The URL can be used to link to this page

10-26-15 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, October 26, 2015 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes September 28, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 — Sue Virnig, City Finance Director 3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 7200 Harold Avenue — Calderjax Addition — SU17-12 Applicant: Fred and Vicki Gross Addresses: 7200 Harold Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 7218 Harold Avenue — Alber Addition — SU17-13 Applicant: Robert and Claire Alber Addresses: 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. 5. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending PUD Requirements —ZO00-102 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider modifications to PUD requirements when considering major, minor, or administrative amendments --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report • Tree & Landscape Requirements • Comprehensive Plan Process Overview 8. Adjournment ` This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call 763-593-8Q06{TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples af aiternate formats may include large print,electronic, Braille,audiocassette,etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hatl, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, September 28, 2015. Vice Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jaso��i��erman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Melis��`Sonne��nd Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. r,�� . `�� e.as �;, ,s : `E, 1. Approval of Minutes ., 'r��r��;€�� Au ust 24, 2015, Re ular Plannin Commission Meetin �� 9 9 9 � �� kd Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on pag�.nine��n,d`asked for clarification regarding the last sentence. Zimmerman explain�cf that th�e lasf ss�ntence is referring to the administrative PUD amendment process and�that if stafi�feels an administrative amendment should be considered a minor �'I�D ��1r�endmen��instead of administrative then it would go through the minor PUD �rien�r�nen`f proc�Ss. , �, MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded��q��hd"mofi�n carried unanimously to approve the August 24, 2015, minutes as��bmitted. � 2. Informal Public Hea�i'ng�-��itional Use Permit (CUP #140) — Peaceful Valley Montessori-�1cad�rl�y -�':�500 Olson Memorial Highway ;� �, Applicant: �?��cefu�("��a�11�ey Montessori Academy , Addresses 6�� (��s�t� M�morial Highway la ?h: Pur��,K, fi'� all�w for a childcare/preschool facility in the Business and ' Pr�fessional Offices Zoning District. Sonnek stated that,the property is guided Commercial/Office on the General Land Use Plan 11t�ap and is zoned Business and Professional Offices. She explained the applicant's requesf to relocate their existing childcare/preschool facility to this location. She referred to a site pfan of the property and discussed the proposed site access, visitor parking, employee parking, main entrance and play area. She added that the applicant will also be constructing a sidewalk on the southwest corner of their property to provide egress from the building and noted that the applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building. Sonnek referred to the parking on the property and explained that the requirement for the proposed use is 1 space for every 6 participants and the property will have a surplus of parking with 89 stalls. She discussed the traffic generated by the proposed use and Minutes of the Golden Vailey Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 2 stated that staff does not anticipate a significant change in traffic from the previous use (TruStone Financial) but rather a shift in peak hours to 8 am and 4 pm. Sonnek stated that the applicant is expected to serve 65 children when they open in January with a total capacity of 160 children. She stated that based on review of the application materials and evaluation of the factors used when considering a Conditional Use Permit staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request. Kluchka referred to the recommended condition regarding the number o ,��r�ts allowed and questioned if the City needs to limit the number of clients since th��tate 11�nse sets the number of clients the applicant is allowed to have. �i�; s €�6G' ��i # k# Waldhauser stated that there were plans for a play area on the�north s��le of,� ��uilding a and asked if that is still an option. Sonnek stated that the ap�lic�tt�'��urrent p�� posal only has one play area on the south side of the property. ��., , �� := , Segelbaum referred to the three entrances along Caun�try �l�b [�rive, finio of which appear to be access to the former bank drive-through lanes�ant�:�sked��ere is another use planned for the entrances. Sonnek noted that twQ�;of the t��;e entrances provide access to the employee parking area. Segelbaum a�s�ked ��$there is��'�s traffic. Sonnek said she will defer that question to the applicant. �'°�`�� ' �� $7 Segelbaum asked if there are other�c�nir�g��i��f��t allow childcare as a permitted use. Zimmerman stated that child��re'i�;�on�j��llowed �as a conditional use in certain zoning districts and is not a permi�ted u�� in a�h��district. � Kluchka asked if there will��i� a �pmrri�r�ication plan with the parents regarding which streets should be used for�cce��t Sonri�k said that has not been discussed with the applicant. Johnson referred to th� pr�p��c��hew sidewalk on the southwest corner and asked if the large tree currently,..�in tl��f'locafion will be removed. Kluchka asked how much of the sidewalk e�4�sts, hov�ra�nu� is new, and where it will go. Sonnek said 491 square feet of sidewalk will ��e in��,�� e �immerman added that the sidewalk is on the applicant's property a�d is"��quire��or egress from the building. , ��. Katie:lNagoner, Applicant, stated that their plan, due to overwhelming demand, is to expand �com t�;ir 30 student facility to this new location. She said their vision is to serve families wiitt��`�ififerent aged children in one facility. She explained that parents will pick up and drop off their kids and that there will be no bus traffic. Cera referred to the existing drive through on the north side of the property and asked if there are future plans for that area. Summer Picha, Applicant, stated that that they would like to create a second playground area in the future but it will currently be left as is. Waldhauser referred to the proposed fence on the south side of the property and asked if it is meant for privacy or for safety. Wagoner stated that it will be a six foot tall fence to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 3 provide a noise buffer, privacy, and a secret garden. She referred to Commissioner Johnson's question regarding the tree currently located near where the proposed sidewalk will be and stated that the tree will remain. Kluchka noted that the fence around the proposed orchard area will be chain link and asked why it couldn't be the same material that will be used along the playground. Wagoner said they want people to be able to see the orchard and that the privacy fence is for the secret garden area. Kluchka said the chain link fence may detract from the aesthetics. Cera noted that the applicant currently has 30 clients and will be Iicensed��60 children and asked if they have a five year plan. Picha said they have a finro ye�r plan. � ra asked � if there are enough qualified teachers. Wagoner stated that there is�a Montesso��raining facility in St. Paul so the area is saturated with qualified teachersG��°`� , t fl;; �2 Segelbaum referred to the three access points and question�d�v�l��tk�oute peo��e will take and if it would make more sense to enter in the middle driveway. P��ha st��l that the middle driveway accesses the existing drive through ar�t! doesri'# allovi�a��cess to the parent parking area. � Kluchka asked about signage. Picha said they would like tQ use the existing time and temperature sign and change the existing si ;n or��he buildiC�� to say "your neighborhood Montessori" instead of"your neighborhood=c�� u�r�� " �,r� : K � �'I� ��k� ,� _ Segelbaum asked about the existin� v�ulfi,�V��i�� id it will be used for storage. � �, � r. Blum asked the applicants if they'i�e giv�� an��t�ought to additional landscaping along Highway 55. Picha said they l�ueri"��iught about it but they will consider it in the future. _;; aq,9, Segelbaum opened the pt�blic h�2irmg °� Linda Loomis, 6677`l�Ist��,,M�e�°Q�ial Highway, said she would like to ask the Planning Commission to.Supp�`� thi,��1��S�he said it is a great re-use of the property and she is excited that the ��plicatit�'�are a�le to expand in Golden Valley. c; Seeing and�h��i�r��r�f��qr�� else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. z�_ �� Waldh�user s��d this proposal does seem to be a good use for this attractive property. She adt�d th��:��she is not fond of a solid wood fence. �,<:;.;� Baker said he has expressed concern about Conditional Use Permits not benefitting the City but this proposal clearly does and he supports it. Kluchka said he would like to discuss requiring a Highway 55/Douglas Drive communications plan. He said he is proposing the clients be told that they shouldn't be using Country Club Drive because it is a dangerous intersection. Zimmerman noted that that exit will be closed as part of the Douglas Drive reconstruction project. Segelbaum said making the conclusion about this intersection may not be a good thing for the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 4 Planning Commission as a body to state as a part of this Conditional Use Permit request. Kluchka reiterated that he would like some sort of communication in place to avoid issues involving this dangerous intersection especially during rush hour. Cera said he agrees with Kluchka that this is a dangerous intersection, but there are other intersections in the City that are just as dangerous and he thinks it is up to the Street Department and the Police Department to decide how to handle dangerous intersections. He added that he doesn't think it is a condition that should be put on the approval of this proposal. Baker also agreed that it is dangerous, but he would not support a condition regarding a communication plan. Segelbaum recommended that the applicant study,E��t�#;yvatch the traffic at that intersection and to the extent it makes sense to communi�ate arij�'��sues to their clients. Blum stated that after the intersection is closed the issue�nri�l be res��yed. He added that 9 full time and 10 part time jobs will be on site, and th��ity wil��be ke��ing and creating jobs and will allow families access to quality child��re. , �� ' ,w�4� �� E��, _ , Cera referred to the condition regarding the number of clients��alloVvecl and,��ked if the language should be changed to match whatever the S�ate will a�llow. �immerman said the City might not want the number to be as high as the $taf��a�nax a�t�w because there could be issues related to parking. Cera suggested the„�ncfi��n be �rn��ded to state that the applicant is limited to 160 children or the number��pprove� �y the Department of Health, whichever number is lower. Baker said he thlnks°tt�e applic��t could come back and amend their Conditional Use Permit in thezfutu�s. ��:�elba�tr� agreed. Waldhauser said she would like to avoid requiring limits f+��no r�' son S'�g�lbaum said that 160 children is the maximum number the State will v��+��a�re footage of the space. Cera said �� ,� if the use becomes larger he would��uva"r��;ther� to be a one way entrance and exit. MOVED by Baker, seconde��,t��TC�eraa�nd motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional .�lse Petmit �#,6500 Olson Memorial Highway to allow for a childcare/preschool facili�y in th�:Busine�� and Professional Offices Zoning District subject to the follow�� findir��nd conditions: a �z� ,, Findin s: � 1. Demonstrat+�d Ne��t for tl�� Proposed Use: As the Peaceful Valley Montessori transit��into�th�ir�new building, they need this facility to continue educating their est�blish��d'�r�d pt�tential future student base. 2. Cons�tency with`the Comprehensive Plan: A child care use is allowed as a conditiw'tal us� within the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. 3. Effect on property Values: Staff anticipates the introduction of this use would have no irmpact on the surrounding property values. 4. Effec��o�`firaffic: Staff does not anticipate any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas based on the trips generated by this proposed use. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use will employ nine full-time and ten part-time employees on site. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed 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. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 5 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Due to the fact that the applicant does not intend on redesigning the footprint of the building, but rather the interior design and layout, staff does not anticipate any negative impacts on the visual quality of the property. 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects caused by the proposed use. Conditions: 1. The site plan prepared by Paul Meyer Architects and received on Se�te►�ber 17, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The Montessori school/childcare facility shall be limited to 160 clien , or the amount specified by the Minnesota Department of Health, wh��F�eve�m�� less. 3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained by the Minnesota,��partt;�ent �� H��Ith and/or the Minnesota Department of Education before sr�oi��n�°�nd childcare operations may commence. Proof of such licensing shall C�� pr�senter��otb the Planning Manager. '` 4. If any future changes to the site are made on th� norf�t:�ide�tzf the building, the owner will be required to remove any drivew��i`entr�r�ces`�i�'��;s not intend to use for vehicle access and replace them with curb and gutt�r to match into the existing �, curb line. The owner will also be required,to ��ttend the idewalk from the building to the north in order to connect to th�,�ify �d�� k or� �ountry Club Drive. 5. The hours of normal operation shal��ie Mo��lay �rough Friday from 7 am to 6 pm with occasional events on evenj��s ar��'��5. 6. All improvements to the buil��g�s�all rri��t the City's Building and Fire Code requirements. °�ti�� 7. All signage must meet th��r�q�u�reri��nts of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 8. This approval is subje�t`to al�other;state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority aYer t,t��s dev��ppment. 9. Failure to comply with any tif the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation. �� ,, Kluchka asked ififihe Cit�:i�as ever approached MnDOT in order to get some kind of welcome/gateway sign n�ar this location other than the standard green street sign. Cera stated that`the�Qorrtr�ti�sion could suggest to the City Council that they consider placing welcome �igns in gatevv�y locations. :�r 3. ; Jnformal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending PUD � F�equir��nents —ZO00-102 °'�;�§.�;� . Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider modifications to PUD requirements when considering major, minor, or administrative amendments Goellner reminded the Commissioners that this item was continued at their last meeting. She explained that the purpose of the text amendment is to simplify the entitlement process and the cumbersome timeframe. The current PUD process can take up to six Minutes of the Gotden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 6 months to create a new PUD or to make a major amendment to an existing PUD, and a minor amendment can take up to two months. The proposed new process would still take up to six months to create a new PUD, however the amendment process would be shorter at three months for a major amendment and two months for a minor amendment. The proposed new language also allows for administrative amendments. Goellner discussed the proposed differences befinreen major, minor, and administrative amendments. She explained that a major amendment would be required when the proposal does not meet the underlying zoning requirements, it significant��y�ffects the original design and intention, or it requires more public review. A mino�;��nenc�rnent would be required when a proposal meets the underlying zoning re�uii�ements, ��d is proposing less significant changes. An administrative amendment would�� allow��d when the proposed changes are items that are already reviewed°administr��(y,ely`if the proposal were not a PUD. Y Cera asked if a proposed new building fa�ade would be,�onsidi�red a��m�rr�r or administrative PUD amendment. Goellner said that woulc� ��Qbabl,y be considered a minor � �T amendment. �� E �,�� 4� i Waldhauser referred to the proposed langu��e r�arding m�jor amendments and asked if requiring a PUD amendment when there��a`ah n��n flo�''area from 5% to 10% is just because there have been so many nui�°�ce rr��Oor arii`�n�ri�ents using the 5% cutoff. Goellner said yes, and added that 5°,(��s��i�t�>fbvV��nd:really isn't the amount of change that should require more public r�,��w. �lurn:�sked if the change in the floor area comes from the original PUD approval �;��rom �ubsequ�nt amendments. He added that he thinks an increase in floor area sho�,t�l hav�s�p'refer to��he original PUD proposal. ��.�� Baker said he is struck by the w��tls "si'�`��ificant" and "sensitive" because they are qualitative words th��don't h�u�°a definition in the ordinance. He asked about past experience in deciditi�when s��lnething is significant. He said he understands the need for flexibility, buk those::wo�`�'�,�re�'�rithout meaning leave him uncomfortable. pa. , Kluchka n�� that`�n th��PowerPoint presentation the word "design" was used, but in the propos��l new �ode lar�guage in Subdivision B (10) & (11) it is not. He asked if that was intentional and stated that it is a very important word and he would like it to be added to the proposed:cocl�,language to make sure design is a consideration. Waldhat;,�,ser r��:rred to the list of things that would qualify as an administrative amendmerit:�and said it seems unclear to her when something would be "bumped up" from an administrative amendment to a major or minor amendment. Goellner explained that PUDs aren't approved by using the lists, the lists help determine which process an amendment should go through. Goellner stated the proposed new language also requires that new PUDs would be subject to an amenity point system. She explained the point system and noted that applicants would need five points from a list of designated amenities and may be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 7 awarded a portion of points for each amenity. She added that the list of amenities is focused on amenities used in, and seen from the outdoors. Goellner discussed some other proposed text changes including requiring an applicant to meet with staff prior to final application submission, and to address all conditions of the preliminary PUD approval. She stated that the some of the sections of the PUD ordinance have been restructured/reordered to provide for better readability and usability and noted that the language regarding submittal of a sign plan and the �anguage regarding wetland buffers have been removed. C Baker referred to the language regarding the size of wetland buffer5 a'��,asked v��at language is proposed to be removed from the current PUD code requirer�i�.nts. Gtaellner stated that the current PUD code requires a 25-foot buffer strip,;�he e�lai�'ri�d ��'��t the Engineering staff would like that standard removed from the PUQ se�fii"on of the City Code because they do their reviews based on other standards and�the nui�ber i�t°the PUD section was arbitrary. She added that wetland buffer is�ues are addr��d Yas part of the stormwater and erosion control plan review process. Baker said �te hopes to add language requiring a 50-foot buffer to the City stantlaYds in the'C��, prehensive Plan. Zimmerman added that another reason to remov� the stan�iards f'rom the PUD section of the City Code is so that the City can follow the Sf�te standar�ls without having to amend the City Code every time standards chang�.�1F1��ldli�user a��ed if those other standards should be referenced in the City Code. Baker reiteratec��fliat he would like to City Code to match the State standard and requir�,a 50�-fc�+��'�t��Fe�even though that standard refers to agricultural land. s� Johnson suggested that the pr��o§��new language be reordered so that the amendment process starts�iiith ��mi`��trative amendments then goes on to minor amendments, then to ma�o�;�m�� men�s��in order to help streamline the process. ';�� . Segelbaum sugges��'�tt�� Corn�ission discuss the proposed amenity point system. 1�� a , �� a ,. Baker questioned whyA i�� ame��ity point system isn't being proposed at this time for PUD amendmer�t�,,only�for ne,, PUDs. Goellner stated that the PUD amendment proposals currentl� �oin� tt�r��l� th�' process might not meet the amenity point requirements. Segelbaum �id th��nks requiring applicants to have five amenity points seems high. Baker said he woulcf��usf� for the requirement to be ten amenity points. Segelbaum said he is concern�d abc�ut smaller projects and suggested that past proposals be reviewed to see what woi��i��l�`�ve been approved had amenity points been required. Kluchka agreed that he would like to quantitate what the City has approved recently to know how harsh or lenient it has been. Johnson agreed that five amenity points is too many. The items on the amenities list are expensive things and the City already asks applicants to do many things as part of a PUD. Baker stated that applicants are getting something from the City when they are granted a PUD. Blum said he doesn't know how useful a study would be regarding past PUD projects, but starting with a lower number of amenity points seems more reasonable. Cera suggested more items be added to the amenity list which may make it easier to get to five points. Kluchka said he is not sure if giving all five points to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 8 one amenity seems like the right thing to do. Waldhauser said she would be fine with requiring five amenity points. Baker said he agrees five amenity points is ok and putting all five points in one amenity is ok too because it is a good way to incent the amenities. Johnson said he thinks the City is going to see a lot of amenities that are cheaper for the developer such as shrubs, signage and bike racks. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Cera referred to the amenity regarding enhanced bicycle and pedestr��n faciliti�s and said the creation of public sidewalks should be added rather than j�st �ncouragir�� the use of public walkways. He referred to the amenity regarding enh�anced st�armwat�� management and asked if refers to engineered stormwater m�n�gem�r�t, o�`tQ �atural stormwater management such as rain gardens, ponds, etc. 1�(a�c�hau��r noted`�hat the proposed language states that the design must serve as a vis��al am�nity t0 the property. Cera said he would like to remove the amenities re��rdiri��decor�tive fencing and enhanced lighting. He said he would rather have�►��fer��t�g ai�`�f dQes not want to encourage more lighting. Zimmerman suggested��he langi� �e be amended to address the quality of light fixtures. �� E Blum asked if the amenity regarding bil��"and �destriar��onnections was taken out. Goellner said yes because that is al�� d�j�'� r��uiw�[1'��t elsewhere in the Code. ,i I �;,; a� �; Blum noted that the amenity reg��ling commur�i�y gardens has a lot of points, but public open space seems more vaJ��e°b�c�use it serves more people. Kluchka agreed that the points for a community��ard��t sh+at�ld be lowered. Segelbaum questioned what would qualify as open space. Zir`�merrn�n sta��`d that partial points could be awarded. s� Kluchka suggested �c��ir��an at�enity regarding mixed use. Cera stated that a mixed use that is availabl� to the �ub��i��hp�uf`d get five points. `��n ' �.��,.x. �a Kluchka s�a��asted��ddirig an amenity regarding wind power. Cera suggested saying alternay� e r��akt��ne�gy rather than just wind. �Fi#f 4 Klt,Echka ref��red'tq,ythe amenity regarding LEED certification and asked if it has to be LEEQ °certifie�!" or`"qualified." Goellner said she would like the language to say certified. Segelb�um qu'�stioned who would determine befinreen "certified" and "qualified." Cera said ther� ��!�'LEED auditors. Goellner said she could do it because she has LEED accreditation. Blum questioned if Gold and Platinum LEED certification should have the same amount of points. Goellner suggested they have a difference of one point. Kluchka suggested adding an amenity regarding the creation of unique architecture that would be worth four points. Segelbaum questioned if the word unique should be used. Baker said he doesn't like the word unique. Kluchka suggested the words architecturally significant instead of unique. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 9 Waldhauser referred to the amenity regarding a public recreation area and suggested that the language stating "...play equipment or natural features suitable for recreational use by children and families" be removed. Segelbaum questioned if that language is removed if it would then be considered open space instead of a public recreation area. Waldhauser suggested adding language about an increase in the variety of housing and life cycle housing to the affordable housing units amenity. Kluchka questioned if the definition of affordable is beyond current incentives or subsidies, and if the City is getting something more. Zimmerman stated there are certain thresholds but the��c�t�t.is to encourage affordable housing units. i�'� YS>� Blum suggested adding an amenity that would give points for off��ing un�p��grour��j parking, and also adding an amenity regarding covered walkw��s. ��x �� Cera referred to the amenity regarding rooftop solar panels a�i� su��este�ft�iat the language be changed to require the system to cover a�ninimui�t of�f�� energy needs, ;_ _ rather than to cover 50% of the total roof area. �� °�, ° Segelbaum said the suggested additional ameni�ies seerri=y�orth studying further and that he would like to see some other amenities that wquld be w��h one point. °�x� � ;3 ��a �� Cera referred to the items required to �e subm��fied du'r�i�i�°#he Final PUD process and stated that he would like a recycling �lan ��i��'tl�:list. Baker referred to the proposed la��gua�� rega`t�i�g riparian buffer requirements (Subd. 6(A)(3)(a)) and reiterated that:he V�r1t��he buffer requirement language in the PUD ordinance to be 50 feet w�ici� is��Qnsr��nt with the State requirements. Zimmerman stated that staff would hke that I��guag�wremoved from the PUD section of City Code in order to reduce the c�umber��.��nflicts and to be consistent with what the Bassett Creek Watershed Commiss��sh and th��$tate require. Waldhauser suggested language be added to the C�� Cod� sta�a��h��t the buffer requirements will be consistent with State requirements. S��elbaurn`agre�d that the requirements should be consistent code-wide. Blum asked if (anguage r�garding snow removal requirements should be added. Zimmerman sta#ed tha�there already are snow removal requirements listed in the PUD section of the Cod�. Blum questioned if the height of snow banks should be addressed. Zimrnerman sa�d that could be included as part of a snow storage plan. Kluchka a'�1��`if language regarding communications plans should be added. Zimmerman stated that communication plans regarding construction are usually required post PUD plan approval. Goellner stated that communication plan requirements could be part of the development agreement process. Kluchka asked if it could be part of the standard conditions discussed during the PUD process so the Planning Commission doesn't have to remember to add it every time. Zimmerman stated that a communication plan is not required as part of a PUD submittal. Waldhauser noted that some PUDs don't need to have a communication plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 10 MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this item to the October 26, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman gave an update on the 3.9.4, the Xenia, Liberty Crossing, and��clrnerstone Creek apartment projects. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan Syst�r`rms St��gments have arrived so the amendment process will be starting soon. '�� ;,t``� �� n�. 5. Other Business ` �Ga z��` � ��,°,,. �� j. • Council Liaison Report - No report was given. � �;�T' '�� : „ Cera stated that due to health conditions he would I��e to�r��n��s Cha'ir. ,, �� , ',° I MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and�motion c�rried unanimously to elect Segelbaum as Chair, and Cera as Vice Chair. � �tt�.. fi.? 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1 Q:(?� I�" � : r, � ;� t�., 1 A �a }(� fr f, 1��, John Kluchka, S��etary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant , � , �, [F'- �� {.�� ;i,�, ,„ V �Vi��✓! i� �� . �C�,. �,,.'� Physlcal Developrnent I?epartment 763 593 80�5!763-593�81 t39(fax) Date: October 26, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Sue Virnig, Finance Director Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program Finance Director Sue Virnig will be in attendance to present the 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Chapter 11 ofthe Comprehensive Plan in the CIP which is amended annually. The Planning Commission's role is to review the CIP and determine if it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program (144 pages) ci�y o� � olden va e �� . � - �:� ,...a..a , � '»' = -�, {�c�+� - .,• � .. � ,�.., ,f . _ ,•�J �� R 9�' �.,.� �� r�..� ~ �� f� y ! �� .en•x��. .�' �„ . . ° x�, .,. r� dt°': Y �Y"� +t '. __'y� `�s" 1 �� { �� .:� �'1.. I..':, � �� /i" � #.+=t ��C ... J� � �/,. ` ! ' �° ,, '�'", � . ": � . } � r i ,�� :' — � , ___— _. a ' I6•A� �. � a . d3 � r .� '.,, � � :;.� �i. � ` � _ ,`� , }�L� 4' � ��V� , �. -.��.; .:�N'.:r�'' ,i � w:. ..�y � �:" _ __. },,�jT y�� M1d, _�_"— G� G �8. F S 4 ` . ' 1� ,' � � .�y�' — � { � � II �Ri'G,„ .•p/ i A- ' �~" 4 � - � .:t�� c I ' ' � . � � r. , r .� �>� � �• ' .. 'a� '. . c.�rr � . '��' � ``� ��i"` �r�?3 �`'�!; '� � � "�'� �M.� ` � � :\ '�` ::i �v"� K.� +k. '�''�r }s.y,�"� µ `�'y�. . � r �` '*�'a'A 4 _1Y� :� 4.��yLJ�.x�;�� '�� •A$� . .w.+�lY��.,=�� . r� ` _ - , i �f�:i�. . t 'r� .. A �th 1 1"� �� r � r +w... .. / �.r �{ '1�y)(S�q,.�t � _.. � � _: A ..�Y .,bS:�� , Y j.i�� .