Loading...
02-03-15 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber February 3, 2015 6:30 pm The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Roll Call B. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA 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 - January 20, 2015 3-8 B. Approval of Check Register 1. City 9 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 10 C. Licenses: 1. Solicitor's License - TakeAction Minnesota 11-13 2. Solicitor's License - The Window Store 14-16 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - December 22, 2014 17-31 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - November 25, 2014 32-34 3. Human Rights Commission - December 18, 2014 35-37 4. Teen Committee - September 22, 2014 38-39 5. Joint City Council and Planning Commission - January 12, 2015 40-41 6. Environmental Commission - November 24, 2014 42 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Authorize Purchase One Toro Groundsmaster 5910D 43 2. Authorize Purchase One Bobcat Toolcat 44 3. Authorize Purchase Ford Pickup Trucks 45-46 F. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Metropolitan Consortium of Community 47-57 Developers for Open To Business Program 15-11 G. Establishing Limited Clean-up and Property Damage Protection for Sewer Back-ups 58-61 and Water Main Breaks for Water and Sewer Customers 15-12 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS * A. West Broadway Transit Study Planning Advisory Committee Nomination 62-90 B. Announcements of Meetings C. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT * Item added at Council Meeting -Closed Executive Session regarding Safety Issues immediately following the Council Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA January 20, 2015 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Schmidgall and Snope. Absent: Council Member Fonnest 1B. Pledge of Allegiance 1C. Presentation: METRO Blue Line Update Representatives from the METRO Blue Line Extension Project Office and Hennepin County Community Works presented an update on the METRO Blue Line. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to receive and file the METRO Blue Line update, and the motion carried unanimously. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to amend the agenda as revised: 3K-2015 Government Affairs Priorities revision to the 2015 Legislatives Policies and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the amended agenda of January 20, 2015, and the motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the consent agenda of January 20, 2015, as revised: amendment to item 3K-2015 Government Affairs Priorities and removal of items: 3F -Receive and file resignation from Michael Herring, 3G -Contract with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and 3H - Receive and file Brookview Community Center Report and the motion carried unanimously. 3A1. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting - January 6, 2015 3113. Approve city check register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C1. Approve solicitor's license for Custom Remodelers Inc. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Human Rights Commission - November 25, 2014 2. Joint Water Commission - December 3, 2014 3. Open Space & Recreation Commission - November 24, 2014 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - November 19, 2014 3E. Approve purchase of three Ford Police Interceptor utility vehicles from Nelson Auto Center for the total purchase price of $97,265.85. 3F. ReGeive and file reSigRation from MiGhael Herring from HumaR ServiGes Fund. 3G. Adopt Resolutmon 15-07 aythGFiZiRg the GORtraGt with the Shakopee MdewakanteR 3H. ReGelve and file the Breekview Community GeRter Feasibility Study Summary Rep 31. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the funding agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Grant Program. 3J. Adopt Resolution 15-08 making Annual Elections for the 2015 Insurance Policy. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- January 20, 2015 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3K. Approve the City of Golden Valley 2015 Government Affairs Priorities. 3L. Adopt 2nd consideration of Ordinance #537 amending Chapter 5: Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Regulation and Resolution 15-09 to approve and direct the publication of the title and summary of Ordinance #537. 3M. Adopt 2nd consideration of Ordinance #538 amending the 2015 Master Fee Schedule to include new liquor license fees. 3N. Receive and file the Human Rights Commission 2014 Annual Report and approve the 2015 Work Plan. 30. Approve the following 2015 Council appointments: Council Liaisons Board of Zoning Appeals Fonnest Civil Service Commission Clausen Environmental Commission Fonnest Human Rights Commission Snope Human Services Fund Clausen Open Space and Recreation Commission Clausen Planning Commission Schmidgall Other Assignments Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Campaign Harris, Clausen Golden Valley Business Council Harris, Fonnest, Snope Golden Valley Historical Society Board Member Schmidgall Hennepin County Bottineau Transitway Policy Advisory Snope, Harris Committee Hopkins School District 270 Cities Joint Meetings Harris Hopkins School District 270 Caring Youth Committee Fonnest Joint Water Planning and Governance Task Force Harris Legislative Liaison and Spokesperson Harris, Snope Metro Cities Schmidgall, Delegate Snope, Alternate Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Clausen Robbinsdale School District 281 Government Advisory Committee Fonnest 3P. Approve the following additional meetings for Council reimbursement: Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Campaign Golden Valley Business Council Golden Valley Historical Society Hennepin County Bottineau Transitway Policy Advisory Committee Hopkins School District 270 Caring Youth Committee Hopkins School District 270 Cities Joint Meetings 1-394 Joint Task Force Joint Water Planning and Governance Task Force League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) - Committee Meetings, Legislative Conference and Annual Conference Metro Cities - Annual Meeting, Legislative Adoption Meeting, Regional Briefings, and Committees Minnehaha Creek Watershed District National League of Cities (NLC) - Congressional City Conference in the spring, Congress of Cities in the fall and Board Meetings Robbinsdale School District 281 Government Advisory Committee Senior Community Services Board TwinWest Chamber of Commerce - Mayor/Manager Meetings Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- January 20, 2015 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3Q. Authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign Contract No: A142695, agreement for Brookview with Hennepin County for athletic field improvements at Sandburg Learning Center. 3R. Adopt Resolution 15-10 authorizing submittal of an application to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Redevelopment Grant Program. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3F. Receive and file resignation from Michael Herring from Human Services Fund. Council thanked Mr. Herring for his service on the Human Services Fund and congratulated him on his recent appointment to the Robbinsdale School District Board. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to receive and file the resignation from Michael Herring from the Human Services Fund and the motion carried unanimously. 3G. Adopt Resolution 15-07 authorizing the contract with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for the removal services for brush, soil, and yard waste. Council pointed out that this service is only for City's use and not resident's yard waste. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded Council Member Snope to adopt Resolution 15-07 authorizing the contract with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for the removal services for brush, soil, and yard waste, upon a vote being taking to following voted in favor of: Harris, Snope, Schmidgall and Clausen, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 3H. Receive and file the Brookview Community Center Feasibility Study Summary Report. Council thanked staff and the community members for their hard work on the report. Director of Parks and Recreation Birno answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to receive and file the Brookview Community Center Feasibility Study Summary Report and the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4A. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit #39, Amendment #1 - 5501 Glenwood Avenue - Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center, Applicant Associate Planner Goellner presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen adopt Ordinance #539, Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 39, Amendment #1, 5501 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center, Applicant upon a vote being taking to following voted in favor of: Harris, Snope, Schmidgall and Clausen, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- January 20, 2015 4B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #540 - Amending Chapter 11: Land Use Regulation (Zoning) regarding addition of Breweries, Taprooms, and Brewpubs Associate Planner Goellner presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Ms. Lori Ertl, Under Pressure Brewing Taproom, said she is concerned about limiting the taproom size to 30% of the brewery floor area. She said some of the surrounding communities do not have a limits and explained by restricting the taproom seating it would limit their customer base, productivity, competiveness and cash flow. She said their business would only need so much space for product production and the rest of the square footage may not be used but they would still be required to pay rent on it. Mr. John Keenan, Under Pressure Brewing Taproom, said they planned to have antique furniture which would be larger seating than other restaurants and would take up more floor area so that is why they are asking for easing the limitation of the floor area. He asked if the taproom did need to get a Conditional Use Permit would the cost be annually or a onetime fee. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding amending the Zoning Code regarding the addition of Breweries, Taprooms, and Brewpubs as new uses. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Schmidgall to amend the taproom floor area from 30% permitted use to 50% permitted use. If greater than 50% a Conditional Use Permit would be required, upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Snope and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Mayor Harris to amend the parking requirements for the taproom to 1 space per 60 square feet from 1 space per 40 square feet and for every 2 bicycle spaces provided, 1 car space may be reduced from the minimum parking requirement, for no more than 15% of the required spaces, upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Snope and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Ordinance #540, Amending Section 11.03 Definitions, Section 11.30 Commercial Zoning District, Section 11.35 Light Industrial Zoning District, 11.36 Industrial Zoning District, Section 11.47 Mixed Use Zoning District, and Section 11.70 Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations regarding Breweries, Taprooms, and Brewpubs as amended, upon a vote being taking to following voted in favor of: Harris, Schmidgall and Snope and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. 4C. Public Hearing - Final PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds One PUD No. 117 - 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant Associate Planner Goellner presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- January 20, 2015 4C. Public Hearing - Final PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds One PUD No. 117 - continued Mr. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, Applicant, reviewed the proposal and presented details as to where the required parking spaces would be in the development. He stated that the street would have signage per the Fire Marshal's recommendation. He explained what the custom home designs may be for the development. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Mr. Reno Kreuger, 500 Quebec Avenue South, said he and the neighbors approve of the development but are concerned about traffic on Quebec Avenue. He asked if the City would one day add a sign on Quebec that stated is was not a through street. Ms. Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue, said she is pleased with the development but she has questions on the traffic. She asked if a stop sign would be installed at the intersection going into the development because there are a lot of kids and dogs in the neighborhood. She also asked what the time frame of the project would be due to the fact her house is across the street from the proposed development. Mr. Steve Devitt, 235 Pennsylvania Avenue, asked if there will be no parking signs posted on Pennsylvania because there may be overflow parking on it. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the Final PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds One PUD No. 117 located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South for Lake West Development, LLC. