u nun to •0w ,cy pa�od0�d nor }adau sasrnx �! 0 ,o uold s14n join/l l+�R4aa4 l3 Z O N W6LA,o aat F V. g�OmF H O W W .UQc7ViWF O F w 00-owF6f 3C -c-goso =r <Z O j Z- w w ZO OZ O f 0Oa Z (n Z 10 TWO WX C7\p U y 0O N Jw<m0 z (nZ U U O W r Z VI O U 2� MmLJZ,M<.z88 o �Z0Y IL inO O ZW[�O W � <IrW6 rn a u~i 3 0000000000 0000000000 8 WWZZW WWWW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z<W O a�uzOW 1 A <= a A to zo �X OU'02F ZZJ-,<< l►1 IFAQm O T _ wUWWY Ow JmU \ o Zio 1 ^ I U jNwH �W 1 LA " 1 s�W>> W ¢.�W. 1 L——— -I i ZF3<�LL fz I f—--T--- ------ -- 0 I �xx I zW!- 0 � U I W I ID J Z V 7 F O ccn 'm w m I 0o°D.W3.80,4E.00SIL, `" .EZ'04E Q a ,o 0 00 H cu I 79•0a W801S .8Iz r N6 1— t � w _ 3 f8Q ; ' z-I �' a > coo ' v'tv o Ww° pzx0 0A 3aW / I i— — — — — __— — — — -- — — — I �f — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — n/ ;, �� I __•a3s_ s 3 L� W rrl A7 tt i ----- – I it HM C3 ui — — — — — — — — C 0'SL f I a h" mo A C4 L0'017 a 08 .99= 11.80,4E.00N ,cru — � ^a — — — — — — — --- w ci o � W — — — L— - - - -- --m In �d �� —r�' — Non - - - - _a3SNSS _X3 ~i U / II A U ooU 3 r �E U� 1 C3 vWi `� *O - O � —) _ �h- _ - - - -. - - � W ti F > Nit - — 11 4§ 3 n8Q ,S --��- - - — - - - - - c�u CdAl) 3Sd3 n 8Q ,8 —I— — — — — — — — — — _ — ti IT Q I Q co N — — I �"W T U o I I N (� -1_ I IA cu o L - - - 3d n� - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - -i Q Li r a z 3 CQ I cu U I Z --- -- -- - cu znIL I V) ( Waois f I W i o IA I I o cu M I I waols O'STZ L----J x ,0'017 ,0'9L 890 LTLO 6T5 69L:XRJ 5666£69£9L 10•Yu,u,ldPc t 49801 oN �79-;GM �1�o NW A311Vn N3a100 LLr95 alosauu!A'si)odoauuip 3'd 19oa+N 'f�olod n anuaAV pooMualO T009 � and Sa00M S 3(8'W o �4& '�+1`�I+-Wi�U3 eyl io ewq N g uJ� qy�{ ,o •o Nodsp�d A j pundej NVId 1O1N00 NOISON3 V ONIaVND r cO �2 yy pI 'uggw,s pim dsid om moue SYtllPSInJM �I 8 b uqd sIN 7041 R!!W�AVys4 1 IS R A N G MOMP ~ Z�>w w8w6, � p F x W 050 Z N 0 W J O N 1-caJ<z OF ~Z.�5Ou�I�15 ~00 Z or U) Z WVm� z w U U 3 Z�i cNp�T pF�r-Z U WN'! W Z SJ Faz~ iFa �� < VI Vl V!N V7 ut N(n N to ¢ 2,- -P 0000000000 N $ �� W 000a000000 F< ca n o c 0 0 0WWWW < 0000000000 O p cv O w��oo n I n ny�o 26 ai DOW, -X! I r I -X 000zw Wb J P.�<,�m o i 4 ,f t• X-`9d Mo 09'84VE 05 off. 0JXww K o W J�3 1 1 1 1 I 04 �m I I sru V CJ1 to L--- CD fo co coCD i -T-- --- -- --- -- w ` cu I % N�� ? I I alOlt rn 1 wwN z — { I �o� a°o x co \ 3 _ OD 3.80.r£.00D d M 1�0 3SV3 fl 8Q ,Si -- - — \ w\ \ ti w ..6 / I ,.. I �M ` ��\ �8$ av�do�aODo '/ /I / mm°° I� m p Lo U I I M4 fAp�>\ Dt wwnio�Xo— - i i tv ii m# 6e I v� �O I %/� / Jmmf O V in �� /.4L X691' 'I } z� � �/ '• ,,� �¢w to , A — 900 ` - -�. -m- - � � oi 0'9L 3 LQ'Ob �.y,� MON 199 I M.80,r£.00N o a ao y 8t6 Z oll 00 1 Nz o Cr I�J .. o N C) ` moaao 3 !I ' 00 u N o v I ` J ro 1 %918> 69 Li MSI \� �V�� / Cl)+ l �` IJJ . I \ 03o I nop�Y. 111 it m w1. co OD 91 ri Q �+o r .—� I Q, J m.- c J J S' D 1 df p0.0 I co N l6 6> [L/ W �b 33N33 l�IS/lIWII 'Q2I9 — _ — 4' a co W IN z �--- ----- 1 0 °' I z I -- W w I I o CO CDm m M 00 coco 00 � IV co co — -- / co ,0'Ob i" co LTLO ZTS£9L:xed SZ£6£69£9L a— , wiw `009�0y1 'ON'vB�2�- /$':°—ice ZZ4SS elosauuiw S.)odeauuijV a��i� '3'd o" 'rI.ood NW A311Vn N30lOJ anuany poomua g Tggg and SODOM s 318M o dui`$1lpaaul$n3 aLA jo un ulW3 ®yV ;o srq a4V p o �e I WLA \ 9 IN g �� U«�m��P Aw pn Ndld NOLLVANIMNd 33& .>7�unpr 1Y Io 'ew kq pnmdwd aw ;,odaj ti 00 tS uo uqd sitA IM4 AM=AqaJa4 1 N xOOmF W aaWw� 0- N <-gujjo N Z Q V7 Z V1 ZWOW� Z j wQ m0 0�-:F5-z SD O ZO�.y W 2 3 W ��a�l€UOz < < < FwWoY > N N F6�y�WWa Z� Z"Cl DW(/� 0V6-W i0"aZ 0Uww}< p ( Fzz-aeFW iO9 V�C. U I I w�wW' O Ow=o za r \ = W Ena I I JNwo J / fZ I r—� T— --- - - - - I I I N Vr- Lo ) w WJE � I Z I W I aaln m I — --- ------- -- } W N F-�M W X 1i 3.80.4£. S .£2'04£ IV. OD Q, aM oa�z. � .. ,.......... �.i. �i�i�[�[�i�:�i� [� [�i�i ��f�. . . . . .m /qvti Q twm `:::::::::::::::::::. oma' w....:.:........� V J 3 LO'Ob QN <oi ADN 199 M.80.4£.00N N ro :N�i �m: a N •o 3 Ua. M N — o fl - t?a 101 LJ a cu ul co n 3 \ = z,tN . 1V.:<: .�.: vQQ cu.. . .......... (C . . . . \ (U O LLJ .0 o �� — 33N33 lMS/lIWI�ti(I21'J �o IM { IZ L-------- I y I -- I W I Q I I o I I I I ,0'Ob ,0'SL LTLD ZT9£9L:XBJ SZ£6£6S£9L Ol--3 1-ie wn "Ott 'ON t a w� NW A3-nVA N3aloo ZZpSS elosauuiW'siiodeauuiw '3'd Q°o�+N 'f�°i°d anuand poomua19 Tppg 4 abv and s000M s 31adw N o 'D�OWUU °1D3S ay} ;o "Di 941 Japun iaaulbu3 (V ' W ovjaoq a PSwedn Anp n wo I pun e} puo 'uo;awadn°doaup dw iapun NV�d 311S yWy jo 'ew Fq p°�odaid am iia 1."� � A v�rrn3a !Y ,d uqd SM 1043 A9AGO A42J°4 i 3 O N N y~� LL < � Z�Zm}Uj Xo0mF 7 W &<NwF N <OWoZ QQguu Z Z 5y 6mQ OF-K,z WgU3a 3 aKWUZoZ W NW� < J O h U FAY } ZgCOv) w 0, �.._.._.._.._,... I� oZUZZ - "ozw 1 09'817C FFm<0 ——Z -r- 7' ——-1 U,jULO I lal<w�`} w O � F m �W'g �U JFW2 9ZRCW L O > aau� m 3 v m o mci� tY 1 � czFx ! ..