� �3'� ,� 5'y .d'�1., d �� S 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program � ,� �� ,r� ��_ - � �; ��M1 � �� {"-��r,��'� �� '�� ,� r_ � �'��`u�-��;'� �{,�,�•��'�-. �'A*''`�t:�r`: �fi.. � �r. ,]�y �'a ��,T �`,�"�_,i�*��'+.. . - .. city of o en va e Proposed 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program Consideration by Council December 1, 2015 Reviewed by Council September 8, 2015 October 13, 2015 November 10, 2015 Reviewed by Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Mayor Shepard M. Harris Council Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Steve Schmidgall, Andy Snope Management Team Tim Cruikshank City Manager Rick Birno Director of Parks and Recreation Stacy Carlson Police Chief John Crelly Fire Chief Chantell Knauss Assistant City Manager Marc Nevinski Physical Development Director Sue Virnig Director of Finance Cheryl Weiler Communications Manager CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 2016-2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Introduction 1 Financing 3 Exhibit I - General Fund Projects 7 Exhibit II - Water& Sewer Utility Fund Projects 8 Exhibit III - Brookview Golf Course Fund Projects and Working Capital Projection 9 Exhibit IV - Equipment Replacement Fund Projects and Cash Balance Projection 10 Exhibit V - Building Fund - Cablecasting Projects and Cash Balance Projection 11 Exhibit VI - Park Improvement Fund Projects and Cash Balance Projection 12 Exhibit VII - Storm Sewer Utility Fund Projects and Cash Balance Projection 13 Exhibit VIII - City Municipal State Aid Street Fund Projects and Cash Balance Projection 14 Exhibit IX - Capital Improvement Fund Projects and Cash Balance Projection 15 Exhibit X - Douglas Drive Corridor Fund Project and Cash Balance Projection 16 Exhibit XI - General Obligation Bonded Debt Tax Levy Projections 17 Exhibit XII - Summary of Capital Improvement Expenditures by Category by Year 18 Exhibit XIII - Financing Summary by Source by Year 19 Vehicles & Equipment (V&E) 20 Parks (P) 55 Golf (GC) 64 Buildings (B) 74 Cablecasting (C) 79 Storm Sewers (SS) 82 Water& Sanitary Sewer Utility (W&SS) 91 Streets (S) 102 Douglas Drive Corridor (DD) 110 Appendix 114 Special Assessment Policy Fleet Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Policy Projects & Funding Sources by Department Summary October 13, 2015 The Honorable Shepard Harris, Mayor Members of the City Council Dear Mayor Harris and City Council Members: The Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for years FY 2016-2020 is presented with this transmittal. The Capital Improvement Program is a five-year fiscal planning instrument that is used to identify needed capital projects and to delineate the financing and timing of the associated projects. Generally these projects exceed $10,000 in cost and require long-term financing. An annual capital improvement budget, encompassing the projects outlined for the first year of the CIP, is presented to the Council with the City budget. The capital improvement also identifies bond issues necessary to fund the year's improvements. Each project is brought forth in the upcoming year for final approval by Council. The adoption of a CIP is a requirement for each city in the metropolitan area. As part of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act passed by the State legislature in 1976, each city is required to adopt a Comprehensive Plan. In 2009, the City's Comprehensive Plan was approved and accomplished: • Updated zoning and subdivision codes; • Housing implementation programs; • Capital Improvement Program related to transportation, sewers, parks and open space facilities Because of its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, the CIP is reviewed by the Planning Commission. The CIP should be viewed as a vehicle to accomplish the goals outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The goals in the plan cover housing, sanitary and storm sewers, public facilities, transportation and parks and open spaces. An orderly expenditure of funds on capital items is a means of accomplishing the Plan. A complete CIP is an indispensable tool for the City Council and the City staff as they manage and control the timing and financing of capital improvements needed to maintain the current high level of City services. A CIP is also used by the bond rating agencies to not only evaluate the current and future financial condition of a city, but also to evaluate the quality of a city's management. Adoption of this comprehensive CIP for 2016-2020 will enhance the City's ability to maintain its current Aa1 bond rating. Finally, a CIP is a valuable document for commission members and citizens to use to gain an understanding of how their City works and the means to accomplish its overall plan. The process for completing the 2016-2020 CIP was much the same as the process for the 2016-2017 Budget. Project requests were submitted by all the divisions and reviewed by the Page 1 Management Team and appropriate supervisors to establish the feasibility and priority of the projects and match with available financing. The only difference this year was that the process was started with the former city manager Tom Burt and will finish with me. The CIP is a planning document or guide for the future capital improvements in the City which in no way constitutes formal approval of the various projects. All of the projects will be formally approved through the City's purchasing or public improvement process. Each section lists the upcoming projects, project overview, and an estimated cost of the project. The Financing section includes a narrative analysis of financing sources involved in the program along with exhibits analyzing some of these sources, with special emphasis on the City's Capital Project Funds. Also included is an exhibit which provides an analysis of the estimated future tax levies needed to finance the City's current general obligation debt and the future general obligation debt identified in the program. There are also finro exhibits which summarize projects by year, source of financing by year and the category for each project. The sections are: Financing Vehicles and Equipment Parks Golf Course Buildings Cablecasting Storm Sewers Water & Sanitary Sewer Utility Streets Douglas Drive Corridor Study Because we are still in the early stages of planning the replacement of Brookview Community Center we have not included this major project. It will however be in the 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program. I look forward to completing these important projects in the coming fiscal year. As we move forward with this FY 2016-2020, I hope that this CIP meets your approval and provides a useful tool for the Council as it makes decisions regarding these projects. Timothy Cruikshank City Manager Page 2 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 2016 - 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FINANCING The 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which is detailed on the following pages, is financed from a variety of sources. The purpose of this section is to describe and analyze these sources, in as much detail as possible, so that the users of this CIP can be certain that the program as outlined can be financed from available financing sources. General Fund The General Fund is the main operating fund of the City, and as such contains most of the City's operating divisions. The main revenue source for this fund is real estate taxes. Large, non-recurring capital outlay expenditures are usually made from one of the City's capital project funds. Level annual transfers from the General Fund to these funds help to even out the annual budgeting process. The General Fund fund balance as of December 31, 2014 was $10,141,364. Exhibit I lists the General Fund transfers to Funds for projects in the CIP. Water 8� Sewer Utilitv Fund The Water& Sewer Utility Fund is an enterprise fund, which is involved in the operation and renewal & replacement of the City's water and sanitary sewer systems. The main sources of revenue for this fund are the user charges to those residential and commercial/industrial customers connected to the systems. Per City policy, new lateral water and sewer system projects are assessed at 100% of cost unless there are unusual circumstances involved, in which case the City would pay for the difference from the reserve account. Since the City is essentially fully developed, there should be fewer and fewer of these projects in future years. These lateral water and sewer system projects are usually requested by property owners, so it is very hard to project when they might occur and the total cost. The trunk water system is owned and operated under a joint powers agreement with the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal. This organization is known as the Joint Water Commission. The operating and capital improvement expenditures of the trunk water system are shared by the three cities. In 2014, an Emergency Water Supply was approved. Financing was through an interfund loan with an additional fee on water consumption. The trunk sanitary sewer system is owned by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services to which the City makes monthly payments for the operation of and the capital improvements to the trunk system. The fund balance or net position of the fund at 12/31/14 was $6,605,858. The financial position of this fund is extremely important because the City is facing large expenditures in future years for the renewal and replacement of aging water and sewer lines. Exhibit II is a list of projects in the program financed by the Water& Sewer Utility Fund. Brookview Golf Course Fund The Brookview Golf Course Fund is an enterprise fund, which is involved in the operation and improvement of the City's golf course and newly developed Lawn Bowling Course in 2014. The main revenue source is green fees paid by the golfers. The golf course consists of an 18 hole regulation course, a 9 hole par 3 course and a driving range. Other revenue sources come from the lawn bowling course, pro shop and grill. Many of the improvements to the course are part of regular course maintenance, but where specific projects can be defined and costs estimated, they are included in the program. Major pieces of equipment used by the golf course are also included in the program. The net position in this fund as of December 31, 2014 was Page 3 $845,700. This was slightly lower than the previous year due to the construction of the lawn bowling course. Exhibit III is a list of the major course improvements and equipment included in the program and the projected working capital balances of this fund. Storm Sewer UtilitY Fund The Storm Sewer Utility Fund is an enterprise fund, which is involved in the maintenance and improvement of the City's storm water system including storm sewers and holding ponds. The fund is financed from charges to all the property in the City based on the level of estimated storm water runoff from a given class of property. Projects funded are those related to the Pavement Management Program, the City's adopted Storm Water Management Plan and projects constructed in conjunction with the other cities that are members of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. Exhibit VII is an analysis of the projected revenue, expenditures and cash balances in this fund. Projected expenditures include the annual debt service payments on the storm water revenue bonds that were sold in 2006. The proceeds of this issue were used to finance the storm water costs of the T.H. 55 & Boone Ave. project. The net position in this fund as of December 31, 2014 was $7,904,729. Equipment Replacement Fund This capital project fund is used to finance major vehicle and equipment purchases for General Fund divisions. One of the revenue sources of this fund is the proceeds of the sale of Certificates of Indebtedness. Exhibit IV is an analysis of the projected revenue, expenditures and cash balances in this fund. The estimated future annual tax levies that will be needed to repay the debt service on current and future certificates of indebtedness issues are detailed in Exhibit XI. Buildinq Fund This capital project fund is used to finance major improvements to buildings used by the General Fund divisions. Wold Architects completed a city facility analysis in 2006. This plan has been incorporated into the Building Fund and the 2015 General Fund Buildings Budget as funding permits. A major source of financing in this fund is transfers from the General Fund. Exhibit V is an analysis of the projected revenue, expenditures and cash balances of this fund. The replacement of Brookview Community Center is being studied. Cablecastinq Fund This capital project fund was separately designated in 2014 to account for the franchise fees collected for cablecasting. These monies are designated for any future improvements for the council chambers to provide cablecasting of public meetings. Northwest Cable Television (NWCT) provides service and programing for the city. Park Improvement Fund This capital project fund is used to finance major park and open space improvements. One of the revenue sources in this fund is an annual transfer from the General Fund along with park dedication fees. Exhibit VI is an analysis of the projected revenue, expenditures and cash balances of this fund. Page 4 Municipal State Aid (MSA) Fund This fund is used to account for moneys held in account both by the City and the State of Minnesota for use in the maintenance and improvement of municipal state aid streets located in the City. Streets are designated as municipal state aid based on criteria established by the State. Each city is allowed a maximum number of miles of these designated streets. Every improvement project involving these streets must first be approved by the State. If approved, a certain portion of the projected cost is advanced to the City from its MSA account at the State, with the balance being paid upon completion. The monies that finance the City's MSA account at the State come from the State gasoline tax. The City's MSA account at the State is essentially the City's money, and the amount in the account at any one time is included as an asset of this fund. The State also participates directly in various street and storm sewer improvement projects with the City, when the particular project benefits or involves State highways and rights of way. On the worksheets for street and storm sewer projects, the designation under the financing analysis of MSA refers to the City's MSA account at the State, and State of Minnesota refers to direct State participation. Exhibit VII is an analysis of the projected revenue, expenditures and cash balances of the Municipal State Aid Fund. Douplas Drive Proiect In October 2010, and January 2013, the City passed an ordinance requiring a franchise fee with Xcel Energy and Centerpoint. The franchise fees will be the funding source for improvements related to the Douglas Drive project. The City shall use the franchise fees collected by the Company for infrastructure costs of the Douglas Drive Project which include City expenditures for the project, including those financed by bonds. Franchise fee revenue started in 2011 and will be accounted for separately in this capital projects fund. Capital Improvement Fund Revenues for this fund will primarily come from a portion of the franchise fees that are not designated for payment of debt services from the Douglas Drive project. Monies in this fund finance infrastructure improvements. Exhibit VIII is an analysis of the projected revenue, expenditures and cash balances of this fund. General Obliqation Bonds To finance certain projects the City must borrow funds externally by issuing general obligation municipal bonds. The method(s) of financing the repayment of these bonds differentiates the various types of bonds used in the program. Tax Increment Bonds The proceeds of these bond issues are used to pay for public improvements in specially designated tax increment districts. The debt service on the bonds is repaid from property taxes on the increased value in the district over a base year's value. The property taxes on the increased value (increment) are not distributed to the various taxing jurisdictions, but are retained by the City to pay off the debt service on the bonds. The increased value in the district comes from the increased commercial/industrial development made possible by the public improvements financed by the bonds. The City currently has no tax increment districts with following bonded indebtedness as of December 31, 2015. The City has four tax increment financing districts, three of which were approved in 2015. A pay-go note was used to finance the North Wirth District No. 3. Page 5 Special Assessment Bonds Per State Statute, if at least 20% of the bond principal for a public improvement is financed by special assessments against benefited properties, the balance can be financed from tax levies against all the property in the City without the need of a bond referendum. On the project worksheets, if special assessment bond financing is involved, we have indicated the amount of bonds to be repaid from special assessments and tax levies. The pavement management program uses special assessment bonds for financing along with assessments from benefiting properties. These street projects will extend over a longer period than is included in the 2016-2020 CIP and will be financed by annual special assessment bond issues. On the project worksheet for the pavement management program, the method of financing is indicated as just Special Assessment Bonds. Certificates of Indebtedness Certificates of Indebtedness are used to help finance capital equipment that is outlined in the Equipment Replacement Fund. These are short-term general obligation debt instruments issued for a term of four years and repaid from annual tax levies. Current legislation has allowed cities to extend the term of these certificates up to ten years if the life of the asset is that in length. We may extend the term for those certificates that will finance fire pumper replacements. Municipal State Aid (MSA) Revenue Bonds MSA bonds were sold in 2007 for the first time for the City of Golden Valley. The project was Golden Valley Road and Bridge replacement. The debt service payments will be repaid over twenty years with State Aid Allotments used to improve and maintain Municipal State Aid roads. Tax Abatement Bonds These bonds will be repaid from the abated City taxes on the General Mills' headquarters expansion, which has been completed. The abatement agreement was signed between the City and General Mills in 2001 and the bonds were sold in 2004. The City taxes generated by the expansion will not be used to finance general City operations, but will be used to pay the debt service on the bonds. The term of the abatement agreement is fifteen (15) years. On the project worksheets, if tax abatement bond financing is involved, we have indicated the amount of bonds to be repaid from the annual tax abatement. Exhibit XI is an analysis of the projected tax levies needed to finance the current general obligation bonded debt of the City of Golden Valley. Page 6 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016 - 2020 CIP GENERAL FUND (FUND 1000) EXHIBIT I EXPENDITURES PROJECT (1) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Transfer to Building Fund $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Transfer to Park Improvement Fund 225,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Transfer to Street Reconstruction 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 500,000 for Overlays Totals $725,000 $850,000 $950,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 Notes: (1) The individual building and park projects funded by these transfers are included in the Building and Parks Sections of the CIP. All transfers are included and approved with the General Fund budget. Page 7 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND (FUND 7120) EXHIBIT II 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Net Position @ 1/1 $5,062,368 $4,006,863 $2,775,148 $1,620,805 $1,184,638 Revenue: Franchise Fees 700,000 Interfund Loan-Advance Operating Revenue 8,149,465 8,379,300 8,630,679 8,889,599 9,156,287 Total Revenue for Operations 8,849,465 8,379,300 8,630,679 8,889,599 9,156,287 Total Available 13,911,833 12,386,163 11,405,827 10,510,404 10,340,925 Expenditures: Operating Expenditures: Administration (641,190) (557,795) (563,373) (569,007) (574,697) Sewer Maintenance (2,723,660) (2,984,695) (3,044,389) (3,105,277) (3,167,382) WaterMaintenance (4,655,120) (4,873,525) (4,922,260) (4,971,483) (5,021,198) Sub-TotalOperations (8,019,970) (8,416,015) (8,530,022) (8,645,766) (8,763,277) Capital Outlay: 2016 (1,885,000) 2017 (1,195,000) 2018 (1,255,000) 2019 (680,000) 2020 (535,000) Sub-Total Capital Expenses (1,885,000) (1,195,000) (1,255,000) (680,000) (535,000) Total Expenses (9,904,970) (9,611,015) (9,785,022) (9,325,766) (9,298,277) Net Position @ 12/31 $4,006,863 $2,775,148 $1,620,805 $1,184,638 $1,042,649 Page 8 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE FUND (FUND 7150) EXHIBIT III 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Net Position @ 1/1 $892,370 $876,290 $856,615 $854,107 $868,942 Revenue: Total Course Revenue 1,885,370 1,913,520 1,970,926 2,030,053 2,090,955 Capital Loan for Carts 210,000 Total Available 2,777,740 2,789,810 3,037,541 2,884,160 2,959,897 Expenses: Operating Expenses: (1,828,450) (1,847,695) (1,856,933) (1,866,218) (1,875,549) Capital Outlay 2016 (73,000) 2017 (85,500) 2018 (326,500) 2019 (149,000) 2020 (140,500) al Expenses (1,901,450) (1,933,195) (2,183,433) (2,015,218) (2,016,049) Net Position @ 12/31 $876,290 $856,615 $854,107 $868,942 $943,848 Page 9 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (FUND 5700) EXHIBIT IV 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance @ 1/1 3,453,519 2,781,449 2,744,194 1,047,566 1,017,971 Revenue: Proceeds-Certificates of Indebtedness 800,000 850,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 Sale of Assets(Auction proceeds): 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Interest Earnings(Beginning Balance) 24,535 27,814 27,442 10,476 10,180 Total Available 4,313,054 3,694,264 3,706,636 1,993,041 1,963,151 Expenditures: Bond Costs (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) 2016 (1,511,605) 2017 (930,070) 2018 (2,639,070) 2019 (955,070) 2020 (1,035,570) (1,531,605) (950,070) (2,659,070) (975,070) (1,055,570) Fund Balance @12/31 2,781,449 2,744,194 1,047,566 1,017,971 907,581 Page 10 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP BUILDING FUND(FUND 5200) EXHIBIT V 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance @ 1/1 $478,305 $551,892 $696,031 $726,252 $856,699 Revenue: Transfer From General Fund 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Interest Earnings 3,587 4,139 5,220 5,447 6,425 Total Available 781,892 856,031 1,001,252 1,031,699 1,163,124 Expenditures: 2016 (230,000) 2017 (160,000) 2018 (275,000) 2019 (175,000) 2020 (265,000) Total Expenditures (230,000) (160,000) (275,000) (175,000) (265,000) Fund Balance @ 12/31 $551,892 $696,031 $726,252 $856,699 $898,124 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP CABLECASTING FUND (FUND 5500) EXHIBIT V 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance @ 1/1 $167,770 $180,609 $193,512 $206,479 $219,512 Revenue: Franchise Fees 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 Interest Earnings 839 903 968 1,032 1,098 Total Available 202,609 215,512 228,479 241,512 254,609 Expenditures: 2016 (22,000) 2017 (22,000) 2018 (22,000) 2019 (22,000) 2020 (22,000) Total Expenditures (22,000) (22,000) (22,000) (22,000) (22,000) Fund Balance @ 12/31 $180,609 $193,512 $206,479 $219,512 $232,609 Page 11 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND 5600) EXHIBIT VI 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance @ 1/1 $653,364 $550,499 $587,378 $623,533 $652,960 Revenue: Transfer From General Fund 225,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Little League Loan Payment 5,500 5,500 Little League Payment 20,000 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant 325,000 Interest Earnings 4,900 4,129 4,405 4,676 4,897 Total Available 888,764 1,155,128 841,783 878,210 907,857 Expenditures: 2016 (338,265) 2017 (567,750) 2018 (218,250) 2019 (225,250) 2020 (227,250) Total Expenditures (338,265) (567,750) (218,250) (225,250) (227,250) Fund Balance @ 12/31 $550,499 $587,378 $623,533 $652,960 $680,607 Page 12 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND (FUND 7300) EXHIBIT VII 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Net Position @ 1/1 $7,957,429 $7,114,229 $7,011,574 $6,816,266 $6,520,041 Revenue: Storm Sewer Charges 2,275,000 2,275,000 2,275,000 2,275,000 2,275,000 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 810,930 201,000 800,000 Bond Proceeds(Paid by TIF-Medicine Lk/Winnetka) 5,692,000 Interest Earnings 45,000 50,000 70,116 68,163 65,200 Total Revenue 8,822,930 2,325,000 2,345,116 2,544,163 3,140,200 Total Available 16,780,359 9,439,229 9,356,690 9,360,428 9,660,242 Exqenditures: Operating Expenditures: Storm Sewer Maintenance (512,535) (486,060) (500,642) (515,661) (531,131) Street Cleaning (126,420) (129,560) (133,447) (137,450) (141,574) Environmental Services (323,260) (321,685) (331,336) (341,276) (351,514) Debt Service- Revenue Bonds(2021) (170,985) (170,350) (175,000) (175,000) (175,000) Sub-Total of Operations (1,133,200) (1,107,655) (1,140,424) (1,169,387) (1,199,218) Capital Outlay: 2016 (8,532,930) 2017 (1,320,000) 2018 (1,400,000) 2019 (1,671,000) 2020 (2,350,000) Sub-Total of Capital Expenditures (8,532,930) (1,320,000) (1,400,000) (1,671,000) (2,350,000) Total Expenditures (9,666,130) (2,427,655) (2,540,424) (2,840,387) (3,549,218) Net Position @ 12/31 $7,114,229 $7,011,574 $6,816,266 $6,520,041 $6,111,023 Page 13 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP CITY STATE AID CAPITAL PROJECT FUND(FUND 5100) EXHIBIT VIII 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance @ 1/1 1,091,537 1,207,182 1,328,733 1,443,112 1,558,348 Revenue: State Aid Bond Payments 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 Annual Maintenance Allotment From State 292,983 292,983 292,983 292,983 292,983 Special Assessments-State-Aid Bonds(Harold) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Special Assessments-State-Aid Bonds; Golden Valley Rd.-Douglas Dr.to T.H. 100 7,875 7,875 Harold Avenue Reconstruction 7,815 7,815 7,815 7,815 7,815 Interest Earnings (%of Beg. Bal.) 8,187 9,054 9,966 10,823 11,688 Total Available 1,533,397 1,649,908 1,764,497 1,879,733 1,995,834 Expenditures: Maintenance 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 MSA Debt Service(ends 2027) 201,215 196,175 196,385 196,385 196,175 Total Expenditures 326,215 321,175 321,385 321,385 321,175 Fund Balance @ 12/31 $1,207,182 $1,328,733 $1,443,112 $1,558,348 $1,674,659 Page 14 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND 6100) EXHIBIT IX 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance @ 1/1 $772,272 $535,395 $351,149 $302,560 $263,486 Revenue: Charge to Street Reconstruction Projects to Finance CAD&Pavement Management Systems 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Franchise Fees(Centerpoint/Xcel) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 City of Crystal 70,000 Hennepin County 50,000 Interest Earnings (1%of Beg. Bal.) 7,723 5,354 3,511 3,026 2,635 Total Available 849,995 830,749 574,660 525,586 486,121 Expenditures: 2016 (314,600) 2017 (479,600) 2018 (272,100) 2019 (262,100) 2020 (222,100) (314,600) (479,600) (272,100) (262,100) (222,100) Fund Balance @ 12/31 $535,395 $351,149 $302,560 $263,486 $264,021 Page 15 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP DOUGLAS DRIVE CORRIDOR (FUND 6200) EXHIBIT X 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance @ 1/1 $0 $482,400 $522,224 $562,446 $603,071 Revenue: Transit for Livable Communities Franchise Fees-Xcel 610,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 Franchise Fees-Centerpoint 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 Hennepin County Street Reconstruction Bond 10,000,000 Interest Earnings (1%of Beg. Bal.) 0 4,824 5,222 5,624 6,031 Tota�Available 11,035,000 1,322,224 1,362,446 1,403,071 1,444,101 Expenditures: 2016 (10,552,600) 2017 (800,000) 2018 (800,000) 2019 (800,000) 2020 (800,000) Total Expenditures (10,552,600) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) Fund Balance @ 12/31 $482,400 $522,224 $562,446 $603,071 $644,101 Page 16 CfTY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP GENERAL OBLIGATION-CURRENT DEBT PAYMENTS EXHIBIT XI-(does not include issues that are in escrow) Principal Balance 12/31/15 Maturi 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Curtent Pavement Manaqement General Obliqation Soeciai Assessment Debt 2000A(2009C)Street Improvement Bond� 800,000 2016 $824,000 2002A(2009D)Street Improvement Bond� 2,555,000 2018 914,700 914,950 915,200 2003C(2011C)Street Improvement Bond<. 2,505,000 2019 655,150 677,750 679,150 684,950 2005C(2012C)Street Improvement Bond<, 5,960,000 2025 347,937 343,437 338,937 339,437 334,837 1,035,237 1,026,537 1,022,637 1,023,437 2006B(2013B)Street ImprovementBonds 7,025,000 2026 379,275 410,500 415,100 1,169,500 968,700 461,500 1,164,100 1,162,500 610,500 2007C(2014C)Street Improvement Bond: 3,950,000 2027 230,655 233,655 281,455 287,150 292,320 292,007 286,417 780,762 755,837 2008A(2015C)Street Improvement Bonda 6,600,000 2028 345,050 342,600 344,975 457,162 454,562 451,762 448,762 445,562 1,287,162 2009A Street Improvement Bonds 6,015,000 2029 198,919 543,919 548,569 547,769 547,594 551,194 553,850 560,525 561,013 2010A Street Improvement Bonds 3,575,000 2030 959,290 594,090 779,090 108,090 106,590 105,090 183,515 189,290 44,600 2011A Street Improvement Bonds 1,565,000 2031 125,975 174,475 146,975 158,975 165,525 161,775 158,025 104,275 101,838 2012A Street Improvement Bonds 1,425,000 2032 76,500 230,600 91,600 170,300 222,400 218,400 74,400 73,200 62,000 2013A Street Improvement Bonds 1,540,000 2033 75,494 204,932 197,744 35,619 165,494 163,744 96,994 21,056 21,056 2014A Street Improvement Bonds 2,235,000 2035 63,230 63,230 63,230 173,230 171,745 170,260 173,280 171,210 172,760 2015A Street Improvement Bonds 1,870,000 2036 141,319 219,225 114,275 112,325 415,375 409,275 98,025 70,775 69,275 Total 47,620,000 $5,337,494 $4,953,363 $4,916,300 $4,244,507 $3,845,142 $4,020,244 $4,263,905 $4,601,792 $4,709,477 Current Certificates of Indebtedness General Obliaation Debt Certficates of Indebtedness-2012B 245,000 2016 246,838 Certificates of Indebtedness-2013A 500,000 2017 256,250 253,125 Certificates of Indebtedness-20148 750,000 2018 254,875 253,875 252,250 Certificates of indebtedness-2015B 800,000 2019 9,146 295,050 289,485 289,170 Total 2,295,000 Current Tax Abatement Bonds 20046 Tax Abatement Bonds 1,360,000 2019 362,000 357,688 348,375 334,125 General Obliqation Revenue Bonds 2006C Utility Revenue Bonds 910,000 2021 172,553 172,018 176,278 175,128 173,695 177,055 910,000 Curtent State Aid Street Bonds 2007A State Aid Bonds 1,760,000 2027 191,631 186,831 187,032 187,032 186,832 191,432 190,632 189,444 188,050 Total Govemment Wide Principal 53,945,000 6,830,787 6,471,950 6,169,720 5,229,962 4,205,669 4,388,731 4,454,537 4,791,236 4,897,527 Page 17 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY BY YEAR EXHIBIT XII Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total % Vehicles& Equipment $1,511,605 $930,070 $2,639,070 $955,070 $1,035,570 $7,071,385 10.5% Buildings 230,000 160,000 275,000 175,000 265,000 1,105,000 1.6% Cablecasting 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 0.2% Parks 338,265 567,750 218,250 225,250 227,250 1,576,765 2.3% Golf Course 73,000 85,500 326,500 149,000 140,500 774,500 1.1% Streets 2,340,815 2,870,775 5,393,485 5,783,485 5,843,275 22,231,835 33.0% Douglas Drive Corridor 10,552,600 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 13,752,600 20.4% Storm Sewers 8,532,930 1,320,000 1,400,000 1,671,000 2,350,000 15,273,930 22.6% Water&Sewer Systems 1,885,000 1,195,000 1,255,000 680,000 535,000 5,550,000 8.2% Totals $25,486,215 $7,951,095 $12,329,305 $10,460,805 $11,218,595 $67,446,015 100.0% Page 18 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016-2020 CIP FINANCING SUMMARY BY SOURCE BY YEAR EXHIBIT XIII Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total °/a External Sources: Bassett Creek Water Mgmt Comm 810,930 0 0 201,000 800,000 1,811,930 2.7% Franchise Fees 1,500,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 4,700,000 7.0% City of Crystal 0 70,000 0 0 0 70,000 0.1% Golden Valley Little League 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 0.0% Hennepin County Sports Grant 0 325,000 0 0 0 325,000 0.5% Tax Increment Bonds 5,692,000 0 0 0 0 5,692,000 8.4% Total External Sources 8,002,930 1,215,000 800,000 1,001,000 1,600,000 12,618,930 18.7% Internal Sources: Equipment Replacement Fund 1,511,605 930,070 2,639,070 955,070 1,035,570 7,071,385 10.5% Brookview Golf Course Fund 73,000 85,500 326,500 149,000 140,500 774,500 1.1% Water&Sewer Utility Fund 1,885,000 1,195,000 1,255,000 680,000 535,000 5,550,000 8.2% Building Fund 230,000 160,000 275,000 175,000 265,000 1,105,000 1.6% Cablecasting Fund 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 0.2% Park Improvement Fund 338,265 222,750 218,250 225,250 227,250 1,231,765 1.8% Capital Improvement Fund 314,600 409,600 272,100 262,100 222,100 1,480,500 2.2% Municipal State-Aid(MSA)Fund 326,215 321,175 321,385 321,385 321,175 1,611,335 2.4% Storm Sewer Utility Fund 2,030,000 1,320,000 1,400,000 1,470,000 1,550,000 7,770,000 11.5% Street Improvement Fund 500,000 500,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2,200,000 3.3% Street Reconstruction Bonds 9,052,600 0 0 0 0 9,052,600 13.4% Special Assessment Bonds 1,200,000 1,570,000 4,500,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 16,870,000 25.0% Total Internal Sources 17,483,285 6,736,095 11,529,305 9,459,805 9,618,595 54,827,085 81.3% Totals All Sources $25,486,215 $7,951,095 $12,329,305 $10,460,805 $11,218,595 $67,446,015 100.0% Page 19 city of olden � va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Vehicles and Equipment Replacement Section This section includes all capital equipment and vehicles that help employees have the tools to fulfill their job requirements. The Vehicle Maintenance department maintains all equipment and vehicles except for the Enterprise Funds (Water and Sewer, Storm Sewer, and Golf). The City's Information Technology Coordinator maintains the computers, printers and phone system. Each year each piece of equipment is reviewed before replacement. This schedule allows the City to finance upcoming purchases for the next five years. Financing for this fund comes from selling Equipment Certificates. Certificates are paid back in four years by a debt levy. 20 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thru 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Vehicles and Equipment �� Marked Squad Cars(Police) V&E-001 n/a 80,000 80,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 400,000 Computers and Printers(Finance) V&E-002 n/a 80,000 105,000 80,000 95,000 95,000 455,000 Pickup Truck(Engineering) V&E-008 n/a 40,000 40,000 Front End Loader(Street) V&E-009 n/a 260,000 260,000 Pickup Truck(Street) V&E-Ol6 nla 35,000 35,000 Portable Computers(Police) V&E-020 n/a 50,000 50,000 Vibratory Asphalt Roller(Street) V&E-021 nla 40,000 40,000 Sign Truck(Street) V&E-022 nla 100,000 100,000 Pickup Truck(Park) V&E-026 nla 40,000 40,000 Rotary Mower(Park) V&E-030 nla 98,000 98,000 Asphalt Melter(Street) V&E-033 n/a 45,000 45,000 Crime Prevention Vehicle(Police) V&E-034 n/a 30,000 30,000 Aerial LadderTruck(Fire) V&E-037 n/a 1,500,000 1,500,000 Streetscape Banners(Street) V&E-038 n/a 25,000 25,000 Asphalt Cold Planer(Street) V&E-052 n/a 20,000 20,000 Fire Hose(Fire) V&E-058 n/a 10,000 28,000 38,000 Rescue Vehicle(Fire) V&E-059 n/a 100,000 100,000 Rescue Vehicle(Fire) V&E-060 n/a 100,000 100,000 Pickup Truck(Street) V&E-063 n/a 35,000 35,000 Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) V&E-070 n/a 225,000 225,000 Pickup Truck(Engineering) V&E-072 n/a 30,000 30,000 Sidewalk/Maintenance Tractor(Street) V&E-073 n/a 160,000 160,000 Aerial BucketTruck(Park) V&E-078 n/a 200,000 200,000 UtilityTractor(Park) V&E-079 nla 80,000 80,000 Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) V&E-090 n/a 225,000 225,000 Marked Squad Digital Recording System(Police) V&E-092 n/a 120,000 120,000 Asphalt Hot Box(Street) V&E-099 n/a 80,000 80,000 Pickup Truck(Fire) V&E-102 n/a 40,000 40,000 Asphalt Crack Router(Street) V&E-105 nla 15,000 15,000 Polaris 6 X 6(Fire) V&E-106 nla 15,000 15,000 Bobcat Utility Truckster(Park) V8E-107 n/a 55,000 55,000 Unmarked Police Vehicle(Police) V&E-108 n/a 40,000 40,000 Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) V&E-109 n/a 225,000 225,000 Dump Truck(Street) V&E-110 n/a 225,000 225,000 Portable Traffic Programmabie Message Sign V&E-115 n/a 25,000 25,000 Bobcat Toolcat(Street) V&E-116 n/a 50,000 50,000 Sidwalk Tractor(Street) V&E-118 n/a 150,000 150,000 Field Line Painter(Park) V&E-120 n/a 20,000 20,000 Tasers(Police) V&E-121 n/a 16,000 16,000 Police Vehicle(Police) V&E-122 n/a 40,000 40,000 Tack Sprayer(Street) V&E-126 n/a 25,000 25,000 800 MHZ Radios(Fire) V&E-127 nla 80,000 80,000 Utility Tractor(Park) V&E-128 n/a 80,000 80,000 800 MHZ Radios(Police) V&E-129 n/a 96,650 96,650 Rotary Mower(Park) V&E-130 n/a 30,000 30,000 AsphaltRollerTrailer V&E-131 n/a 20,000 20,000 Page 21 Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Thermal Imaging Cameras(Fire) V&E-132 n/a 70,000 70,000 800 MHz Radios(Public Works Maintenance) V&E-133 n/a 183,000 183,000 CaRegraph Software(Public Works Maintenance) V&E-134 n/a 13,000 13,000 Body Cameras(Police) V&E-135 n/a 53,955 24,070 24,070 24,070 24,070 150,235 Zodiac Boat(Fire) V&E-136 n/a 5,500 5,500 Outboard Motor(Fire) V&E-137 n/a 5,500 5,500 PassengerVehicle(Fire) V&E-138 n/a 40,000 40,000 PassengerVehicle(Fire) V&E-139 n/a 40,000 40,000 Utility Trailer(Park) V&E-140 n/a 5,500 5,500 Pickup Truck(Park) V&E-141 n/a 35,000 35,000 Dump Truck(Park) V&E-142 n/a 80,000 80,000 Trash Compactor(Park) V&E-143 n/a 65,000 65,000 Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) V&E-144 n/a 225,000 225,000 Skid Steer Loader(Street) V&E-145 n/a 55,000 55,000 Dump Truck(Street) V&E-146 n/a 80,000 80,000 Marked Squad(Police) V&E-147 n/a 40,000 40,000 SWAT Van(Police) V&E-148 nla 200,000 200,000 Vehicles and Equipment Total 1,511,605 93Q070 2,639,070 955,070 1,035,570 1,071,385 GRAND TOTAL 1,511,605 930,070 2,639,070 955,070 1,035,570 7,071,385 Page 22 Project# VBiE-��1 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Marked Squad Cars (Police) TyPe Eyy,,;p,,,�,t Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority �Description � ___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ �Marked squad cars for the Police Department per replacement schedule for the City s nine squads. ___ _ Justi�cation _ _ - _ � 'Each year all nine squads are looked at based on the number of miles,accidents and overall safety.The number replaced may vary based on these factors. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 80,000 80,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 400,000 Total 80,000 80,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 400,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 80,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 400,000 Total 80,000 80,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 400,000 Project# V�LE-��2 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Computers and Printers(Finance) Typ Eq p e ui ment Useful Life Category Equipment:Computers Priority �� Description �Replacement of computers and printers in the City. Most computers are scheduled to be replaced every four to five years and printers every eight. The City has a Itotal of 140 computers and printers. Also includes upgrades to the City's computer network system,which includes switches,hubs and fiber connection hardware. ln 2017,switches(10)will be replaced. _.- ___ _ -- �I Justification . Technology changes make personal computers obsolete after five years for business purposes. The computers will be replaced on the basis of need. ' Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 80,000 105,000 80,000 95,000 95,000 455,000 Total 80,000 105,000 80,000 95,000 95,000 455,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 105,000 80,000 95,000 95,000 455,000 Total 80,000 105,000 80,000 95,000 95,000 455,000 Page 23 Project# V&E-�Og Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact ProjeM Name p�ckup Truck(Engineering) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority � � Description ��---- �Pickup Truck for the Engineering Division to replace Unit#233.2009 Ford Ranger with topper. � --- ___— _ - -- — ' Jus6ficabon _� .