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Ordinance #541, Approval of Final PUD Plan, Laurel Ponds One PUD No. 117, Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant, upon a vote being taking the following voted in favor of: Harris, Schmidgall, Snope and Clausen the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Announcements of Meetings A Community Listening Session for the Golden Valley Subdivision Study will be held on January 21, 2015, from 6:30 to 8 pm in the Council Chambers. Some Council Members may attend a Legislative Breakfast on January 24, 2015, at 9:30 am at the Crystal City Hall. Some Council Members may attend the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Bowling Fundraiser on January 25, 2015, starting at 11 am at the Doyle's Bowling and Lounge in Crystal. Some Council Members may attend the METRO Blue Line Extension Station Area Planning Open House #2 on January 29, 2015, from 5:30 to 8 pm at the University Research Outreach and Engagement Center. The next City Council Meeting will be held on February 3, 2015, at 6:30 pm. Unofficial City Council Minutes -6- January 20, 2015 6113. Mayor and Council Communication Mayor Harris announced the nomination deadline for the 2015 Caring Youth Award will be February 2, 2015. Council directed staff to look into creating an ordinance for food trucks. Mr. Burt stated staff will work on it. Council asked for an update on the e -cigarettes ordinance. Mr. Burt stated staff is working on revising the ordinance with specific language for e -cigarettes and will be it back for future Council consideration. Council asked staff when the Teen Committee meeting minutes will be available. Mr. Birno stated the minutes will be presented in the near future. 7. Adjournment MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope, and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 pm. Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city 0 )f go ldval�ley MEMORANDUM Finance De artilf int 763-593-$p13 1763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city 0 )f go ldval�ley MEMORANDUM Finance De artilf int 763-593-$p13 1763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city of goldval�� Y MEMORANDUM City Administration/ Council 763-593-39911763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Solicitor's License - TakeAction Minnesota 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 TakeAction Minnesota. 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: $ 60 • " 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: PeddlerSolicitor (circle one)— Enclose ne f Enclose the sum of $ 56'06 for 7 (number) peddler solicito as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with affwe requirements of said Code necessary for obtaining this license. �� .�ic►nn sc�- � (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) 31� 304Y-7 'Zo -- 333's(.,I I MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Business (Corporation, Proprietorshlp, rship, Non -Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) S a ma- 5L4--1010 (Address) Q 5-6-t 1 q City, State and Zip Code) -0"? t(19 ephon umber, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, - s ,n ,, e� engU;fl^ _ hereby makes application for (Aoplic t Name) period of, PA 26iS through 121311 tom, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. * JAC .2p at �A (,qorAtuy of plicant/PrincipalOfficer) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): 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 persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City: ) 3-7 - LI 7 7-80-72 (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF tA iJ ) ss. COUNTY OF �211'I15eof } �Pfl`Ver/lndividual) (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. Subscribed and V1 dav cd rn to before me this atufe) 20IS7 �r Sig a Appli ant/Principal Officer) -&42 MCA Wsamaobe TIFFANY RENEE HICKS { Notary Public Minnesota i M Comm. Expires Jan 31, 2019 city of goldval�� Y MEMORANDUM City Administration/ Council 763-593-39911763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - The Window Store 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 The Window Store. 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: $� 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler olicitor (circle one) Enclose the sum of $ S OfMor (Q-�— (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary for obtaining this license. vi �_,> a� (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Business or ora#io Proprietorship, Partnership, Non -Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) Qq (Address) SS City, State and Zip Code) G a_r353 - S_�-Sa (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, P-w4'av`��,p hereby makes application for .� (Applicant Name) period of ISD �a ' through 121311 I�? subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Co e. P AWWVI a.`{r Utz, (Signature of Applica Principal Officer) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): 0 6 --1 e- vv`. 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 na7s and addresses of all persons engaged in peddlin or soliciting in the City: %�c�-via ® 3 � tri � t � 1r• �. sa ""� (ojj'kZ4Z'/' e"1oq-e - n0 as add r65r5 (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF A ) . )ss' COUNTY OF 'W -PP\- ) A ic�,\Po u,- `5 &.\,.,- v, (Officer/lndividual) `'hof `TI -A- VW � �6 Ckj (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. Signature ofWpplicanVPrincipal Officer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this of (Signature) 201�` s JUDITH A. NALLY NDTARY PUBLIC -M WEWM My commission Expires it January 31, 2020 WK Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 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, December 22, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, 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. 1. Approval of Minutes November 24, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 24, 2014, and December 8, 2014, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit — 5501 Glenwood Avenue — Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center — CU -39, Amendment #1 Applicant: Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center Address: 5501 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To amend and update their existing Conditional Use Permit allowing the existing daycare to serve up to 105 children. Zimmerman explained the Applicant's request to amend their existing Conditional Use Permit in order to increase the number of children they can serve. The original Conditional Use Permit, approved in 1989, limits the number of children served to 50. He stated that the Applicant constructed a significant building addition in 2014, which created more space for the daycare facility, and allows the site to serve up to 105 children. However, the applicant anticipates their enrollment to be approximately 75 children in 2015. Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the number of trips per day for this site. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and noted that there are two access points on the site. He stated that each child would generate two trips per day and that the Applicant could explain the timing of the trips. He added that there are approximately 8,000 trips per day on Glenwood and that this use would have a fairly small impact. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 2 Cera stated that the access point on Turners Crossroad is usually gated. Ken Mestelle, representing Golden Valley Lutheran Church, stated that the gate on Turners Crossroad is open on Sundays, and that the majority of the daycare traffic enters on Glenwood Avenue. Waldhauser asked why the City cares about limiting the number of children as long as a daycare is licensed through the State. Segelbaum stated that the City considers traffic issues and how the surrounding area may be impacted. Zimmerman agreed that noise, traffic, etc. would be potential reasons to regulate a daycare use. Johnson stated that the Board of Zoning appeals granted a variance for the recent building addition and asked why the issue regarding the number of children in the daycare didn't get addressed at that time. Zimmerman stated that the variance request was in regard to the building and that the daycare is in regard to the use. He added that the two issues are reviewed by two different bodies and that the Applicant wasn't aware of the limits on their daycare at the time they applied for the variance. Brenda Lovhaug, Director of Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center, stated that she came to City Hall to pick up her final building permit paperwork regarding the addition and was told she needed to update their Conditional Use Permit. Segelbaum asked for an explanation of the drop-off and pick-up route through the parking lot. Mestelle stated that cars come in from Glenwood, park in a parking stall and unload their children. He added that parents don't line up to drop their kids off at the front door because the kids are infants and toddlers, not school -aged kids. Segelbaum asked Mestelle if he is concerned about the increase in traffic and conflicts it may cause in their driveway. Mestelle said there has never been an issue with traffic. He added that Glenwood Avenue is wider in front of their driveway for the left turn lane onto Xenia so that also helps with traffic flow. Segelbaum asked if the left turn lane is marked. Mestelle said no. Baker asked the Applicants if they are mindful of the timing with Meadowbrook School's hours. Lovhaug said their morning drop-offs occur between 7 and 8:30 am and that Meadowbrook starts one hour later. She added that Meadowbrook is done at 3 pm and that most of her daycare parents pick up their children at 5:30 pm, so there hasn't been a conflict. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Cera stated that this is a straightforward proposal, the Applicant is a good neighbor, and they have added plenty of space to accommodate their daycare use. He suggesting changing the City's ordinances to match the State ordinances regarding daycare uses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 3 Segelbaum said he is a little concerned about not having the entrance/exit lines painted on the driveway. Kluchka asked Zimmerman if there have been any concerns expressed about access or traffic on Glenwood. Zimmerman said he hasn't heard any complaints but he would check with the Police Department and the Public Works Department. Baker said he is concerned about people going west on Glenwood. Mestelle reiterated that there have been no traffic problems in their parking lot or on Glenwood. Baker said he would like feedback before this proposal goes to the City Council because he doesn't know if traffic is an issue or not. Cera suggested requiring striping in the driveway. Kluchka stated that Staff has not recommend striping, he just wants to make sure it is not an issue. Waldhauser said she thinks a traffic issue would be much more obvious on Sundays. Segelbaum said that Glenwood is not as busy on Sundays as it is on weekdays. Baker suggested that the Applicant be mindful of striping if the need arises. Mestelle said he really doesn't think there will be any issues because their daycare numbers have increased since their original Conditional Use Permit was granted. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 5501 Glenwood Avenue to allow the existing daycare to serve up to 105 children subject to following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The Golden Valley Lutheran Church has successfully operated the existing day- care in this location since the CUP was initially approved in 1989. 2. A child day-care use in association with a church is consistent with the Schools and Religious Facilities designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Staff anticipates the continuation of this use would have no impact on the surrounding property values. 4. 2013 Hennepin County traffic counts on this section of Glenwood Avenue show approximately 8,500 trips per day. Staff does not anticipate any additional negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas based on the small number of additional trips generated by this amended use. 5. The amended use may generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the location. 6. The amended use may result in a slight increase in noise as a result of more children using the outdoor play area, but any increase is anticipated to have minimal impact. 7. The amended use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. The amended use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Because the amended use has already been relocated into the new building addition, Staff does not anticipate any negative impacts on in the visual quality of the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 4 10. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the amended use. Bringing the use into the church building will allow for consolidation and increased efficiencies on the property. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the Applicant on November 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Fire Chief John Crelly to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 16, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan Review — Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To allow for a 24 -unit, detached townhome development Zimmerman explained the Applicant's proposal to demolish the existing structures at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South and construct 24 detached townhomes on the site. He discussed the modifications from the Preliminary PUD plans including: the reduction in the number of units from 30 to 24, keeping the drainage, open space and walkway easement 55 feet wide instead of reducing it, and redesigning the internal street, Laurel Point, to align with Quebec Avenue South. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the proposed layout which includes six rows of homes with four single family homes in each row, accessed via Pennsylvania Avenue. There will be one private street (Laurel Point) to the south that would dead end with emergency vehicle access over grass pavers via the WorkAbilities property. The two entry points to the north would be connected with a private loop street (Laurel Curve), and all but two homes would have access from the internal circulation system; the others would have access via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that the lot widths and depths will vary from 36 feet to 53 feet in width, and from 80 feet to 100 feet in depth. The typical distance between the homes would be 10 feet to the side and 25 feet to the rear, and the homes could potentially have 4,144 to 6,286 square feet of living area. He added that there will be a homeowner's association for maintenance and snow removal. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a comparison chart that illustrates how this proposed PUD differs from the underlying R-3 Zoning District requirements. He explained that the areas in which they differ are lot width, and front, side and rear yard setback requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 5 Zimmerman discussed the on-site parking and stated that there will be two garage stalls for each unit, plus two parking spaces on each driveway. He added that some parking bays will be constructed along the internal streets, and that the parking will be limited to one side of the street except along the east loop connection. He said there will also be four to eight proof of parking spaces, and an area for guest parking through an easement, on the WorkAbilities site next door. Zimmerman discussed the landscaping on the site and stated that a stormwater infiltration basin would be constructed within the City's easement along Laurel Avenue. Also, the northernmost 10 feet of the easement would be available for back yard space without structures. He added that sidewalks will be added along Pennsylvania Avenue and on the east side of the site to connect the upper and lower portions. Zimmerman stated that the platting of the property will be done in phases. The first plat will allow for the demolition of the single family home and for the construction of a model home. The second plat will create eight lots to the south and allow for the demolition of the office building. The third plat will create the final 15 lots. He added that the City will hold money in escrow to ensure the existing building is demolished as required. Johnson asked about the difference between detached townhomes and single family homes. Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes have a homeowners association. Johnson asked if the space between the homes would have to be larger if they were single family homes. Zimmerman said yes. Waldhauser questioned the condition to preclude fencing on the site. Zimmerman said there is language in the association covenants and in Staff's conditions of approval regarding fences. Baker noted that the R-3 Zoning District allows structures to be four stories or 48 feet in height and asked if the homes proposed in this project could be built that tall. Zimmerman stated that language applies when considering properties in the R-3 Zoning district, and doesn't necessarily apply to a PUD proposal. He stated that the Applicant is only proposing two and three story structures. Baker questioned how the City could prevent the Applicant from building four story structures. Zimmerman explained that a PUD approval approves the plans submitted with the application that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Baker said he is concerned about a really tall, dense development. Kluchka said he is more conscious of the building materials. Segelbaum asked if the applicant can go beyond the height shown in their plans. Waldhauser reiterated that the plans submitted by the Applicant are what is being approved. Zimmerman stated that a more explicit condition regarding height can be added. Waldhauser asked if the homeowners will be able to have decks, and noted that the lack of fencing may not allow for fencing around patios. Zimmerman said there is not much room for decks, but some of the lots might have space for a patio. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 6 Blum stated that the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission has some concern about the stormwater infiltration basin and asked if the Applicant has done anything to address those concerns. Zimmerman said the Engineers have been working together regarding the infiltration basin and they feel comfortable recommending approval subject to the conditions in the Staff reports. Baker asked if the approval of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission could be made a condition of approval. Zimmerman said he is not sure of the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission's procedures, but he knows the Applicant won't be able to obtain building permits without their approval. Johnson asked if detached townhomes are a permitted use in the R-3 Zoning District. Zimmerman said no. He added that detached townhomes are a fairly new product and that they would only be allowed with a PUD. Cera asked how variances would be handled. Zimmerman suggested creating a building envelope as a condition of approval. Cera stated that the width of the streets vary and asked if they could be more standard. Zimmerman explained that the streets are wider when they are two-way and narrower when they are one-way. He added that the Fire Department is comfortable with the proposed width of the streets. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to summarize the private street requirements. Zimmerman stated that PUDs require public streets unless a waiver is granted. Baker asked about the minimum width for a one-way City street and noted that there is one point in this proposal where the street is 16 feet wide. He questioned if that is wide enough. Waldhauser said she thinks two vehicles could pass each other on a 16 foot wide street if needed. Waldhauser asked if the homeowners could plant trees on their lots. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked about a possible walkway around the stormwater infiltration basin and asked if the picture shown is just conceptual, or actually where trees will be planted. Zimmerman referred to the landscaping plan in the agenda packet showing where trees would be planted. Segelbaum asked if 7 foot wide sidewalks are standard. Zimmerman stated that the City typically asks for 8 foot wide sidewalks when possible, but realizes there are places where that won't work. Kluchka asked if the sidewalk committee has reviewed the plans. Zimmerman said they haven't yet reviewed the plans, and noted that the sidewalk dead ends on the north of the site. Kluchka asked if there have been additional neighborhood meetings held. Zimmerman said no, but the Applicant has shared the current renderings, narrative, and how the project has evolved with the neighbors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 7 Kluchka referred to the requirement regarding hip roofs for the houses on the north side of the site. Zimmerman stated that a hip roof is lower than a house with a gable roof, and will be less impactful on the properties to the north. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, Applicant, showed the Commissioners a site plan of his original proposal for 30 townhomes and discussed how that original plan evolved into this current plan for 24 townhomes. He stated that the current parking requirements for the R-3 Zoning District are one parking stall inside and one parking stall outside. This design proposes two stall garages and two stall driveways for each unit and some on street parking which equals almost five stalls per dwelling unit. He stated that the homeowner's association would not allow fencing between units, but would not preclude privacy fencing for patios. He discussed the drainage patterns on the site and how the bio -retention infiltration basin will work. He discussed the architectural style of the proposed homes and showed the Commissioners photos and elevations of the potential houses. He referred to a site plan and discussed the internal sidewalk system and the guest parking on the neighboring WorkAbilities site. He discussed his plan for the phasing of construction and stated that construction would start on the south end of the property. Cera asked about the price of the homes. Jensen said their target market is empty nesters and the cost of the homes will range from $300,000 to $400,000. Waldhauser asked if the storm sewer and drainage are located in the back yards between the houses that back up to each other. Jensen said yes, and discussed the storm sewer plans. Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the fencing requirements. Jensen stated that homeowners would not be allowed to fence in their entire yard, but a patio located within the building envelope would be allowed. Baker stated that hedges could create the same effect as a fence and asked if hedges would be allowed. Jensen stated that the homeowner's association documents would state what is allowed, or not allowed and added that they will also have to preserve the drainage areas. Blum asked Jensen how he can ensure there will be variability in the design of the homes. Jensen stated that there will be architectural controls in the homeowner's association covenants such as no two homes with the exact design or same color will be allowed next to each other. Baker said he is concerned about the potential height of the houses. Jensen reiterated that the approval will be consistent with the plans that were submitted. He said he sees no reason to build a four story house. Baker questioned if the cost of the homes would really be $300,000 to $400,000 if they are 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in size. Jensen stated that the 4,000 to 6,000 square feet is the envelope size. Baker said he thinks the values will be higher, and questioned if someone could build a million dollar home. Jensen said that would be highly unlikely because the homes in the area average $200,000 to $400,000. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 8 Kluchka asked who would be controlling the design standards. Jensen said that the developer, along with the builders will control the designs. Cera asked if the homeowner's association will have any design control. Jensen stated that the homeowner's association will have an architectural review board. Baker referred to the width of the streets and asked Jensen how he can rationalize that a 16 foot wide road, with a 6% grade and snow storage is viable. Jensen said that he can't say that no one will ever get stuck, but they have designed a one way street in order to not have excess pavement, and that the association will control the snow removal. He added that the streets will function the vast majority of the time. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Adam Hiler, 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said he is frustrated with the process. He said the developer has done a lot of things and that the City has made it very difficult. He said he is obviously trying to sell his house and he feels like the developer is having to jump through a lot of hoops. He said he understands that the City is trying to make this project right for the neighborhood, but it is frustrating hearing multiple questions that have already been answered. Steve Devitt, 235 Pennsylvania Avenue South, asked if the project is restricted to just one builder. Seeing and hearing no else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka stated that this is the Final plan review and questioned if the Planning Commission feels that the significant benefits of this plan exceed what will be given up by going beyond the limits of the underlying zoning. Segelbaum said he thinks that question has been asked and answered by approving the Preliminary plan. Kluchka said he doesn't think the question has been answered. He said he thinks a lot of the issues have changed such as lowering the density, and not building in the easement area. He said enough has changed that he is re-evaluating whether it is enough anymore. Waldhauser said she thinks this plan is significantly better than the Preliminary plan. She said to get this level of density with quality construction is worthwhile, and that the developer has done a good job meeting their concerns. Baker said he agrees, but if a precedent is set, he thinks the City will likely see more of these very massive, densely constructed projects. Segelbaum reiterated that the approach has been decided because the City Council gave Preliminary plan approval. He said there however, are a number of issues that haven't been addressed yet, that he thought they would see at this Final plan stage. Kluchka said the first issue is determining the appropriate height of the structures. Segelbaum said he would like the height of the homes be less than 40 feet. Cera noted that the height limit in the Single Family Zoning District is 28 feet, so he wouldn't want to the structures in this proposal to be much taller than that. Zimmerman noted that building height is measured at the front of a structure. Baker said he would be in favor of restricting the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 9 height in this case. Kluchka questioned if there needs to be clarification regarding which elevation will be on which street. He said he doesn't want the homes to be out of scale with one another. Cera stated that the homes transition to a lower height when they get closer to the single family homes to the north. Johnson said he appreciates the Applicant's effort to transition the height of the homes, but questioned why these proposed homes wouldn't have the same requirements as other single family homes. Waldhauser said there are many home designs that would fit within the 28 -foot height limit. Kluchka questioned if it would be reasonable to measure the height of the homes in the back yard. Baker said he would like to condition the front yard height. Segelbaum said he thinks it would be reasonable to apply R-1 standards and if the applicant wants to deviate from them, he'll have to ask. Kluchka suggested a condition stating that the height has to be the same as allowed in the R-1 Zoning District, but not the setbacks. Johnson suggested requiring proportionality, or the smaller the lot, the smaller the home allowed. Baker said he would be alright having 12 feet between the homes, but not having tall homes. Kluchka asked Jensen how he feels about adhering to the R-1 standards regarding height. Jensen said the plans submitted have been the same request from the beginning of the process. He said this isn't an R-1 area, it is meant to be a transition area that can be more dense. Baker said he doesn't know what the Planning Commission's response would be to an R-3 type of proposal and that doesn't affect how they are responding to this proposal. He added that he is concerned about how this fits into this very visible community, and he