�I�".......... L.L :- .... .. l!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. t� :::: — — — — — v M08 99 0 Lo Ln Li _ �. 3 : : _ 0 W � Q I -1 --------------�— — —— — ————— —— —— ——— 2 0 F - - z —�-- o I I \��> -------------- 60 CD M co CD \ I \ I I I M I z Li 3 Cl 1 I I o Q .8c , GV R-2 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING SING. FAM., TWINS. TOWNHOMES N o MIN. LOT AREA 11,000 SF (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) MIN. LOT WIDTH 100' (AT 35' FSB) (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) L MAX. BLDG. COVERAGE 30% '0 MAX. IMPERV. PER LOT 50% o HW\A/ 5 5 �20Y RSB ❑ STATE 1 ' v -451 g (35' TgEET SIDE) (OUTSIDE SSB ONLY) o 30' MAX. HEI& T 3 N 2.5' MAX. EAV :kDJECTION d n m • .I I ..�"� // _``rte \., I 67' RSB i \ �••- - j WETLAND 'KBASI Il TYPE 2) i I DEL. 4-19141 W QUALITY MnRAM j \ \ I 12,916 SF:T0 A 1 4385 SF ON-SITE ! ! 100 YR. 807.7 t I I I MIN. OPENYFLOO 889.9 ; EX. GRD. FOF 8 3.0 1 i i I NOR. 886.2 (SH[ FES INV.) I I POSS. WETLAND i j I J ! i ; �• ; DESI&CD P.JX ZRAVN NAL. CFCCAVD P.JK I !W Lr)! Ln CO I I N "4 a #7236 #7182 egg—Ee TWIN HOME TWIN HOME $ ZERO LOT LINE ! ! 7156 ! j ZERO LOT LINE i # #7330 #7 24 ! I I I I Z I I I J 35' 1 SB ui IJ Z I I Q 0- (n >(nY Z pL 1 0.28' 09.07' 100.00, o0 J 3 } C7 3 Z N Z N a O J HAROLD AVE, Z �� 0 W 7E U Q LIONS PARK S '8,22/14 7 3 0 3 25 25 SD PRA.CLT NI ��p�IN� SCALE IN FEET 14-103 J .>�L.7YiY THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE "rT Na WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF 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. C ly �a MEMORANDUM A Vallev Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting November 18, 2014 Agenda Item 6. A. First Consideration - Ordinance #534 - Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Staff has reviewed the following master fee schedule. This schedule shows the approved rates for 2014 and notes the changes to 2015 rates by using bold or highlighted sections. This is the first consideration. The utility rates will be effective for any billing after April 1, 2015. The second consideration will be December 2, 2014. Attachments • Ordinance #534, Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule (19 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on First Consideration, Ordinance #534, Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule. ORDINANCE NO. 534, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City Code requires that certain fees for City services and licenses be established from time to time by the City Council. Section 2. The Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby adopted as the city's fee schedule effective January 1, 2015, unless otherwise noted and shall be added to Chapter 25 of the City Code. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in its 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 2nd day of December, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Permits Building&Fire Permit Fees based on fee schedule below. Mandatory State Surcharge:per permit is a minimum of.50 and when a permit fee is over$1,000 in value the state surcharge is.0005 times the permit value. Surcharge is remitted to MN State Treasurer. Permit Cancellation Policy:80%of the permit fee will be returned upon written notice of cancellation. If job has been started no refund will be made. No surcharge or plan review fees will be returned(includes the fees for stormwater management,right-of-way(ROW)and tree preservation permits). Building/Fire/Commercial Mechanical Plan Review Fee-65%of the permit fee(no surcharge) re-inspection fee 100.00 Administrative 75.00 Seasonal,Farm Produce,Christmas Tree Sales,etc in Commercial Zoning District Electrical State Surcharge-each permit 5.00 All Services new,replace or repair There is a$2 per circuit charge for replacing circuits that are disconnected in the old service panel and reconnected in the new panel. 0 to 300 Amp 50.00 400 Amp 58.00 500 Amp 72.00 600 Amp 86.00 800 Amp 114.00 1000 Amp 142.00 1100 Amp 156.00 1200 Amp 170.00 Add$14.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Circuits and Feeders The inspection fee for the installation,addition,alteration or repair of each circuit, feeder,feeder tap or set of transformer secondary conductors: 0 to 30 Amp 8.00 31 to 100 Amp 10.00 101 to 200 Amp 15.00 300 Amp 20.00 400 Amp 25.00 500 Amp 30.00 600 Amp 35.00 700 Amp 40.00 Add$5.