- . I - -- -- -- — _ ___ _ _ Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#233.This vehicle will be 10 years old. , Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Project# VBi�'-��9 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Front End Loader (Street) Type ��pmeac Useful l.ife Category Vehicles Priority _ _ __ -__- __ Description _ _ ___ __ ___ - -� 3-4 cubic yard front end loader for the SVeet Department to replace Unit 766(2003 Caterpillar 950G Front End Loader). ----- Justification _- -- -- I 'Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 766,which will be fourteen years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 260,000 260,000 Total 260,000 260,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 260,000 260,000 Total 260,000 260,000 Page 24 Project# Va�L�'-�16 Uepartment Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name pickup Truck(Street) T e ui ment YP F9 P Useful Life Category Equipment:Heary Equip. __._ Priorit� Description -- - _ i � -- - __ . _ _ -- _ __ _ ---------_____-� LPickup for the Street Division to replace Unit 77�(2008 Ford F250). -- — — - __ - _-- �Justification - —_ -i __ __ _ _--- - - - --- �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 777,which will be 8 years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 35,000 35,000 Total 35,000 35,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 35,000 35,000 Total 35,000 35,000 Project# VBiE-�2� Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name POCtBbIC COII]plltCl'S �POIICC� Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Computers Priority � Description - - -- - - - - -- -- - - � Replacement of portable computers in squad cars. There are currently ten Toughbook PCs with docking stations. �Justification —_ --: --- - - -- -- __ _ The current machines were acquired in 2012. Increased repau and maintenance occurs as machines age. New Technology requires cutrent hardware.These portable computers are replaced every four years. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 50,000 50,000 '['p� 5Q000 50,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 50,000 50,000 Tp� 50,000 50,000 Page 25 Project# Va��'-�ZI Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Vibratory Asphalt Roller(Street) Type EyU�pm�c Useful Life Categor,y Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority Description New 2.5 ton dual-drum drive as halt roller for the Street D artmerit to r lace Unit#765 2002 In ersoll Rand roller. This iece of ui ment is used for P eP eP ( g ) P e9 P compacting asphalt and granular materials. _ ---- Justification , - - —_ — _ _ _ Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#765,which will be 15 years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Project# VBiC�'-�22 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Sign Truck(Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Categor� Vehicles Priority �Description - _ - - --- _ -- --- --__ __- - ----� 'Sign truck for the Street Division to replace Unit#776(2008 Ford F-450)truck with flat bed,tool boxes and sign removal crane. _ ---- - --- Justification Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#776. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Fumishings 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Page 26 Project# Va�E-�26 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name pickup Truck(Park) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority ' Description P�cku Truck for the Park Division to r la --- —. __ _ _ __ _ _- ----- --- -- - ' p ep ce Unit#476(2007 Ford F-150) _ - . _ -- —__ _ ustification � _ _ _ - — _ — -- - — -- -- - �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#476. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Project# V&E-030 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Rotary Mower (Park) T e ui ment YP F9 P Useful I,ife Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority �Description �- — - - --. _ __— _. _ -- -- - _ _ 16'hydrostatic Vactor mower for the Park Department to replace Unit#472(2008 Toro Groundsmaster 580D). _ _ — __ I Justi�cation _ __ � Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#472,which will be eight years old. Large mowers of this type are the most cost-effective approach to �mowing large open areas such as park land. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 98,000 98,000 Ta� 98,000 98,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 98,000 98,000 Tp� 98,000 98,000 Page 27 Project# V&E-033 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Asphalt Melter (Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority �Description �'� - __ - _ - _ - - __ _ _ - � �rack sealant melter for the Street Division to to replace Unit#785(2009 Stepp Asphalt Melter). Justification __ _� - __—_ _ __ _ __. Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#785. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 45,000 45,000 Total 45,000 45,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 45,000 45,000 Total 45,000 45,000 Project# V&E-034 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Crime Prevention Vehicle(Police) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority ' Description _ _ ___ _ - -- -- � New crime prevention vehicle for the Police Department to replace Unit#804(2008 Dodge Caravan). i _ -- - -- Justification �[ncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#804,which will be eleven years old. �' Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 'Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Page 28 Project# V&E-037 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Aerial Ladder Truck(Fire) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priarity �Description �Replace aerial ladder fire pumper Unit#334 that was originally purchased in 1993 and refurbished in 2009. � _-_ _-- - i Jusrification ' IThis aerial um er will be twen five ears old. . . ._ .- -- p p_ Ty y --_ _--_ __ _ - -- __ __ — -— �' Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total 1,500,000 1,500,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total 1,500,000 1,500,000 Project# V&E-038 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Streetscape Banners (Street) Type Equipment Usefui I.ife Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority �' Description � _ _ -_ _ CReplacement of banners for streetscape along Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. There are two different sets of banners with 216 banners in each set. The I two sets(summer and winter)were purchased in 2007 and will be replaced with one type.. -- -- Justification Fabric deteriorates and colors fade after weathered conditions.. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 , . . � � . � .. . _ . 'f.' � . . � ' " . - . .. . . . .. _ . . . . � � . �': ... . " . . . ' . . � . � . � � � .% � Project# VBiE-O52 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Asphalt Cold Planer(Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority '� Description __ ��_ _ - _--_ _-- ---- ------- - iCold planer attachment for Bobcat T-190 skid streer loader for Street Deparhuent to replace Unit#784(MT trackless implement). � ' Justification _ _ _ _ _-- _ _ . -- -_ --_ _ Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#784,which will be seven years old. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 20,000 20,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 20,000 20,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Project# VBiE-�5g Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name �i'lI'C�OSC�FII'0� T e ui ment YP E9 P Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Prioritv __ ____ __ • Descrip6on -_ � _ --- - — I-3/4",3",and 5"hose. 1 ' Justification � _ __ __- __— . __ _ __ ___ ____ _ . _____ .. Replace hose that failed during annual testing. - _ Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 10,000 28,000 38,000 Total 10,000 28,000 38,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 10,000 28,000 38,000 Total 10,000 28,000 38,000 Page 30 Project# V&E-059 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Rescue Vehicle(Fire) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority Description ' - ___ - - -- __ __ __ _ _ __ --_ ___ _ �New Rescue Vehide to replace Unit 340,a 2001 Ford Excursion. 1 - --- Jus6fication -_ - _ � Ilncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 340,which will be sixteen years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Project# V&E-060 Department Vehicles and Equipmec�t Contact Project Name Rescue Vehicle (Fire) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority Description - - ---- --- — -- - -- --- -- lNew Rescue Vehicle to replace Unit 339,a 2001 Ford Excursion. � __- —_ - _ -- — — — i Justification _ - _- __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _- _-- Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 339. _ __ _ _ -- __ I Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Page 31 Project# V&E-063 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name pickup Truck(Street) rype Equipment Useful I,ife Category Vehicles Priority Descrip6on . _ - _ .— __ —_ _ - — —---- __ �One half ton pickup truck for the street department to replace unit#790,a 20ll Ford F-250 pickup. � _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - — - _ _ __ i , Justi�cation -- -- _ _ _- __ _ _----- - -- � Ilncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#790,which will be seven years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 35,000 35,000 '['a� 35,000 35,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 35,000 35,000 Total 35,000 35,000 Project# Vc�GE-�7� Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Namc Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) Type Fquipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority � Description - -- _ --- _ _ _ -- --- - -- �Single Axle dump truck for the Street Division to replace unit#761,a 2005 Sterling dump truck. _- _ _— � _. __- - -- - - - - __ �, Jushfication �- -' -- . _ _ _ _ __ -- — _ __ _ �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Page 32 Project# VBiE-072 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name pickup Truck(Engineering) Type �U�pa,�c Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority _.__ _ � Description __- --- -- - _ - __- --__ _ - _ -_ ----- - ---- ---� One half ton pickup truck for the Engineering Division to replace Unit#231,a 2004 Ford F-150 pickup. ----------__ � Justification ' ----- --_ ___ � Increased repair and maintenance expenditwes on Unit 231. �I -- _ __— _ __ __. _ _ _ __ Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 30,000 30,000 Ta� 30,000 30,000 Project# V&E-073 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Sl(�CWa1WM81riteriariCe TI'SCt01'�StI'CCt� T e ui ment YP E9 P Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority Description � __ —_ — — - -- --------� 'Sidewalk maintenance tractor for the Stree[Division to replace Unit#767,a 2003 Trackless MT. ___ __ ___ ' Justification :-__ _ - --- -__ __.� Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on unit 767. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 160,000 160,000 Total 160,000 160,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 160,000 160,000 Total 160,000 160,000 Page 33 Project# VBiE-�7g Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Aerial Bucket Truck(Park) Type Equipmerit Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority lDescription - _ _ -- --_ _ - ____ _ -- _ -- ._ Fifty foot Aerial Bucket Truck for the Park Division to replace Unit#457(2001 Ford F-750 Aerial Bucket Truck).for tree trimming,streetscape banners and miscellaneous aerial maintenance repairs. - - - �Justi6cation _ -- - - _ _ _ -- -- - -- — ilncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 457(2001 Ford F-750)with bucket and utility box. —� _ -- __ - — __ _ _ - - ---- _ - � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 200,000 200,000 Total 200,000 200,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 200,000 200,000 Total 200,000 200,000 Project# Vc�E-079 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Utility Tractor (Park) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority Description ' ___ _ - - - -- -- I Utility tractor with broom and flail mower for the Park Division to replace Unit#459 (2001 John Deere Utility Tractor). , Justificafion . [ _ - - - _ _ __ _ - -- _ ___ ----- Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#459,which will be l5 years old. —� Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 80,000 80,000 Total 80,000 80,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 80,000 Total 80,000 80,000 Page 34 Project# V&E-090 Department Vehicles and Equipinent Contact Project Name Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority Description �- _ __ _ - ---_ _----- — -1 ,Sing el axle dump truck for street department to replace unit#755(2001 Sterling Lr750 Dump Truck). _ — - __ _ -- _ —- Justification - - -- -- _ ,Incr�e,ased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 755. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Project# V&E-092 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Marked Squad Digital Recording System (Police) Type Equ�p�„�,c Useful Life Categor� Equipment:Miscellaneous Prioritv Description - __ —_ _ _ . __ __ �Replace digital video recording equipment in te�marked police patrol vehides and associated communications and computer infrastructure to support storage and Ima•mtenance of recordings. _-- - -- _ ___ __—_ Justification - -- -= _ ___ _ ___ __ Video recording in a police car is invaluable for any officer-citizen contact,citizen transport in police car,and probable cause related questions. Typical benefits are increased conviction rates,less time in court proceedings and reduced litigation,increased oFficer awareness of their conduct,training situations and reinforcement, and overall easier understanding of any(recorded)situation. Many officer-citizen contacts are one-on-one situations,resulting in factual disputes when citizens , challenge officer conduct. In car video would have proven invaluable in evaluating the facts in several recent citizen encounters. In car video recording capability is I fastly becoming standard equipment in most squad cars. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 120,000 120,000 Total 120,000 120,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 120,000 120,000 Total 120,000 120,000 Page 35 Project# V&E-099 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Asphalt Hot Box (Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority _ _ _- _.._ _ Description ' — ----- _ -- __ _ Asphalt hot box for the Street Divison to replace Unit#786.New hot box swaploader hook frame will be utilitilized on single axle Sterling dump truck.Asphalt hot '' �ibox is used to keep asphalt hot during patching operations. 'Jusdfication �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#786. '— ___ .- .—_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ .� Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 80,000 80,000 Z'a� 80,000 80,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 80,000 Total 80,000 80,000 Project# VBiE-1�2 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name pickup Truck(Fire) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority Description �Four door �cku truck with stora e box fo� � p' p g r Fire Department. r _ __ __ II -- -- Justification - _— —- - -- _ ---_ ___ � Vehicle to transport firefighters to emergency calls and training.Currently they are taking a fire engine out of service to these types of calls and training. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Page 36 Project# V&E-105 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Asphalt Crack Router(Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority Descriptlon � �_ -- - - — - __ _ __ ___.. New Craftco asphalt crack router to replace unit#788,(2010 Crafrco crack router)the crack router is used for strcet crack sealing. � -- — - — _ Justification __ _ _ _ - _ ___ - _ --- — - -- �,[ncreased repair and maintenance on unit#788,which will be 9 years old. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 15,000 15,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 15,000 15,000 Tp� 15,000 15,000 Project# V&E-106 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name polaris 6 X 6 (Fire) T� e ui ment SP E9 P Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority Description ___ _- - -- -- - - - — -- - --- - One new 6X6 off road rescue vehicle to replace unit#341. Justi�cation ---- - _ _ --- __ --� This unit is utilized for off road rescue operations and fire fighting.This unit was donated in 2004 from Pobris. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 15,000 15,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 15,000 15,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Page 37 Project# VBiE-1�7 Uepartment Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name gobcat Utility Truckster (Park) 7'ype Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority Descrip6on ' — — -- __ _ ---- - - ----- ----- �New utility truckster to replace unit#469(2005 Bobcat). � � ' Justificadon ___ - -- �I increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#469. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000 Project# V&E-10g Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact ero�e��rrame Unmarked Police Vehicle(Police) Type Ey,,,p,»�,t Useful Life Category Vehicles _ ____ Priority Descripfion New unmarked police vehicle to replace Unit 899(2007 Ford Crown Victoria) � _ _----- - - Justification lncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 899. I�i I _— Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Page 38 Project# V&E-109 Department Vehicles and Equipmerit Contact Project IVame Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority l Descripfion _, __ -- -- _ __ __ _ ._--- -_ I 'Single axle dump truck for the Street Division to replace Unit 768,a 2005 Sterling 7500 dump truck. -- - �Jusfification IrIncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#768. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Project# V&E-11� Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Dump Truck(Street) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority Description ��, _ — - -- -- -- -- Single-axle dump truck for the Street Department to replace Unit#772(2005 Sterling Dump Truck).new single axle dump truck will be equipped with swaploader I hook system,plows,wind and controls. Jusfification Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#772,which will be 14 years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 225,000 225,000 'rp� 225,000 225,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Page 39 Project# V&E-115 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name portable TrafGc Pro rammable Messa e Si n g g g Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority �Description � _ _ _——_ ___ ___ __ — ----- _---- --1 Programmable message sign for traffic control,maintenance work and events for the Street Division. - -- - - Justi�cation -- _ _ — -- -- — --� In house programmable message sign for street maintenance activities and city events. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Project# VBiE-116 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name $ObCat TOO�Cat�Stl'e0t� T e E ui ment YP 9 P Useful I.ife Category Unassigned Priority ; Description �B� obcat Toolcat for the Street Division to replace unit#704,a 2011 Bobcat Toolcat. � '� Justificadon ' ',Increase repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 703. ' _ __. —_ _ _ _ _ _ - --' Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 50,000 50,000 Total 50,000 50,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 50,000 50,000 Total 50,000 50,000 Page 40 Project# Vt��+-11g Department Vehicles aod Equipment Contact Project Name Sidwalk Tractor(Street) T e E ui ment YP 9 p Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority �Description — _ __ _ _— _ _ _- — _ ____ — _ _ �Sidewalk Tractor for the Street Division to replace Unit#712(1989 Root Snow Blower)which hooks up to the large Cat loader for clearing snow from the right-of- way. _ _.--_ _- _ . _ -- IJushfication L _ -- =__ _ — -- _ _ _.—_ _ -- --- - _ _---� �Llncreased repair,maintenance and parts availability on Unit#712. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150,000 Project# V&E-12� Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Field Line Painter Park � � Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority Description — - _ _ - _ _ __ _ __ .-- - _ --- _ _ _ _1 �Play field lme painter for Park Division to replace unit#482(2011). -- _ -- -- Justification _ —_ __ _ I� ,Increased repair and maintenance on Unit#424,which will be 6 years old. �, Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 20,000 20,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 20,000 20,000 Total 20,000 20,000 1'age 41 Project# V&E-121 Uepartment Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Tasers (Police) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous _ _ _ _ _. Priority Description - -- . _� �__ _ _ __ —_ _ ._ -- - 30 Tasers were originally purchased in 2005.Thes warrenty runs three years. 19 were purchased in 2013.The remaining will be purchased in 2017. � �__ - _ _ _ _ - - - _- - __ ----- - — �Justification -- - — -- __ __ _-- _— _ _ Maintenance on each taxer runs around$800 per time afrer the warranty expires.This will allow new units to be purchased and less maintenance costs due to the warranty period.The police department believes that the use of the Taser both through deployment and threatened deployment continues to reduce the incidence of injuries to both officers and suspects. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 16,000 16,000 Total 16,000 16,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 16,000 16,000 TOtal 16,000 16,000 Project# V&�'-I22 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name POIICC V@�11C18�POI1C8� T e ui ment YP E9 p Useful Life Category Vehicles � _ -- 1 Priority Description - _ _ _____ _ _-- ____ _ __ _-- - _ __ __ - -� New police vehicle to replace Unit 81 1 (2009 Ford Explorer). r - -- _ — _- _- _ __ ____ iJusUfication - _ — _— —_ __ __ ___ —_ __ . —__- � �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 81 1. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 TOtal 40,000 40,000 Page 42 Project# VBiE-126 Department Vehicles and Equipme�t Contact Project Name Tack Sprayer (Street) 7'ype Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority � Description - - - -- -_ - - — _ __ _-_ �New tack sprayer for the Street Division to replace unit#775(2007 Bomag 250 Tack Sprayer)utilitized for street,trail and parking lot operations.Tack is sprayed on existing asphalt prior to paving. ____ _- _ �Justi�cation - --- -- - -- - - - -- Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on unit#775,which is ten years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquiplVehicleslFurnishings 25,000 25,000 'j'p� 25,000 25,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Project# VBLE-127 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name g00 MHZ Radios (Fire) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority Description ��, _ _ _- _- __ � 34-800 MHZ portable radios and accessories will be purchsed in 2015. 13-800 MHZ mobile radios and 3 consolettes will be purchased in 2016. _ -- — _ Justification_ — . _ _- _ __ I Replace current radios purchased in 2003.Unlikely manufacturer will support radios with parts due to age.In-service life is 10-12 years.New radios P25 Phase ll I, �modulation compliant. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 80,000 80,000 '['a� 80,000 80,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 80,000 '['p� 50,000 80,000 Page 43 Project# V&E-128 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Utility Tractor(Park) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority Description � - _. _ __ __ ______ ------ --� Utility tractor with loader and three point hitch with PTO for the Park Division to replace Unit#461 (2002 John Deere Tractor). , Jusfification � __ _ _ _-- - -- -_ ___ _-_ __- --- -- - � �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#46L Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 80,000 80,000 Total 80,000 80,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 80,000 Total 80,000 80,000 Project# Vc�E-129 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name 800 M�Z Rad10S �POIICC� T e ui ment YP E9 P Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description � _----_ _--- -- - - ___ _- - -- _ iReplace 40 portable radios with accessories and 10 communication headsets for SWAT in 2015.Replace 20 mobile radios with 1 dual head consollete base radio in 2016. Jusdfication '�, _-_ _- -- -- _ . _ ___ _ __ -- 800 MHZ police radios put into service in 2005.Radios are nearing their 10-Year life expectancy.New radios are also Phase ll compatible on future configuration I upgrades to State-wide Public Safety Radio System(ARMER). Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 96,650 96,650 Total 96,650 96,650 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 96,650 96,650 Total 96,650 96,650 Page 44 Project# V&E-130 Department Vehides and Equipment Contact Project Name Rotary Mower(Park) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description ' � - _ _ _._ _ _- __ _ _ . - - --_ ---� Rotary mower for mowing City Hall Complex,Fire Stations and Neighborhood Parks. _ —_ _- -- Jus6fication � _ --- - - -- -- -- �Replace current walk behind mower. _-- - - -- _ - _ _ _ —_ _ __ Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Project# V&E-131 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact ero�e�r Nam� As halt Roller Trailer �1 Type Equipment Useful I.ife Category Unassigned Priority ; Description -_ _ _- — - - - - __� New asphalt roller trailer for the Street Division to replace Unit 704,a 1987 trailer. __ Justific ation -- -- _ _ - -- _ _- - - Increase repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 704. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 20,000 20,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 20,000 20,000 Tor� 20,00o zo,000 Page 45 Project# V&E-132 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Thermal Imaging Cameras (Fire) Type Equipment Useful l.ife Category Unassigned Priority Descripfion ' -- - __ _ Thermal Imaging Cameras for the Fire Department. ] – —_ _ —___ _ �Justification A thermal Imaging Camera(T[C)is a critical piece of firefighter equipment.In ZERO visibility smoke conditions,a TIC allows firefighters to see through smoke � thus giving them their vision back.A TIC also provides thermal readings of the environment sutrounding the firefighters.With a TIC firefighters can more quickly and safely locate/rescue fire victims and locate/suppress fire. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 70,000 70,000 Total 70,000 70,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 70,000 70,000 Total 70,000 70,000 Project# V&E-133 Department Vehides and Equipment Contact Project Name g00 MHz Radios (Public Works Maintenance) TyPe Ey,,;p,,,�,t Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority �Description -- — - - — --- -- __ -_ _ _- - -- -- _ �37-800 Mhx portable radios and accessories for communication in the field. — --- _ --- -- �— _ _ 1 Jus6fication Replace current radios purchased in 2008.Manufacturer and Hennepin County will no longer support radios with parts due to age.In-service life is 10-12 years.New I, radios P25 Phase II modification compliant. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 183,000 183,000 Total 183,000 183,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 183,000 183,000 Total 183,000 183,000 Page 46 Departmenl Vehicles and Equipment Project# V&E-134 Contact Project Name Cartegraph Software(Public Works Maintenance) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description � _ __ __ __ - _ �IConversion from the existing Cartegraph Navigator desktop software to the web-based Cartegraph Operation Management Software(OMS)with citizen request 'mobile add including migration,implementation,and training. Justifica6on �, �_- _ - The new web-based OMS system is replacing the desktop-based Navigator system.A portion of this upgrade is also included in various enterprise funds. Water and Sewer-$13,000 Storm Sewer -$13,000 � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 13,000 13,000 Total 13,000 13,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 13,000 13,000 Ta� 13,000 13,000 Department Vehicles and Equipment Project# V&E-135 Contact Project Name gody Cameras (Police) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority � _ _ _ _- ' Description �------ _ _ _ _- _ __ - ---- -- --- --- --� Acquisition of body cameras,maintenance agreement and server storage for officers. Jusdfication ___ __ __ --_ -- - The Police Department will need to add body cameras(maintenance and video storage)to the array of technology tools for o�cers to wear while on-duty.The estimate is far the purchase of 15 body cameras,assessories and storage. ' Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 53,955 24,070 24,070 24,070 24,070 150,235 'ro� 53,955 24,070 24,070 24,070 24,070 150,235 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 53,955 24,070 24,070 24,070 24,070 150,235 Total 53,955 24,070 24,070 24,070 24,070 150,235 Page 47 Project# VBi�+-136 Uepartment Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name 7odiac Boat Fire � � Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority Description �' �_____ _ — _, _ _ ____ _ _-_ ___- � --- __ _ __ __ _—_ __ ___ _ Zodiac Boat for water rescue. Jusd�cation � Replace Unit 329,a 2008 Zodiac inflatable boat. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 5,500 5,500 Total 5,500 5,500 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 5,500 5,500 Total 5,500 5,500 Project# V&E-137 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Outboard Motor (Fire) T e ui ment 3P E9 P Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority � , Description Zodiac water rescue boat outboard motor ut � — - � ilized by the Fire Department for water rescues to replace Unit#352 a 2010 Yamaha outboard motor. — - - _ _ ___ -- -- — _ _ � - _ _- '�� Justitication _ __ __ __ _ Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#352. __ —_ _ — __ I Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 5,500 5,500 Total 5,500 5,500 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 5,500 5,500 TOtal 5,500 5,500 Page 48 Project# VBLE-13g Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name passenger Vehicle(Fire) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority Description _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _� Passenger vehicle for the Fire Department to replace Unit#354,a 2013 Ford Explorer. Justification ; - -- —_ -- ___--- Increased repair and maintenance on Unit#354 on an emergency response vehicle which will be seven years old.This vehide will be reassigned to the Inspections DepaRment. I Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Project# V&E-139 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name passenger Vehicle(Fire) Type Equipment Useful I,ife Categor� Vehicles Priority Descnphon I Pass' -- _ - -_-- . - I enger vehicle for the Fire Department to replace Unit#355,a Ford Explorer. I - -- — ��i Justification . . -- - _- -- — _ _ Increased repair and maintenance on Unit#355 on an emergency response vehicle which will be seven years old.This vehicle will be re-assigned to the Inspections Department. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 T'otal Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Page 49 Project# Va�iGE-14� Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Utilit Trailer Park )' � � Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Equipment Priority Descripaon ---- -- -- — __ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ -- - _— -- -- _- -- -- �Utility trailer for the Park Division to replace Unit#468,a 2005 utility trailer. � Justification � IAge,wear and tear on utiliry trailer Unit#468,which will be 14 years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 5,500 5,500 Total 5,500 5,500 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 5,500 5,500 TOtal 5,500 5,500 Project# V&E-141 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name p�ckup Truck(Park) T e ui ment YP �1 p Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority �, Description . -- - - --- —_ -- _ __ _ - -- -- ----_ _ Half Ton pickup truck for the Park Division to replace Unit#475,a 2009 Ford Ranger. � - � Justificadon � —_ _ -- — — _ _.. __ _ - - Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#475. �I Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 35,000 35,000 Total 35,000 35,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 35,000 35,000 Total 35,000 35,000 Page 50 Project# V&E-142 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Dump Truck(Park) T e ui ment YP �1 P Useful Life Category Vehides Priority �Description � - -- - ---- — - __ - - _ _ Ford F 550 Dump Truck with Swaploader hook system for the Park Division to replace Unit#477,a 2010 Ford F-550 Dump Truck with Swaploader hook system. �Justification ' - - ---- _ __ _ - — - —_ _— - _ __ _ - Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#477. - -- ___ __ - _ _ - . _ _ __.__ Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 80,000 80,000 1'0� 80,000 50,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 80,000 Total 80,000 80,000 Project# V&E-143 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Trash Com actor Park p � � Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority Description �i Trash compactor for the Park Division to replace Unit#479,a 201 1 Wayne trash compactor with hook frame to be used with F-550 dump trucks with Swaploader hook system. _ _— --_ , Justification Increased reoair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#479. —� Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 65,000 65,000 Total 65,000 65,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 65,000 65,000 '['a� 65,000 65,000 Page 51 Project# V&E-144 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Single Axle Dump Truck(Street) �ryPe Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles _ _ __._ Priority �DCSCllptl011 __— _ __ ____ _ _ -- l . - - _ __ _ - - _I Single axle dump truck for the Street Division to replace Unit#778,a 2008 Sterling 7500 dump truck with hook system. ' Justification � L _ _ _ _ _ _ -- -- _ _- - __ __ ___ �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#778. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Project# V&E-145 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Skid Steer Loader(Street) ��yPe Ey,,;pm�,t Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority Descripdon ' -- _ --_ _ - - - --- - - -� Skid steer loader for the Street Division to replace Unit#797,a 2013 Bobcat T650 skid steer loader. Justi�cation � : _. . _ _ Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#797. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 55,000 55,000 ']'o� 55,000 55,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 55,000 55,000 'rp� 55,000 55,000 Page 52 Department Vehicles and Equipment Project# V&E-146 Contact Project Name �lllrip TI'UCk�StTCCt� T e ui ment YP E9 P Useful l.ife Category Vehicles Priority �Description _ �- - __ _ _ _ __ - _ ___ �Ford F-550 dump truck with Swaploader hook system for the Street Division to replace Unit#791,a 2010 Ford F-550 dump truck with Swaploader hook system. _, _ _- – – . _ -- – _ ___ _ _ �Jus6fication ' -- -- ' _- -- _ __ — __ _ - ___ _- �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#791. _ _ __ --- __ _ _ _ -- –_� Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 80,000 80,000 Total 50,000 80,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 80,000 80,000 Total 80,000 80,000 Project# V&E-147 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name Marked SqUa(1 �POI1C0� Type Equipment Useful Life Category Vehicles Priority ___ _ __ Description _ _ _-_ _ __ -- - _ _ _ -- Police commander vehicle for the Police Department to replace Unit#821,a 2012 Ford police interceptor sedan. — -- _ I Justification _ _ _ - - — � Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#821. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Page 53 Project# V&E-148 Department Vehicles and Equipment Contact Project Name SWAT Van (Police) T e ui ment YP E9 P Useful Life Categor,y Vehicles Priority �escription -- -_ _ ___ - -- - - __-- - - --- ---- - ---------- --1 �Replace SWAT Vehicle for Police Department to replace Unit#812,a 1988 Ford L7000. __-- . _ �Justification ----- __ = --- - -_ _ 1 �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures and unavailable parts on Unit 812. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 200,000 200,000 Tota� zoo,000 zoo,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 200,000 200,000 Total 200,000 200,000 Page 54 city of olden � va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Park Improvement Section The City Council reviews the submissions from the Open Space and Recreation Commission, Park & Recreation, and Public Works staff for the development and improvement of the City's park system. The commission consists of nine members that are appointed by the City Council and serve as an advisory board to the City Council. In 2006, as part of the City's parks planning initiative on park facilities, the City Council focused this year on developing a vision for Golden Valley parks and recreation facilities. The City solicited citizen input via information meetings in parks, a survey of youth athletic association leaders and a citizen survey was created with the help of the Open Space and Recreation Commission. All information will be gathered to help plan the future of the park improvements for the next five years. The City will also use the results from the building survey and ADA consultant. 55 Golden Valley Parks Activity Areas oi �° c y N C p� U N N C � 7 C L � � L (p a C � N U � � 7 Y C C m r C N 7 C d � Z` l� L Q N LL � � LL U � � = J N � t J ~ � N N N N LLl 3 1� 6/ (6 N N N Y � O N � V � p U �. N L � � T 'Y N N .X U C � U =p C = U C C C C G) Parks/Facilit " ` C� = a 3 m m in c°n °' c� i � c� C� � a �'n c� a ° Brookview Park 33 L 2/4L 2 ' Brookview Golf Course 144 Geart Park 4.7 L • • • 1 1 L L L • * Glenview Terrace Park 5 • • • 2L * Golden Oaks Park 2 L • 1 ' Ham shire Park 14 L • L • 2 L L • ' Isaacson Park 11 1 U3 ' Lakeview Park 5 L • L • 1 • • ' Lions Park 19 L • L • 4 1/3F 2 L L • • " Medle Park 12.6 L • L 2 3L L L • ' Per ich Center for Arts Field 1.5 1 L Natchez Park 5 L • L • 1 1 ' North T rol Park 9.4 • • • 1 • ' Paisle Park 0.31 ' Sandbur Athletic Facilit 20 2L 4-11 ' St Croix Park 1.4 • ' Scha er Park 11.3 • 2L ' Scheid Park 9.8 • L 1 • 1 1 F 2L L L • * Seeman Park 4.6 L • • 1 • 2 * South T ol Park 3.6 L • • • 1 L * Stockman Park 1.5 L • • 1 ' * Sweene Lake Park 0.5 • Wesle Park 19.9 L • L • 3 1/2F 3L L L • ' Wildwood Park 4.2 • • 2 2 ' Yosemite Park 1.4 L • • • 1 L * Nature Areas Adeline Nature Area 1.2 • ' Bassett Creek Nature Area 7.6 • Briarvvood Bird Sanctua 20 • General Mills Nature Preserve 27 • General Mills Research Nature 57 • Golden Rid e Nature Area 2.5 • Laurel Avenue Greenbelt 33.1 • Sochacki Park Nature Area 23.2 • Penns vania Woods 22.9 • Tree Farm 1.5 Western Avenue Marsh 21.6 F=Fall Use L=Lighted *Recreation building restrooms are open seasonally during program hours 56 � � ` o ,� c '0 3 �a E °�� °' �,3e °.� � �° � b � � d � a �—� � � o-- w L � 7 p � y... m R O.^ v �$ �, ++ � � o a33a��a °' � � � - y v�v��n v��n � oa u a�, '��, � M � M�h� �00 O�N N N � � L N �V1 �' N � �� VI � .� '� � '�j ��+' C 0. °o +' �v ` i.. _ ca � 7 O �� ,.,.: � d y ca � � . W ^� c�`a � . _ � V N C O � id a�i l6 "" w � a C¢ � d � ° � � 3 � z x � � �. � � .�`" � N� �� o Q � -� p`�, > .ca � _^. udi � � .s a h �h �. � = v> 3 O� 3 �'•o ` g C � :� E � -a � � � � � Q a`� o �" � � � � � �•� T� � d � � V � � �'''S a, 0.5 h °�.L�' ti a �p .5 � v �,' � d a, ti y w . � u � L .. C'O a� C c� ca c. C � �p a> ,� a� O 'd ' o...a'' � �i �U °' ctl a� � c �' O � a C7 C7 C7.7"..�-1.a�.`�G Z V�v� Z 6' W � R�. V] 3 C7 U' Ga C7 V] 0.�. R�. a 8=a � �„� .: NMv�n�ot�corn� : ' d0.1UL1 W W C7x .: ti � caa U a .%„` : . �-\ ------^ --------------- _�, .._---------•— --•---� i a^V4livaz ��I,y.d 4+J!M �' � N { j N_�., a I �:'�� a�a 3 l.� ,� i � �,�''J. y rn � ., �� 1 ._ " � I '' " � = i � Cu- ` , �: , � � . ----,---- +�------ -- ,; , �ti-; ,� � ' � ...�,'�: I i �i "_ 7 T . �. . � u�MopeaW �� ,r � � , � '—"—' -i- � ! _:.= LLJ _ i � .-�-- ,— , '� ---- --- I , , , a z I �9 � � � I � , Q .} � . � N anV aI9aN �� .,.� . ...., ` ..��.. � any zayolery � d � a y. .... a c�. eMe�p - � � i��,� y�n98 � � . �,� I ; �} �,,r`;�, �� #.`._ i � a , .� - ��. r•---' ' ~�� U �� r ~ .. i�l\. � �� 3 �p._ � ., � � 1.. �� i�;: / � i_.__.,. _..i._ ' Q S � .. � "� ' o � � J � i , �.... , l _ 1 _—_. _-- _ __ (n \ . ��_ ..�-�tfOL�F�-_... L .. ��_J�_, �, c-� — V ' 1i ' � \ . I � � � o ..�� - i- � � Xenia A S � � YE I; � � �,�R ` � ° � Yosemite g _ \ , , � . Q - � T . t _-�-.,-.�-,� _ � I �� .. _ , � _ .��, ,� �+ � � d � , � _ � c� .. I 9` � �,- ,� � � Np ��, •��,� .. . .y�Q se�fin�s�{� � , f �� 9 � T � ) � � 1� a / � � I y any a�iysdweH �� v c R � � m � a ,p�.. !,� J N � . any Fas�a� �'� d c '��'J ;,� d ��1�� i � U . �--4`_/J � / .. � eueisino� 7 , anyeueisfno� ; j�l % G � ' .dp N � (p i �. epenaN � 'n > �. . o a � � ,U m � � , _. _. . .. _ . r�� o Q �� --�-� eiuen�llsuuad ` .� � m � J—._ �x I any e�� uuiM siaPlA '��? N a�b eHlauuiM � in .. q'/! ' . M�d,� � � d a��9oo I z � d h.�� l j �9 Qo 3�( r+, � � � � � I "� _ .. ? t . pM8 511!W le�aua� � � 3 L� � _ an u3 ' ��Fo i� �. � � �. . �� . , . � Project# P-0�1 Department Parks Contact Project lYame $leaC}1C1' RCPIaCCIriCriY '1'ype Improvement Useful l.ife Category Park Improvements Priority Description � ---- _ _ __ _ _ __- _ Replacement of Bleachers at the following: 2016-Wesley Fields#1&#2,Medley Field#l,Seeman Field,Tapper Field and Sutton Field , 2017-Isaacson Park Fields#1-#3 �I !2018-Scheid Fields#1 &#2,Hampshire Fields#1&#2 ' 2019-Lions Field#1-#4 2020-Schaper Fields#1 &#2 _-- .-__ �� Justificadon -- - - _- _ -- - The Ci of Golden Valle has 36 sets of bleachers which nead to meet the ADA and safet �I ty y y guidelines. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Total 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 (5600) Total 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Project# P-��2 Department Parks Contact Project Name park Trail and Parkin Lot Im rovement g p Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority Description - -__ -- -- __ - Reconstruct intemal park trails and patch/sealcoat parking areas located throughout the park system. -- - _ . ___ 'Justification _ -- - - _ _ Maintain quality,safety and usability of City parks for a lifetime active sport and meet ADA accessibility standards.Paved trails are deteriorating,with certain segments subject to serious erosion. Trails and parking areas will be evaluated to determine priorities. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Total 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 (5600) Total 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Page 59 Project# P-0�3 Department Parks Contact Project Name p�ay Structure Replacement Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Equipment Priority _ _ ---- _ _--- Description -- - _ _ = _ �New playground equipment and area curbing on an"as-needed"basis in the Ciry's parks. �I 2016-Golden Oaks Park structure and relocation,Lakeview Park 2017-Medley Park 'I 12018-Schaper Park I�2019-St Croix Park 2020-Wesley Park �, Jus6ficafion Play structures are used frequently and need repairs and periodic replacements dye to wearing out and will eventually become unsafe. The City is required to meet Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC)guidelines,as well as the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act(ADA). I �_ --- _-_ -- - - -- _ _ _-- _ -- - -- __ Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Ta� 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 (5600) Total 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Project# P-�13 Department Parks Contact Project Name Gazebo at Brookview Park Type [mprovement Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority -_ ---- --- -J Descrip6on New concert and event Gazebo at Brookview Park. ' - _ _ _-- -- .1USt1flC a11o11 .-- _- _ _ __ -- - - - -_ _ _ Brookview Park hosts the summer concert series and currently utilizes the large picnic shelter for the performances.Shelter is poorly situated as a music venue,has ipoor site lines for concert attendees,not enough electrical access,and music is directed at the residential area.As the summer concert series continues to grow,a new ' facility is needed.This Gazebo will also be used for outdoor wedding ceremonies,special events and private rentals. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 74,000 74,000 TOtal 74,000 74,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 74,000 74,000 (5600) Total 74,000 74,000 Page 60 Project# P-�14 Department Parks Contact Project Name gall Field Lighting-Isaacson Park TyPe Improvement Useful Life Category Park lmprovements Prioritv I scription 1, V -- _ -----_ ___-_ __-__ -- Replace field light fixtures on Isaacson field#1,add new field lights and poles to Isaacson fields#2 and#3.This is a partnership project with the Golden Valley Little League and will be providing funding to support and apply for a Hennepin County Yourh Sports Grant fall of 2016.Without the grant,the project will not be I di one._. --- _ Justification The baseball field lights at Isaacson Park are becoming problematic for consistent use due to their age and require new fixtures.Adding lights to Issacson fields#2 ,and#3 will allow other fields within the park system to open up for community and youth athletic associations use.By combining fisca]resources the potential to be successful with a grant application for the facility improvements increases exponentially. � -- --. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Fumishings 375,000 375,000 Total 375,000 375,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total GV Little League 20,000 20,000 Hennepin County Sports Grant 325,000 325,000 Park Improvement Fund 30,000 30,000 (5600) Total 375,000 375,000 Project# P-�IS Department Parks Contact Project Name Outdoor Basketball and Hoop Replacement Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park[mprovements Priority , ' Description ' _ - _ _ _-_ _ _ ___ - _._ _ Replace old and deteriorating outdoor basketball courts and hoops.Replacement schedule is the following: , 2016-Golden Oaks,Hampshire(Brookview-Wildwood Hoops only) 2017-Stockman 2018-Wesley,Seeman(Brookview-asphalt only) 2019-Lions,Scheid 2020-Lakeview,Natchez Justitication -. Project# P-�16 Department Parks Contact Project Name park Signage Replacement Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority �Description _-- - —- - ---- _ ____ _ - — -- _ _ __I Replace deteriorating and aging park signs at the following locations: 2016-Lakeview,Medley,Wesley(2),Golden Oaks 2017-Hampshire,Scheid,Gearty,Stockman,Lions , 2018-Natchez,St Croix,Schaper,Seeman,Sweeney Lake 2019-South Tyrol,Wildwood,Yosemite,Glenview Terrace,Adeline 2020-Brianvood,Pennsylvania Woods,General Mills Research Area(3) Justification � =_,_ _.-__- __ — _ __ _—_ _ ,Current park signs are detenorating and need to be replaced.This program would replace five signs annually.New sigris will be added to locations which currently ' Ido not have park signange. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 (5600) Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Project# P-017 Department Parks Contact Project Naroc Sun Shelter Re lacements and Additions j� Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority Description - - -- _ -- _ _ __---- I Replace Sun Shelters in various parks: I2016-Wildwood Park Sun Shelter � '2017-Stockman Park-new sun shelters 2018-Yosemite Park 2019-Seeman Park and Lakeview Park 2020-North Tyrol,South Tyrol - _ _ Justification — - - - - ___ _ __- -- Sun Shelters need to be replaced due to age,roof leaks and current building standards. I Various summer mobile park playground programs are being offered and do not have any cover for the program.New sun shelte�will allow cover from the sun and � ',rain and provide a staging area. Project# P-�Ig Department Parks Contact Project Name Tennis Court Resurfacin g Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority �escription ---- ---_ - - Fill cracks a�d birthbaths,resurface and pa int tennis courts.Add Pickleball and Quick StaR Tennis Lines were appropriate. 2016-Wesle ,Medle ,Scheid �I 2017-Brookview,Lions Park ,2018-Scheid,Medley,Wesley I2019-Gearty Park '2020Wesley,Medley ITennis courts will be evaluated in 2016 on number,use and need.The Open Space and Rec Commisison will also be involved. Wildwood and Glenview Terrace are complete reconstructions. i Justification ' - -. _ _ ___ - _ - - _— __ _ �!Many of Golden Valley's Tennis courts are in need of reconstruction along with fiencing and lighting replacement.Generally a tennis court resurfacing needs to be doae every 5-7 years. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 Total 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 (5600) Total 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 Page 63 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thru 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total IParks � BleacherReplacement P-001 n/a 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Park Trail and Parking Lot Improvement P-002 n/a 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Play Structure Replacement P-003 n/a 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Gazebo at Brookview Park P-013 n/a 74,000 74,000 Ball Field Lighting-Isaacson Park P-014 n/a 375,000 375,000 Outdoor Basketball and Hoop Replacement P-015 nla 30,265 15,750 36,250 26,250 28,250 136,765 Park Signage Replacement P-016 n/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Sun Shelter Replacements and Additions P-017 n/a 25,000 25,000 25,000 58,000 50,000 183,000 Tennis Court Resurfacing P-018 n/a 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 Parks Total 338,265 567,750 218,250 225,250 227,250 1,576,765 GRAND TOTAL 338,265 567,750 218,250 225,250 227,250 1,576,765 Page 58 Project# P-�01 Department Parks Contact Project Name Bleacher Re lacement j� Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority '�Description - __ I _ _ _ __ ___ ___ _ - _ _ ,Replacement of Bleachers at the following: 2016-Wesley Fields#1&#2,Medley Field#l,Seeman Field,Tapper Field and Sutton Field 2017-Isaacson Park Fields#1-#3 2018-Scheid Fields#1 &#2,Hampshire Fields#1&#2 2019-Lions Field#1-#4 2020-Schaper Fields#1&#2 _ __ -__ . ' Justifica6on - - _ _ -- _ � The City of Golden Valley has 36 sets of bleachers which need to meet the ADA and safety guidelines. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Total 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 (5600) Total 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Project# P-��2 Department Parks Contact Project Name park Trail and Parkin Lot Im rovement g p Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority Description � :- __ ___ _ _ - --- - -- - -- -- ---� Reconstrvct internal park trails and patch/sealcoat parking areas located throughout the park system. - - -- . _ --- - - - - �Jusfification _ _. _ - - _ _ _ -_ -_ __ - _ 'Maintain quality,safety and usability of City parks for a lifetime active sport and meet ADA accessibility standards.Paved trails are deteriorating,with certain segments subject to serious erosion. Trails and parking areas will be evaluated to determine priorities. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Total 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 (5600) Total 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Page 59 Project# P-��3 Department Parks Contact Project Name play Structure Replacement Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Equipment Priority �Description -_ _ _ _-- -- __ _ --- - - _ . New playground equipment and area curbing on an"as-needed"basis in the City's parks. , �,2016-Golden Oaks Park structure and relocation,Lakeview Park 2017-Lakeview Park 2018-Medley Park 2019-SchaperPark 2020-St Croix Park _ __ . _ _ __ Jus6ficafion - -_ - _ - _ _-_ _- -- Play structures are used frequently and need repairs and periodic replacements dye to wearing out and will eventually become unsafe. The City is required to meet Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC)guidelioes,as well as the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act(ADA). Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Total 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 (5600) Total 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Project# P-�13 Department Parks Contact Project Name Gazebo at Brookview Park Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Improvements Prioritv - _ . - - __ . Descnphon - - -- - __ _ _ _ _._ __ - - - - __ _ - - - New concert and event Gazebo at Brookview Park. � --- _ .- - _ - - -_ _- _-_ __ _ Justification iB�ro�nPsar�hosncert attendees,not enou�h electri al actcesst�and usic i�dprectedsat the re identPial a�reaaAs the s mmer concertssteri�ontinues to V ow,a new I P g g facility is needed.This Gazebo will also be used for outdoor wedding ceremonies,special events and private rentals. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 74,000 74,000 Total 74,000 74,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 74,000 74,000 (5600) Total 74,000 74,000 Page 60 Project# P-014 Department Parks Contact Project Name gall Field Lighting- Isaacson Park Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority �escription � � _ _ __ . -- - -- - ___ - -- __ _- - - Replace field light fixtures on Isaacson field#l,add new field lights and poles to Isaacson fields#2 and#3.This is a partnership project with the Golden Valley Little League and will be providing funding to support and apply for a Hennepin County Yourh Sports Grant fall of 2016.Without the grant,the project will not be 'done. -- _ - _ Justification _ :. - - __ _-. _ - - _- - Th se occer field lights at Isaacson Park are becoming problematic for consistent use due to their age and require new fixtures.Adding lights to Issacson fields#2 and #3 will allow other fields within the park system to open up for community and youth athletic associations use.By combining fiscal resources the potential to be ', successful with a grant application for the facility improvements increases exponentially. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 375,000 375,000 Total 375,000 375,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total GV Little League 20,000 20,000 Hennepin County Sports Grant 325,000 325,000 Park Improvement Fund 30,000 30,000 (5600) Total 375,000 375,000 Project# P-015 Department Parks Contact Project Name Outdoor Basketball and Hoo Re lacement p p Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority __ _--__ -- - Description � _ -- _ _ __ . __ IReplace old and deteriorating outdoor basketball courts and hoops.Replacement schedule is the following: 'I 2016-Golden Oaks,Hampshire(Brookview-Wildwood Hoops only) '2017-Stockman 2018-Wesley,Seeman(Brookview-asphalt only) , �2019-Lions,Scheid � 2020-Lakeview,Natchez __-_ , Justification : _ -- - . _ __ __ - _ _ _ Outdoor basketbal courts are deteriorating quickly and need to be systeinatically replaced.Most of our basketball hoops are 1970's vintage and need updating.All new hoops will be replaced with adjustable units which will make then accessible for family use and younger park patrons. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 30,265 15,750 36,250 26,250 28,250 136,765 Total 30,265 15,750 36,250 26,250 28,250 136,765 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 30,265 15,750 36,250 26,250 28,250 136,765 (5600) Total 30,265 15,750 36,250 26,250 28,250 136,765 Page 61 Project# P-�16 Department Parks Contact Project Name park Signage Replacement Type Maintenance Useful Life Categor�� Park lmprovements Priorit� r ' Description i, -- _ - - -- -- _--- - - - _-- _ _ _ _ __ _ __ Replace deteriorating and aging park signs at the following locations: i2016-Lakeview,Medley,Wesley(2),Golden Oaks 2017-Hampshire,Scheid,Gearty,Stockman,Lions 2018-Natchez,St Croix,Schaper,Seeman,Sweeney Lake i 2019-South Tyrol,Wildwood,Yosemite,Glenview Terrace,Adeline 2020-Briarwood,Pennsylvania Woods,General Mills Research Area(3) _ _ _ ______ Justification � , , _ _ _ _: _-_ _- -- - - __ - __ _ _ Cuirent park signs are deteriorating and need to be replaced.This program would replace five signs annually.New signs will be added to locations which currently do not have park signange. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 TOtal 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 (5600) Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Project# P-017 Department Parks Contact Project Name Sun Shelter Re lacements and Additions p Type Improvement Useful LiTe Category Park lmprovements Priorit� I Description Replace Sun Shelters in various parks: - - - - . . i 2016-Wildwood Park Sun Shelter ' 2017-Stockman Park-new sun shelters 2018-Yosemite Park I2019-Seeman Park and Sandburg Athletic Complex i 2020-North Tyrol,South Tyrol Justification -- - - _ -- -- -- - - -- -- i iSun Shelters need to be replaced due to age,roof leaks and current building standards. j Various summer mobile park playground programs are being offered and do not have any cover for the program.New sun shelters will allow cover from the sun and I `rain and provide a staging area. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 25,000 25,000 25,000 58,000 50,000 183,000 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 58,000 50,000 183,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 58,000 50,000 183,000 (5600) Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 58,000 50,000 183,000 Page 62 Project# P-�ig Uepartment Parks Contact Project Name Tennis Court Resurfacing Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Improvements Priority �Descripfion Fill cracks and birthbaths,resurface and paint tennis courts.Add Pickleball and Quick Start Tennis Lines were appropriate. 2016-Wesley,Medley,Scheid 2017-Brookview,Lions Park 2018-Scheid,Medley,Wesley 2019-Gearty Park 2020Wesley,Medley Tennis couRs will be evaluated in 2016 on number,use and need.The Open Space and Rec Commisison will also be involved. Wildwood and Glenview Terrace are �complete reconstructions. Justificaaon j _ - _ -- _ Many of Golden Valley's Tennis courts are in need of reconstruction along with fiencing and lighting replacement.Generally a tennis court resurfacing needs to be done every 5-7 years. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 Total 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Park Improvement Fund 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 (5600) Total 32,000 32,000 32,000 10,000 24,000 130,000 Page 63 cityof olden g va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Brookview Golf Course Section Brookview Golf Course is owned and operated by the City of Golden Valley under the auspices of the Park and Recreation Department. The Brookview golf facility consists of an 18 —Hole Regulation Course, 9-Hole Par 3, Driving Range and teaching area, Golf Shop, Grill and Lawn Bowling. Brookview's Regulation Course is a challenging, mature course with some tree-lined fairways, 28 moderate bunkers, fairly small greens, and an abundance of water hazards. A maintenance building at 100 Brookview Parkway and Clubhouse are rented from the City. User fees are the main source of revenue. History: Brookview Golf Course was a private country club until the late 1960s, when the City of Golden Valley purchased the facility to operate as a municipal golf course. In 1976-77, the course underwent major renovations with the addition of the Par 3 nine-hole course and Driving Range. In 1984-85, extensive work was done to bridge the fairways and enlarge the ponds to alleviate flooding. The Regulation Course was closed in 1990 to redesign and rebuild the greens. That same year, the clubhouse was enlarged and remodeled. In 2014, a Lawn Bowling Course was added. 64 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 th,-u 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total �Golf Course � GreenlTee Mowers GC-003 nla 29,000 33,000 42,500 104,500 Aerifiers GC-008 nla 24,000 24,000 GolfCarts GC-009 n/a 210,000 210,000 Rough Mowers GC-010 nla 37,500 37,500 75,000 Grinders Reel and Bedknife GC-011 n/a 55,000 55,000 Sand Trap Rake GC-013 n/a 20,000 20,000 Five Plex Fairvvay Mower GC-014 n/a 44,000 44,000 Driving Range Nets GC-015 nla 15,000 15,000 30,000 Bathroom GC-017 nla 10,000 10,000 Topdresser GC-019 n/a 22,000 22,000 Freezer/Walk-in Cooler GC-021 n/a 30,000 30,000 Bridge Improvements GC-023 n/a 30,000 30,000 Sprayer GC-031 nla 49,000 49,000 Core Harvester GC-032 n/a 16,000 16,000 Skid Loader GC-033 nla 45,000 45,000 Beverage Cart GC-035 nla 10,000 10,000 Golf Course Total 73,000 85,500 326,500 149,000 14Q500 774,500 GRAND TOTAL 73,000 85,500 326,500 149,000 140,500 774,500 Page 65 Project# GC-003 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name Green/Tee Mowers Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority �escription ,—__ _ .-_ - __ _ —_ _ -- --- -- - - - _ _ — - Green/Tee mowers to replace current unit. One unit to be replaced in each year shown. __ _ -- — _—__ - �Jus6�cation ' ___, . _ - — __ __-- � Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on current units. l Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 29,000 33,000 42,500 104,500 Total 29,000 33,000 42,500 104,500 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 29,000 33,000 42,500 104,500 7'a�� 29,000 33,000 42,500 104,500 Project# �iC-��g Uepartment Golf Course I Project Namc Contact Aeri�ers Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heavy Equip. Priority Description - _ -- CWalk behind"aerifiers to replace existing unit. � — -- -- __ ----_ Justifica6on - _-- , __ __ _ - _ - _ _ __ --— - �reased repair and maintenance expenditures on current unit that was purchased in 1997.. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 24,000 24,000 Total 24,000 24,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 24,000 24,000 'ra� 24,000 24,000 Page 66 Project# GC-009 Department GolfCourse Contact Project Name Golf Carts Type Equipment Useful Life Category Equipment:Heary Equip. Priority Descnphon ' �—�_ . _ _ __ _ — - --_ _ -- - - -_ -- -- 60 carts were purchased in 2010 for rental income while playing gol£Carts will be traded in to offset the purchase and is included in this estimate.Th�s purchase I� was fmanced with a 3-year lease from the Ciry of Golden Valley and may be looked at again for the purchase in 2018. --- -- _ —- �Justification - Y Y g __ _ __ Golf ac�its are a needed commodit at an olf course.Ownership of golf carts has turned out to be much more profitable than renting and the lease from the City made it more affordable than using an extemal source.The previous carts lasted eight years. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 210,000 210,000 Total 210,000 210,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 210,000 210,000 Total 210,000 210,000 Project# �iC-�1� Department GolfCourse Contact Project Name Rough Mowers TyPe Equipmerit Useful Life Category Equipmerit Heavy Equip. Priority Description _ _ --- — — _ __ _ _ — -_ �ough Mower to replace units. . _ . . _ I _ __ .. I Justification ; __ _ _- - ---__ Ilncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on cuirent units. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 37,500 37,500 75,000 Total 37,500 37,500 75,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 37,500 37,500 75,000 Total 37,500 37,500 75,000 Page 67 Project# �iC-�l l Department Golf Course Contact Project Name Grinders Reel and Bedknife T ype Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority IDescription � l_—_ __ -- -_ _ __ _ -- - -----_ _ _ _ __. _ __ ____ __ � Maintenance equipment that sharpens reels and blades of mowing equipment. � Justifica6on � _- __ _ _ -- -- - �Replacement of current unit purchased in 1998. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000 Project# GC-013 Department Golf Course Contact Project Nnme Sand Tra Rake P Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Equipment:Electronics Priority � Description I - - -- _ . - - --- -� Tluee wheel machine that rakes thirty-two sand traps every day of the golfing season. I Justification - _ _ _- __ _ _ _ _-- _-- _ . - _ _-_ _ ---- The sand trap rake was purchased in 2002. __ _ _— __ _ __ — - - I Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 20,000 20,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 20,000 20,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Page 68 Department Golf Course Project# GC-014 Contact Project Name Five Plex Fairway Mower T e Unassi ed YP � Useful Life Category Equipment:Miscellaneous Priority ' Description �' - - _ _- �_- - ___ . — -- -- - ----- __ - - _—_ ----- � ,Mows the Golf Course Fairways five times a week during the golf season. Justification � -- _ _— - -- -- — - - 'Ilncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on current unit. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 44,000 44,000 Total 44,000 44,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 44,000 44,000 Total 44,000 44,000 Project# �iC-�is Department GolfCourse Contact Project Name Driving Range Nets T e E ui ment YP 9 P Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority I Description — __ _ —_ _ _ ___ - - -- -- --- —� Eight 105'x 50'Driving Range Nets that keep golf balls from entering the highway. `Justification Life span of net with weather patterns is about 10 years.For complete protection,these will need to be replaced.There is a total of 16 nets. �,In 2019,the nets abng 394 and Hole#1 will be replaced. �, Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 15,000 15,000 30,000 Total 15,000 15,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 15,000 15,000 30,000 Total 15,000 15,000 30,000 Project# �iC-�17 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name gathroom Type Unassigned Useful l,ife Category Unassigned Priority �Description _� _ _ — - --- --_ _-- ------ _.� — _ _ _- ____ _ Repair bathroom facility of the course. -- — — _ _ Justification � _ - -- - __ — -� �Updating the bathroom facility on the course would cut down the use of rental portables. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 10,000 10,000 Total 10,000 10,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 10,000 10,000 Total 10,000 10,000 Project# �iC-�I9 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name 'I'O dresser j1 Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Descriplion This unit adds sand to greens for a smoother putting surface. Jusd�cation � _ _ — - - — — __ _ __ -- --- _ __ -- - — ;The cuirent unit needs to be replaced.Smoother greens allow better putting ability. ' Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 22,000 22,000 Total 22,000 22,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 22,000 22,000 Total 22,000 22,000 Page 70 Project# (�iC-OZ1 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name Freezer/Walk-in Cooler Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description _ _ _ __ . _- -� The Freezer/Walk-in Cooler is a necessary appliance to serve food at the Brookview Grill. Justification -----__ _ ___ �T�he existing freezer/walk-in cooler needs to be replaced. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Project# GC-023 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name gridge Improvements Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Prioritv Descnphon � � � --- - -- In 2013,one side of the support abutment was repaired and tested for settlement.In 2014 and 2015,more concrete approaches will be replaced. _� - — ___. Justification Improvement to the structure and safety of bridges. , Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Page 71 Project# GC-031 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name Sprayer 7',y�pe Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description Maintenance equipment that sprays fungicide and herbicide. I Jus6fication IReplacement of sprayer previously purchased in 2004. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 49,000 49,000 Total 49,000 49,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 49,000 49,000 Total 49,000 49,000 Project# GC-032 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name Core Harvester Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description __---- — � Maintenance machinery that cleans up after aeration. Jusrificadon -=_ _ _ -_ __ _ _ _-- ---- ------ _ __ --- ------, Replacement of current unit purchased in 2000. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 16,000 16,000 Total 16,000 16,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 16,000 16,000 Total 16,000 16,000 Page 72 Project# (iC-033 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name Skid Loader Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description _-- - - - _ — - Engine powered machine with lifr arms to attach a wide variety of tools to perform various maintenance operations. _] Justification �__ — __ — — -- _ __ __ � Replacement of current unit that was purchased in 2001. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 45,000 45,000 Total 45,000 45,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 45,000 45,000 Total 45,000 45,000 Project# GC-035 Department Golf Course Contact Project Name geverage Cart Typc Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority �Description — __ . _ _ — - - __ ,The current beverage cart was purchased in 2001 and is in need of replacement. Jusdfication i g P - - - - _ . — _ _ _ _ _ _ —_ _ IThe bevera e cart is old and was not set u for set up for a full bar.The beverage cart is a very important part of servicing the golfers and additional revenue source. I Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 10,000 10,000 Total 10,000 10,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Brookview Golf Course Fund 10,000 10,000 Total 10,000 10,000 Page 73 city of olden va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Building Improvement Section The City owns and or/maintains the following facilities for the purpose of carrying out its mission of providing needed services to the community and bringing people together by fostering inviting public spaces where people work and play, encounter their fellow citizens and discover common interests. This has incorporated the Wold Architects and Engineers city-wide comprehensive facility assessment building analysis that was completed late 2006. Golden Valley Buildings Total Square Feet City Hall 26,350 Public Safet Police and Fire Station #1 28,000 Streets and Park Maintenance 29,100 Utilities Maintenance 12,950 Vehicles Maintenance 12,500 Warehouse & Animal Impound 11,490 Golf Maintenance 12,050 Fire Station No. 2 5,785 Fire Station No. 3 6,030 Community Center/Golf Operations 17,900 A transfer from the General Fund is the main source of revenue. City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thiu 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Buildings ` Carpet Replacement:City Buildings B-011 n/a 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 Installation of Building Security Systems 8-027 n/a 120,000 100,000 220,000 HVAC Building Automation System for Public Safety B-040 n/a 55,000 55,000 Public Buildings Roof Replacements B-041 n/a 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 540,000 Golf Maintenance Fire Suppression B-042 n/a 40,000 40,000 City Hail Boiler Replacement B-043 nla 130,000 130,000 Buildings Total 230,000 160,000 275,000 175,000 265,000 1,105,000 GRAND TOTAL 230,000 160,000 275,000 175,000 265,000 1,105,000 Page 75 Project# 8-�11 Department Buildings Contact Project Name Carpet Replacement: City Buildings Type Improvement Useful Life Category Buildings Priority Description �--- �On-going program to replace worn out carpet in City buildings. Decision as to which carpet to replace in a given year will be based on an annual inspection of the ' condition of the carpets in the various buildings. I Justification i — -- —_ _ __ — _ _ _----- � -- __ _ __ - - ____ -_ _ --- � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 'ra� 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Building Fund(5200) 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 Total 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 Project# 8-�27 Department Buildings Contact Project Name Installation of Building Security Systems TyPe Improvemerit Useful Life Category Buildings Priority i Description �---- ___- :-- , —- __ __- - - - __ _-- _--- Installation of building securiry systems in all City owned facilities. 