doesn't want it to be a "sore thumb." Kluchka said he thinks this is the right spot for a transitional space, but he wants to say something about the height. Cera noted that the applicant could build the structures together like a typical townhouse, and would not have to get planning approvals at all. Waldhauser stated that this is somewhat of a closed neighborhood and that the houses will all face each other except for the two homes on Pennsylvania Avenue, so she doesn't think it will stick out as being too tall. Baker disagreed and said the other houses in the area are mostly ramblers. He said he is nervous about the maximum height shown on the plans and he'd like to limit it. Cera said comparing this development to other houses in the area isn't fair because they were built at a different time. He suggested limiting the height of the houses on Laurel Curve to 28 feet and the ones on Laurel Point to 35 feet. Baker suggested limiting the entire PUD to 30 feet in height. Segelbaum suggested Lots 9- 24 be limited to 28 feet and the rest to 35 feet. Jensen said he would be comfortable saying that the home dimensions will be the same as shown in the plans submitted. Waldhauser stated that if the homes are truly aimed at empty -nesters they won't want large homes. Kluchka said he doesn't want a house to be 35 feet tall in the front and 45 feet tall in the back. He suggested that if the front of the house is on the downslope then the back of the house should be limited to 35 feet. Waldhauser suggested language stating that one side is limited to 28 feet, and one side is limited to 35 feet. Baker said he would rather specify the maximum height for each lot. He suggested the maximum height be limited to 28 feet for Lots 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20, and 35 feet for Lots 8-5, 13-16 and 21-24. The Commissioners agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 10 Kluchka said the next issue is the building envelope. Zimmerman stated that patios could be built beyond the building envelope, but decks could not. Segelbaum questioned if fences should be allowed around patios. Baker said he thinks that should be up to the homeowner's association. Cera suggested that a condition be added stating that no variances will be granted for structures outside of the building envelope. He questioned if a condition not allowing houses of the same design next to each other should also be added. Waldhauser suggested that the Applicant bring an example of the restrictions to the City Council meeting. Kluchka stated that the closest condition related to design standards is number six in the staff report which states that the building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. Zimmerman explained that house designs can't be reviewed because there aren't house plans to review at this point in the process. He stated that the Commission could address materials, architectural guidelines and home styles. Segelbaum referred to the question regarding the restriction to one builder. Zimmerman stated that the Applicant is not restricted to one builder. Baker asked if a buyer could bring in their own builder. Jensen stated that projects like this typically have one or two builders who are able to work together. Kluchka referred to the proposed landscaping on the southwest corner and said he is not seeing a practical use when there is not a path proposed. He said he wants a more human connection, and it would be more useful to have a path to the area, and the benches closer to the sidewalk so people will use it. Waldhauser said it might be used more by the residents, not necessarily the public. Jensen said there is time to make changes, and that he agrees there should be a human connection. Kluchka summarized that a condition regarding the height of the homes and a condition regarding variances should be added. Also, condition number six in the staff report should be modified regarding design and building materials. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final Plan for Laurel Ponds One PUD No. 117, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 11 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EVS, received December 17, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 16, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 4. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2) unless adequate separation is provided through additional landscaping, berming or similar means. 5. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development. 6. Homeowners Association covenants regarding design and building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 8. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtained by that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 9. Easement agreements related to parking and the retaining wall shall be reviewed by the City and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. 10. A park dedication fee of $17,400, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 11. The maximum building height, as defined by City Code, shall be 28 feet for the homes on Lots 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20, and 35 feet for the homes on Lots 5-8, 13-16 and 21-24. 12. There shall be no structures located outside of the building envelope area, and no variances granted for structures to be located outside of the building envelope area. 13. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 14. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment — Adding Brewery and Taproom Language — ZO00-93 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider adding language to the Zoning Code regarding breweries and taprooms. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 12 Goellner reminded the Commissioners that they discussed options for permitting and regulating breweries, taprooms and brewpubs at their March 10, 2014 meeting. She discussed the definitions of a brewery, taproom, and brewpub. She stated that staff is recommending that breweries and taprooms limited to less than 25% of the brewery floor area, be a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts, and a conditional use in the Mixed Use Zoning District. The staff recommendation for brewpubs is that they be a conditional use in the Commercial Zoning District and a permitted use in the Mixed Use Zoning District. Goellner referred to the parking requirements and stated that a brewery has parking needs similar to those of a manufacturing facility, 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, and a taproom would require parking similar to a Class III restaurant, 1 space per 60 square feet of floor area plus 1 space per 25 square feet of bar area. Goellner referred to the distance regulations in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts and stated that staff is recommending 75 feet for uses facing R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, 100 feet for uses adjoining R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and 50 feet for uses adjoining R-3, R-4, Business and Professional Offices, and Institutional Zoning Districts. Goellner stated that issues such as hours of operation, outdoor patios, indoor/outdoor entertainment, special events, maximum brewing capacity, growler standards, conduct on the premises, violations, and fees will be addressed in the liquor licensing section of City Code. She added that food trucks, and their partnering with taprooms, will be considered in the future since food trucks are not currently permitted or licensed. Kluchka opened the public hearing. John Keenan, Under Pressure Brewing, said he is concerned about limiting the size of the taproom to 25% of the brewery floor area. He said it seems restrictive and that 40% to 50% would be better, but not overbearing, and would offer more community gathering space. Kluchka asked if this is a seasonal business with outdoor space. Lori Ertl, Under Pressure Brewing, said there aren't many buildings in Golden Valley that would allow outdoor space. She said limiting the size of the taproom space will limit their customer base, their business, and their profitability, and it will also limit the City's tax base. She said they need the taproom space to be larger in order to make the business viable. She added that they are not looking to make this into a bar scene, but they need to have a larger taproom space. Waldhauser asked Ertl to give examples of some local taprooms that operate how she would like to operate. Ertl gave several examples, and said they would like to do a 7 barrel system which will give them 14 kegs at a time. Keenan said they may provide keg sales to local restaurants as well. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 13 Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Blum said he is concerned about establishments only serving alcoholic beverages without offering a food component to help people regulate their alcohol content. He said he feels more comfortable knowing that food could be brought in by the customers. Kluchka suggested that the liquor license could require a food option to be offered. Baker asked if the Zoning Code and liquor license changes could happen quickly enough to allow Under Pressure Brewing to open fairly soon. Zimmerman stated that consideration of the liquor licensing and Zoning Code changes will align at same City Council meeting. Baker questioned where the language came from regarding taprooms only being allowed in less than 25% of the floor space. Goellner stated that she came up with that number while researching other communities' requirements. She explained that the point is to keep the taproom accessory to the brewery. She suggested that if an applicant wants to have a larger taproom a conditional use permit could be required. Kluchka suggested that the ordinance language be changed to say taprooms larger than 30% require a conditional use permit. Segelbaum agreed that 25% or 30% is a good place to start. Baker suggested a 60%-40% split between the brewery and taproom spaces. Cera suggested the language be changed to "less than 50%" of the floor space could be used for taproom space. The Commissioners agreed that they would like the language to be changed to state that 30% of the floor space can be used for the taproom, and if an applicant wants more than that they can apply for a conditional use permit. Kluchka questioned what kind of provisions, such as size, location, noise and odor, the Commission should recommend. Blum suggested that these types of establishments be located near public transportation. Segelbaum noted that taprooms, and not breweries, are proposed to be a permitted use in the Light Industrial Zoning District. He questioned if breweries should be a conditional use. Baker questioned where bars are allowed. Goellner stated that Class III restaurants (bars, nightclubs, taverns, etc.) are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Commercial Zoning District, and are a permitted use in the Mixed Use Zoning District. Waldhauser referred to the proposed parking requirements and said that taprooms seem to be more akin to fast food restaurants with very dense seating. She suggested that there be a higher parking ratio for taprooms. Goellner suggested a higher parking ratio for the bar and seating areas. The Commissioners agreed that they would like the parking requirement to be 1 space per 40 square feet of gross floor area. Segelbaum suggested the definition of taproom be changed to read as follows: A facility accessory to a brewery that is licensed by the City to sell the malt liquors made at the brewery for consumption on the premises. He said that changing the definition will keep it consistent with the definition of brewery and clarifies that the consumption takes place Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 14 on the premises. Kluchka asked if that means a taproom couldn't sell growlers. Segelbaum stated that the taproom is accessory to the brewery, and that they would have to be a brewery first in order to sell growlers. Goellner added that both on -sale and off -sale licenses would be required to have a taproom and sell growlers. Blum asked about the definition of malt liquor. Goellner said malt liquor is defined in the liquor licensing section on the City Code as follows: Any beer, ale, or other beverage made from malt by fermentation and containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. Kluchka suggested taking the words "such as beer and ale" out of the definition of brewery in order to be consistent. Segelbaum questioned if retail sales should be limited to taprooms, or if breweries would also be allowed to sell accessory retail items. Goellner said she would speak with the City Attorney regarding retail sales in a brewery. Segelbaum asked if other communities have different hours for taprooms versus bars. Goellner stated that most communities' hours for taprooms are Wednesday through Sunday 4 pm to 11 pm. She added that hours of operation would be addressed in the liquor licensing section of the City Code. Kluchka stated that there are several bike trails in Industrial areas and maybe they will be a good fit with these proposed uses. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend the Zoning Code text amendment regarding breweries, taprooms and brewpubs subject to the following changes: 1. The parking requirement for a taproom shall be 1 space per 40 square feet of gross floor area. 2. The definition of taproom shall be changed to read as follows: A facility accessory to a brewery that is licensed by the City to sell the malt liquors made at the brewery for consumption on the premises. 3. The proposed language shall be changed to allow 30% of the floor area to be used for a taproom. If an applicant wants a taproom larger than 30% of the floor area a conditional use permit must be obtained. 4. Language shall be added regarding allowing retail sales in a brewery. --Short Recess -- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker gave an update on the most recent Bottineau Station Area Planning Committee meeting and stated that there will be a community meeting regarding the Bottineau Light Rail project on January 7 at the Courage Kenny Rehabilitation Institute. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 15 Kluchka gave a summary of the Community Center Task Force presentation given at the December Council/Manager meeting. 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2014 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Kluchka. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — September 23, 2014, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 23, 2014, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1309 Tyrol Trail Cynthia Cattell and John Wyqant, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11 .21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements 2.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (southwest) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a screen porch addition. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to construct a screen porch addition on the southwest side of their home. The proposed addition would be located 10 ft. from the side yard property line rather than the required 12.5 feet. She added that the stairs on the proposed screen porch are allowed to encroach into the setback area. Goellner said that the applicants stated in their application that the unique circumstances in this case are the way the house was situated on the property, the fact that this a corner lot, and the fact that the proposed porch would be inaccessible from any other side of the home. Nelson asked about the dimensions of the proposed new porch. Goellner said it will be approximately 11 ft. x 12 ft. in size. Orenstein asked if the proposal received consent from the neighbors. Goellner explained that consent by the neighbors is not required, but that the neighbors did receive a hearing notice regarding this meeting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2014 Page 2 Maxwell asked about the existing tree that is located near the proposed new porch. John Wygant, Applicant, said they like the tree and they want to keep it. Maxwell asked Wygant if he has talked with his neighbors about this proposal. Wygant said yes, and that the neighbors have said they are fine with what he is proposing. Nelson asked if the proposed porch would be visible from either street. Wygant said no. Maxwell referred to the application and asked the applicant to address the option of angling the proposed porch so that a variance would not be required. Wygant stated that is one option they considered, however the screen porch would be awkward, and not rectangular in shape if they did that. Laura Orfield, Designer/General Contractor for the proposal, added that if the proposed porch were built at an angle in order to meet the setback requirements, the porch would be much smaller and would look strange. Nelson referred to the criteria the Board the uses when considering variances and stated that this lot shape is unique, where the house sits on the lot is unique, the porch will be somewhat hidden from view, and the applicant has examined other alternatives. Maxwell asked why a porch couldn't be built on top of the existing garage. Wygant stated they would have to build three steps up in order to access the top of the garage and that the ceilings are not high enough to do that. He stated that it would also cause problems with the layout of the dining room. Orfield added that it would also interfere with building code requirements regarding the step height. She stated that putting a porch above the garage would be very visible from the street, would look monstrously huge and unattractive from all sides, and would be oversized for the era of this home. Kluchka asked why the porch couldn't just be built smaller without the angled side. Wygant stated that the porch they are proposing is already pretty small. Orfield added that building the porch without the angled wall would make the dimensions approximately 9 ft. x 12 ft. which would make the space awkward. Maxwell asked the applicant to address any other unique features of the property. Orfield stated that the house is set far back on the lot, the plans have already been approved by a structural engineer so the applicants don't want to waste the money they already spent, and with Mr. Wygant's wife's health issues this is the only way for her to go outside. Perich asked when the existing patio was built. Wygant said he wasn't sure, but that it was built before they bought the house. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that there are many house in this neighborhood that would require variances according to today's requirements. She said she thinks the proposal is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood. The proposal is reasonable, the property has a steep slope, and the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2014 Page 3 existing patio already has a bigger impact than the proposed porch will, so she is in favor of granting the requested variance. Kluchka said he doesn't think a slope on the property means that they can't meet the requirements. Perich said the unique feature to him is where the house was placed on the lot and if the proposed porch were smaller it wouldn't really be worth building. He added that the unique circumstances in this case were not caused by the landowner and that the proposed porch won't alter the essential character of its locality. Orenstein agreed that the proposal is reasonable. Kluchka stated that the existing patio already encroaches more than the proposed porch will and that this proposal won't make the situation worse. He agreed that the proposal is reasonable. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 2.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (southwest) property line to allow for the construction of a screen porch addition. III. Other Business Maxwell suggested that since Andy Johnson is no longer on the Board, he would be the Chair and the Board should elect a new Vice Chair. Nelson nominated Perich to be the Vice Chair, Perich accepted and the Board unanimously agreed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:24 pm. George Maxwell, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant MINUTES Human Rights Commission (HRC) City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Council Conference Room December 18, 2014 Commissioners present: Teresa Martin, Chair Carla Johnson, Vice Chair Jonathan Burris Adam Buttress Michael Pristash Sue Phelps Andrew Ramlet Commissioners absent: Simon Gotlieb Payton Perkins Guest: Gloria Peck, Resident Staff: Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager The meeting was convened at 6:35 pm by Chair Martin. Introductions Gloria Peck introduced herself as a resident and member of the Spirit of Hope Church. Approval of November 25, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Burris, second by Commissioner Johnson to approve the November 25, 2014 minutes with the change of correcting September 11 falls on a Saturday to Friday. Motion carried 7-0. Addition to Agenda The addition of item V, E Genocide Program Update was made to the agenda. Council Updates The 2014 Annual Report and 2015 Work Plan will be updated with any actions HRC takes tonight and be ready for Chair Martin to present at the Council/Manager Meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2015. Old Business May 2015 HRC Conversations Planning — Blank Slate Theatre Production of "bottom" Commissioner Phelps reported the Blank Slate Theatre charges $2,000 to bring the production onsite. They require a $1,000 deposit to reserve the date. Knauss reported Brookview Community Center was not available on May 14 from 6:30-8 pm for the event. She then contacted the Perpich Center for the Arts Education (PCAE) Human Rights Commission December 18, 2014 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 and they agreed to partner with HRC and allow the use of their main performance stage for the production and assist in promoting the program to their students. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, second by Commissioner Pristash to authorize Knauss to sign the contract with Blank Slate Theatre for the production of "bottom" in the amount of $2,000 and authorize the payment of the $1,000 deposit. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner Phelps will contact Robbinsdale and Hopkins school districts to see what their protocol is in promoting events to their students. October 2015 HRC Conversations Planning It was the consensus of the HRC that of the two October dates discussed (Thursdays, October 8 and 22), that October 22 is their first -choice date to hold the second Conversations Event on Human Sex Trafficking. Chair Martin will check with NAMI on what if any resources they could direct the HRC on this topic. Knauss will check with the city's Crime Prevention Analyst on possible resources on this topic. HRC Traveling Meeting The Commission discussed holding a meeting at the PCAE so they would be able to see the performance space and layout of the facilities prior to the May 14 event. Knauss will check with PCAE to see if this is an option. Senior Fair At a previous meeting, there was discussion as to possibly sponsoring/hosting a Senior Fair. Knauss provided information on Senior Fair type of events that are already available: -Resource Fair at Calvary Center Cooperative: speakers and representatives from businesses and organizations geared toward seniors. -Senior Spring Forum hosted by Karel 1 at Brooklyn Park Community Center: speakers and over 70 vendors. -Senior Parks & Recreation Programs: taxes, foot health, Medicare, insurance, etc. It was the consensus of the HRC that this topic area is being covered by other organizations and to focus on other topics/areas. Genocide Program Update There is information that the HRCs of the Cities of New Hope and Crystal are planning a program that would provide information on Genocide. Chair Martin will contact the City of New Hope HRC to find out more information. Commissioner Pristash will contact the City of Crystal HRC to find out more information. Both will report back at the January 2015 meeting. Human Rights Commission December 18, 2014 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 If information is received prior to the 2015 Work Plan being presented to the City Council on January 13, the Work Plan will be updated to include this program. New Business Chair Martin reported that she joined Mayor Harris in being interviewed for the Channel 19 program, "NW City Politics in the Know With Juanita." Motion by Commissioner Burris, second by Commissioner Pristash to authorize Chair Martin to work with City Communications staff on designing and purchasing a banner, not to exceed $200, for HRC use. Motion carried 7-0. Adiourn Motion by Chair Martin, second by Commissioner Pristash to adjourn the meeting at 7:27 pm. Motion carried 7-0. Follow-up Items: • Commissioner Phelps will contact Robbinsdale and Hopkins school districts to see what their protocol is in promoting events to their students. • Commissioner Martin will check with NAMI on what if any resources they could direct the HRC on this topic. • Knauss will check with the city's Crime Prevention Analyst on possible resources on this topic. • Knauss will check with PCAE to see if HRC would be able to hold one of its meetings prior to May 14 in their facility. • Chair Martin will contact the City of New Hope HRC to find out more information on the Genocide program. • Commissioner Pristash will contact the City of Crystal HRC to find out more information on the Genocide program. • Everyone needs to research documentary -type videos (approximately 10-20 minutes in length) on the topic of human sex trafficking for the Commission's consideration to use for the October event. • Everyone needs to think of possible subject matter experts that may be able to serve as panelists for the October HRC Conversations event. ATTEST: Chantell Knauss, Staff Liaison Teresa Martin, Chair Approved by HRC: January 27, 2015 Human Rights Commission December 18, 2014 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 GOLDEN VALLEY TEEN COMMITTEE Regular Meeting at Brookview Community Center Minutes September 22, 2014 Call to Order Erickson called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 2. Roll Call: Present: Committee Members: Brittany Blazar, Melanie Blazar, Sam Buttress, Stella Haberman, Owen Hoeft, Jack Knudson, Hannah Segelbaum and Non -Voting Committee Member Olivia Behn. City Staff: Brian Erickson, Recreation Supervisor; Carrie Anderson, Recreation Supervisor; and Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation. Council Member: Steve Schmigdal. Absent: Committee Members: Sarah Carlson and Shivani Nookala. 3. Welcome and Introductions Members and staff introduced themselves briefly. 4. Overview and Structure of Committee Anderson gave a brief explanation of the history of the Teen Committee development. Erickson and Anderson read through the by-laws and detailed the mission of the committee, as well as explained the various positions on the committee. 5. Voting for Positions Erickson led voting for positions. Knudson was voted in as Committee Chair. Haberman was voted in as Vice Chair. Segelbaum was voted in as Secretary. Blazar was voted in as Community Center Task Force Representative. 6. Future Agenda Items Staff and Committee Members discussed possible future agenda items. Blazar expressed interest in trails and clean parks in Golden Valley. She also spoke about how school and extracurricular activities keep teens from participating in city programs and activities. Knudson would like to see the group involved in Valley Volunteer Day and other activities that will promote the committee. Hoeft expressed interest in intramural sports. Anderson mentioned the possibility of a teen music event. Minutes of the Teen Committee Meeting September 22, 2014 Page 2 Director Rick Birno gave a brief description of the Community Center Task Force development and members may be involved in the teen component of the project. 7. Updates Anderson invited the Teen Committee to the October 7 City Council Meeting. Committee members are asked to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. 