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Minimum Fee Minimum permit fee is$35.00 plus$5.00 State surcharge.This is for one inspection only. Minimum fee for rough-in inspection and final is$70.00 plus$5.00 State surcharge. Maximum Fee Maximum fee for single family dwelling or townhouse not over 200 Amps is$150.00 plus$5.00 State surcharge.Maximum of 2 RI and 1 final inspection. 1 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Electrical(continued) Apartment Buildings Fee per unit of an apartment or condominium complex is$70.00.This does not cover service and house wiring. Swimming Pool $35.00 per inspection+circuits Traffic Signals $7.00 per each standard Street Lights and parking lot lights $4.00 per each standard Transformers and Generators $8.00 per unit+$.40 for each KVA up to 100 KVA+$.30 for each KVA above 100 KVA Retro Fit Lighting $.65 per fixture Sign Transformer $8.00 per transformer Remote Control and Signal Circuits $.75 per device Reinspection fee(only one final per job) $35.00 THE FEE IS DOUBLED IF THE WORK STARTS BEFORE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED. Fire Alarm System(New Installation or Alteration of Existing) Up to the 1st$1,200 in value 50.00 Over $1,200 value-use fire suppression fee Fire Commercial Cooking Ventilation Systems Inspection 75.00 Re-inspection 150.00 Fire Pumps 200.00 Fire Suppression&Special Fire Suppression Systems: FM 200 system,CO2 systems,spray booths,kitchen extinguisher systems,hoods,etc. No change Total valuation based on below fee schedule: Value Range 2004 LMC/AMM Recommendation $150 $500 $25.00 $501 $2,000 $25.00 for the first$500 $3.25/additional$100 $2,001 $25,000 $73.50 for the first$2,000 $14.75/additional$1,000 $25,001 $50,000 $415.75 for the first$25,000 $10.75/additional$1,000 $50,001 $100,000 $682.50 for the first$50,000 $7.50/additional$1,000 $100,001 $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first$100,000 $6.00/additional$1,000 $500,001 $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first$500,000 $5.00/additional$1,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first$1,000,000 $4.00/additional$1,000 2 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A [26114 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Fireworks/Pyrotechnic Special Effects 100.00 Permit requires rental of fire engine and crew for stand-by at display House/Building Moving 300.00 Demolition 300.00 Mechanical:HVAC,Gas Piping,Refrigeration and Fireplace (Includes all types of fireplaces-masonry,gas,gas log,gas insert,etc.) Value Permit charge $0- $999 $25.00 $1,001- $5,000 $31.50+2.60%over$1000 $5,001- $10,000 $135.50+2.15%over$5000 $10,001- $25,000 $243.00+1.85%over$10,000 $25,000- $50,000 1$520.50+1.65%over$25,000 $50,001- over 1$933.00+1.30%over$50,000 Native Vegetation Landscape Permit 100.00 Parade/Special Event 25.00 Petroleum/Compress Gas Tanks Installation-per dispenser 75.00 Installation-per tank 75.00 Piping associated with tanks 75.00 Removal-per tank 75.00 Temporary LP Tank(per site) 75.00 Temporary above ground fuel tanks(per site) 75.00 Plan Review Fee-65%of the fee(no surcharge) Plumbing and Piping Fixtures Includes hydraulic sewer valves,rain water leaders,and alteration to existing systems. Value Permit charge $0- $999 $25.00 25.00 $1,001- $5,000 $31.50+2.60%over$1000 $5,001- $10,000 $135.50+2.15%over$5000 $10,001- $25,000 $243.00+1.85%over$10,000 $25,001- $50,000 $520.50+1.65%over$25,000 $50,001- over $933.00+1.30%over$50,000 Right Of Way Driveway Replacement Permit 100.00 Permanent Obstruction Permit,per obstruction(includes courtesy benches) 100.00 Temporary Obstruction permit No Charge Temporary Access Permit 25.00 In Boulevard Excavation Permit per opening 100.00 In Pavement Excavation Permit per opening(includes curb alterations) 200.00 Overhead Utility Repair per location No Charge 3 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee fee Permits(continued) Right Of Way(continued) Underground Utility: Length Permit Charge 0 to 100 Feet $250 administrative fee+$1/foot over 100 Feet $350 administrative fee+$.50/foot over 100 feet Service Drop meeting conditions: No charge Not parallel to right-of way at least 10'from any City facility or utility, less than 1'wide,and depth in accord with law or,if none,industry standard Stormwater Management Land Disturbance up to one-half acre(0 to 21,779 square feet) 100.00 Land Disturbance of one-half acre or more(21,780 square feet and up) 200.00 Sign Permit Base fee 50.00 Area fee(per sq ft of sign area) +2.75/sq ft +3.00/sq ft Temporary Sign over 18 sq ft Plan Review(Pylon and Monument Signs) 40.00 Standpipe Installation of each standpipe(up to 5 floors) 50.00 Each additional floor 25.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Partial Certificate of Occupancy 100.