1 Justification - ��The Ciry has installed a security system for primarily the City Hall Campus.2017 security projects include installation of vidoe suveillance.2018 prjects indude Isecuriry systems in other buildings. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 120,000 100,000 220,000 Total 120,000 100,000 220,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Building Fund(5200) 120,000 100,000 220,000 Total 120,000 100,000 220,000 Page 76 Project# 8-�40 Department Buildings Contact Project Name HVAC Building Automation System for Public Safety Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description - -- I _ _ __ -- — - _ ___ __ ___ _ _ __ _ � iReplace outdated controllers and software related to the Public Safety buildings heating,ventilating and air conditioning(HVAC)system. - - - - -- -- - --- _ __ --_ .. ��Justification �_ _ _ __ — — _ _ _ __ _ — --- _ IiThe existing system is a proprietor owned system that is approxiimately 20 years old.The existing contractor has limited staff capable of repairing and programing. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Building Fund(5200) 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000 Project# 8-�41 Department Buildings Contact Project Name public Buildin s Roof Re lacements g p Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority ' Description ,, _ _ � Replace roofs on buildings that are thirty-years old or greater. Justification The following roofs will be at least 40 years old or greater and are leaking and in need of replacement.Replacements are scheduled for the following: 2016-Geary Park , 2018-Wesley Park 2019-Lakeview Park 2020-Scheid Park Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 540,000 Total 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 540,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Building Fund(5200) 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 540,000 Total 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 540,000 Page 77 Project# 8-�42 Department Buildings Contact Project Name Golf Maintenance Fire Suppression Type Improvement Useful Life Category Buildings Priority _ — _— -- Description �- - - - _ __ - - _ _ ---- —_._- -- _ _ �Installation of building fire suppression system for Golf Maintenance building. � - -- - -- --- � Jus6ficadon __ __ _ _._._ _ _ -_ __ _-- -- - `Install fue suppression system m the Golf Maintenance building to protect building and equipment from fire damage. _ ii Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 40,000 40,000 Total 4U,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Building Fund(5200) 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Project# B-043 Department Buildings Contact ProjeM Name City Hall Boiler Replacement Type unass�gnea Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description ' - - - _- _� �- _ _ ------ - -- - - -- - iReplace the City Hall Boiler System. � - - - -- ___ _ _ - - - -__ �! Jusfifica6on __- - - _ __ __ _. - __ -� The existing boiler system for City Hall is over 40 years old and is not efficient according to today's standard.The system would require total replacement. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 130,000 130,000 Total 130,000 130,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Building Fund(5200) 130,000 130,000 Total 130,000 130,000 Page 78 city of olden g va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Cablecasting Improvement Section The City of Golden Valley partners with Northwest Community Television (NWCT) to bring you a wide variety of city video programming featuring information about your local government as well as activities and events in the community. This capital project fund plans for major improvements to provide access for city meetings. HiStON NWCT started in 1982 and is funded by a joint powers agreement that supports public access and local programming activities through local Franchise and Community Television fees. Nine adjacent cities are part of the franchise agreement between Comcast and the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (NWSCCC). They include Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, New Hope Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale. Franchise fees is the main source of revenue. 79 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thru 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 'Cablecasting Improvements � Cable Equipment Replacement C-001 n/a 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 Cablecasting Improvements Total 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 GRAND TOTAL 22,000 2z,0oo 22,000 22,000 22,00o N0,o0o Page 80 Project# C-��1 Department Cablecasting Improvements Contact Project Name Cable Equipment Replacement Type Improvement Useful Life Category Cablecasting Improvements Priority Description �i� ,—_ __ - - _ _ __ �Replace aging equipment in cable TV control room with updated equipment employing digital technology. � - — —__ —_ Justification J -- - -. _ __ _ ___ __ _ _- _ __ - -� As equipment ages,the use for compatible software and hardware changes over time which requires new equipment. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 Total ZZ,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Cablecasting Improvements 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 Total 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 Page 81 city of olden g va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Storm Sewer Section This section includes the storm water infrastructure improvements and the flood damage reduction program for the next five years. Most of these improvements, which include both rate control and water quality projects, coincide with the Pavement Management Program (see section on Streets). Improvements will be funded either through the use of current reserves or the issuance of revenue bonds. The goal is to have enough reserves to account for 50% of the current revenues. 82 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thiu 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewers � Residential Storm Sewerlmprovements SS-01 n/a 250,000 600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,850,000 Street Sweeper SS-04 n/a 230,000 230,000 Street Sweeper SS-05 n/a 230,000 230,000 Brookview Golf Course-Buffer Zone Study SS-12 n/a 50,000 50,000 100,000 Storm Water Pond Dredging SS-23 n/a 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Grounds Sweeper SS-27 n/a 40,000 40,000 DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation SS-28 n/a 5,692,000 5,692,000 Flood Mitigation SS-34 n/a 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Douglas Drive Stortn Sewer Improvements SS-40 n/a 700,000 700,000 Bobcat Toolcat SS-41 n/a 55,000 55,000 Winch Mounted on Loader(Stortn) SS-42 n/a 40,000 40,000 Honeywell Pond Expansion SS-45 n/a 1,260,930 1,260,930 Sandburg-Louisiana Pond SS-48 n/a 221,000 330,000 551,000 Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility SS-49 n/a 525,000 525,000 Storm Sewers Total 8,532,930 1,320,000 1,400,000 1,671,000 2,350,000 15,273,930 GRAND TOTAL 8,532,930 1,320,000 1,400,000 1,671,000 2,350,000 15,273,930 Page 83 Project# SS-�1 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Residential Storm Sewer Improvements Type Improvement Useful Life Category Storm Sewer Priority ____ ____ 1 ��Description _ - ---- - - -- _ __ __ _ _ _ - -- ---- - ------ _ - Construction and repair of storm sewer drainage system in conjunction with the Pavement Management Program(see S#1).. _ — — — - JusNfication � . . - - - - -- _ - _ -- - _ - --- __- Provide an improved storm water runoff drainage system in conjunction with the Pavement Management Program to facilitate surface water runoff,minimize local drainage and flooding issues and protect pavement. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 250,000 600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,850,000 Total 250,000 600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,850,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 250,000 600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,850,000 (7300) TOtal 250,000 600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,850,000 Project# SS-�4 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Street Swee er p Type Equipment Useful Life Category Storm Sewer Priority Description �I, , - -- _ __ _ _ - -- - ----- - New sVeet sweeper to replace Unit#504,2006 Elgin Sweeper. � Justification Increased r a�r and maintenance ex endit ep ' p ures on Unit 504. _ —_ _— _ _ _ Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 230,000 230,000 Total 230,000 230,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 230,000 230,000 (7300) Total 230,000 230,000 Page 84 Project# SS-�5 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Street Sweeper Type Equipment Useful Life Categor� Storm Sewer _ - _ _ Priority Descnption -- - - - - __ - _ _-- __--- _ _ ___ - - - New street sweeper to replace Unit#505,2007 Elgin Sweeper. _ _ __ _ _ - _ __ ____ i Justification _ ___ __- -_ ,_ - - _ _ --- - - � I Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#505. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Fumishings 230,000 230,000 Total 230,000 230,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 230,000 230,000 (7300) Total 230,000 230,000 Project# SS-IZ Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Brookview Golf Course- Buffer Zone Study Type Improvement Useful Life Category Storm Sewer Priority � I , Description _ _ _ -- __— — -- ___ __ __ _- __ � �In 2013,a study was performend to identify locations for the development of native vegetation buffer areas in Brookview Golf Course.Construction was approved 'for some areas to be constructed and maintained in 2015,2016 and 2017.Additional monies are allocated in 2017 and 2019 for additional areas. ____ __ _- i Jusdtication �Removal of nutrients and sediment from stormwater runoff entering golf course ponds and Bassett Creek. ] Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 50,000 50,000 100,000 Total 50,000 50,000 100,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 50,000 50,000 100,000 (7300) Total 50,000 50,000 100,000 Project# SS-23 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Storm Water Pond Dredging Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority --- __ _ i �Description _ - __ - _ -- - Pond Dredging program to remove accumulated sediment and hazardous materials such as Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAH),including the proper disposal of dredged materials. LJustification -- - _ , _ _ __ _ ___ - Significant sedimentation reduces the water quality volume in ponds and contributes to degradation of downstream waters.Periodic dredging removes accumulated sediment and hazardous materials and restores nutrient and sediment removal efficiencies. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Total 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 (7300) Total 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Project# SS-27 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Grounds Sweeper Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description ' ; Grounds sweeper to replace Unit#506,a 201 I Smithco grounds sweeper. 1 __ _ __ I Justification -- - ___ --- --- Increased repair and maiotenance on Unit#506,which will be eight years old. -� Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 40,000 40,000 (7300) Total 40,000 40,000 Page 86 Project# SS-2g Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name DeCola Ponds Flood Miti ation g TyPe Improvement Useful Life Category Storm Sewer Priority !�escription � __ _ _ _-- l � __ _ _ - -- _ _ _---- _ -- Remove and excavate portions of Rhode Island Avenue and modify the outlet from Decola Pond C to D to create flood storage to minimize flood damage to homes. .luShflC 8t1011 � _ — Flood mrtigation project will help alleviate Decola Pond area flooding.The project will also create open space,enhance natural resources,and provide water quality � benefits for Bassett Creek Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 5,692,000 5,692,000 Total 5,692,000 5,692,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Tax Increment Bonds 5,692,000 5,692,000 Total 5,692,000 5,692,000 Project# SS-34 Department Storm Sewers Contact Pro�ec�Na►„e Flood Miti ation g T ype Improvement Useful Life Category Storm Sewer Priority �Descnption � --- -_ ___ _ __ - -_— --- -. Dedication of funds to damage from flooding on Bassett Creek and its tributaries,including City storm water ponds. � _ __ _ _ Justification r -- - -- _ __ __- . -- __. IFlood mitigation may include working with homeowners and the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission on a program. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Total 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 (7300) Total 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Page 87 Project# SS-4� Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Douglas Drive Storm Sewer Improvements Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority � Description _ - _ - - _ _ _ --- --_ _ __-- — Storm Sewer Improvements will need to be made that coincide with the improvements to Douglas Drive. I -- _ _ __ - -_ Justifica6on -- - _ -_ ___ __ _- -- Provide an improved storm water runoff drainage system in conjunction with the Douglas Drive Corridor Improvements. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 700,000 700,000 Total 700,000 700,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 700,000 700,000 (7300) Total 700,000 700,000 Project# ss-41 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Bp�jCSt Z'OOICBt Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority _-—__ Description ' Bob�olcat will be purchased with sno _ .- -.. . _ . . , w blower and sweeper attachments. This is a multipurpose loader that can also be used as a stump grinder,post hole auger,trencher etc.This unit was purchased in 2013 and is unit 510. Justification _ J - _ -- --- - _ jIncreased repair and maintenance on Unit 510. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 55,000 55,000 (7300) Total 55,000 55,000 Page 88 Project# SS-42 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name winch Mounted on Loader (Storm) Type Equipment Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority �escription I -- - _- -__ __ —_ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _. _ — - Replace winch mounted on Unit 749 with a new winch mounted on rear of new loader. � _ .__ _ _ _.. �Jus6fication = — _ ___ . _ ___ . _ _ _—_ _ __ __ __ -- —- - Unit 749 was replaced in 2013 and the currrent winch does not fit on existing trucks.A new loader is scheduled for replacement in 2018(Unit 766)which is the most cost effective time to mount a winch on a loader.Utilities will utilize smaller winches and towing service for tree removal from the creek until a new winch is �available. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 40,000 40,000 Total 40,000 40,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund 40,000 40,000 (7300) Total 40,000 40,000 Project# SS-45 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Hone well Pond Ex ansion 3' P Type Improvement Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority � Description _ - — _— __ __ - - - -- ___ - -- __ _ _ - - --- _ --- -------� Expansion of the ponding areas in or near the Honeywell Site. - - - _ _ -_ __ � Justif c ation -- _ — __ _ __ — -- — — _ — - - - Provide storm water quality improvements to coincide with reconstruction of Douglas Drive.The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Program includes the construction of this project and provides funding to maximaize the rate control and water quality of the ponding areas. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 1,260,930 1,260,930 Total 1,260,930 1,260,930 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Bassett Creek Watershed 810,930 810,930 Mgmt Comm Storm Sewer Utility Fund 450,000 450,000 (7300) Total 1,260,930 1,260,930 Page 89 Project# SS-4g Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Sandbur -Louisiana Pond g Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority �Descripfion I �__ �_ __ __ -- —_ _ _— _ � Construct a new pond in or near[saacson Park with native vegetation buffer,and install storm sewer to divert runoff from adjacent areas to the pond. Justi6cation - — — __ __� Pond will help alleviate Decola Pond area flooding.The pond and srorm sewer pipe project will also provide water quality benefits for Bassett Creek and downstrean water bodies. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 221,000 330,000 551,000 Total 221,000 330,000 551,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Bassett Creek Watershed 201,000 300,000 501,000 Mgmt Comm Storm Sewer Utility Fund 20,000 30,000 50,000 (7300) Total 221,000 330,000 551,000 Project# SS-49 Department Storm Sewers Contact Project Name Medle Park Stormwater Treatment Facilit y 1' Type Improvement Useful Life Category Unassigned Priorit� I� Description � _ _ _ __ - __ _ _ _ _— -- --- -- 'iConstruction of a water quality treatment pond or similar facility to help remove sediment and nutrient loads within the Medicine Lake sub watershed of the Bassett 'I ICreek watershed. -- . . Justification - -- — =- _ _ - - - — _ � The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvemerit Program indudes the construction of this project and provides funding to maximize the rate control and water quality within this area of the watershed.Medicine Lake is impaired for the nutrients(phosphorus)and this prject will help to meet water qualiry goals for the lake. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 525,000 525,000 Total 525,000 525,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Bassett Creek Watershed 500,000 500,000 Mgmt Comm Storm Sewer Utility Fund 25,000 25,000 (7300) Total 525,000 525,000 Page 90 city of olden va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Section A five-year projection of the Water and Sanitary Sewer Fund reveals some potential financial challenges the City may have to address. The contract pricing with the City of Minneapolis and Golden Valley-Crystal-New Hope Joint Water Commission was renewed in 2013. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) surcharge program related to inflow and infiltration will have a direct affect on rates as it requires the City to make improvements to the sanitary system that will reduce the rate of inflow and infiltration into the system. Fees from the City's utility bill are the main source of revenue. 91 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 t1,ru 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water& Sewer Systems � Sanitary Sewer&Water Line RepaidRecon. W&SS-001 nla 435,000 500,000 450,000 450,000 150,000 1,985,000 Sewer Jet Truck W&SS-012 n/a 190,000 190,000 Portabie Generator W&SS-052 n/a 10,000 10,000 Televising Equipment W&SS-053 n/a 225,000 225,000 RubberTired Excavator W&SS-056 n/a 200,000 200,000 Step Van W&SS-O60 n/a 65,000 65,000 Pickup Utility Truck W&SS-061 n/a 70,000 70,000 Radio Meter Reading System W&SS-063 n/a 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 Utility Building Locker Room RepaidUpgrades W&SS-065 n/a 125,000 125,000 Douglas Drive WatedSewer Improvements W&SS-069 n/a 1,025,000 1,025,000 Tractor Loader Backhoe W&SS-070 n/a 130,000 130,000 Grinder Pump-Hwy 55 Sewage Lift Station W&SS-072 n/a 45,000 45,000 Cargo Van W&SS-073 nla 25,000 25,000 I-394 Inflow/Infiltration Project W&SS-074 nla 200,000 150,000 350,000 Sewer Flow Meters W&SS-076 n/a 35,000 35,000 Winnetka Ave Utility Rehabilitation W&SS-077 nla 250,000 250,000 Sanitary Sewer Lining I/I Reduction W&SS-078 n/a 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Water&Sewer Systems Total 1,885,000 1,195,000 1,255,000 680,000 535,000 5,550,000 GRAND TOTAL 1,885,000 1,195,000 1,255,000 680,000 535,000 5,550,000 Page 92 Project# w&SS-�01 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Sanitary Sewer& Water Line Repair/Recon. Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Water and Sewer Priority Description � I_— - = _ --- -_— ---- _ _. _-- _ __ I Ma�or repairs and reconstruction on the City's sanitary sewer and water systems as needed. Repairs will be done in conjunction with the City's Pavement IManagement Program(See S#1). - -- — ' Justification �-__ _ To mamtain City s water mains and sanitary sewer mains. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 435,000 500,000 450,000 450,000 150,000 1,985,000 Total 435,000 500,000 450,000 450,000 150,000 1,985,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 435,000 500,000 450,000 450,000 150,000 1,985,000 Total 435,000 500,000 450,000 450,000 150,000 1,985,000 Project# wBLss-�12 Uepartment Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Sewer Jet Truck Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Water and Sewer Priority � ' Description � ---- High pressure sewer jedrodder truck for the Utility Division,Unit 678 is an essential piece of equipment for mainline sewer cleaning � i Jusfification Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 648,which will be 11 years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 190,000 190,000 Total 190,000 190,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 190,000 190,000 Total 190,000 190,000 Paee 93 Project# Wt4Gss-�52 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name POTtabIC �i0ll0I'atOl' Type Equipment Useful Life Category Water and Sewer Priority �Description � --- _ __ _- — ___ _-- -___ _ _ __ - -- �erator to replace Unit 692 a 2010 standby generator utilitized for emergency response. I - _ _ Justification �� _ � _ p __--- - B� y - ---. _ ___ _-- Increased r a�r and mamtenance ex enditures on Unrt#692 wh�ch w�ll be ei t ears old. �, Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 10,000 10,000 Total 10,000 10,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water 8�Sewer Utility Fund 10,000 10,000 Total 10,000 10,000 Project# wc�Gss-�53 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Televising Equipment Type Equipment Useful Life Category Water and Sewer Priority Description _ -- - _ --- _ _ _— -- - - -- -_� �Sewer televising mainline computer and electronic equipment purchased with the televising truck Unit#680 will be nine years old. __ -- JustiFcation � . .- -_._ --__ _ - --_ --_ _ --- -- -- Update computer and electromc equipment in the sewer televising truck. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 225,000 225,000 Total 225,000 225,000 Page 94 Project# wt�iGss-�56 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Rubber Tired Excavator Type �u�Pm�c Useful Life 15 years Categor,y Water and Sewer Priority � Description .- -- - ____ ----_ __ __— ---___ .. ___-- ---_.__ Rubber tired excavator to replace Unit#671,a 2000 Caterpillar Excavator I --- __ _ — — — Justific ation � _-- -_ --- _ _---- - - [ncreased repair and maintenance on Unit#671,a tractor backhoe that will be eighteen years old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 200,000 200,000 Total 200,000 200,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water 8�Sewer Utility Fund 200,000 200,000 Total 200,000 200,000 Project# w&SS-�60 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Ste �IaII j� Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority � Descriptlon ;Step Van for the Utiliry Department to replace Unit#674,a 2002 Work Horse Step Van. � Justification -- - _-- - _-- - - --- --- Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#674. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Fumishings 65,000 65,000 Total 65,000 65,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water 8�Sewer Utility Fund 65,000 65,000 Total 65,000 65,000 Page 95 Project# wBtss-�61 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name pickup Utility Truck TyPe Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority I Descripfion _ -- ----- _-- _ _------- —--- -- —-__ � Utiliry Truck to replace Unit#682,a 2008 Ford F-350 4 X4 with utility box. __ -_ ' Jus6fication __ _- _ , _ _ _ -- Ilncreased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit#682. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 70,000 70,000 Total 70,000 70,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water 8�Sewer Utility Fund 70,000 70,000 Total 70,000 70,000 Project# W&SS-063 Uepartment Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Radio Meter Reading System Type Equipment Useful Life Category Water and Sewer Priority Description -- - -- � Fixed base radio metering reading system for utility billing.. _ _ _ -- —_ Jusfification Existing FCC radio frequency utilized for reading city water meters has been banned by the FCC and city is forced to comply with the rule changes. �i Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicleslFurnishings 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 To� 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 Total 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 Page 96 Project# WBLSS-065 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Utility Building Locker Room Repair/Upgrades Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned � _ ____ -- -- . Priority � Description '� - - -- ---__ _ __ _ _ - Utility Building is the oldest maintenance building and is in need of locker room repairs and upgrades to meet current staff size. ._- -- - __-_ _ _—- _� __ __-- Justification ' Utility building locker room was designed for a smaller staff,currently utility division has twebe staff utilizing a locker room that was designed for a staff size of 6-8 'i utility operators.The health and safety issue with the current locker room size and configuration is that staff is forced to use the shower stall space as a changing and ', clothing locker area.This is a problem for utility staff that needs to shower after a day of sewer system maintenance.Staff also is using the shop/garage area For �, lockers and changing area. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 125,000 125,000 Total 125,000 125,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 125,000 125,000 Tp� 125,000 125,000 Project# W&SS-069 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Douglas Drive Water/Sewer Improvements Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description _ --__ ____ ____ - —----� �i With the reconstruction of Douglas Drive improvements will be made to the water mains and sanitary sewer system._ _ I Justifica6on �While reconstructing Douglas Drive utilities should be improved or repaired at the time the street is under construction to save money. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 1,025,000 1,025,000 Total 1,025,000 1,025,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 1,025,000 1,025,000 Total 1,025,000 1,025,000 Page 97 Project# w8iss-�7� Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Tractor Loader Backhoe Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority - _ _ _ Description ' -. -_ -__ _ - -- ___ __ _ _ --- ---- _ -_--- -------- --- Tractor loader backhoe to replace Unit 675,a 2004 Cat tractor loader backhoe. 1 _ _- - __ � Jus6fica6on , — _ _- _ -- __- --- - - �Increased repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 675,which will be 14 years old. �� Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 130,000 130,000 Total 130,000 130,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water 8 Sewer Utility Fund 130,000 130,000 Total 130,000 130,000 Project# w&SS-�72 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Grinder Pum -Hw 55 Sewa e Lift Station �1 3' g Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority __ __ i Descripfion Grinder Pump to eliminate sewage pump clogging at the Highway 55 sewage lift station. ] __ - - - - -- — -__ - -- rJusfi6cation -= Due to the assisted living facility the Highway 55 sewage lifr station sewer flows have debris that consistently clogs the sewer pumps.The Utility Division installed a special basket to reduce the pump clogging incidences,but the basket requires daily maintenance in order to work effectively.The addition of the new grinder pump on the wet well influent will but eliminate the pump clogging problem,thus reducing maintenance and operational issues. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 45,000 45,000 Total 45,000 45,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water 8 Sewer Utility Fund 45,000 45,000 Total 45,000 45,000 Page 98 Project# w&ss-�73 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Cargo Van Type Unassigned UseTul Life Category Unassigned Priority —_ __ ' DI escription .__ ____ - _ -- _ _-- -- __ � �Cargo Van For the Utility Division to replace Unit#606,a 2001 Chevrolet Cargo Van. _ _--- -_ -- -- -_ Justification --__- - . - ---- --- - Increase repair and maintenance expenditures on Unit 606,which will be 15 yeais old. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Project# w8iss-�74 Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name I-394 Inflow/Infiltration Project Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Descripfion _ --- -_ -- �Reduce inflow/infiltration m the I-394 sewer shed district. � Justification ___— . ___ --- - -- -___ __ _- _ The sanitary sewer in the I-394 sewer shed is wrrently near capacity following large storm events.The reduction of I/1 in the sewer shed is necessary in order to �continue to allow future redevelopment of the comdor. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 200,000 150,000 350,000 Total 200,000 150,000 350,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 200,000 150,000 350,000 Total 200,000 150,000 350,000 Page 99 Project# w&Ss-076 Departmenf Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Sewer Flow Meters 7'ype Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description � — - __ — --- __--_ _ -— � Portable sewer flow meters for monitoring inflow and infiltration in sanitary sewer system. Justification I Replace older portable sewer flow meters to accurately monitor sewer flows. , Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total EquipNehicles/Furnishings 35,000 35,000 Total 35,000 35,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 35,000 35,000 Total 35,000 35,000 Department Water&Sewer Systems Project# w�tss-�77 Contact Project Name winnetka Ave Utility Rehabilitation Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Descrip6on _ - __ __ :1 Replacement and RehabiLtat�on of all sanitary sewer and watern�ain along Winnetka Avenue between Golden Valley Road and Medicine Lake Road. _--- _ Justification 'i Watennain and Sanitary sewer along Winnetka Avenue should be rehabilitated/replaced in conjunction with the future CenterPoint Energy Beltline Replacement. I Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 250,000 250,000 Total 250,000 250,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water 8�Sewer Utility Fund 250,000 250,000 Total 250,000 250,000 Page 100 Project# w&SS-�7g Department Water&Sewer Systems Contact Project Name Sanitary Sewer Lining I/I Reduction Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority �— _ Description _ _ — -- — — __ _ --- - _ _ ___ __ _ � 'L�j �ning of Sanitary Sewer Mains outside of the PMP project azea. _ i __ I Jus6ficafion — -- _-- _-- __ __ _ - -___ __ _ _ I e City's aging sanitary sewer infrastructure requires maintenance and repair.As part of the maintenance and repair is the lining of sanitary sewer mains.The goal �is to maintain the sanitary sewer to reduce 1/1 and to avoid an additional surcharge/demand charge from MCES,by investing in the sanitary sewer system to reduce UI.The proposed budget is for lining approximately 2,600 feet of sanitary sewer main annually. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Total 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Water&Sewer Utility Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Total 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Page 101 city of olden g va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Streets Section The City of Golden Valley has over 120 miles of streets. The city is responsible for 90 miles of local streets. Municipal State Aid streets account for the remainder or 30 miles. As streets deteriorate, roads need to be reconstructed or repaired. The City's Pavement Management Program has outlined all roads to be reconstructed by the year 2021. The bond payments on the debt will go until 2041. This plan has been included in the five year program. The revenue sources are city-wide street reconstruction debt levy, state aid debt, benefiting property owner assessments and Municipal State Aid Allotments. 102 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thn► 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total _ _ - IStreets � Pavement Management Program S-001 nla 1,200,000 1,570,000 4,500,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 16,870,000 Pavement Management Ovedays S-013 n/a 500,000 500,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2,200,000 TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge Walk Maintenance S-014 nla 140,000 140,000 Municipal State Aid(MSA)Street Maintenance S-017 nla 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Streetscape and City Hall Complex Renovation S-018 nla 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 MSA Debt Service S-019 nla 201,215 196,175 196,385 196,385 196,175 986,335 Sidewalk and Trail System Upgrades S-030 nla 125,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 Auto CAD Application S-032 n/a 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 60,500 Cartegraph Street Management Software S-034 nla 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 90,000 Comprehensive Plan Update S-035 n/a 107,500 67,500 175,000 Retaining Wall Repairs S-036 n/a 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 Streets Total 2,340,815 2,870,775 5,393,485 5,783,485 5,843,275 22,231,835 GRAND TOTAL 2,34Q815 2,870,775 5,393,485 5,783,485 5,843,275 22,231,835 Page 103 Project# 5-001 Department Streets Contact Project Name pavement Management Program 7'�pc Improvement Useful Life Category Street Construction Priorih �-__ -- ___ � Description � __ - _ _ __ _ _ - --- - ---- On-going program to manage the City's street system in a long term cost effective manner by reconstructing deficient roadways to City standards. � _ - -- — Justi�cation _ __- - _ __ __ __---- ,Reconstruction of sub-standard roadways to City standards followed by proper and effective maintenance will reduce the long range costs of street maintenance. 