8. Adjournment Erickson adjourned the meeting at 7:00 PM. Jack Knudson, Chair ATTEST: Hannah Segelbaum, Secretary Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley City Council and Planning Commission January 12, 2015 A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January 12, 2015. Council Member Snope called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Council Members Andy Snope, Larry Fonnest, Steve Schmidgall, Joanie Clausen; Planning Commissioners Ron Blum, John Kluchka, Rich Baker, Chuck Segelbaum, David Cera, Andy Johnson; Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner; Jeff Miller and Rita Trapp, HKGi 1. Subdivision Moratorium Study's Findings for Potential Zoning/Subdivision Changes Jeff Miller from HKGi reviewed the meeting agenda, the timeline for the subdivision study, and summarized the top concerns as expressed by the City Council, Planning Commission, and residents. Miller broke the concerns down into four categories: (a) Issues for which action is already being taken Construction Management Agreement (b) Issues for which no new action is being recommended Stormwater drainage and flooding concerns Houses too tall, too close together Driveway locations Traffic Private covenants Wildlife impacts (c) Issues for which potential strategies could be developed Tree preservation Minimum lot area Irregular lot shape House to lot relationship PUDs (d) Issues that are outside of the scope of the study House character Quality of construction Neighborhood character Lot boundary changes Sustainability Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission January 12, 2015 Page 2 Cera suggested looking at tear -down issues. Chuck Segelbaum suggested revisiting notification distances. The 10 members of the group discussed the issues under (c) and registered their level of support for making changes to each within the City Code. It was clarified that under "House to lot relationship" there was support for modifying the way in which the rear yard setback is applied but not for reducing the amount of impervious surface allowed. Segelbaum asked that the consultants look at if the conditions for approval or denial of subdivisions could be modified. Council Member Clausen asked that issues around drainage be looked at further. 2. Adjournment Council Member Snope adjourned the meeting at 9:04 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Level of Support for Changes Issue 1 2 3 4 5 Tree preservation 1 2 1 5 1 Minimum lot size 4 1 1 1 3 Irregular lot shape 2 0 0 4 4 House to lot relationship 2 3 2 1 2 PUDs 1 2 1 4 2 It was clarified that under "House to lot relationship" there was support for modifying the way in which the rear yard setback is applied but not for reducing the amount of impervious surface allowed. Segelbaum asked that the consultants look at if the conditions for approval or denial of subdivisions could be modified. Council Member Clausen asked that issues around drainage be looked at further. 2. Adjournment Council Member Snope adjourned the meeting at 9:04 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014 Present: Commissioners Tracy Anderson, Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Jim Stremel, Debra Yahle; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist, Veronica Anderson, SEH, Deric Deuschle, SEH; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant Absent: Commissioner: Tonia Galonska and Larry Johnson Call to Order Stremel called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes — October 27, 2014 MOVED by Hill, seconded by Gitelis, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2014 meeting. New Proposals for Greener Practices To be discussed at the next meeting 2015 Meeting Dates The 2015 meeting dates were handed out Program/Project Updates Recycling Update: Commissioners would like to discuss in more detail at the next meeting. The complete program/project summary is on file. Commission Member Council Reports None. Other Business The December meeting will be cancelled Adjourn MOVED by Gitelis, seconded by Hill, and the motion carried to adjourn. Lisa Nesbitt Administrative Assistant city of golden!�.l� Y MEMORANDUM Public Works Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Purchase One Toro Groundsmaster 5910D Prepared By Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman Summary The 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program includes $98,000 for one rotary mower (V&E-027, page 29). The Toro Groundsmaster 5910D replaces a 2007 Toro Groundsmaster 580D. Staff will utilize the Groundsmaster for mowing City parks. The Groundsmaster is a four-wheel drive, 99 - horse -power diesel engine mower with a 16 -foot triple deck rotary mower. The Groundsmaster meets replacement criteria set forth in the City's Vehicle Replacement Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI index is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring between 23-27 points and meets the category of "Qualifies for Replacement." The 2007 Groundsmaster due for replacement scored 25 points. The Groundsmaster will be re -assigned to Golf Maintenance for mowing golf course rough areas for 3-5 years or until the VCI meets "needs immediate consideration for replacement." The Minnesota Materials Management Division has awarded the following contracts: Contract and Release No. Item Vendor Amount 80760 Toro Groundsmaster 5910D MTI Distributing $95,641.21 TOTAL PURCHASE $95,641.21 Recommended Action Motion to approve purchase of one Toro 5910D Groundsmaster from MTI Distributing in the amount of $95,641.21. city of golden!�.l� Y MEMORANDUM Public Works Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Purchase One Bobcat Toolcat Prepared By Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman Summary The 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program Vehicle & Equipment includes $50,000 for the purchase of one Bobcat toolcat (V&E-050, Page 32). The new toolcat will be replacing Unit #787, a 2010, 5600 G -Series bobcat. Staff utilizes toolcats for brush and tree trimming cleanup and removals, dirt work, landscaping, grading, truck loading of dirt and equipment, snow plowing, snow blowing, ice rink maintenance and cleaning, ball field grooming, and miscellaneous sweeping, etc. The 2010 Street Maintenance Bobcat 5600 G -Series Toolcat meets replacement criteria set forth in the City's Vehicle Replacement Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above meets the category of "needs immediate consideration." The 2010 toolcat due for replacement scored 29 points. Public Works Department received the following quotes from Tri-State Bobcat and NJPA Contract Purchasing for the purchase of one Bobcat Toolcat 5600 G -Series: 1 Tri-State Bobcat, Inc. $46,000.00 2 NJPA Contract #060311-CEC Bobcat Company $56,877.92 (Both quotes offered a deduction of $20,000 trade-in value on the 2010 5600 G -Series Bobcat Toolcat.) Recommended Action Motion to approve the purchase of the 5600 G -Series Bobcat Toolcat from Tri-State Bobcat, Inc. for the total amount of $26,000 after trade-in. city of golden!�.l� Y MEMORANDUM Public -Works Department 763-5'93-80301763-593-39$8 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. E. 3. Purchase Ford Pickup Trucks Prepared By Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman Summary The 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program includes: 1. $40,000 for the purchase of one Fire Department pickup truck (V&E-087, page 39) to replace Unit #348, 2005 Ford F150 pickup truck. 2. $50,000 for the purchase of one Park Division truck with utility box, and plow (V&E-091, page 40) to replace Unit #470, 2005 Ford F250 pickup truck. 3. $45,000 for the purchase of one Utility Division truck with utility box, and plow frame without plow (W&SS-014, page 84) to replace Unit #681, 2008 Ford utility truck. All of the vehicles scheduled for replacement meet replacement criteria set forth in the City's Vehicle Replacement Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement. Any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above meets the category of "needs immediate consideration." The following is a summary of the VCI ratings: Division and Unit # Year/Make/Model VCI (Index) Fire Unit #348 2005 Ford Pickup Truck 28 points Park Unit #470 2005 Ford Pickup Truck 30 points Utility Unit #681 2008 Ford Utility Truck 28 points The purchase of the trucks will be made under the State of Minnesota truck Contracts 85051 and 74463 from Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government Sales for 2015 Ford trucks. Contract Numbers Item Vendor Amount 85051 2015 Ford F150 Super Cab Pickup Truck, 6.5' Box For Fire Dept. Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government Sales $25,701.00 Plow 73056 Utility Truck Body, Plow, 74463 2015 Ford F250 Super Cab Pickup Truck, 8' Box For Park Div. Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government Sales $28,635.00 74463 2015 Ford F250 Super Cab Pickup Truck, 8' Box For Utility Div. Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government Sales $28,635.00 TOTAL PURCHASE $82,971.00 The purchase of truck equipment will be made under the State of Minnesota truck equipment Contract C#-48605, from Aspen Equipment Company, Inc. Contract Numbers Item Vendor Amount Utility Body 84873 2015 Reading Aluminum Aspen Equipment $18,675.00 Plow 73056 Utility Truck Body, Plow, and Acc. For Park Div. Utility Body 84873 2015 Reading Aluminum Aspen Equipment $15,693.00 Plow 73056 Utility Truck Body, Plow Frame (without plow) and Acc. for Utility Div. TOTAL PURCHASE $34,368.00 Purchase of trucks and utility truck bodies will be funded from three funding sources: Vehicle and Equipment Capital Improvement Program (CIP) fund, and Enterprise Funds, Water and Sanitary Sewer CIP, and Storm Sewer CIP. Expenditures from each fund are as follows: CIP Funds Totals Vehicle and Equipment Program (Park and Fire) $73,011.00 Water and Sewer Program (Utility) $44,328.00 Recommended Action 1. Motion to approve purchase of three Ford trucks from Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government Sales for total purchase price of $82,971. 2. Motion to approve purchase of Reading Aluminum Utility truck bodies' plows and accessories from Aspen Equipment for the total purchase price of $34,368. city 0 guta valley Ma a= isw aft a Oft ■ `=[VI IVI t Fn U K A N U U ;int .AdministrationCouncil 763-593-8003 1763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. F. Submission of Request for Matching Funds through Hennepin County Economic Development Initiative and Authorizing Entering into an Agreement with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) for the Open to Business Initiative Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary The Council has previously received matching funds through the Hennepin Economic Development Initiative to continue participation in the Open To Business Program offered by the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD). Over the past three years, Golden Valley has partnered with the City of New Hope on a joint program. Each year MCCD has charged $10,000 for its services to this joint program. Hennepin County has again offered a match providing $5,000 towards this fee for 2015. New Hope is reviewing its participation and is likely to continue its partnership with Golden Valley. Hennepin County requires Council authorization by resolution. The resolution authorizes the request for matching funds and is required by Hennepin County as part of the request. It also authorizes appropriate City officials to enter a new agreement with MCCD. Attachment • Resolution Authorizing Submission of Funds through the Hennepin County Economic Development Initiative and Entering into an Agreement with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers for the Open to Business Initiative (1 page) • Open To Business Update (2 pages) • Contract for Services Between the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope and Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers for the open to Business Program (7 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Request for Matching Funds through the Hennepin County Economic Development Initiative and Authorizing Entering into an Agreement with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers for the Open To Business Initiative. Resolution 15-11 February 3, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST FOR MATCHING FUNDS THROUGH THE 2015 HENNEPIN COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE AND AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN CONSORTIUM OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS FOR THE OPEN TO BUSINESS INITIATIVE WHEREAS, Hennepin County has announced an economic development initiative to provide matching funds to municipalities to join the Open to Business program offered by the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers; and WHEREAS, the initiative allows smaller municipalities to cooperatively apply for the county match and split the $5,000 local match; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley would like to continue its partnership with the City of New Hope to participate in this initiative and seek matching funds from Hennepin County to underwrite this participation, at a cost to Golden Valley of $2,500. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that the City Manager is authorized to join with the City of New Hope to seek matching funds from Hennepin County to participate in the Open to Business initiative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized City officials may enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers to provide services for Open to Business in 2015. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. TO BUSINESS Updates City/County: Golden Valley/New Hope Time Frame: 1,/1,/14-12/31/14 Clients Served: GV NH Client Inquiries 1 1 New Entrepreneur/Start-up 4 3 Existing Business 5 1 Total 10 5 How did client hear about OTB: • Municipality (newsletter) 4 4 • Friends/Family 2 • Bank Referral 1 • Other 2 Direct & Facilitated f=inancing approved: # of loans 1 Amount $240 Program related hours TA/Admin: 66 Types of Services Provided: Cash Flow Loan Marketing Analysis & packaging NH Projections 3 1 Personal Strategic Networking/ financial planning referrals tannin 1 1 Business Plan Lease Real estate Development review/ analysis negotiation Industry Segment: Disc Golf equipment Hand sanitizer New electric GV NH Service 3 1 Food 2 1 Wholesale/Dist/MFG 3 operation Retail 1 1 Construction related manufacturer 1 Types of Businesses: Chiropractic clinic Disc Golf equipment Hand sanitizer New electric Restaurant Escape vehicle with play from the area Room operation Auto repair Hummus Staffing manufacturer Client Highlights: Safesha LLC. Business Type: Manufacturer of hand sanitizer Location: Golden Valley Referred by: Municipality Open to Business assisted a Golden Valley business and resident in bringing a hand sanitizer to market. We helped in developing a costing sheet for her to evaluate pricing structure on a retail and wholesale level and with distribution strategies. As of December 2014 her product is in 22 Byerly's and Lunds. Credit Builder Loans: In 2014, MCCD provided one credit builder loans to a New Hope resident. MCCD works in partnership with several nonprofit organizations to offer the credit building program. Our partners provide financial counseling in conjunction with small personal loans from MCCD. This combination of counseling with loans is helping program participants improve their credit scores, thus allowing for better interest rates for various types of lending. Comments from New Hope/Golden Valley clients participating in an Open to Business Client Survey: "I think it is a great way for somebody started in the right direction. The information received is sometimes things you never thought about or it just gives you a new perspective. " New Hope client - Dec 2013 "Promote it a little heavier from the city side to make the program known - because the rest is up to the individual seeking advice. 1 think it is a great program." New Hope client- Dec 2013 "1 have been working with my advisor, Robert Smolund and 1 have been very pleased. He has been instrumental in providing guidance and support for my business." Golden Valley client- Dec 2093 Contract for Services Between the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers for the Open to Business Program THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of the 1St day of March, 2015, (the "Effective Date") between the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope, (herein collectively referred to as "GVNH") and Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers, (herein referred to as "MCCD"). WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley and the City of New Hope wish to retain an entity with the capacity to provide small business technical assistance to existing businesses and those parties interested in opening a business in Golden Valley and New Hope; and have elected to jointly promote and market such a program to be called the Golden Valley and New Hope Open to Business Program (referred to herein as the "Initiative"); WHEREAS, MCCD has represented itself as competent to provide the services required to administer and carry out the Initiative; and WHEREAS, GVNH wishes to engage MCCD to provide said services necessary to carry out the Initiative. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto that; I, TIME OF PERFORMANCE The service to be provided by MCCD shall commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall terminate as of February 28, 2016 unless earlier terminated. All services, documents, and information to be furnished or performed by MCCD in order to carry out the Initiative shall be furnished or performed as promptly as possible, and with the fullest due diligence. 2. COMPENSATION Total compensation to MCCD shall be $10,000 for a one year period (the "Contract Amount") to manage the Initiative. The Contract Amount will be paid in two equal installments: the first installment will be $5,000, which shall be comprised of a $2,500 -payment due and payable by the City of Golden Valley and a $2,500 payment due and payable by the City of New Hope upon execution of this Agreement, and on or about 6 months from the Effective Date, MCCD shall invoice each city which is a party to this Agreement for the second installment, each such invoice shall be in the amount of $2,500.00 and shall be payable by the Hennepin County Housing Redevelopment Authority. 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES MCCD will provide technical assistance to existing Golden Valley and New Hope businesses, residents and parties interested in starting a business in Golden Valley and New Hope; (See Exhibit A Scope of Services -Golden Valley and New Hope Open to Business Program). 4. REPORTING MCCD agrees to submit quarterly reports related to its operation of the Initiative. Items to be reported on include, but are not limited to, the following: ➢ Number of inquiries Hours of technical assistance provided v Type of assistance provided >, Type of business .-;, Annual sales revenue of businesses served y Number of businesses opened Y Number of business expanded/stabilized ➢ Number and amounts of financing packages �0 Demographic information on entrepreneurs The required reporting schedule is as follows: 1St quarter January --- March, report due April 3 01h 2nd quarter April — June, report due July 31" 3`d quarter July — September, report due October 31St 4th quarter October — December, report due January 31St of 2016 MCCD will provide additional reports as requested by the GVNH. 5. PERSONNEL MCCD represents that it has, or will secure, at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services to carry out the Initiative. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with GVNH. No tenure or any other rights or benefits, including worker's compensation, unemployment insurance, medical care, sick leave, natation pay, severance pay, or any other benefits available to GVNH employees shall accrue to MCCD or employees of MCCD performing services under this Agreement. The MCCD is an independent contractor. All of the services required to carry out the Initiative will be performed by MCCD, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform such work. 6. INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE CITY, EDA AND OTHERS No officer, member, or employee of GVNH, and no member of its governing body, and no other public official or governing body of the locality in which the Initiative is situated or being carried out, who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of the Initiative, shall participate in the decision relating to this Agreement which affects his/her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he/she is, directly or indirectly, interested or has any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or proceeds thereof, 7. ASSIGNABILTY MCCD shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same without the prior written approval of GVNH thereto. S. COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS MCCD agrees to comply with all federal and state laws, statutes and applicable regulations and the ordinances of the GVNH. 9. INSURANCE MCCD agrees to provide proof of workers' compensation in the statutory amounts, auto liability- (hired, owned and non -owned), and comprehensive general liability insurance by providing certificates of insurance, naming the city as an additional insured, not later than ten (10) days after execution of this Agreement. Comprehensive general liability and auto liability insurance shall be in the minimum amount of $1,500,000. 10. HOLD HARMLESS MCCD agrees to defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless GVNH, their elected officials, agents, officers and employees harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, costs, and expenses, whether personal, property, or contractual, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of, or related to the provision of services under the Agreement or with respect to errors or omissions in performance of professional services related to the Initiative, and from any act of negligence of MCCD, its officers, employees, servants, agents, or contractors. GVNH agree to defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless the MCCD, its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, costs, and expenses, whether personal, property, or contractual, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of, or related to the administration and operation of the Initiative, and from any act of negligence of GVNH, their officers, employees, servants, agents, or contractors. 11. NOTICES A notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (a) In the case of MCCD, is addressed or delivered personally to: David Chapman, Director of Lending and Operations Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers 3137 Chicago Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55407 (b) In the case of the GVNH: Marc Nevinski Physical Development Director City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Jeff Sargent Director of Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 or at such other address with respect to any party as that party may designate in writing and forward to the other as provide in the Section. 12. MODIFICATION AND GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota law and may not be modified, changed, or amended in any manner whatsoever without the prior written approval of all the parties hereto. 13. TERMINATION The City may by written notice terminate the Agreement or any portion thereof when it is deemed in the City's best interest to do so or the City is unable to adequately fund payment for the Agreement because of changes in State fiscal policy, regulation or law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dad- and year first written above. �`Lf]�1CeifL1l I � a[�� �al•� By: Tom Burt, City Manager CITY OF NEW HOPE METROPOLITAN CONSORTIUM OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS By: Jim Roth, Its Executive Director By Jeff Sargent, Its Community Development Director Exhibit A Scope of Services Open for Business Technical Assistance Services MCCD will provide intensive one-on-onc technical assistance to Golden Valley and New Hope businesses, Golden Valley and New Hope residents and aspiring entrepreneurs intending to establish, purchase, or improve a business in Golden Valley and New Hope. Technical assistance includes, but is not limited to, the following: Y Business plan development Y Feasibility analysis ➢ Marketing y Cashflow and other financial projection development i' Operational analysis City and State licensing and regulatory assistance "- Loan packaging, and other assistance in obtaining financing Help in obtaining competent legal advice MCCD will also provide technical assistance on a walk-in basis at least monthly in the City Halls of the cities of Golden Valley and New Hope or as requested at a place of business within Golden Valley and New Hope. Open for Business Access to Capital Access to capital will be provided to qualifying businesses through MCCD's Emerging Small Business Loan Program (see Exhibit B Small Business Loan Program Guidelines below). MCCD also provides its financing in partnership other community lenders, banks or both. EXHIBIT B Small Business Loan Program Guidelines Loan Amounts: • Up to $25,000 for start-up businesses ti Larger financing packages for established businesses • Designed to leverage other financing programs as well as private financing provided by the commercial banking community. Eligible Projects: • Borrowers must be a "for-profit" business. • Business must be complimentary to existing business community. I. Borrowers must have equity injection as determined by fund management. :Allowable Use of Proceeds: • Loan proceeds can be used for working capital, inventory, building and equipment and general business operations. Interest Rates: • Loan interest rate is dependent on use, term and other factors, not to exceed 10%. Loan Term Length: • Loan repayment terms will generally range from three to five years, but may be substantially longer for major asset financing such as commercial property. Fees and Charges: Borrowers are responsible for paying all customary legal and other loan closing costs. city 0 golden'MEMORANDUM vale Administrative Services Department 763-593-80131763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. G. Resolution Establishing Limited Clean-up and Property Damage Protection for Sewer Back- ups and Water Main Breaks for Water and Sewer Customers Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary In 2015, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) made changes to the no-fault sewer backup (NFSB) coverage which the City has had since 2007. After the heavy rains this past summer, specifically the July rainstorms, the NFSB coverage program operated at a loss. The way the coverage was written, it could expose LMCIT to an extremely expensive total loss cost in some circumstances which the current premium rates are not adequate to support. The change in coverage excludes any situation declared a disaster by FEMA. It also excludes any situation where rainfall exceeds certain amounts, which is more restrictive than the "100 -rainfall' standard used in the previous coverage. These changes should reduce the loss costs under this coverage to a level the current rates can support. Attachments • Resolution Establishing Limited Clean up and Property Damage Protection for Sewer Back-ups and Water Main Breaks for Water and Sewer Customers (3 pages) Recommended Action Approve Resolution Establishing Limited Clean up and Property Damage Protection for Sewer Back-ups and Water Main Breaks for Water and Sewer Customers. Resolution 15-12 February 3, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LIMITED CLEAN UP AND PROPERTY DAMAGE PROTECTION FOR SEWER BACK-UPS AND WATER MAIN BREAKS FOR WATER AND SEWER CUSTOMERS WHEREAS, the City provides water and sanitary sewer services to property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, water main breaks may cause water to enter into property causing damage; and WHEREAS, blockages or other conditions in the city sanitary sewer lines may cause the back-up of sewage into properties that are connected to those City's sanitary lines; and WHEREAS, water main breaks and sewer back-ups pose a public health and safety concern; and WHEREAS, it may be difficult to determine the exact cause and responsibility for a water main break or sanitary sewer back-ups; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to encourage the expeditious clean-up of properties that have encountered damage from water main breaks and sewer back-ups; and WHERAS, the City Council desires to minimize the potential of expensive lawsuits arising out of water main breaks and sanitary sewer back-up claims; and WHEREAS, the City is a member of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT); and WHEREAS, LMCIT has offered the City limited "no fault" sewer coverage and water main break coverage that will reimburse users of the water and sewer system for certain clean-up costs and property damage regardless of whether the City is at fault. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as follows: the City will reimburse water and sanitary sewer customers for up to $10,000 of clean-up costs and property damages caused by a water main break or sanitary sewer back-up, regardless of whether the City is negligent or otherwise legally liable for damages, subject to the following conditions: I. Sanitary Sewer Back -Ups. For Sanitary sewer back-ups: A. The back-up must have resulted from a condition in the City's sanitary sewer system or lines, and not from a condition in a private line. B. The back-up must not have been caused by any catastrophic weather or other event which has been declared by the President of the United States to be a major disaster pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206, commonly known as the Stafford Act. Resolution 15-12 - Continued February 3, 2015 C. The back-up must not have been caused by an interruption in electric power to the City's sewer system or to any City lift station, which continues for more than 72 hours. D. The back-up must not have been caused by an amount of precipitation equivalent to rainfall amounts which exceed: • 2.0 inches in a 1 -hour period; or • 2.5 inches in a 3 -hour period; or • 3.0 inches in a 6 -hour period; or • 3.5 inches in a 12 -hour period; or • 4.0 inches in a 24-hour period; or • 4.5 inches in a 72 -hour period; or • 5.5 inches in a 168 -hour period. E. Neither the City nor LMCIT will reimburse any costs which have been or are eligible to be covered under a property owner's own homeowners' or other property insurance, or which would be eligible to be reimbursed under a National Flood Insurance Protection (NFIP) policy, whether or not the property owner actually has NFIP Coverage. F. The maximum amount that the City of Golden Valley or LMCIT will reimburse is $10,000 per building, per year. A structure or group of structures served by a single connection to the City's sewer system is considered a single building. II. Water Main Breaks. For water main breaks: A. Neither the City nor LMCIT will reimburse any costs which have been or are eligible to be covered under a property owner's own homeowners' or other property insurance B. The maximum amount that the City or LMCIT will reimburse is $10,000 to any claimant, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of properties affected. C. Neither the City nor LMCIT will pay more than $250,000 for water main break damages resulting from any single occurrence. All water main break damage which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to result from a single occurrence. If the total water main break damage for all claimants in a single occurrence exceeds $250,000, the reimbursement to each claimant will be calculated as follows: 1. A preliminary reimbursement figure is established for each claimant, equal to the lesser of the claimant's actual damages or $10,000. 2. The sum of the preliminary reimbursement figures for all claimants will be calculated. 3. Each claimant will be paid a percentage of his or her preliminary reimbursement figure, equal to the percentage calculated by dividing $250,000 by the sum of all claimants' preliminary reimbursement figures. III. The City of Golden Valley's determination to make these payments is contingent on and expressly limited to the extent that No -Fault Coverage is in force and available to reimburse the City for the costs set forth herein. IV. The City of Golden Valley retains the right, in its sole discretion, to revoke, rescind, or modify this resolution at any time. Resolution 15-12 - Continued February 3, 2015 V. The City of Golden Valley hereby rescinds any prior resolution providing no-fault sewer backup coverage and water main break coverage. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Golden Valley, by action of its City Council, caused this Resolution to be approved on the 3rd day of February, 2015. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 3, 2015 Agenda Item 3. H. West Broadway Transit Study Planning Advisory Committee Nomination Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary The Metropolitan Council is conducting a study of potential transit improvements along West Broadway Avenue and Washington Avenue in North Minneapolis. Streetcar and arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) will be the transit options evaluated in the study. The goal of the study is to select a mode of transit as well as a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the line, which could include a connection to the proposed Golden Valley Road Station on the Metro Blue Line Extension. A project schedule, map of the study area, and summary of the study’s scope are attached. The Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) is comprised of policymakers at the City of Golden Valley, City of Robbinsdale, City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and Metropolitan Council. Those serving on the PAC will participate in the overall direction and guidance of the study process, discuss project alternatives, and make the final LPA recommendation to the Metropolitan Council. The PAC’s first meeting will be in late March (rescheduled from February) with meetings also planned for May, September, and December. The meetings will likely occur during business hours. A tour of the project is also planned for early April. Each agency has also assigned a staff member to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Emily Goellner has been assigned to provide technical input to the project and assist in the resolution of technical issues in regards to this study. The TAC is scheduled to meet once a month during the 2015 calendar year. Attachments •West Broadway Transit Study Summary (2 pages) •West Broadway Transit Study Schedule (1 page) •West Broadway Transit Study Presentation to Technical Advisory Committee dated January 6, 2015 (24 pages) Recommended Action Nominate one Council Member and one alternate Council Member to the West Broadway Transit Study Planning Advisory Committee. West Broadway Transit Study Purpose The purpose of the West Broadway Transit Study is to conduct a collaborative planning process that will identify existing transit challenges and evaluate potential transit improvements along Washington and West Broadway avenues in north Minneapolis. This will include evaluation of potential connections to the planned METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT) at possible stations in Golden Valley or in Robbinsdale. The study will also evaluate the corridor’s potential for transit-oriented development (TOD). Modes/Alignments Streetcar and bus network enhancements including arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) are modes that will be evaluated in the study. The study’s main focus is the alignment along West Broadway Avenue from Penn Avenue to downtown Minneapolis via West Broadway and Washington Avenue North, Lyndale Avenue North or North Second Street. The study will also evaluate connections to future Blue Line Extension stations to the west. Expected outcome The intended outcome of the study is a recommendation of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for transit service improvements in the corridor. Informed by extensive community engagement, corridor policymakers will select a recommended LPA that best meets the transportation needs of the local community in terms of technical feasibility, costs and benefits, and transit effects on encouraging development. What is the schedule for the study and when will the locally preferred alternative (LPA) be decided? The West Broadway Transit Study began in winter 2014 and includes various stages, such as: • Identifying transportation problems and developing study goals • Defining alternatives at a conceptual level • Evaluating alternatives • Delivering a final transit study report along with a recommended locally preferred alternative (LPA) for transit service improvements in the corridor. Public input on how to improve transit on West Broadway Share results of study ndings with public Public input on transit preferred alternative Policy Advisory Committee recommendations A P R 2015 PROJECT SCHEDULE S E P T D E C Innovative community engagement will focus on sharing transit information in existing community gatherings such as the West Broadway Farmers market Robbinsdale Transit Center, Route 14 Nic o l l e t A v e Henne p i n A v e W Broadway Ave Plymouth Ave Ly n d a l e A v e Fr a n c e A v e 2 n d S t W a s h i n g t o n A v e 7t h S t Oak d a l e A v e C t y R d 8 1 Kn o x A v e Pe n n A v e Golden Valley Rd McNai r A v e 394 100 100 12 55 94 Robbinsdale Ch i c a g o - F r e m o n t C L i n e H E N N E P I N Target FieldTarget Field RoyalstonRoyalston Van WhiteVan White PennPenn Van White Van WhitePennPenn PlymouthPlymouth Golden ValleyGolden Valley RobbinsdaleRobbinsdale West Broadway Study Area alignment Draft Alignment Options (preferred alignment to be determined in study) METRO Blue Line METRO Green Line Northstar Commuter Rail Planned Arterial BRT Lines METRO Blue Line Extension METRO Green Line Extension .5 For more information: Shelley Miller shelley.miller@metrotransit.org 612-341-5668 West Broadway Study Area 2015 Tasks Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Project Initiation Stakeholder Engagement Problem Statement Conceptual Alternatives Refined Alternatives Operating Plans Ridership Forecasts Capital & Operating Cost Estimates Development Potential Community, Environment & Traffic Impacts Evaluation of Alternatives Study Documentation Project Schedule Metropolitan Council WEST BROADWAY TRANSIT STUDY PAC PAC PAC PACJ Project Tour PAC Input Public Input on how to improve transit on West Broadway Share results of study findings with public Public Input on transit preferred alternative PAC recommendations West Broadway Transit Study Technical Advisory Committee January 6, 2015 Agenda •Introductions •Purpose of Study •Scope of Work/Schedule •Public and Stakeholder Engagement •Project Initiation •Next Meeting 2 Introduction •12-month study led by Metro Transit in partnership with City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County •SRF Team was hired to conduct the study 3 PURPOSE OF STUDY 4 What is the purpose of the Study? •To understand the transit needs and/or problems in the West Broadway corridor •To identify and analyze the benefits, costs, and impacts associated with various transit alternatives 5 6 What modes will be studied? 7 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Streetcars What is the intended outcome of the Study? •The Study will result in the recommendation of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) that best meets the identified purpose and need for the project 8 SCOPE AND SCHEDULE 9 Scope of Work/Schedule 10 Four Stages in Study Process 1.Project Initiation (Jan-Feb) 2.Concept Development and Technical Analysis (March- June) 3.Evaluation of Alternatives (July – Oct) 4.Recommendation of Locally Preferred Alternative (Dec) 11 Stage 1: Project Initiation January - February •Review and assess previously completed work •Inventory physical features, utilities, land use, and travel patterns •Identify deficiencies in study area •Establish goals and objectives •Define purpose and need 12 Stage 2: Concept Development and Analysis March - June •Concept Development: –Mode –Alignment –Station locations –Operating plan •Estimate: –Costs –Ridership –Impacts •Economic Development 13 Stage 3: Evaluation of Alternatives July - Oct •Evaluation of alternatives ties back to the purpose and need developed in the beginning of the Study 14 Stage 4: Recommendation of LPA December •Prepare Final Report •Stakeholder and public input on evaluation and LPA recommendation •PAC recommendation of LPA –Best mode and alignment for corridor –Metropolitan Council recognizes LPA recommendation 15 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 16 Committee Structure 17 TAC Role •Staff representatives from partner agencies including Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, City of Robbinsdale, and City of Golden Valley •Provide technical input to the project and assist in the resolution of technical issues in their field 18 TAC Responsibilities •Attend all TAC meetings – 1st Tuesday of each month •Review meeting materials prior to TAC meetings •Provide input on project deliverables in a timely manner •Provide input that is technically sound, objective and meets the project purpose and need •Serve as a conduit for your agency, both by providing study information to them and relaying their feedback back to the PMT •Keep the PMT informed on any agency projects that could affect the study •Encourage co-workers to attend public meetings and provide input 19 PAC Role •Policymakers from partner agencies including Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, City of Robbinsdale, and City of Golden Valley •Participate in the overall direction and guidance of the study process, discuss project alternatives, and make the final LPA recommendation to the Metropolitan Council 20 Public Engagement •“Meet people where they are” 21 PROJECT INITIATION 22 Project Initiation •Identification of relevant key issues •Project tour 23 Questions? 24