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 100.00 Extension of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 200.00 Penalty for expired Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 300.00 Tent/Canopy Inspections-required for tent exceeding 200 sq ft and 50.00 canopies exceeding 400 sq ft(per site) each additional tent and/or canopy(per site) 25.00 Tree Preservation Permit 100.00 Tree Preservation Mitigation Form-per caliper inch 150.00 Utility Permits Water Meter Permit 100.00 Water Tapping Permit 100.00 Water Cut-off Permit 100.00 Sewer Permit(connection) 100.00 Sewer Repair Permit 100.00 Sewer Cut-off Permit 100.00 4 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Licenses Renewal Date Auctioning Auctioneers do not need to be licensed in the City of Golden Valley.However,they have to show us a copy of a license or bond from the county or state and provide us a letter on the date,time and place of the auction. Chicken Coop License Initial Application Fee 75.00 Annual License Renewal Fee 1-Apr 25.00 Cigarettes-Tobacco Products over the counter 1-Jan 275.00 Contractors-Heating,Ventilation,Air Cond and Refrigeration 1-Apr 75.00 Dog Kennel-per kennel 1-Apr 200.00 Entertainment Amusement and Shows 1-Apr 50.00 (movies-per screen;caravans,circuses,amusement rides) Bowling Alley(each lane) 1-Apr 15.00 Dancing&Entertainment 1-Apr 375.00 Pinball Machine,Video Game or Pool Table each location 1-Apr 15.00 each device 1-Apr 15.00 Fireworks Retail consumer fireworks that sell other items 1-May 100.00 Retail consumer fireworks,retailers that sell only fireworks 1-May 350.00 Garbage Haulers-per vehicle 1-Apr 50.00 (See also Recylcing Haulers) Gasoline Stations Per Location Dispensers 1-4(each) 1-Apr 75.00 Over four dispensers(each) 50.00 Lawful Gambling License 1-Jan First year 250.00 Renewal after 1st year 100.00 Liquor License Application Packet 20.00 Liquor-Investigation Fee (Liquor On-sale,Off-sale,and Sunday sale and Wine) new applicant 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation Liquor-Miscellaneous Change thru the year per change 100.00 Liquor On,Off and Sunday Sale and Wine(renewal or misc changes) 5 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Licenses(continued) Renewal Date Liquor License(State law) Sunday sale 1-Jul 200.00 Off-sale 340A.408 1-Jul 200.00 On-sale 1-J u I 8,000.00 Wine On-sale 1-1ul 2,000.00 Club 1-Jul up to 200 members 300.00 200-500 members 500.00 501-1,000 members 650.00 1,001-2,000 members 800.00 2001-4000 members 1,000.00 4001-6000 members 2,000.00 Over 6000 members 3,000.00 Liquor-Non-Intoxicating Malt(On-sale) 1-Jul 500.00 Liquor-Non-Intoxicating Malt(Off-sale) 1-Jul 150.00 Liquor-Temporary Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Section 5.31-City Code 100.00 Massage Therapist-Individual Certificate(each individual/person) 1-Jan 100.00 Investigation fee 100.00 Massage Therapist Premise License 1-Jan Operating location 500.00 Investigation fee 200.00 New/Used Vehicle Sales 1-Sep 400.00 Peddlers and Solicitors 1-Jan 1st person 30.00 Each additional person(up to a max fee of$50.00 per time) 5.00 Pawnbroker and Precious Metal Dealer Location 1-Jan 5,000.00 Dealer 1-Jan 400.00 Investigation Fee 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation APS Transaction Fee 1.30 Recycling Haulers(Multi Family Apartment) -per vehicle 1-Apr 50.00 6 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Licenses(continued) Renewal Date Rental Dwelling License Single Family Dwellings One Unit Dwelling License Expires July 1 125.00 Re-inspection 100.00 Twin Homes&Duplexes License per Dwelling Unit Expires May 1 125.00 Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Condominiums&Townhomes License Per Dwelling Unit Expires Sept 1 125.00 Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Group Homes/homes with services Expires Nov 1 125.00 License Per Dwelling Unit Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Multiple Unit Dwelling(3 or more units)per building 1-Mar 0.00 3-50 Units 125.00 51-150 Units 175.00 151+Units 250.00 Re-inspection(per building/per address) 100.00 License Transfer(pro rate) minimum 50.00 Star Program Fees(Based on participation level) Non-Participant $30/unit Level 1 $12/unit Level 2 $10/unit Level 3 $6/unit Level 4 $0/unit Administrative Citations on(all)Rental Dwellings 1st citation 100.00 2nd citation 250.00 3rd citation 500.00 4th citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 500.00 Citation Appeal 25.00 Sexually Oriented Business License Fee(operating location) 1-Jan 5,000.00 Investigation Fee 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation 7 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Street Assessments Residential/Single