2016-.49 miles 2017- .99 miles 2018-2.78 miles 'I 2019-2.46 miles I2020-2.50 miles Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 1,200,000 1,570,000 4,500,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 16,870,000 Total 1,200,000 1,570,000 4,500,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 16,870,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Special Assessment Bonds 1,200,000 1,570,000 4,500,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 16,870,000 Total 1,200,000 1,570,000 4,500,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 16,870,000 Project# 5-�13 Department Streets Contact Project Naroc pavement Management Overlays Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Sireet Construction Priority Description _ --- -- 'Pavement overlays for streets constructed to City standards to maximize the lifespan in a long term cost effective manner. �, Future projects determined annually based upon needs. ', Jus6fication � _-_ — - Provides high quality street system in a long tenn cost effective manner in accordance with the Payement Management Policy. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 500,000 500,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2,200,000 Total 500,000 500,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2,200,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Street Improvement Fund 500,000 500,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2,200,000 Total 500,000 500,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 2,200,000 Page l04 Project# 5-014 Department Streets Contact Project Name TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge Walk Maintenance Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Street Construction Priority Description �� --- ---_____ __- --- - - -� Replace approach sidewalk on the Golden Valley side of the Trunk Highway]00 Pedestrian Bridge;and repaint and seal hand railings on entire bridge. Justificaaon IThe existing concrete sidewalk on the approach to the TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge has settled and created a large gap between concrete panels,resulting in a hazardous 'Icondition for bicyclists using the bridge.Replacement walk will not have a center joint and will be reinforced to minimize settlement.The railings have been subject to repeated graffiti and must be repainted and sealed. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 140,000 140,000 Total 140,000 140,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Capital Improvement Fund 70,000 70,000 (6100) City of Crystal 70,000 70,000 Total 140,000 140,000 Project# .�-017 Department Streets Contact Project Name Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street Maintenance Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priorih � _ _ . -- - . __ _ . Descnption -_ -_ _ , _ _ -- Allotment of a portion of the City's annual Municipal State Aid construction funds to be used for maintenance of designated State Aid routes,induding materials � and salaries. I - - -_ _ _ JustificaUon - _ - -= ____ _ -- ---- Maintenance of Municipal State Aid street system. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Total 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Municipal State Aid(MSA- 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 5100) Total 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Page 105 Project# S-01g Department Streets Contact Project Name Streetscape and City Hall Complex Renovation 7'ype Unassigned Useful Life Category Street Construction Priority �i Description � __ _ __ -_ __ __ __ _ __ Comprehensive rehabilitation of the Winnetka Avenue Streetscape and City Hall Complex streetscape,landscape and pedestrian facilities based upon the I recommendation in the 2012 Streetscape Asset Management Plan. , Justi�cadon _ - - ___ _- --_ __ __ _ --- _ -- . 2013:Rehab pavers,sidewalks,install new pedestr-ian connections. 2014:Rehab and paint light and banner poles,rehab pole bases. 2015:-2016:Next prioriities to be determned. �� Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 Total 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Capital Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 (6100) Total 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 Project# s-�19 Department Streets Contact Project Name MSA Debt Service Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description --: __ -- -- --_ - - - _ _-_ - --- ---_. Debt Service payment on Municipal State Aid Bonds ending in 2027. �I _ _ _ _ __ Justification �__ -- - _ __ __ _ - --- _ -- -_ - Necessary funding for State Aid roads to construct projects needed for safety. � Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 201,215 196,175 196,385 196,385 196,175 986,335 Total 201,215 196,175 196,385 196,385 196,115 986,335 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Municipal State Aid(MSA- 201,215 196,175 196,385 196,385 196,175 986,335 5100) Total 201,215 196,175 196,385 196,385 196,175 986,335 Page 106 Project# S-�3� Department Streets Contact Project Name Sidewalk and Trail System Upgrades Type unass�gnea Useful Life Category Street Construction Priority Description ' ---_ - __ __._ _ ._ Upgrading the deficient portions of the City's sidewalk and trail system to current standards and to be compliant with State and Federal standards far handicap I accessibility.This will include the elimination of bamers to access,providing required clearances,installation of standard ramps and pedestrian activated push 'i buttons. i _ _- _ Justification _ - - --- -- Provide an accessible pedestrian system for all users and reduction of liability by eliminating trip and fall hazards. �i Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 125,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 Total 125,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Capital Improvement Fund 125,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 (6100) Total 125,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 Project# s-�32 Department Streets Contact Project Name Auto CAD A lication PP Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Prioritv li Description IAutoCAD is a CAD desi n,draftin modelin architectural drawin and en ineerin software that hel s with desi and as-built drawin s of infrasducture. � . B g, S, g> g g P � B JustiGcation - _ This software is the maintenance and upgrades for software to manage our street and utility systems. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 60,500 Total 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 60,500 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Capital Improvement Fund 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 60,500 (6100) Total 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 60,500 Page 107 Project# 5-034 Department Streets Contact Project Name Carte ra h Street Mana ement Software g j� g Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Uoassigned Priority Description -- - __ ___ Migration of existing pavement management sofrware to Cartegraph PavementView for consistency with all other infrastructure management sofrware.Includes rating of entire street system in 2013. i In 2017,a new version will be purchased. - - __ _ --- ----- -- _ �Justification _ --=_-. : I Infrastructure management software to maintain data on all streets including capital and maintenance costs.Software will also provide pavement quality rankings, �imaintenance recommendations,and budgeting scenarios.Pavement rating will provide update on overall system. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 90,000 Total 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 90,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Capital Improvement Fund 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 90,000 (6100) Total 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 90,000 Project# 5-035 Department Streets Contact Project Name Com rehensive Plan U date p �1 Type Uoassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority _ _ __ ----- ----- -- Description -_ _ _ �The Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated by 2018.In 2016,along with working on the update will be a planning study for the Winnetka/Harold Ave area.This Istudy includes$40,000. ' Justification --- = ----_ _ _ - -- This comprehensive plan involves updating the land use,transportation,water resources,parks and trails,housing,resilience,economic competiveness and � implementation sections. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Other 107,500 67,500 175,000 Total 107,500 67,500 175,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Capital Improvement Fund 107,500 67,500 175,000 (6100) Total 107,500 67,500 175,000 Page 108 Project# 5-036 Department Streets Contact Project Name Retaining Wall Repairs Type Maintenance [Tseful Life Category Unassigned Priority ' Description _ _ __- �epair and replacement of retaining walls and other assets within the city nght-of-way. I � ._ — _. Justification - ___ _ Retaining walls need to be repaired within the city right-of way. Expenditures 2016 2417 2018 2019 2020 Total Construction/Maintenance 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 Ta� 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Capital Improvement Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 (6100) Total 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 Page 109 ��tyof olden g va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Douglas Drive Corridor Section The City of Golden Valley initiated a study of the Douglas Drive Corridor that took place in 2008 and 2009. Following that study the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) took initiative to develop a Redevelopment Plan for the segment of the corridor from Medicine Lake Road to Trunk Highway 55. The City's Comprehensive plan is in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan. In early 2011, Xcel Energy and in 2013, Centerpoint began collection of the franchise fee was ordered by the City Council which will assist in paying for the City's portion of the project. Hennepin County, MnDOT, Transit for Livable Communities and the City are working together to fund and complete this study. 110 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thn, 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 'Douglas Drive Corridor � Douglas Drive Improvements DD-001 n/a 9,052,600 9,052,600 Debt Service Payment DD-002 n/a 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 Transfer to Water and Sewer Utilities(7120) DD-003 n/a 700,000 700,000 Douglas Drive Corridor Total 10,552,600 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 13,752,600 GRAND TOTAL 10,552,600 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 13,752,600 Page l 11 Project# ��-��1 Department Douglas Drive Corridor Contact Project Name Douglas Drive Improvements Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Street Construction Priority �Description � �'� --— I�Reconstrvction of Douglas Drive to current standards.Franchise Fees will pay for any internal or external borrowing needed to fund the project. � �i Justification _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-— -- _ __ __ Reconstruction to current state and county standards to address pedestrian safety and promote multi-model transpor[ation.This is a cooperative agreement with Hennepin County. [n July 2008,the City officially began a study of the Douglas Dr corridor.The study,funded by a grant awarded by Transit for Livable Communities in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration,and the Minnesota Department of Transportation,focused on a redesign of Douglas Dr and on establishing a long-term vision for the corridor. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 9,052,600 9,052,600 Total 9,052,600 9,052,600 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Douglas Drive Corridor Capital 9,052,600 9,052,600 Improvement Fund Total 9,052,600 9,052,600 Project# DD-��2 Department Douglas Drive Corridor Contact Project Name Debt Service Payment Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Unassigned Priority Description ` _ _ ___ ---- — _ ------ _- --- --_ ---- ___ __ —1 �Bonds were sold to 6elp finance the infrastruture improvements for pouglas Drive._ J s6fication Debt Service payments for the Douglas Dri I ve Corridor Improvements. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Debt Service Payments 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 'ra� 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Franchise Fees 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 Total soo,000 soo,000 soo,000 soo,000 soo,000 a,000,000 Page 112 Project# DD-�03 Department Douglas Drive Corridor Contact Project Name Transfer to Water and Sewer Utilities (7120) Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Priority fDescription L-- --- -- - � __ _ _ _—_ -- -- - -_ _ _ � With the reconstruction of Douglas Drive,improvements will be made to the water mains and sanitary systems. Justification _ _ __--_ _--_ - - — -- � While reconstructing Douglas Drive,utilities should be improved or repaired as the time the street is under construction to save money. Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Infrastructure Improvements 700,000 700,000 Total 700,U00 700,000 Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Franchise Fees 700,000 700,000 Total 700,000 700,000 Page 1 I 3 ��tyof olden � va e Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 Appendix Section 114 Exhibit A Special Assessment Policy for The City of Golden Valley January 17, 1995 Amended February 21, 1995 Amended June 7, 2005 Amended July 18, 2006 Amended January 20, 2009 General Minnesota State Law, Chapters 429.010 to 429.11, provides municipalities the ability to make public improvements such as installation of sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, sidewalks, and street improvements (including grading, curb and gutter, surfacing, and lighting). The procedures that Cities must follow, including reports, notices, and public hearings, are well defined within the laws. The Statute allows municipalities to assess all or portions of the costs of any improvements to property owners based on the benefits received from the project. The Statute is not specific regarding the determination of benefits to a property, or how to apportion the costs to the benefiting properties. Rather, the law makes the municipality responsible for developing an equitable method of cost sharing among the benefiting property owners. The purpose of this special assessment policy is to provide a guide, to be used by City Staff, for preparing assessment rolls for approval by the City Council. This policy is meant to assure uniform and consistent treatment to all properties within the City as improvements occur. The special assessment policy will not cover all possible assessment situations. Special cases and variations of standard cases that are not specifically discussed under this policy will be evaluated during preliminary project studies, and assessments will be determined that do not violate the benefit principles as required by Statute. No special assessments will be levied against designated floodplains, municipal storm water ponds or wetland areas on private property as determined by criteria in the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The limits of wetlands will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis at the time of preliminary project design and feasibility report preparation. No special assessments will be levied against railroad, county highway or state highway rights-of-way. Properties fronting County Roads and County Highways will be subject to special assessments for reconstruction projects based upon this policy. iis Special assessments levied by the City will include an administrative fee, to be established annually by ordinance, to finance indirect costs associated with the assessment that are incurred by the City. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Assessments Reconstruction and Repairs No special assessments will be levied for repair and reconstruction of existing sanitary sewer and water main systems, except for properties that have not been previously assessed for these utilities. For properties not previously assessed that are adjacent to sanitary sewer or water main reconstruction projects, the amount of special assessments will be calculated on a case-by-case basis at the time of preliminary design and feasibility report preparation. Property owners are responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of sanitary sewer services from, and including the connection to the main, and the building being served. Pavement Management street reconstruction projects will include an opportunity for property owners to reconstruct or repair their sanitary sewer services. All costs, including construction, administration and other indirect costs, will be specially assessed to the property being served by the sanitary sewer service. The City is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of water services from the connection to the water main up to and including the curb stop or valve on the service line. The property owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the water service from the connection of the service pipe to the valve or curb stop, to the building being served. New Construction In instances where property is developing or redeveloping, public sanitary sewer and water main may need to be installed. The construction of City sanitary sewer, water mains and storm sewer to serve these properties will be constructed as public improvement projects, unless the City opts to have the developer design and construct the improvements. The developer of such properties will be responsible for the entire cost of public utilities, including construction, administration and other indirect costs, whether construction is performed as a City Improvement Project or by the developer. At the time such a development project is proposed, the Public Works Department will determine if the project is to be constructed publicly or privately. If the utility installation is to be constructed privately, the developer will be responsible for preparing construction plans and specifications consistent with City standards. These construction plans and specifications must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The utility installation must also be inspected by the Public Works Department during construction. The developer will be responsible for 100°/a of the costs of City construction 116 observation and plan review, which will be billed directly to the developer. Any unpaid costs incurred for these services will be assessed against the developing properties. An irrevocable letter of credit must be posted by the developer in an amount equal to 150% of the estimated construction costs to ensure timely completion of the project. If a public sanitary sewer or water main project is to be installed as a City Improvement Project, the developer will be responsible for 100% of the direct and indirect costs incurred by the City. These costs may include, but are not limited to: feasibility report preparation, preliminary survey, preliminary design, final design, construction staking, construction observation, as-built surveying and drafting, and administrative and legal costs. The developer may elect to have these costs assessed against the property being developed or pay the costs directly to the City. Storm Water Drainage Street Storm Sewer No special assessments will be levied for construction or reconstruction of storm sewer systems within the City right-of-way as part of the Pavement Management Program. However, in instances where storm sewer construction is incorporated into Pavement Management Projects to resolve rear yard drainage issues, as discussed in this policy, the costs associated with these improvements will be specially assessed to the benefiting property owners. In instances where storm sewer installation is required for development and redevelopment projects, it shall be specially assessed to the property being developed according to the Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Assessments section of this policy. Rear Yard Storm Sewer In certain instances, storm sewer is necessary in rear yard areas to correct existing drainage problems. City staff will visit such problem areas at the request of a homeowner to evaluate the situation and provide engineering assistance to encourage property owners to remedy the drainage problems without City involvement. If a property owner or owners cannot remedy the rear yard drainage problems, they may petition the City for installation of storm sewer. Upon receiving a request for petition for rear yard storm sewer, engineering staff will determine the properties that contribute storm water runoff to the problem area. The petitioner must then circulate the petition to the contributing property owners for signatures. Each contributing property owner must be made aware that special assessments will be levied against their property for the corrective storm sewer work. A minimum of 35% of the contributing property owners must sign the petition for the City Council to consider the project. Upon receipt of the petition and after a public hearing, the City Council may either deny the request or order the storm sewer improvements. If the improvements are ordered, the contributing property ii� owners will be assessed for 100% of the construction and indirect costs for the storm sewer installation. The method of assessment and the pro-ration of costs will be determined on a project-specific basis. Affected property owners in rear yard drainage projects will also be required to dedicate all drainage and utility easements for the installation of the storm sewer at no cost to the City. If the City must purchase or condemn in order to obtain the easements, the entire acquisition costs will be included in the project costs for assessment or the City may decline to undertake the project. Street Improvements Devetopment/Redevelopment Proiects When property is developed or redeveloped that has street frontage on roadways that are scheduled for construction or reconstruction, the development will be required to pay an escrow for the future street rehabilitation. The escrow shall be based upon the assessment methods and land uses contained in this policy, and shall be based on the assessment rates in effect at the time the development is approved. The property or properties within the development will not be specially assessed at the time street rehabilitation occurs. Sidewalks No special assessments will be levied for sidewalk construction that is in accordance with the goals and recommendations of the City of Golden Valley Sidewalk Committee. Requests for sidewalks that are not on the current Sidewalk and Trail Plan will be forwarded to the Sidewalk Committee for consideration. The Sidewalk Committee will forward its recommendations for the requested sidewalks to the City Council, which will determine if the proposal should be included in the Sidewalk Plan. Street Liqhtinq Street lighting is available to the residents of Golden Valley on a petition basis according to the Street Lighting Policy. New Street Construction As property within the City develops or redevelops, it may be necessary to install public streets. The Public Works Department will determine if the project is to be installed publicly or privately. The procedures, policies, and requirements for street construction will be the same as discussed for new sanitary sewer installations. Sealcoatinq No special assessments will be levied for street sealcoating. Bituminous Millinq and Overlavs No special assessments will be levied for bituminous milling and overlays. iis Street Reconstruction Special assessments for street reconstruction projects will be in accordance with this policy and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The total amount of the special assessments will be a minimum of 20% of the street reconstruction costs not to exceed the benefit received by each property. Special assessment rates for all land uses and street classifications will be determined annually by ordinance. Local Streets 1. Properties with residential and duplex residential land use, parks and other City- owned properties subject to reconstruction will be assessed on a per-unit basis, with one unit assessed to each property unless the property has the potential to be further subdivided into two or more tots that each meets City subdivision ordinance requirements. Such lots that may be so subdivided shall be assessed for the number of units that equals the number of such lots that the property may be subdivided into. However, residential properties that are subject to multiple unit assessments will have all but one of such unit assessments deferred at the time of the initial assessment. Such deferral will be made each year until such time as the property is subdivided. At that time, the deferred unit assessments shall be due. 2. Special assessments against properties with Multiple Dwelling land use will be on a front-foot basis, with 100% of the frontage being improved subject to assessment. 3. Properties with church, school and other tax exempt land uses will be assessed on a front-foot basis, with 100% of the frontage being improved subject to assessment. 4. All other land uses, including commercial, industrial, business and offices will be assessed on a front-foot basis, with 100% of the frontage being improved subject to assessment. 5. Residential properties adjacent to local streets being reconstructed may participate in voluntary programs to have their driveways reconstructed and sanitary sewer service repaired or reconstructed at contract unit prices. Residents will be notified of these programs at informational meetings for each street project. If a resident participates in these programs, staff will coordinate construction with the contractor and will measure the quantities installed. The construction costs, along with an administrative fee, established annually by ordinance, will be assessed to the property owner. 6. When a corner residential lot has frontage on two local streets, it will be assessed for one-half unit assessment for each street subject to reconstruction. No more than one total unit assessment will be charged against a parcel for street reconstruction. Corner properties adjacent to State Aid and local streets will be charged one-half of the appropriate unit assessment at the time of reconstruction of each street. 119 7. Corner residential properties adjacent to a local street and a state or county roadway will not be subject to special assessments by the City for state highway or county road reconstruction. However, these properties will be assessed the appropriate number of unit assessments for the entire frontage along the local streets when reconstruction occurs on the local street. 8. Residential properties adjacent to frontage roads of state highways will be considered to be on local or Municipal State Aid streets and will be assessed consistent with this policy. 9. Special Assessments for properties not specifically covered in any of the above cases will be addressed on a parcel-specific basis at the time of the feasibility report. State Aid Streets 1. Properties with residential and duplex residential land uses that have frontage on a Municipal State Aid Street will be assessed on a per-unit basis. The per-unit assessment rate will be approximately 25% of the standard residential rate for properties on local streets. Assessments for oversized parcels with the potential for subdivision are to be consistent with the previously discussed policy for local streets. 2. Properties with Multiple Dwelling land use that front on a Municipal State Aid Street will be assessed on a front-foot basis for the frontage being improved. Properties with church, school, and other tax-exempt land uses that front on a Municipal State Aid Street will be assessed on a front-foot basis for the frontage being improved. All other land uses, including commercial, industrial, business and offices that front on a Municipal State Aid Street will be assessed on a front-foot basis for the frontage being improved. 3. Special assessments for properties not specificatly covered in any of the above cases will be addressed on a parcel-specific basis at the time of the feasibility report. 4. Residential properties adjacent to State Aid streets being reconstructed will be given the option of having their driveways and sanitary sewer services repaired or reconstructed under the same terms discussed in the local street reconstruction portion of this policy. Countv Roads 1. Properties with residential and duplex residential land uses adjacent to county roads will be assessed according to the previously discussed methods for local streets, except for corner lots with local streets, which will be assessed in full at i2o the time the intersecting local street is reconstructed. Special assessments to residential properties will be at State Aid street rates. 2. All other land uses, including commercial, industrial, business, and tax-exempt uses will be assessed on a front-foot basis, with 100% of the frontage being improved subject to assessment. The assessment rate shall be the rates used for State Aid streets as established by ordinance. Low Income Senior Citizen and Disability Deferments As required by Minnesota Statute, the City has a special assessment deferral policy for low income senior citizens and disabled persons meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January 1 st of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a) An annual income at or below a level established annually by ordinance and; b) The aggregate total of all special assessments levies will exceed one and one- half percent (1-1/2%) of the applicant's annual income. More information is available at General Services Office (763.593.8020). Street Reconstruction Special Assessment Rates Special assessment rates as discussed in this policy will be established yearly with the Annual Fee Resolution. The rates will be based on the percentages of construction and indirect costs as discussed above. Indirect costs are estimated to be 30% of the construction costs and include administration, engineering, construction observation, and legal fees. These rates will be subject to revision each year based on the actual construction costs in the City from the previous year and for inflation based upon the ENR Index for construction costs. 121 city of o en va e . eet erat� on � . a � ntenance an � . e acement o � c 122 Message from the Manager Motor vehicles and equipment are vital to day-to-day operations and service delivery activities of the City of Golden Valley. The Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division is responsible for the stewardship of the City's fleet and equipment assets and for meeting the fleet and equipment service requirements of City departments. The division also develops fleet and equipment utilization and replacement policies and schedules. The Vehicle Maintenance Division is an internal service division of the Public Works Department of which the costs are allocated to the other City departments for services provided. The main goal of the Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division is to provide vehicles that are dependable, flexible, efficient, and responsive so that City departments and divisions can operate in a cost-effective manner, minimizing the City's vehicle equipment budget. The division is also committed to maintaining the City's fleet and equipment so that the equipment is readily available for performing City operations and keeping downtime to a minimum. The Public Works staff works with all departments to embrace a philosophy which emphasizes the value of the importance of vehicle and equipment availability, safety, reliability, and efficiency as well as preserving the City of Golden Valley's major capital investment in fleet and equipment. The City has established a capital replacement schedule to replace aging vehicle and equipment. The vehicle and equipment replacement schedule, in conjunction with the 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and operating budgets, is used to plan any major capital investment (the CIP reflects only those investments that exceed $10,000). New equipment or other items, which are not part of a replacement schedule, are funded annually out of the originating or requesting department's operating budget. Approved February 2010 123 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to assign responsibility to the City of Golden Valley's Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division for the operation, maintenance, acquisition, and replacement of vehicles and equipment owned and operated by the City, with the exception of vehicles and equipment used by Brookview Golf Course, which are acquired, operated, maintained, and replaced by Golf Maintenance. POIICy This policy is intended to ensure the availability of funds for the operation, maintenance, acquisition, and replacement of fleet and equipment. Adherence to this policy will provide effective and efficient fleet and equipment services for operating departments/divisions to provide the best services for the residents and businesses of Golden Valley. This policy establishes a sound business approach associated with the evaluation of vehicle and equipment cost and capabilities, purchasing and funding methodology, and making decisions on acquisition and replacement considering the level of usage and demonstrated needs. Departments are asked to review vehicle and equipment needs with a goal of increasing fuel efficiency, consideration of alternative and/or flexible fuels, reducing the number of vehicles, conversion of the diesel vehicle and equipment to bio-diesel, and promoting the anti-idling policy. 1. Vehicle and Equipment Replacement A vehicle and equipment replacement schedule is maintained by the Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division and Finance Department. Replacement of vehicle and equipment will generally follow the attached Equipment and Vehicle Replacement Guidelines and are summarized as follows and listed as Attachment A: a. Description b. Unit number c. Classification d. Year purchased e. Purchase price f. Expected service life g. Projected replacement cost h. Annual fuel, maintenance, and overhead costs by vehicle classification 2. Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Vehicle and equipment preventative maintenance schedules are maintained by the Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division with the goal of keeping vehicles and equipment available 95% of the demand time. 124 a. Generally, maintenance standards and procedures are as recommended by the vehicle/equipment manufacturer or other recognized authority, or utilizing the Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division Preventative Maintenance Schedules. i. Daily maintenance inspections are performed by operators and maintenance personnel using the Pre-operation Inspection Form. ii. Scheduled maintenance is performed by the maintenance mechanics considering the above-referenced Preventative Maintenance Schedules. iii. Demand maintenance is generated by user activities and may require outside services. The Service Request Form is used to request demand maintenance. iv. All maintenance done by the operator shall be coordinated with the Vehicle Maintenance Division. b. The Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division may remove equipment or vehicles from service based on the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Out-of—Service Criteria (OSC) or other recognized criteria. 