Family/Duplex,per dwelling unit on local street 6,000.00 6,630.00 Multi Unit Residential(more than 2 dwelling units)on local street 76.3/ft Residential/Single Family/Duplex,per dwelling unit on state aid street 1,500.00 1,657.50 Multi Unit Residential(more than 2 dwelling units)on state aid street 81.71/ft Other Zonings,Local Streets 91.73/ft Other Zonings,State Aid Streets 99.21/ft Administrative Fee for Driveways and/or Sanitary Sewer repairs $250/maximum (Seven percent of total or maximum fee-whichever lessor) Low Income Level for Senior/Retired due to Disability Deferral 2014 HUD Limits Miscellaneous Fees Address Change 50.00 Administrative Citations-Non Rental Housing 1st Citation 100.00 2nd Citation 250.00 3rd Citation 500.00 4th Citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 500.00 Alarm System-False Alarms(12 month period beginning March 1 of each year upon given notice) 1-3 false alarms 4-10 false alarms 100.00 11-15 false alarms 150.00 16 or more false alarms 250.00 Animal Control Impound Fee for dogs 50.00 Boarding Fee for dogs and cats per day(7 day maximum) 20.00 Dangerous Dog License 250.00 Building Plan/Storage Retrieval 50.00 Certification Fee(Special Assessment) 30.00 City Cemetery Cemetery Plot 500.00 Open/Close Fee: Crematory(up to 2 per lot) 200.00 each Burial 750.00 8 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Miscellaneous Fees(continued) Documents City Code Full book in binder 200.00 Updates 15/each Zoning Chapters Only 10.00 City Maps:,Plats,Record Drawings,Other Plats(i.e.address maps,building plans,comp pIZ 10.00 Comprehensive Plan Copies of any black and white,letter or legal size documents of 100 or .25/pg fewer pages(Minnesota Rules,part 1205.0300,subpart 4.) Copies of any color,letter or legal size documents .33/page Digital Format Aerial photography time&material Custom Maps or Map Layers time&material Topography time&material Special Assessment Search(non-owner) 15.00 Video Reproduction(per tape,DVD,CD+shipping) 20.00 Domestic Partner Registration Initial Registration 40.00 Amendment/Notice of Termination 25.00 Certified copy of Registration 5.00 Equipment Charge per hour Fire Engine(includes personnel) 250.00 Fire Aerial Truck(includes personnel) 350.00 Police and Fire Rescue Truck(includes personnel) 250.00 Utility Vehicle(includes personnel) 100.00 Squad Car(includes personnel) 100.00 Utility Equipment(sewer jet,vac truck,sewer camera,sewer rodder) 200.00 Heavy(front end loader,360 Backhoe,Pickup sweeper, 125.00 tandem axle truck,aerial truck) does not include personnel costs Medium(single axle dump truck,water truck,tractor backhoe,utility tractor/ 80.00 accessory,15 ft cut lawn mower,brush chipper,asphalt roller)does not include personnel costs Light(truck-one ton and under,air compressor,water pump,generator, 45.00 steamer,asphalt/saw,concrete,cable tracer)does not include personnel costs Fire Boat(includes personnel) 75.00 Fire ATV(includes personnel) 75.00 Fire Life Safety Trailer(includes personnel) 200.00 Gas Lines,construction damage with Fire Department Response 250.00 Filing Fee(Administrative Citation Appeal)per violation 25.00 Fingerprinting Golden Valley Resident 10.00 Anyone employed in GV 25.00 Additional Card Forced Tree Removal cost of removal+20% Forfeited DWI Vehicle Administrative Fee 750.00 9 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Miscellaneous Fees(continued) Hydrant Meter Rental Residential(per day+consumption) 2.00 Commercial(per day+consumption) 5.00 Deposit(residential) 200.00 Deposit(commercial) 1000.00 Nuisance Service Call Fee(after three calls) 250.00 Personnel Off Duty Police Officer(minimum applies as determined by 75/hour City Manager/designee) Firefighters,Lieutenants,Captains,Batallion Chief 35/hour minimum Public Works Employee 50/hr 60/hr minimum Sump Pump Inspection 50.00 Weed Eradication/Lawn mowing-per hour(see minimums) Vacant land-1 hour minimum 125/hr Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property-3 hour minimum 125/hr SECOND OR MORE VIOLATIONS IN ONE SEASON Vacant land-1 hour minimum- 250/hr Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property-3 hour minimum 250/hr Planning&Zoning Fees Conditional Use Items Conditional Use Permit 400.00 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 300.00 Extension for Conditional Use Permit 125.00 Easement Vacation(each request) 500.00 Flood Control Management(Special Permit) 75.00 Floodplain Search Letter 25.00 Park Dedication Fees 2%of Land (per Minnesota Statute 462.358) Market Value Planned Unit Development Preliminary Design Plan 400.00 Final Plan of Development 400.00 Extension of Planned Unit Development 150.00 Planned Unit Development Amendment Preliminary Design Plan 250.00 Final Plan of Development 250.00 Extension of Planned Unit Development 150.00 Planned Unit Development-Minor 250.00 Rezoning 500.00 10 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A [2614 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Planning&Zoning Fees(continued) Subdivision 400.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat 125.00 Subdivision-Minor 250.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat 125.00 Variance from City Code- Zoning Chapters Single family residential 200.00 Extension 150.00 All others 300.00 Extension 150.00 Wetland Management(plus professional fees if necessary) 75.00 Zoning Examination Letter 100.00 Temporary Retail Sales in Industrial Zone 150.00 (for each sale,up to five days) Utility Fees Driveway Covers-Replace 90.00 150.00 Hydrant Inspection(Private) 3.75/month Hydrant Maintenance(Private) Actual Cost materials,parts, labor+20% admin Meter Testing(to be returned if meter is in error of 5%or more of read) 50.00 Sanitary Sewer Inspections and Compliance Fees(Ordinance No.352) Noncompliant discharge into sanitary sewer(or refuse inspection) Single Family Residential 500/month Non Single Family Residential 1000/month Application fee for noncompliant winter discharge into sanitary sewer 250.00 Application fee for certificate of sewer regulations compliance Single Family Residential(R-1 or R-2),per structure 250.00 Non Single Family Residential(all other structures),per structure 750.00 Fee to review residential video record completed by private licensed plumber 100.00 Fee to review non-residential video record completed by private licensed plumber 375.00 Water on/off per each event (business day) 50.00 100.00 (after hours) 75.00 165.00 Utility-Manual Read of Water/Sewer Meter 100.00 Water Meter and Parts(All) At cost+20% 11 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Utility Billing Rates-Effective April 1,2015 Residential Utility Rates-quarterly billing (includes all residential classes except those classified as apartments) ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Inspection Fee for Fire lines 6.00 Penalties(for late payment) 10% Sanitary Sewer(in 1000 gallons) Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-5 and under units-winter qtr consumption 54.18 56.89 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-6-15 units-winter qtr consumption 58.44 61.36 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-16-19 units-winter qtr consumption 64.00 67.20 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-20-25 units-winter qtr consumption 73.20 76.86 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-26-39 units-winter qtr consumption 95.52 100.29 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-40-59 units-winter qtr consumption 110.00 115.50 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-60-79 units-winter qtr consumption 116.73 122.62 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-80 to 99 units-winter qtr consumption 133.80 140.49 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-100 and over units-winter qtr consumption 158.76 166.69 Recycling Residential curbside(per unit) 12.00 Storm Sewer Utility Rate Charge for a Residential Equivalent Factor of 1.00 66.00 Each single family residential property is considered to be 1/3 of an acre. Street Lights Ornamental(per unit) 10.50 10.80 Overhead(per unit) 6.75 7.05 Water Minimum fee,includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 7.90 9.00 Water meters up to and including 1" 7.90 9.00 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 54.45 62.03 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 76.00 86.57 Water meters over 4" 97.40 110.95 Above 1,000 gallons of flow per quarter up to 79,000(per 1,000 gallons) 4.75 5.00 80,000 gallons and over of flow per quarter(per 1,000 gallons) 4.78 5.03 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 Water Connection Fee(State Charge for each water hookup) 1.59 12 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Utility Billing Rates-Effective April 1,2015(continued) Irrigation Accounts(All)-Monthly Billing Minimum fee,includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 7.90 Above 1,000 gallons of flow per month(per 1,000 gallons) 4.78 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Commercial&Industrial Monthly Billing ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Inspection Fee for Fire lines 2.00 Penalties(for late payment on monthly billings) 5% Sanitary Sewer Water meters up to and including 1" 7.14 7.49 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 18.15 19.05 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 