3. Vehicle and Equipment Operation The use of City vehicles or equipment is approved only for matters related to City job responsibilities or for City business. Operation of City vehicles and equipment shall be in accordance with the Employee Handbook, Section 5.0, Subd. 5.25, Vehicle Use, January 1, 2006. Care and cleaning of vehicle and equipment is the responsibility of the user. The Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division will manage and maintain the central fuel system. This includes fuel system access assignments and records management. a. Dedicated department vehicles shall be assigned to departments whose job duties require the immediate availability of a vehicle. i. Dedicated vehicle use shall be subject to the same limitations and conditions as identified in the Vehicle Use Policy. b. Shared vehicles should be considered for employees with similar job duties and should be considered in lieu of a dedicated vehicle. 125 Funding Vehicle and equipment replacement will be funded through the CIP. The Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division will maintain a current and complete inventory of all vehicles and equipment in coordination with all users and the Finance Department. These inventories will establish all divisions/department vehicle and equipment replacement schedule. All vehicles and equipment maintained by the Vehicle Maintenance Division will be reviewed on an annual basis for replacement. If a department/division has requested replacement or an addition to the fleet, Vehicle Maintenance will make a recommendation on the purchase for the CIP to the City Manager. The CIP will be presented to the City Council for consideration and approval during the budget process. 1. Funding New and Replacement Vehicles and Equipment Fleet and equipment projected for replacement, or additional vehicles and equipment, will be funded through the CIP process. Upon acquisition, all fleet and equipment purchased shall be included in the vehicle and equipment inventory database. Requests for fleet and equipment replacement will be addressed through the normal budget process. a. Fleet and equipment with a value in excess of$10,000 purchased for the first time must be included in the CIP. b. Fleet and equipment with a value less than $10,000 purchased for the first time does not have to be included in the CIP, but must be included in the operating budget. 2. Funding of Operational Expenses a. Fuel Allocation Fuel is allocated based on usage by each piece of equipment or vehicle and billed monthly to the responsible department. Pricing for fuel is based on average total cost of inventory and an overhead charge, as set by the Finance Department. 3. Reassigned Equipment a. Reassigned equipment may be used in lieu of new vehicles/equipment with written approval by the City Manager. Reassignment duration will be as determined annually by the Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division. Reassignments moved within or across departments/divisions will be charged for conversion costs to the receiving department/division by internal service charges. Reassignments with no conversion costs will not be charged. 126 The Finance Department will be notified of all reassignments for fixed assets and insurance reports. 4. Equivalent Replacement/Upgrades a. The CIP fund is structured to replace each vehicle or piece of equipment with an equivalent unit, unless specified/justified, during the budget process. b. Cost increases due to upgrades, changes in type of fleet or equipment, addition of options, or other upgrades associated with vehicles scheduled for replacement, shall be highlighted and clearly summarized as an element of the CIP by the department requesting the upgrade or addition in options. Responsibilities 1. Department Directors shall be responsible for: a. Ensuring that all vehicles and equipment for replacement requests are of the appropriate type and have only those items/options that are operationally required. b. Submitting requests for replacement with cost estimates to the Finance Department and the Public Works Maintenance Manager prior to the CIP and budget process. 2. The Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division shall be responsible for: a. Submitting a 5-year Capital Improvement Program to the Finance Department and City Manager during the budget process. b. Reviewing replacement schedule annually with departments during the budget process to ensure all vehicles and equipment are replaced as appropriate. c. Establishing the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Schedule. d. Tracking fuel, labor and repair parts annually, and provide this information to Finance and responsible departments. e. Identifying the actual historical cost and variations in cost perFormance based on lifetime-accumulated age and usage of the various vehicle and equipment types (classifications). 127 3. The Finance Department shall be responsible for: a. Completing an analysis and reconciliation of the vehicle replacement CIP on an annual basis. Purchasing and Disposal 1. Purchasing Procedures a. New vehicles and equipment will be purchased by the Public Works Maintenance Manager, as assigned by the Director of Public Works and in accordance with Minnesota Statute 471.345. Acquisitions require the cooperation and assistance of many departments. b. When possible, purchases will be made from the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County, or other Joint Purchasing Agreement contracts, as permitted by State Statute. These purchases will also follow the City's purchasing policy. c. Details for budgeting will be provided by the Finance Director when providing the overall budget guidelines. 2. Equipment Disposal a. Disposal of equipment shall be in accordance with the City's business standard of disposing all vehicles and equipment by auction, trade-in, or other approved methods. b. When vehicles and equipment are replaced, there may be reassignment of vehicles or equipment, but there will be no fleet or equipment hold over on the fleet after a replacement is purchased. Adding fleet or equipment to the inventory without City Manager authorization is not permitted. c. In order to address the seasonal or short-term needs, fleet or equipment may be retained temporarily for a period not to exceed nine months from the date the replacement fleet or equipment is placed into service. Request for Vehicles, Equipment, and Service 1. Requesting Vehicles or Equipment a. New vehicles or equipment in excess of $10,000 must be made and approved through the CIP budget process, and have a life of more than three (3) years. The request shall be discussed with the Public Works Maintenance Manager and Vehicle Maintenance Division to avoid duplication of equipment and to discuss the appropriate type and size of vehicle or equipment requested. 128 b. Request for new vehicle or equipment less than $10,000 must be made and approved through the normal budget process. 2. Repair and Maintenance of Vehicle or Equipment Requests a. All repair and maintenance of vehicles and equipment will be made by completing the Vehicle Maintenance Repair Slip, as provided by the Vehicle Maintenance Division. Acquisition Request(s) The 5-year CIP will be reviewed and evaluated annually as part of the budget process. In any given year, vehicle or equipment originally planned for replacement may be adjusted as necessary to account for current needs. 129 city of olden � vall e�r VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT GUIDELINES Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division Management Methodology To manage the City's fleet in a manner that theoretically all of the City's motorized equipment and vehicles are maintained and disposed of by the Public Works Department Vehicle Maintenance Division. The Vehicle Maintenance Division has full responsibility for vehicle and equipment maintenance and the equipment users are charged an hourly repair rate for all service and repairs. 1. Expected Life When new vehicles or equipment are purchased, it is given an expected life (years in service) based on a variety of factors. Below are the estimated life expectancies for some of the significant pieces of equipment: a. Engine Pumpers 20+ years (refurbish half way through life cycle) b. Tandem Dump Trucks 12 years c. Single Axle Dump Trucks 12-14 years-some longer d. Wheel Loaders 15-18 years e. Backhoe/Excavators 10-12 years f. Jet Truck 10 years g. One-Ton Trucks 9-10 years h. 3/ and '/2 Ton Pickups 10 years-some longer i. Skid Steers 8-10 years j. Street Sweeper 8 years k. Tractors Varies (15 years average) I. Vactor Truck 10 years m. Mowers Varies (6-10 years) n. Sport Utility Vehicle 10 years o. Passenger Cars/Vans 10 years p. Squad Cars 100,000 miles/4 years q. Trailers 15 years r. Sidewalk Machines 10-12 years 130 2. Replacement Factors When a particular piece of vehicle or equipment achieves its expected life and reaches its anticipated replacement year, it is analyzed to determine if it should be replaced based on the following factors: a. Critical nature of the equipment or vehicle and the availability of a backup or alternative equipment or vehicle. For example, the Sewer Jet is a critical piece of equipment for which there is no backup except to contract for those services. It is important to have this equipment operational with minimal downtime. b. Use of the equipment or vehicle (hours and/or miles). The duration and intensity of use are also important factors. For example, squad cars typically achieve their expected life of 100,000 miles and are retired in approximately 4 years while other vehicles (cars and light trucks) may never achieve 100,000 miles and can last for many years. c. Appropriateness of the equipment or vehicle for the assigned tasks. Public Works and the user examines whether the equipment or vehicle is still capable of doing its intended work, whether it is the right equipment, and determine if the work changed causing the equipment or vehicle to be obsolete. d. Repair history, costs, and downtime. Mechanics provide critical input and assessments of the overall condition of the equipment. Near the end of the expected life of the equipment or vehicle, repair costs can exceed the value of the equipment or vehicle and replacement is appropriate. e. Suitability of the equipment or vehicle for other tasks. Other departments provide input regarding the ability to reassign equipment and vehicles to other less frequent or intense duties. For example, Public Works have re-assigned used marked squad cars and light pickup trucks to other departments. 3. Life Cycle Costing This accounting method is used as much as possible in managing the City's fleet management. Life cycle costing includes the purchase cost of the equipment or vehicle, lifetime maintenance and operation costs, and the residual value at the time of disposal. This is the true cost of equipment or vehicle ownership. The goal is to replace the equipment during its economic life. This is the period when the maintenance costs are the lowest. 4. Fire Department Vehicle Replacement Practice Fire apparatus is historically refurbished half way through its life cycle (approximately 10-12 years) and replaced after 20 to 24 years of service, or a couple of years longer depending on condition. This general rule applies to "major" apparatus, engine, and ladder trucks. The replacement of a particular piece of apparatus is based upon several factors including the general mechanical and structural condition, required vehicle and safety upgrades, technological changes, 131 current and anticipated use, anticipation of future mission changes, and the current mechanical history (including mileage). The apparatus replacement schedule is revised to reflect a philosophy of validating the replacement of a vehicle, as opposed to replacement based solely upon the age of the vehicle. To this end, vehicles have been moved back in the replacement schedule and not replaced at the time mark historically associated with replacement schedules. Refurbishing pumpers and ladders to extend the "life" of fire apparatus is a common practice. Refurbishing pumper and ladder fire vehicles extends vehicle life. 132 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2016 thru 2020 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total __ __. Buildings � Carpet Replacement:City Buildings B-011 n/a 40,000 40,000 40,000 120,000 Installation of Building Security Systems B-027 n/a 120,000 100,000 220,000 HVAC Building Automation System for Public Safety 8-040 nla 55,000 55,000 Public Buildings Roof Replacements 8-041 nla 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 540,000 Golf Maintenance Fire Suppression B-042 nla 40,000 40,000 City Hall Boiler Replacement B-043 n/a 130,000 130,000 Buildings Total 230,000 160,000 275,000 175,000 265,000 1,105,000 'Cablecasting Improvements � Cable Equipment Replacement C-001 nla 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 Cablecasting Improvements Total 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 110,000 Douglas Drive Corridor � Douglas Drive Improvements DD-001 nla 9,052,600 9,052,600 Debt Service Payment DD-002 nla 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 Transfer to Water and Sewer Utilities(7120) DD-003 n/a 700,000 700,000 Douglas Drive Corridor Total 10,552,600 800,000 800,000 80Q000 800,000 13,752,600 - ____ _ �Golf Course � Green/Tee Mowers GC-003 n/a 29,000 33,000 42,500 104,500 Aerifiers GC-008 nla 24,000 24,000 Go�f Carts GC-009 n/a 210,000 210,000 Rough Mowers GC-010 nla 37,500 37,500 75,000 Grinders Reel and Bedknife GC-011 nla 55,000 55,000 Sand Trap Rake GC-013 nla 20,000 20,000 Five Plex Fairway Mower GC-014 n/a 44,000 44,000 Driving Range Nets 6C-015 nla 15,000 15,000 30,000 Bathroom �C-017 n/a 10,000 10,000 Topdresser GC-019 n/a 22,000 22,000 Freezer/Walk-in Cooler GC-021 n/a 30,000 30,000 Bridge Improvements GC-023 n/a 30,000 30,000 Sprayer �C-031 n/a 49,000 49,000 Core Harvester GC-032 n/a 16,000 16,000 Skid Loader GC-033 n/a 45,000 45,000 Beverage Cart GC-035 n/a 10,000 10,000 Golf Course Total 73,000 85,500 326,500 149,000 140,500 774,500 Parks � Bleacher Replacement P-001 nla 30,000 20,000 20,000 36,000 25,000 131,000 Park Trail and Parking Lot Improvement P-002 nla 25,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 175,000 Play Structure Replacement P-003 nla 112,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 50,000 322,000 Gazebo at Brookview Park P-013 n/a 74,000 74,000 Page 133 �:��y �� ,� ��en � � 1�Ta,. �,,'� Physical Development Department 763 593 8095!763-593-8109(fax) Date: October 26, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 7200 Harold Avenue–Calderjax Addition –Fred and Vicki Gross, Applicants Summary Peter Knaeble, representing the app►icants Fred and Vicki Gross, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 7200 Harold Avenue into two lots. There is one existing single family home on the south portion of this lot. Under this proposal,this home would be demolished and two new lots would be created—one to the south and one to the north. The exis:ing lot at 7200 Harold Avenue is 39,630 square feet. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 11,000 square feet in the R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District. The proposed Lot 1 would be 14,180 square feet. Lot 2 would be 24,450 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 100 feet of width at the front setback line. Both of the new lots would have over 118 feet of width. The dimensions of the newly created lots would provide a sufficient building envelope for development. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The applicants' proposal is for a minor subdivision because the property located at 7200 Harold Avenue is an existing platted Iot of record, it will produce four or fewer lots, and it will not create a need for public improvements. The applicants have submitted all required information to the City to allow for review and evaluation. Staff Review The property in question is a long narrow lot that fronts on Harold Avenue to the south and backs up to Highway 55 to the north. The current proposal intends to utilize the site's proximity to Highway 55 to provide the frontage necessary to subdivide and create a new lot to the north, while accessing Lot 2 (the north lot) via a driveway easement over Lot 1 (the south lot) to Harold Avenue. 1 In 2014 this property, along with the neighboring property at 7218 Harold Avenue South, was the subject of two Planned Unit Development applications. Under these proposals, the two lots were to be combined and the replatted into first six—and later five—new lots, all with access off of Harold Avenue. In the face of concern regarding the driveway length of some of the lots and the pattern of development that would be established, the first proposal was withdrawn at the City Council meeting. The second proposal was denied by the City Council. The current proposal submits that Highway 55 be utilized as frontage for the proposed Lot 2 in order to meet the Code's frontage requirement for a minor subdivision. Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A) requires that for a minor subdivision to be permissible "the front of each [resulting] lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street." The term "public street" is defined, for the purposes of Chapter 12, to be a "public right-of-way for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, thruway, road, avenue, boulevard, lane, place or however otherwise designated." Therefore, the frontage of each lot resulting from a minor subdivision must "abut entirely on an improved [public right-of-way for vehicular traffic]." In short, each new lot must (i) abut on a public right-of-way and (ii) the abutment must be on the part of the public right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic. While the applicants' proposed Lot 1 does not abut the improved public right-of-way for Harold Avenue, staff has determined there is a reasonable expectation this gap can be bridged via a City- issued Right-of-Way Permit and the installation of a driveway. Since Lot 2 does not abut Harold Avenue, the applicants submit that the proposed Lot 2 meets this requirement by virtue of its proximity to the State's public right-of-way easement for Highway 55. The applicants' submission on this point, however, does not satisfy the Code's requirements. First,the proposed Lot 2 will not abut on a public right-of-way. Under Minnesota law, when a property abuts on a public right-of-way, the owner of that property has a right of access to that right- of-way. This access right is an independent real property interest held by the abutting property owner. In other words, in addition to having the same right as the general public to travel on the right-of-way, the abutting property owner also has the separate right to access the public right-of-way from his/her property. Here, the proposed Lot 2 will not have a right of access to the Highway 55 public right-of-way. As reflected in the property records for 7218 Harold Avenue, that access right was severed from the property and acquired by the State in the eminent domain proceedings related to the Highway 55 public right-of-way. An examination of MnDOT's right-of-way plat/map further evidences this by showing an "access control" between the northern border of proposed Lot 2 and the Highway 55 right-of-way. Accordingly, Lot 2 does not abut on a public right-of-way, but rather abuts on the State's "access control," which is not part of the public right-of-way (i.e., not part of the right-of-way which the general public has a right to use). Second, even if the proposed Lot 2 did abut the public right-of-way for Highway 55, it does not abut that portion of the right-of-way that is improved for vehicular traffic, as required by Section 12.50. According to the project's site plan, an approximately 50 foot gap exists between the northern boundary of the proposed Lot 2 and the portion of the public right-of-way improved with paving for vehicles. 2 When a new lot resulting from a minor subdivision abuts a public right-of-way but not the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic, the applicant can remedy this by proposing to obtain a Right-of-Way Permit from the City to install private improvements in the right-of-way (e.g., a driveway) to bridge the gap between the lot line and the existing improved portion of the right-of- way. Here, the applicants have not addressed how they intend to construct such improvements in the Highway 55 public right-of-way, including obtaining the State's approval. As discussed in the City Engineer's attached memo, the City does not have the authority to grant a permit for the construction of such private improvements in the Highway 55 public right-of-way. Moreover, the Applicant's submission with respect to the proposed Lot 2 runs counter to the purposes behind the street abutment requirement in Section 12.50. A principal reason for the abutment requirement is to prevent "back lot splits" that result in the creation of so-called flag lots via a minor subdivision, which is effectively what the applicants seek with the proposed Lot 2. The abutment requirement prevents flag lots by requiring the entirety of a lot's frontage be immediately adjacent to a pubtic street improved for vehicle traffic. A 1989 planning staff inemo—prepared at the time this abutment requirement for minor subdivisions was first considered by the Planning Commission and eventually adopted by the City Council—notes that the requirement was added with the aim of preventing the creation of flag lots via minor subdivision and requiring direct access between lats created by minor subdivision and the public streets adjoining them. (See attached June/July 1989 staff report, pages 2-4, especially paragraph 2 on page 3.) This 1989 staff report also articulated the underlying policy reasons why the City wants to prevent flag lots and re�uire direct access between lots and abutting public streets. (See attached June/July 1989 staff report, pages 3-4.)These reasons include that flag lots: (i) compromise the ability of police patrols to observe residences from a public street; (ii) generate difficulties for emergency vehicles in accessing residences; (iii) set up poor spacing of driveways; and (iv) create new "back lots" that conflict with the privacy expectations of adjoining property owners with respect to their existing backyards. These policy reasons that originally motivated and justified the City's adoption of the abutment requirement 25 years ago have equal application today, both to the City generally and to the applicants' proposal specifically. With respect to policing and emergency services considerations, see the attached memos from the Police Department and the Fire Department both recommending denial of the applicants' proposal. The spacing of driveways and the privacy conflicts created by new "back lots" continues to be a concern for the City and residents. As a result, these policy reasons only confirm the conclusion that the applicants' proposal for Lot 2 does not meet the Code's requirements. (See Section 12.01 of the Code requiring that the provisions of the subdivision be interpreted and applied in a manner to promote public health, public safety and the general welfare in the City.) A neighborhood meeting was held on October 19, as required under City policy, and approximately 14 people attended. 3 Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Code, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district or the additional dimensional requirements. Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision does not meet the requirement that the front of each lot abut entirely on an improved public street. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable.The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots.The addition of the new lots would not likely place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. Approval of the minor subdivision would require the dedication of new utility and driveway easements as discussed in the Engineering memo and shown on the preliminary plat. In addition, land dedication for an area adjacent to Highway 55 is anticipated. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision,the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. Mn�OT has commented that there is the potential for a recreation/bike trail on the south side of Highway 55. Specific engineering details and funding have not been identified. Nevertheless, this possibility of a trail between (i)the portion of the Highway 55 right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic and (ii)the northern boundary of the proposed Lot 2 further illustrates that the proposed Lot 2 does not abut an "improved public street." In addition, as discussed above, for the proposed Lot 2 to meet the requirement that it abut the portion of the Highway 55 public right-of-way improved for vehicular travel, there would need to be additional private improvements within the Highway 55 right-of- way. This right-of-way is within MnDOT's jurisdiction and, therefore, any such improvements would need to be authorized by MnDOT. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 7. The �ni�or subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of $1,116 (2%of the estimated land value pro-rated for the size of the new lot) would be required for this subdivision. 4 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All conditions have not been met. Recommended Action As the regulations governing approval of the minor subdivision have not been met, staff recommends denial of the proposed minor subdivision. Attachments: Location�Map (1 page) Memo from the Fire Department, dated July 20, 2015 (1 page) Memo from the Engineering Division, dated October 19, 2015 (5 pages) Statement from the Police Department, dated October 22, 2015 (1 page) Color Site Rendering, received October 20, 2015 (1 page) Site Plans prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc., received June 25, 2015 (3 pages) Letter from MnDOT, dated October 5, 2015 (2 pages) Highway 55 Title Document (2 pages) MnDOT Right-of-Way Plat/Map (1 page) Planning Staff Report on Issues and Recommendations Relating to the Regulation of Minor Subdivisions in Golden Valley (9 pages) Letter from Scott Lucas, Olson, Lucas & Redford, dated October 12, 2015 (3 pages) Letter from City Attorney Thomas Garry, Best and Flanagan, dated October 23, 2015 (1 page) Emails from residents (3 pages) 5 7505 .._ . � ~--- �--- � n�� '� .�� 7021 �, 555 5� I 545 � 3._��102 7321 �1 � _ - �7220,'�.\ I 30_.�.�.`.0 ~550�- �-�-� /7200 � `\� I 31:�_-...,.5 --`, � >>.,\ 7QQ8 7030 545 � 540 537 31�-,,, 531 530 ..�� i71S0 �. � �316 �''� 721 5 �� _ 321 521 7120 � ,,, �� 521 - 525 :�(1 -� C 520 �1 ��.`�-7031 _ .,t \ _ 73G21 S 1 7442 = �' n01 ,�,a�/`� � 6930 682C6810' t� 74G0 17�K i440 511 ° 7151 �+_/ 7020 501 ' aQs 7456�927138 I Y 510 � / 71pp 7050 ; - --'0 I I45G'.7 22 7436 510 7SC1�5100 7454 zs27434 � � � � ' Nwy-_- -" -N,�,M� 1452t�t/as2 Sp� -�,��i1 �115 7500 7y50 %y30 ,t.�lson 4-;�c-r,� 2718 Subject Property �_ �-- � � � __ �-� - -^^" 71"03 _--,,,�y.•++�"- _-'- � __- - ----- --" - - -- _ _ _ _ _ _ .....r-_^".-."..� ` ^� ^ 6837 -- -`- --- --- --- --- -- 70016931 6921 '---- --`�- . -- 70.70 _. - .-- -'- '- '` - \ fi890 _ 7045 7350 � '�` � � - 6850 _� �.,!- ,. � -- 703� � 6860 6 7.00 7430 7420 _ � � �� y 6900 - 7Z�G 721 �00 7152 7025� t� �,,�,.�� 7330 7324 7156 7146 -�� -..,i . �, G900 6855 1 �45� • r;.n::-��I;i A:.� 6930 .. g7S23'S1775057501 7465 7435 7325 T303 330 • 6920 �. r I � I ! t i � 7J00 6945 • 752775137505� � G910 �9� 7320 ��9 ,; 330 7521 751t7507 , — 6929 ��. 7519�� I � �3,�i T3,� 69a, --`_ 7503J .ili�. -� t �� 7315 _ 320 - . 7390 �--1� _ - 6925 �Jv �i,: �i��,t t;�.,.�� T325 310 G905 g �,,vU�.�r..._vlu.._ � ~ 6935 -:� ..� ' i1:. 7340 732 5 T32 7 'y,� 300 240 232 230 225 , � , �sso 740 t Lrons Park J Z a:, _:�..v� 7329 � . i �� 7335� ,. 220 221 C _ �� 7350 ( . _ 2 t 245 225 Q' ��' 'uCy-. ''�`�:. 7360� 7345�� ` `a r�. 200 205 � 200 137 �. i �•� Jv� 7500 7401 ..h, ,�,i" ,�,, .�, 7403 I �,�; � 150 155 _ 150 125 �.�I: �.. � � 7A10 �� ' ..�v. ;, �\ . 7401 S _ -- -- - I �'� �7409 130 135 i 130 �C'�� . .� � '�� ' . � , �� "' _,.. `. �a��u�, .9 � �,��, � � � �� Fire Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098 (faxj Date: July 20, 2015 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner Cc: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: SU17-12—Calderjax Addition — Minor Subdivision 7200 Harold Avenue The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the drawings submitted on June 25, 2015 for 7200 Harold Avenue. This minor subdivision proposes to split this large Iot into two lots. On lot#1, the existing home will be torn down and a proposed home is shown built closer to Harold Avenue. The proposed house/ lot as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The north portion of the subdivided lot creates lot #2. There is a proposed home that sits approximately 190+feet off of Harold Avenue. To access this home a proposed driveway will run along the east side of lot#1 and #2. The driveway appears to be 12 feet in width. Lot #2 as proposed does not meet the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The driveway that the fire department would use is approximately 190 feet in length. A fire road that exceeds 150 feet shall be provided with an approved turn around. The fire road needs to be designed to carry the weight of a fire truck. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Golden Valley Fire Department DOES NOT recommend approval of a minor subdivision. The narrow and long private road/driveway is not adequate to traverse with a fire truck. It is unknown if the driveway is capable of supporting the imposed loads of a fire truck. The fire department would not be able to provide a reasonable level of fire protection to this home. Note: The biggest challenges facing the fire department are the very lengthy and narrow driveways (fire trucks are 8' 6" wide),the distance to a water supply and our ability to turn around and get back to a public street. Typically the fire department will park on the street in front of a house and lay a 200 foot pre-connected hose which will reach ALL interior points of a home. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, icrelly@goldenvallevmn.gov city of � olden MEMORANDUM g . �Ta, e� Public Works Department 763 593 8030/763 593 3988(fax) Date: October 19, 2015 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer � Eric Eckman, Public Works Sp cialist �j Subject: Calderjax Addition - Minor Subdivision - 7200 Harold Avenue Engineering staff has reviewed the application for a minor subdivision, called Calderjax Addition, located at 7200 Harold Avenue. This plan involves the subdivision of an existing parcel on Harold Avenue to create two new parcels. The existing parcel will be divided into two parcels with the south one-third becoming Lot 1 and the north two-thirds becoming Lot 2.The existing house at 7200 Harold will be demolished and replaced with a new house constructed on Lot 1. The proposed Lot 1 abuts Harold Avenue. Lot 2 will be located between Lot 1 and Trunk Highway 55 with no apparent direct access to a public street. The comments contained in this review are based on plans submitted to the City dated June 18, 2015. Engineering comments are as follows: 1. Site Plan and Access a. According to City Code,the front of each lot must abut entirely on an improved public street. Lot 2 is located between Lot 1 and Trunk Highway 55 with no apparent direct access to a public street. There is no direct access to Harold Avenue,the City does not have the authority to grant a permit for the construction of such private improvements in the Highway 55 right-of-way, and the developer has not shown evidence of a permit from MnDOT for access onto Highway 55. The developer is proposing to provide access to Harold Avenue via a driveway located within a 20-foot wide private driveway easement on the east side of Lot 1. b. All new driveways must meet City standards including the installation of a concrete apron. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. G:\Developments-Private\Calderjax Addition 7200 Harold\calderjax addition 7200 harold-minor subd_101915.docx c. Harold Avenue was reconstructed by the City as part of the 2012 Pavement Management Project. According to the City's Right-of-Way Management Ordinance and restoration standards, open cutting a pavement less than five years old requires a full-width pavement mill and overlay at a length determined by the City Engineer. The details and extent of the restoration will be determined by the City Engineer at the time the Developer applies for a Right-of-Way Permit to install the utilities and driveway. 2. Preliminary Plat a. The existing property proposed for development is part of Auditor's Subdivision Number 322. It appears there are no platted easements across this property. However, City records show that the City obtained an easement for drainage and utility purposes in 1985 over the east 15 feet of the property at 7200 Harold Avenue for the construction of an 18-inch storm sewer pipe within a 24-inch casing pipe. According to the record drawing, the pipe is up to 12 feet deep. Maintenance access to this storm sewer pipe must be preserved as part of this development. The Developer is proposing to dedicate a new 25-foot easement as shown on the preliminary plat, which appears to be adequate to accommodate any future excavation or maintenance. In order to preserve permanent access to the pipe outlet, and the integrity of the pipe,the existing trees may need to be removed. Planting of new trees would generally not be permitted within this easement. The existing 15-foot drainage and utility easement may be vacated as part of the development process. b. There is an existing wetland on the property located at 7200 Harold Avenue that, upon platting, will be situated on Lot 2 of the proposed development. The Developer will be required to dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the wetland that is 25 feet upland of the delineated wetland edge, in order to accommodate a native vegetation buffer zone required by the City and watershed. The buffer must be a minimum of 15 feet in width and average of 25 feet in width. The buffer requirement is discussed in more detail in the stormwater management section of this review. c. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and 12-foot easements centered on all interior lot lines. The preliminary plat appears to meet this requirement. d. The proposed development is adjacent to Trunk Highway 55 and therefore is subject to the review and comment of MnDOT. As referenced in the letter from MnDOT dated October 5, 2015,there is potential for construction of an off-street trail along the south side of Highway 55, extending from Winnetka Avenue to Harold Avenue, adjacent to this development. The potential project is in the early stages of scoping and development. Since this corridor is identified for a future trail,the City is requiring the Developer to dedicate a trail/walkway easement on the north portion of the property adjacent to Highway 55. It is anticipated that the easement may need to be as wide as 30 to 40 feet to match the right of way immediately west and east of the development. 