25.30 27.19 Water meters over 4" 32.60 34.23 Based on per 1,000 gallons 3.80 3.99 Note:Water Meter Flow is used to establish sewer flow unless a separate sewer flow meter has been established. Storm Sewer Utility Rate Charge per acre for property with a Residential Equivalent Factor of 1.00 22.00 Street Lights Ornamental(per unit) 3.50 3.60 Overhead(per unit) 2.25 2.35 Water Connection Fee (State Charge for each water hookup) 0.53 Water Usage: Minimum fee,includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 7.90 9.00 Water meters up to and including 1" 7.90 9.00 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 18.15 20.69 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 25.33 28.85 Water meters over 4" 32.46 36.98 Water rate above 1,000 gallons 4.75 5.00 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 13 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Brookview Golf Course Rates Regulation Course 18 Hole Non-patron 35.00 37.00 18 Hole Patron 28.00 30.00 18 Hole Sr Patron 24.00 26.00 18 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 28.00 30.00 18 Hole Non-patron League 35.00 37.00 18 Tournament 35.00 37.00 9 Hole Non-patron 19.00 20.00 9 Hole Patron 16.00 17.00 9 Hole Sr Patron 14.50 15.50 9 Hole Non-patron Senior 16.00 17.00 9 Hole Non-patron League 19.00 20.00 9 Hole Tournament 19.00 20.00 2nd Nine Non-patron 16.00 17.00 2nd Nine Patron 12.00 13.00 Sunrise/Sunset Rate 16.00 17.00 Twilight Non-patron 20.00 21.00 Twilight Patron 16.00 17.00 Junior Rate Patron 20.50/11.50 21.00/12.00 Junior Rate Non Patron 22.50/13.50 23.00/14.00 Par 3 Course 9 Hole Non-patron 12.50 9 Hole patron 9.00 9 Hole Sr Patron 8.00 9 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 9.50 9 Hole League 12.50 9 Hole Tournament 12.50 9 Hole Junior Rate 8.00 9 Hole Junior Non-Patron Rate 9.50 2nd 9 Par 3 7.50 Patron Cards Resident Adult Patron 75.00/70.00 Non-resident Adult Patron 115.00/110.00 Resident Senior Patron(age 62+) 45.00/40.00 Non-resident Senior Patron(age 62+) 80.00/75.00 Resident Junior Patron(17 yrs&under) 35.00/30.00 Non-resident Junior(17 yrs&under) 40.00/35.00 Par 3 Patron Card 30.00 Driving Range Warm Up Bucket 3.00 Small Bucket 5.00 Large Bucket 7.00 10 Bucket Punch Pass 57.00 Large Patron Bucket 5.00 14 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Brookview Golf Course Rates(continued) Cart Rates 18 Hole Power Cart 30.00 30.00 18 Hole Tournament Cart 30.00 30.00 18 Hole Patron Cart 24.00 24.00 9 Hole Tournament Cart 20.00 20.00 9 Hole Power Cart 20.00 20.00 9 Hole Par 3 Power Cart 15.00 15.00 9 Hole Par Patron Cart 16.00 16.00 Pull Cart/Regulation Course 5.00 Pull Cart/Par 3 Course 4.00 Trailer fee/Use of personal power cart 14.00/9.00 15.00/10.00 Club Rentals 18 Hole full rental-Regulation 20.00/30.00 9 Hole full rental-Regulation 10.00/15.00 9 hole Par 3 half rental 10.00 Locker Rental Season 20.00 Daily 1.00 Towel fee 2.00 Miscellaneous Fees USGA Handicap Service MGA Non-patron 40.00 Patron Annual 25.00 No Show Fee FULL FEE Lessons Adult Group 99.00 Junior Group 199.00 Lawn Bowling League Fee M-Th evenings(7 week league) 350.00 League Fee Sat/SUR a.Flq.(7 week league) PqQ QQ SiRgle GGUFt ReRt4 20.00/hOUF Single Court Rental-resident and golf patron 20.00/hour Single Court Rental-non-resident 25.00/hour Private Rental of Four Courts 80.00/hour 100.00/hour p at tal of gi,Ga rte xelusiyebise- 120 n00/heu"F Private Rental of Eight Courts-exclusive use 200.00/hour Summer Kids Leagues 35.00 10.00-50.00 Senior Leagues 35.00 10.00-50.00 Rental of Green/4 courts for corporate golf outings 120.00/hour 100.00/hour QaRq .et...,..I Re .,ti....ReRtal 80.09 120.90�4 Deck Rental(0-4 hours) 100.00 z�-oo�cv�*c I He .I..Rate PAR_ ciflont ♦=t Game Official For Private Rentals/Events 20.90{hei4f 25.00/hour Game Equipment Use For Leagues&Rentals 0.00(Provided) 15 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees (A Non-Resident fee of$5.00 is recommended to be added to Youth,Adult and Senior Activities.) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrative fee. Youth Fees Baseball-Park 36.00 Basketball-Mites 42.00 Basketball-Youth 43.00-50.00 45.00-47.00 Bike Rangers 36.00 Catch,Kick&Throw 34.00 Chess Club 30.00 Drama Club(Summer) 62.00 Drama Club(Fall&Winter) 64.00 Explorers Hiking&Biking Club 34.00 Football-Flag 32.00 Football/Basketball/Soccer Skills 32.00 Hockey-Ice Skills Camp 52.00 Hockey-Rink Rat 46.00 48.00 Jewelry Making 33.00 Jump Rope 20.00 Kickball 31.00 Kids Club 46.00 Kids Korner 32.00 Pre-School Players 39.00 Pens,Pencils,Markers,&More 26.00 Pitch by Coach 36.00 Playgrounds 0.00-10.00 Preschool Playtime-per time 2.00 Preschool Playtime-10-time punch pass 15.00 Soccer-Fall 35.00 37.00 Soccer-Nerf 35.00 Summer Survivor 33.00 Tap&Ballet 41.00 T-Ball 36.00 Tennis-Full Day Camp 200.00-230.00 Tennis-Half Day Camp 180.00-200.00 Tennis-Teen Team League 195.00-200.00 Volleyball-Sand 31.00 Adult/Senior Activities Ballroom Dance-Swing&Social 50.00 Basketball-Open Drop-in Fee 4.00 10-time Punch Pass 28.00 Belly Dancing 56.00-80.00 Bridge-Beginning 32.00 Bridge-Intermediate 32.00 Broomball League-Co-Rec Resident 450.00 Non-Resident 540.00 Line Dancing 45.00-60.00 Painting(6 time PHRGh°^«'Classes 40.00 16 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees(continued) (A Non-Resident fee of$5.00 is recommended to be added to Youth,Adult and Senior Activities.) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrative fee. Adult/Senior Activities(continued) Soccer League-Co-Rec Resident 465.00 470.00 Non-Resident 615.00 620.00 Softball Leagues-Fall Resident 330.00 340.00 Non-Resident 450.00 455.00 Softball Leagues-Spring/Summer Doubleheader League-Resident 635.00 645.00 Doubleheader League-Non-Resident 835.00 840.00 Single Game Leag4e 4 Bis.90 C I Game League NGH Rest.e44 Gis.90 Tae Kwan Do 54.00-70.00 Tai Chi 40.00-60.00 T rl 'll (8 I r Aweek r cie) 9 cn n� 070000 Tennis League-Mixed Doubles 26.00 Tennis League-Singles 20.00 Volleyball-Open Drop-in Fee 4.00 10-time Punch Pass 28.00 Volleyball League-Sand Resident 230.00 Non-Resident 260.00 Yoga&Pilates 55.00-95.00 Senior Programs Bowling Tourney 5.00 Coffee Talk 2.00 Craft/Art Classes 6.50-70.00 Defensive Driving(refreshments only) 1.00 Living Well and Wise 1.00-4.00 Lunch Events 9.00-20.00 Membership Dues 5.00-8.00 Money Matters 1.00-3.00 Remember When 1.00-2.00 Special Events 4.00-20.00 Trips-Extended 2-6 Days 250.00-1200.00 Trips-One Day 8.00-95.00 17 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees(continued) (A Non-Resident fee of$5.00 is recommended to be added to Youth,Adult and Senior Activities.) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrative fee. Other Park&Recreation Fees Small Park Shelter Resident(up to 50 people) 95.00 Non-resident 110.00 Large Park Shelter Resident(up to 100 people) 125.00 Non-resident 145.00 Beer/Wine Permit(only with Picnic Shelter rental) 25.00 Food Truck per day-3 day maximum 40.00 Brookview Community Center Resident(over 75 people;12 hours) 560.00 Non-resident(over 75 people;12 hours) 645.00 Resident(up to 75 people;5 hours max) 25 per hour Non-resident(up to 75 people;5 hours max) 35 per hour Private Industry or Commercial Use-Resident/Non-Resident 55-65 per hour Non-Profit/Community Organization-Resident/Non-Resident 25-35 per hour 0-35 per hour Brookview Community Center-Deck(0-4 hours) 100.00 Davis Community Center Gym 25 per hour Sand Volleyball Court(per court) 20.00/hour Tennis Court Tournament-per day/per court 40.00 Court/hr/wkday 6.00 Picnic Kit 15.00 Athletic Field Per hour 40.00 W/Lights per hour 55.00 Prep per field(extra drag) 35.00 Chalking per field 6.00 General Park Usage-Non-Brookview per hour 35.00 Commercial Use of Park per hour 100.00-125.00 Park Building per hour 40.00 Hockey Rink per hour 35.00 Youth Athletic Association per player Maintenance Fee-Resident per player 6.00 Maintenance Fee-Non-Resident per player 11.00 Invitational Tournament per field per day 50.00 18 city of �� y � � �� ~��" �� J� �� go valley PKann^ng Department 763-593-8095/7G3-593-Q109 (fax) Executive SummaryFor Action on Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 18, 2014 Agenda Item 6. B. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary A public workshop/open house was held on November 12 to display a range of preliminary concepts for the first four station areas in Minneapolis and Golden Valley. The items primarily discussed at the Plymouth station included the location of the station platform, a potential roundabout at the intersection of Wirth Parkway and Plymouth Avenue, and potential redevelopment along Plymouth Avenue. Much of the discussion on the Golden Valley Road station centered on potential changes to land uses, increased building density, and access to the station. The METRO Blue Line Extension page of the City website is being updated to include these images and provide a way for residents to give feedback in anticipation of second open house in January nf2O1S. The first Corridor Management Committee meeting was also held on November 12 and much of the project team was introduced to the City, County, and Metropolitan Council representatives. Going forward, o Community Advisory Committee and a Business Advisory Committee will be created in order to provide additional input into the planning process. Recommended Action Receive and file METRO Blue Line Extension Update.