3. Utilities a. The City's water and sanitary sewer systems that provide service to this property have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. b. The Developer is proposing to reuse the existing water and sewer services to Lot 1. New water and sewer services are proposed to serve Lot 2. Staff has a concern about the length of the sewer service to Lot 2 and the long-term maintenance of the service. Although the Developer has proposed cleanouts every 100 feet or less on the plan,the City has concerns about the deposition of solids. Before the subdivision is approved, the Developer must submit an analysis showing that the service can be constructed as proposed without experiencing hydraulic issues. In addition, at the time of permitting, staff will take a closer look at the distance between the new services and the City's existing storm sewer pipe to determine if there is adequate separation. c. The City has a Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Reduction Ordinance. City records indicate that the property at 7200 Harold Avenue has obtained a Certificate of Compliance with the I/I Ordinance. All new sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. 4. Grading and Stormwater Management a. The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. However, due to the size of the development, the project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). b. There is a wetland on the property being developed and therefore the Wetland Conservation Act will apply. The Developer submitted a wetland report as part of a previous plan submittal.The City issued a Notice of Decision on June 9, 2014 approving the wetland delineation and report. According to the grading plan submitted,there are no proposed impacts to the wetland. However,the overall stormwater management plan for the site, as well as the individual stormwater plan for Lot 2, must show protection of the wetland, and care should be taken during construction to ensure that the wetland is clearly staked and protected at all times. c. The Developer is required to provide a buffer of native vegetation around the portion of the wetland within the subdivision, consistent with the BCWMC's Watershed Management Plan and the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. This buffer must be a minimum 15 feet in width and an average of 25 feet in width. The proposed vegetation type must be shown and described on the stormwater plan or landscape plan for the development. The Developer will be required to deposit a financial security guaranteeing proper establishment of the buffer and its maintenance for the first three growing seasons. Although proposed to be located in a public easement,the wetland buffer will be owned and maintained by the Developer or future property owner of Lot 2. d. It appears the development may include a two-phased grading approach. In the first phase,the overall site will be graded to cut down the existing hill on Lot 1 and prepare the two lots for construction. In the second phase, individual lots will be graded by each builder as the lots are sold. The Developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permit for the overall site grading. In addition, the Developer or Builders will be required to obtain individual Stormwater Management Permits for each lot at the time of permitting for home construction. A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of the Stormwater Management Permit submittals. e. Stormwater must be retained and managed on each lot to the extent feasible and runoff must not be channelized and directed onto adjacent properties. Staff will review the individual stormwater plans in more detail when submitted. f. Driveway grades must generally range between 2%and 8�o from garage floor to street, with a maximum slope of 10% if no alternative exists. Exceptions may be made to allow for lowering and cross-sloping the driveway between the garage floor and street, provided the building code is met (impervious surfaces within 10 feet of foundation walls shall fall a minimum of 2% away from structure). Staff will review the individual stormwater plans in more detail when submitted. g. The Developer must submit a drainage map and calculations to the City showing how it determined the high water level and emergency overflow of the wetland located on the adjacent property to the east. In addition, contours do not extend far enough east to see the entire drainage area. Calculations indicating the high water level of the wetland with a blocked outlet pipe condition may also be required. High water level elevations are used to help determine the lowest floor elevation of the new home, which must have adequate freeboard according to City Code and the City's stormwater plan standards. More information is needed to determine if the overall preliminary grading plan meets these standards. In addition, because the lot will be custom graded and the building plan may be subject to change, the Developer or Builder must ensure that the stormwater management plan submitted with the permit application meets the City's freeboard standards. h. According to the City Stormwater Ordinance, new principal structures must be set back 25 feet from the delineated wetland edge. The plans submitted are in conformance with this requirement, and the Builder must ensure that the individual stormwater management plan for Lot 2 is also in conformance. 5. Tree Preservation Permit-The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan showing the removal of significant trees. A Tree Preservation permit will need to be obtained before beginning any work onsite. A tabular inventory of the significant trees proposed to be removed and replaced must also be submitted. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail at the time of permitting. 6. The Developer must obtain Stormwater Management, Right-of-Way Management, Tree Preservation, Sewer and Water, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. Recommendation Engineering staff recommends denial of the application for minor subdivision based on the fact that a new lot is being created that does not have frontage on an improved public street. However, if this application is approved, staff recommends that approval be subject to the comments contained in this report. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other governmental organizations. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physica) Development Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager AI Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Tim Kieffer, Street Maintenance Supervisor Joe Hansen, Utilities Supervisor Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician RJ Kakach, Engineer Eric Seaburg, Engineer October 22, 2015 7200&7218 Harold Avenue The current applications for subdivision at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue under review within the Planning Division would effectively result in two lot configurations commonly referred to as "flag lots." These lots would be located to the north of existing homes on the north side of Harold Avenue and south of Highway 55, though access to the lots would be via 20' easements over the lots to the south. This arrangement would result in long narrow driveways and new homes set back significantly from the road and the properties would essentially be screened from view by the existing homes to the south. In advance of a change to the City's Subdivision Code in 1990 prohibiting these types of lots, an argument was made by staff that flag lots were not desirable in that the secluded homes would not be as visible to police patrols.As a matter of general policy, the Police Department believes that this still holds true and would not be supportive of these types of lot configurations. Stacy Carlson Golden Valley Chief of Police �LBE� &. CALDERJAX ADDITIONS - GOLG��! ��,�,LL�Y� M �J s/,a/,s .__ _ --- STATE NWY, 55 RC�\�� .� —� � � � � .--� �ri�--'� ��. �, ________ x � � r �� t �� ' � 1JE7LAND \ ,�� DEL. 4-19-14 � 12,630 SF TO L ' � ` l � �� m �� 380 SF ON- 7£ f LOW kUALITY nRAM NCIR: $86.2 Ci'�S INv., SHDT3 i� ag� � ' :OD YR. 888.4 cEST.> � M7N. pfEN. 890.0 � n`0�� M2N. FLCIDR 890.0 LOT 2 Ex. �ap. eo� 893G � p�n�. HnusE � � � � . r2� � �_.....----—---—�s/ � � fX. GAR.'�' � ,PROP. HI3U$ L_J,�, • - L�T 2 =' . � ,, �9� \' � , O`'� o �� „ � � � � � J�� 15. � {� — ——— —#7235 � -- - o,�•-. �,J u,. , �3.�.�--� Fx�571NG HWSE f � ? �x` ►+nus� ' � t�c. c�rt.� �———--——� � ` � � �� ——� j y��82 � x 13.�' � �� uoF HausE —————f——�t5.5' i '; I EXISTNG HWSE ! ' / � ( � � 3 i1 { � � � �'-----J 1-.,� i , � � � � � i I � I j + i LOT 1� LOT 1 i ; � � , ' � ; j j109,07' � � __ ; � I , � ! 300,00' � � 3 . .._— ❑ � HAROLD AVE. � i I � NS PA � K LTLO ZT9£9L�xe� 5Z£6£69£9L ��•�"Aea� �� 0�� '°� � �� NW Jl3llVn N3U�� n LLbSS elosauuiyy'si�odeauuiyy �'d �� '�� M) anuany pooMualJ'G009 � � � —�yr�°� Nou�ood xvra3o�rr� .�, � o �`�� «�w•■a .w�� \ 4 �I �"`1 �� p�•�'�� NVId SNOIlIQNO� JNIISIX3 �� ~ <�`�>W ��'�� i � ��omF O�eF~o� � ^ W <�W�� O N Z~�� (v <v � �'�! N �� '�' LCi z ,� < � N o��-� � � � o �� 3 <��o � �� .�� (<� F Y > �C�wc�� chi f!j ��Wzd (7 =�C9Z� �� VyZj�W a o��o I - � � � rcr r ` I i F{m�0 I I �>�,�J <W > - � L— —J �" wFm�i � �Z��Z I � _.. .. __. _ �� .�_.._ `YF�jO � � . _ ..... . -____ - _. -...._ . i�9�o�� -____... p�QY� � i.i r—_� � W> �� ' ��— � ( � o �3<�� I _ �'� �o �� o N �� I � I � _ 1 � � � zN o�; 1 , i �� i A • . \ NWoom I L�—� � m = / W v 0 O� <_:� _ a P�l . ._ /q .�`..�pO�pODO � . r�'-"'_�--------- — N a� I �. /h� �Wd�q I . � , I x, I I .. o . Q� � o� I I �3 a� � �ii �W•�— -------� -- m o�v � S poZZX .�� .'i� � � N�. , o �apap Q p r.r-� _ �... F .._: , � Z �\ J W� z..E E w � 3.80.4£.00S ,£Z'OkE � = � 9Nisv� .fz-.Sg ; J °D� ` v O i > I= ' � ...;�- � �y; XS'Oi"fiffillS d�21 .8I --7Z-- - - --- �ZZ ' J O --�_� z � � � ' ~ ��OO— .� , _ �--- _----- - ---- ---- ►+� - �.� �a. z�»'y�� ——— — Lv�.. .`. � -.._ �j ^'r j Q I y� '3SV (1'�Q.6�9C3 �- �Q� m� ..;� � �.. � b -..J V'p C'.f ,��M� /� ' �i ...�"' � i / . .. �- M � .._ .z � .� _ ' ` r ` _ ._.. . �N. +-..J w_o 3 � - o ^ f� � W W '�D�- � , � n' !.�� ." . �� I ` � x n� �� 3 a�v.� _ f , a � � a c�4 � � � � � � ' /'� � ,O�_. � . � ., �"�."�`^.�,-��/ Q �f . �.� � i � , .� ' ��! . N� ry�' . I .� � - � ._ N ^ � . I Q . �. UN �^Q N �.� � N � W; N N � .,- � • N l / .� . �-��_((''��j .�� f'Jf - I� �� .. (k f'{') Y + M. �� _., � � ....... f -'" �+ � � Q __.. _ . , . � <� �f � � I __�a3s_ _ 3 O N � � ¢ �. ON/I.~n . . . � Mt. � � . �. . __" ' f � 'q 2 rmi v'iu �� r �° � . . - „ � 0 0 g'� � � 1 HU U~ O i � O� � ~� � � � _^ . CS "' � t N ¢ O ....� O� � .. '. �. c�o '�, � , .� �t.. "�� . O^ hM . ._,.4 :. Y �m � �i� n to __U � . O . .�-.. �i�7 . . c��.� - M n I ��r p O� ' sm . .•:: �� '� - _ _ _ ..� n^' • � a Z �m � w� _- � 3 ,t0'Ob O� 3 0 ' <,tiS'06Z) � � 021 ,99 1 . /� n.HO.4E.00N � . � � c�ap a n o N N �� . N• Na`I .�m 3 " � Z - [] N �st � N.� � � � _ __ r—-� s��' n I � (Y o �= ' �" __ I L� N W 0� �- � �� o I ; � ----- - - � ►--f� 1l�. ' N a j"` I � ..' . . N f�7 'M3S /19S 'X � Q . N '/--� � �L..� .' �---'� - �V i 3I '^ ^ _ �cU N � ��m I �a o Q tY S L! J U � v� � � _ � �' I :� � � o o J: o I=' . �, .. " . o� �� ..�� ' a,:; th � }- �H. �� ( fi � CY_ ___, , � �= 3 " ��' __-� (^y� Q I�� ' . Z N . . / V� . .� / �Yl.._.a6 '� _ �� n� ;^,� . ! 'L—N------ —� �Z . w. �� -. �_ _-�`� I------------- -- � �� W -� _ I ! ~ �r ,fe.oarr �8 �� ——— — � �^ � �� N. e� � .�` ,� � � ; �� n� 4l � � �r —��_--F.—_ N S 1 . � r �1 ^ � � , � Zs 3 1 � I � I . � I � I o; c� vai^� m m � � -- �L_1 ' �N � � � �Q � I . _ . �.�- �" � �-------- — � ,� I� " I "'r = s� Waflls � 1 . / f ( ., . . � N I �� . �.. ... .. .. .-I� . . � E RI ___ U � � __. � � W?1�iS I � � ---� _ _ _ L----J � . ., �_. . ..�_.. -' M �r - _ 2 I � � � ._..___ ."�)Y ��, . . .��4 ... . _ -_. ___ ._..._. � ., _ � �. . � ,- ,_..� _ __ . �. . ..,.,.. .__ __� , ..,. _.__ ._.. ___.. . , ' 1 „ . , _. ____ _�_._.. ,._._._ �... __... � -. �� .. ___.-' .. " _ . . _.. \ LLLO ZT9£9L�xe� SZE6£65£9L �•��d� "s" �°" �6°�'��'°0 NW 'Jl3ll11A N30109 �A a,v°"�� -�•a w� •r�a Zzqgg elosauuiyy�si�odeauuiW � � � Nouioov xdra3o�� o „�.,.�, � anuany pooMua��ppg 4 � a � � 'wl'�1�3 «B W Wq ��6u3 \ � � g p,,a,� � � � ��.�,a,�� Nv�d unun �s lv�d •wr�ad ��, � � � � � � � r J � � � mmy W 7 3 a+ y�.. W ��N�� !-~ t/1 y p� H �f�ty� r v� z2 W ��y \ <V<< 7F'" q �0 Cjn�! ZX� .Z..� � Y M � av� Z N ��<�O N �¢ v U vt�ilNfnFtili � �Zp~j =O � ao1o�jV1N O �Zfj�� 1�,,,, � F� Q)� p0 W� O � H O±,r�p�R!oN 3 �rcW�o W^� N O o..N..Nth.D � �y��-?� Wp •� �"'i'` w '-' Vl o `" �' F��zd o��o w� � �� z�� F�IA y F QV1yN �W j�2'$0� F�- ��' �7 �ot7�Y M�Q ¢�'J-�F'£� a�j�Z��Za Oo��QUYWd HZX�Z~� 20U<Q Q��Q.�W� W V1fZQG]Wd I I C!U'Or� � W F- �7 �QU>�WWQ¢ I I FF� g a3aWZ��nwW � �1 '�<o�',�> �w� 1 ��RJr�i��N�� L__—J yWj�� ^ zi¢¢inin�o� � ��c�� ZZZfI'IN..('1N �=N�W ,o9�sve �o8r� r---1 Wr �3 ��__��_ � � � o �3<�� / � �\ � � � p _ \ � c� � � 1 �' � Z i �� i ti ;,, 1 �� i � W i A � v,wo�m L � J------- y�t W..o�ao � Q aa �o�OD� ( r—a—�-- -- a /Z NWZOW < o aMQ ' I V I Q' �°D W o Q aa3� �3� o� � I � I ---- --- -- N � ~ ��aJ� �---� -- N R�a s �ozz � r� Z�ZEW ,h di � � � W mdD� � �W z a� 3.80.4£.00S .£Z'04E �Sv� ,fz-.s8 � . � f» � .r o � >- ,IZ'OZZ o� � ��, /S'o2 w2101s d�i .61 �ti•� 'O�t - -- -� �,��,Z I • � Q 0�t�� N'Z' 2135 A9S ' • o 1 r Z..y�¢ �HSS,Sl� _ --.-.-_.._ _ _ — — m al a � y� ; � —�'3s83�,l�h ,—oz— �c _� H� J v o ca �—_ vict_,CO'2)------T m � .BZ � o �� \ W-�`��3 / �� '3SV3 l'iBH .S2 I r m � '3Stl3 (1BU .SZ � � m ID - I �e � \ � 3a�v� / // � m i � � j i ! � � ? 1 �a � i �_____---— � �� _� � � � y ' ' ,� � .. { � N I t ;, N I \ � '� / / i�/ � a� � ' i � I � ` U L__ / w � �D � � � _;3SH3 fiBR / �.. � �� --_� , � � � ' �A � A � I � � ` W �...�..�..�. B�� 1/1 .sZ '/ � - �I I {q m� F r�� H u � I •a�t 3_ Qa al i - -.-.._.._.._ - r� v, y � � I w N. NN � � � I � 41 V1�.-. � _____ _ .. i(-- �m a, �� Q � �i ...i—�v: � o �L � �m Q� in� �U�l vm, I W ¢ I °°°� � � � o<, '� I i� � _ _ J � I 3 � � "� ��I I JfU JN I � IQ �.._.- - =°9 - I ~ � �^ m �.._.._..____ _,___._._._ __. _ __.___ - - - - � ess ;si < . � --- 3SV3nBa_oi--------ess ,si---� �------------- -J m m� � L————— '3SV3 nBa .oi a � - .6S'OiZ ) .ZO'OZI m �� z LO'04 c.tiS'06z) Oti ,99 � � /� � M.80.4£.00N � N N �-1 � � "' I � N W 0� ' �, I �L � -- - � F--�� {y .^ a�J � w � 2135 n7S 'x Q v� I Q � � p j � _____ _ J U �,p. ( � � � (f 7 (_(� U� �`l ' _� � � Q a I= u--� ""'1 �o,� - o� �b � W 5 c� ,� _ >-- o� � � � �N ,-- ,L--� Q 3 " �;� _ ,� 3 = �o ( ' -- �Z = "^ < <--------- � W L------------ -- � Z I�,, � n,tie,tiE.a , c ' $ � —� —————— W�, v ^ N � 'v� 3Q � n Y; vWir' N � , r�-i r _�_ — � Z� a 1 !^ ► � � � � � o " �, m � Vl k I� = I O �" � , L'"J N � � � � A i �� ------- - .� � I� � � `�'r Naols f ( � � N 1 I I I � f I ' � I I I � wbflls I �—___J � i � � � .0'Oti � I LtLO ZT9£9L xe� 5Z£6£69£9L �� °N ��'°� � ZZqc,c,elosauuiyy�si�odeauuiw ..e. -�'e a� •r��wa Nw ��ldn N30�.� �A M � � � �� nrou�oov xdra3o�d� „m. � o anuandpoomual9 C009 �� q o ,,,,�,,,,°+°",,;,�,� NVId NOLLV/�213S321d 33211 °r � � �� °"a �.,'�"�'"�.��.: � �NIaH21� 'WI132ld �� s�n� � � a wa�r,�a y!��W�+w i H A N N f Z J � �' ��m>�.�i = Z x��mF � O oF�"o� pa W a<�.wiW� �,� ti g�� F- q N <�t�� Z�� Z� ~ Y N WVm� H Q v Q O��j p � O �Z�� " 3 �k��o w �n a� r- � � W� � ` F Y�} 0� W N � F��7d �M\p � 0 p�VZ� �� N ~ �Zo� �a ~ M=� O�W�2 �oaODUv""� �a��OZp -+'"W�QQyWn. O U<� QF-��'�17Qa1 W ' . ( ��KYZ �Q�jNWW J� ZZ�« a3�W�`^v,wW ( ' ,Fi,�m�� aJa•a�•��yi� � L— --� '�XFmc�i ZZXX. � n vi�+�Z� ¢¢V1iAjnolll � .� . Z��o 2Ef2MN.�.Clfll � F •Z�'O , . �� - _._ <NFW� _ _ __ _ ,09'8bE ��>� � _ �-,- -� W<�� . — � I i o �$<�� - �'�/ �1 o �� I I o _ � I � I o : " ` N � � z� � � i �� i � \ rnwoom � L�` —J W"op�W ' ,• :- � �o�W � . _ .� v _dp 1i � _�� r_�� _____—.___— /2 NOWDZ�W I � � < I ... _— C� � '~ /ti ��nW.�Q � � � � - : ; � ��o�� , - ", � �--�---- ----' -- . � �3 a �oiz � �--. ' ��- - . . . a oo.-....x .�n � ' .. � a. Z..SEW 1 �� ; � ' i.j . � � .. J F� � . . _ � _. . G� _ � __ _____ Z � � J ' � ��Z~ �� .- fa p��J 1 �'jt � ,r \ . � �. - �p� �.. Z'y y Q / ,.,,,�� Cl �'� . . -3 �� e ` ,:;, J�oNo / �i�/V� i �m � � � � � 'W.`_iaD.W 3 .l , -� . . �,�, , . .:+�.�N . fF.- _ N.� � 3 a�c� _ _. � . �` � n m � IQ n � � _ � � ; � t g ," �1�`c� W - —�_—— _�M Q Q N �i� (� � � W , "� _.., � -. N.. '. � � N� .Q � �. ` W/� N Zll,�I l� _ 7 ' N N � � . -, �NQ< r'�X� '.. ., O�o � . �� , � %E�8) . . IL7 ., . _. . ._-_..P. ��..�� i� y= . ^ �� . � .., = m0� I �y d J ml' N Z . . W� =Qe�o �� ' . 1 Q'��PO� L�. N �i a�� a O �('- ----- :�A _ ,�� '�O F— �i a��,mz �` . ,�----�--� untvEc ' �L_ i X � _ i n � _ _ _ .-0 � zl � i� i d-� �n L1_ �„�Z_,,c� a J "`. m� . ,�� 4,,� ��o N Q ' � ♦,, � . .�' .& F' h O � i7 �..� . V � . �� ``�.'�g ., •.-: n : �i0�1_�1 . N . ry / I'_'I� O Q� _ .°�..�o '"� �O P J � �-._._�� / ^ �W d' - � � �'� `" f ' V ! ' � ^ � �ON N,UN� 3" � ^ " , ,� a � M021 ,99 �p � z C) N N � �. `�3 ', , r� _ .. 3 U �}, — I . � _ ._. - . .. � � � ��" °° =t;,3-~ � �, �� -► C� : W o i � ,� � > t--� , �("1__ '� �� ( 1 N � Q ..._, I.J�7 � � ti� a� �m �'I , . � � � � _ 11� {�= �v��. � _� � r-a � I..n J . �6• � �, .�. o; >- �� . ; �- � � � � � �� , __-� � Q � �� r -- < � ' 3 = � n� � N � _ �� - � �----------- -- � �� --- � 1=------------- -- W w. _ I I- ��} � Qo �,�^ � .� � _,— �, - - �, _�Q `— ��} �n � � r —r —'=— : Q � U� ^ � I � ( o I C� � � . �� — I° � I o. �--- . L_� I� � �-------- � - . � � � -- _ / I I . I I - � I _ 1 _ I I . . ` . . _/ L=---J .._ �._._ . . __.. ._ ___._ � ' _.._ - . y ._ _ . �,+�"`E°°� Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building °""� 1500 County Road 62 West Roseville, MN 55113 October 5, 2015 Eric Eckman City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 SUBJECT: 7200 & 7218 Harold Ave MnDOT Review#P15-040 (Update) South of TH 55, West of Glenwood Ave Golden Valley, Hennepin County Control Section 2723 Dear Mr. Eckman: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced plat review. The Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT)has reviewed the plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats, and had provided several comments to you on August 5�', 2015. Based on recent discussions and additional data, this letter serves as an updated revision to our previous letter. Planning: The developer should be aware that there is the potential for a trail that could be located along the south side of TH 55. This particular project is still in the early stages of scoping and development. Specific engineering details and funding have not been identified at this stage. For questions on this matter,please contact Chad Casey(651-234-7617 or chad.casey�a�state.mn.us). Permits: Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/maintenance/permits.html. Include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig, MnDOT Metro Permits (651-234-7911 or buck.crai�(�a,state.mn.us). Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One(1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot(�a,state.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three(3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT—Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer(My Computer). Also,please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot(a�state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review,please contact me at(651) 234-7793. Sincerely, � � ,�� , Michael J. Corbett, PE Senior Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: April Crockett,Area Engineer Chad Casey, Project Manager Brian Kelly, Water Resources Nancy Jacobson, Design Buck Craig, Permits Doug Nelson, Right-of-Way Chad Erickson, Traffic Engineering Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Dave Torfin, Surveys Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council Mark Larsen, Hennepin County Surveys • , Y_�. ;� . -�� 3� ., . , . � . , � .. � � � � � �oK2142 F�4�7 ; suss a►rx�nasan :3`:)84134 � nr nisrazcr cmas�- COdMYT � AH�L►PD1 !W8'I4t JUD�ICLL DISTAIO! State aS ltim►e�Ea, b.r J. A. A. Aaxn9ui.at, ite AttorneY��ernl� Petit3mer •e. 8arrist S. Bborl�; C. 8. Bd�srds, Lwora 8. Bdi►arde, Adolpi� �. S►�erle, �ralte! 3chnbert, Angneta Cschnbott� Ida Aeine� Gwnty ad BAnnepin, Flatcher ti'. Olsm� . Ya� 07em� aleo all other p.reane �mlma�n olaisine as�Y rirht. titLo, ostats� • intoraet ot li� in the real eet�te dmori.Ded ln tha vatition hernin� h Rsapondant.e. �i: �d . 8tate at Iliimesotai by J. A. A. Aumquist, �:.. . itis ALEome�Gen�l� �, Pe�Eitiooer� . ' ��.. ts. , . Aaimmd 1[cage3k-_oohr Fidells J.Sckoe, Lor�tta �akae, A. T. ShermfeldE, I�L '' i'. giereife]dt, A1t� A. Soore, Therass 9oors� 4h�1[inneapolia Sa�iaos aid Loin ,:;'i `s�ciatim,Xil]►rd 3ohradsr� YargareE Sehradsr, Charles H. Aprr� $we 1[. •r.7� y ' �lT� 1�Ol�1L��0�� 11f��1L 0• HOG2'dOW7ti gl•8lIOT L. HOtiTdYa11Z�XOYf.h�Alll 9�tionsl Bank a[�[irawapo7ia, Fr�lc I. tGneels Arma Y. Bmir►sL, i.eonaid A. $chiebe, Ed�in C. 3cl►iebe� ArEhnr H. 8ohiebe, �1ardEta N. Sohiebs,lla:ian J. Bd�isb., vwrnios�. R. 1Cno11, �tsrLla =. Eotune, ii.rk Sokee, Aidls yclfieb� Dama t ..:Y� ` Z.SoAiebe� Cbar7ctto soMebs, Doutg]as Et�oll� �orhh��e Ta�ern� Bilding OAmd� Aim Os7and, Fara 3o?►iebs, Cas►Ey a� Hennepdn, &oland•0. Sohiebe, Ifaagnerits 8chiabe� B]ae�'9. Fraaaas, acosgo Jsgn� NaLianal Afirorti9ing Cwpanls MeTm�s Ontdoor Afls�itieing, Ino., Joe �ermeEh CharLss Ie Croiz,Mar�orle La Croix, Da�ald C. , Yead, Bleancr J» Mead, Yhe Yarqnetts Natianal a�lc af MinneApolie, J. A. Ro]aset� ' Dioklnsm �.Oilbapds, Inc., gallo�rs ?3fe and CaaualLp Co-pany, Chr3sLLn Dressel� } y outtis Dressal, llar�1Catt►erine HTsr� The Piret Ratimal Bank of Ilinnsaoolta, ;� ' Jma�h A. 8tesbsr� 81ai� S. Stwber� Nartin I.. 1Misingor, Ruth S. Hnising�s� C 1[�rl.e Aelen Yollau� dm�ph Yollan� John I,fahT� F. Ai�[eahfield k Aan Inc.� 11i,111u J. Aal�aska On'trnds W• Aalluska� �rtlnr au��+t Renae]sr� �Rudolph B�oseler porotlq E��ir►a ��nt, 3m�s Seiaeler� Aerndn F. Aenss]er, Mi1Lsd 0. • Ha7ant� E. H. �,ara� Farns F7�rgare� P�al Faz'rario��Panl I. ReiRheL�� Lm'�ias 1►• Hsighetadtt lfilliaa N. 9arnsr lla6sl Bdith oarner� Theodm�s A. Christaa�� [ate Y. Cbristansen� Hiahard L. �'�Plq. Sv+7�► lE. Tep]er� Iw�or Y. ddnsaq�� . 7fi]son C. Varaaa�� w'iltrsd J• Bushald� R411is W. Rnehard� Phi]adolphi� L1te 7nBur�ca Compn7� 61oho]as S�e'b�do Qi+o� Serb:nia, Yiret l�denl 8ari�e �nd Lo� A�oociaEim o2 tIlar»aPalis� Qar�l Aipp�Masgel.e Ad�erEisine Caap�, � A �hriitian 8. Je�om, Ifes3�R. Jeaaoni MsrcelL Jeasan,1fi11l.� J. ?haM� a� 8nth Thaaas� _� , .i��►a�,c.. _ � � - - ;- n� rxe tiar�s ar a� ca�n�u►riar o� . csxe� tiwos �►ra�a �acnnu►z �epasas � • DI '!i�lHOiE DI?I?Iab PRQ'iEBDLN(33 lIFRCA liA11S 9�Hf �QISO?iDl!'iD PT ORDER OT DISRHIC'! CQOffi - � m �� _ _ � lnlsb CEATII+IQATt ( \ � ';-- ;`"� � i " 360 � �, , � . - � � - . , ��21�42 ��c-��28 � . . . . � : _ . , . ,, } '��~-,- Py sut]+a�itT o� Llinnosota 3tntutee 19�3, sootio� u��20� I hotobY . oartifj that the 141ds hererLn d9eoribed huve been taken trv the State of 1[inneeoto in _inent dooein prxpdinge for tnmk hi�hway purpoeee��in aonfarnitv aith the ;, _--•--- rsqnireoes�te of al�apter 11? ot eaid etatntee ae a■mdsd; that caqmiseia�ere w�re �"� �$ �ppointed tQ the Canrt to aseerEain and repcat the aoant d d�sager enetained �' i� the ee�sr�l amsre m aocoumt oS euoh taking� tlsat eaid ccmodseionoxe qnalified, �-` • and mads and ti],sd their report o� amh daiagea� that the time for appeal from Ehe awards ia said repa�t haa e�cpdrecl; that ell appea7s takem ha�e been finally � , cmcludeds tAat a11 dema�es ae ddte:mined tp a�a:d �d L� agrsement od' the oartiee, ha�e been paid by the State a� Yinneeota; that tM praseedinga for the �king a� esrtaln ri�Ee ud saeem�te 1n said 1�►da are noR complste� aid tlwt e�d BEate nar o�ne �' an saaemsnt in aaid ]anda for the �— r".�� ; �� pnrpoee d conetruot3ag� reaonetructing, �'�8� = !.;. and mainteiaiag thatcion a tiunk high�qr� tage�Eh�r with ths Yol'lain, righW� trwitt. ::'�,-, . To ereoL teupaary enar famee npm the l�de herein deeeribed a�d qpm the ]ande s.�. ad3acent thereto= to ca�ntruct prtain alopee, and to mair.tain the aame atter can- ' v atmotim� aa �ovSded in the plsne awd epeoiiloationa on file at the aftice o� ths "`" ' �amn.lseimer of Aighwaya ia 3aint Paul� Ninnesota� at thoea apacit'ic laces ,'jl'I. p particularlT deecribed horein; Eo take the right of aceaea to T� Aighwry �� bdns Yo�at��r! ; i�'��, _. ... . , _ . '�,�, 188, traa the wmere wlioea ls�ds iratt tltersa� ia tho�s oasee whioh are hereinafEer particulnr�v m�tionod; and to talce a11 treea, ehru6e� grase, �ri herbags witMn the ht cf of ttie tr�k �'`"� rig way higtn►ay herein acquired, atd to keep a�d have the ezclueiv�e cmtrol a� the ease. ' . I thrther otrtif=thet ench rights a►d eaeeeemta are lisdted m1y ae here- laai'E�r epeaifioa7ly tattimed. . Said lende ase eitmte in Ne�epin Coont�� Yianeecta� and are deeoribed ae follo�a s Parcel ]A S.P. 272}0$ (K5�188) 901 ell that part oi the tolladng daeCrib�d traott TM norEheaeE quarEer ot the eoutheast quarter (Nt'4 3E�) of � seotiort 2T� ta�qship 1].8 na�th� iv►q� 22 wsst; �` f �ich liee rithin a diatenos od' 15o fe�t noitt�wateriy a�►d 75 Tqet eouthweeterly of ths folladng d�oribed lino� i -2_ . . . Y �L �H �� '.'�- � � *■ �i� 1 r � � � , �3 �;� � . � , , ` � R ; . � � y � � � _ • � � � r . � ��, ., � � � � * i...��_ �. , - _..� -- �, -- -- � -- _ . _ _ .---�.� # � �� r�� ,�.�,�� ,�, �- , � �� - � � ._ ,�. �"� #`�''"� '• �,�-"r''� �' ,,.' .r+ i �4t� r� t�'�a �r�i #• �� ' • "� 5� � � i ��,,.•� ' � �, ` 4 � � �_+` �� i � � 'I � ��• ....�'"� ' �� ' � � ' r i � . � �• � * � r+ � �' �' - � �� 3�3 � • �� : � . � �� :� • �'� �i ��c '' ►.�. i"��/ � _ �� Jwh�� - I � �� STAFF REPORT: . • ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF MINOR SUBDIVISIONS IN GOLDEN VALLEY Concerns have surfaced recently regarding certain types of lot splits in Golden Valley. In response, the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the City's subdivision ordinance and determine whether some changes should be made. Particular attention is to be paid to the practice of split- ting off back lots with minimal street access, and to the impact of lot splits on the character of large lot neighborhoods. This staff report was assembled to assist the Planning Commission in its review. The contents are based on my own experience, discussions with other staff inembers, and reference research. Because of the time frame involved, I did not conduct a specific ordinance survey among our neighboring communities, but I did consult various model and actual ordinances that were available at the office or in my own files. General Ordinance Evaluation I began my research with a look at the ordinance itself. Since most of our experience, and the source of our concern, lies in individual lot splits, I focused my attention on Section 12.52, Minor Subdivisions. The text of this section is provided in Appendix A, along with my annotations. The following . paragraphs summarize what I found. Please note that City ordinances and State statutes are legal instruments on which I am qualified to comment only from a planner's perspective. I may contradict attorneys from time to time, but I don't pretend to be one. The minor subdivision regulations come under irrunediate fire with some inappro- priate language in the introductory paragraph. There are incorrect references to State statues, and a described procedure that the City has never used. The language has been left in the ordinance because the attorney put it there and no one else could figure out what it meant. By referring back to existing and earlier versions of State statutes, I think I have untangled the meaning of the language. In my opinion, it should be deleted. A further effect of this introductory paragraph is to completely remove minor subdivisions from the regulations spelled out in the rest of the ordinance. With the exceptian of the provisions contained right in Sec. 12.52, the ordin- ance states that "this subdivision chapter shall not apply" to minor subdivi- sions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, except that no one until now seemed to realize the full impact. Conditions such as the minimum require- ment of 20 feet fronting on an improved street, the park dedication fee, and the requirement of a drainage plan for wet lots are only some of the provisions that are lost to minor subdivisions because of this statement. We need to restore these and other key provisions within this section. � - z - � The companents of the City's minor subdivision review, which form the basis for approval 'or denial of any application, are glossed over in a single sentence. This viol;ates the rule of practice that says that, for this type of land use decision,i an applicant must be able to read the appropriate regulations and determine� the reasonable likelihood of getting an approval . It also falls short of Ifulfilling the statutory directive to establish "standards, require- ments, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivi- sions" (MS 462.358, Subd. la). My studies back in school indicated that the courts ha�ve consistently thrown out decisions based on such vague provisions as we have in our ordinance. More specificity is clearly called for. While it isn't a major problem, there are some presentation details that could be improved upon if the ordinance is going to undergo other amendments. These include �he order in which the various provisions appear as well as their format an:d content. Ordinances should be as readable for average citizens as for the professionals who draft them. Back Lot ',Splits Golden Va!lley has a policy of allowing property owners to split off the back portions of oversized lots as long as a street access corridor of at least 20 feet in width is also included as part of the new lot. The City has a consid- erable stock of deep lots that were platted to meet. the former minimum lot requirement of l00 feet, and quite a few of these are candidates for minor subdivisi�on with the current minimum of 80 feet plus 20 feet to access the back � half. Mo�re and more people have indicated that they are considering taking advantage; of this, while at the same time, more and more questions have come up regarding! the wisdom of allowing the practice to continue. Actually, there is nothing in Sec. 12.52 to support the 20 foot street access practice. It is spelled out in the regular subdivision standards, but as previously noted the language of the ordinance exempts minor subdivisions from the other subdivision requirements. Minor subdivisions must only conform to requireme'nts spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance. I have been enforcing the 20 foot prov'ision on the grounds that the Zoning Ordinance definition of a lot says that it must have an unquantified amount of frontage on a public street and the City has by past action established that 20 feet is the minimum accept- able width. If the practice is to be continued, we really need to formalize it within Se�c. 12.52. There has been some staff concern about whether 20 feet is indeed adequate for the desig'n and construction of a proper access drive. The driving surface itself mu�st be at least wide enough for a single car, and should be wide enough for vehiciles such as moving vans or fire trucks. Engineering staff say that 14 feet is aistandard rule of thumb, but they have allowed as little as nine feet for drive;way width. Then, for any street with curb and gutter, City specifica- tions dic!tate an additional five foot turning radius on either side for a total of 19 to '24 feet. � - 3 - � This width is based on residential use of the property, though minor subdivi- sions could occur on commercial or industrial property as well . Also, some driveways may require ditching or banking for adequate drainage, which would add to the width required. DePending on the type of pipe used, there can be a 10 foot separation requirement between the sewer and water lines that run under the driveway, which would put them within five feet of the property lines in a 20 foot wide corridor. Finally, many existing driveways are so far to the side of the lot that splitting off 20 feet for a rear access driveway would result in very little driveway separation between the two lots. If we decide that the practice of rear lot splits should be retained, the City should take a hard look at whether 20 feet provides an adequate access corridor. There is also nothing in the ordinance right now that clarifies the purpose of the 20 feet of frontage, though we routinely tell people that the purpose is to provide access directly onto a public street without the need for easements across other property. This is an excellent reason for requiring street frontage; the City should not be in a position of advocating access by ease- ment, even indirectly. Again assuming that the practice is to be retained, this too should be formalized within the ordinance to ensure that it continues to be properly understood and properly applied. The preceding paragraphs have looked at the practice of back lot splitting in terms of whether the existing ordinance provisions are adequate regulators of it. That still leaves the question of whether the practice ought to be retained at a11 . The following paragraphs lay out the relative benefits and liabilities � of this practice. Looking first at the benefits, there are many people who appreciate the divers- ity in lot patterns and the opportunities for secluded little hideaways that this type of lot split provides. Also, the 20 foot frontage minimum allows for the splitting of many deep lots that have sufficient square footage but cannot meet the full frontage requirements for two lots. This accomplishes several things. It helps to meet the continuing demand for buildable residential property in Golden Valley, and makes oversized back yards available for produc- tive use. It reduces the costs of residential property by breaking it into sma]ler parcels, which are also easier to maintain because of their size. It provides additional tax base, but this benefit bears a hidden pitfall because studies across the country have shawn time and time again that residential development hardly ever pays its own way i� taxes, and most lot splits in Golden Valley are on residential property. It gets more use out of the City's existing infrastructure systems, but this also holds a hidden pitfall because of the potential for overloading the systems. On the liability side, splitting off back lots is viewed by many as a disrup- tion of the orderly pattern of co�nunity development. It creates problems with , the interpretation and application of the City's setback requirements. It leads to hard feelings over special assessments levied on the basis of street frontage, in these cases not at all representative of true property dimensions. � - 4 - � The longer - and frequently narrow - driveways can be difficult for large emergency vehicles to negotiate, and the secluded homes are not as visible to police patrols. It is not always possible to maintain adequate spacing between driveways. The minimal nature of the frontage requirement appears to be encouraging an unforeseen wave of lot splits by people who are buying the City's deep lots for the express purpose of financial gain. Finally, though neighbors tend to oppose any lot split, this type appears to generate partic- u1ar hostility because it infringes directly on the privacy of existing back yards. I agree with most of the benefits to be gained from lot splits in general . Nowever, I think that the potential liabilities of back lot splits outweigh the current benefits. There are many parcels of land in Golden Valley that can be split and still provide full frontage on the resulting lots. I don't see sufficient need right now for encouraging lot splits that require special exceptions regarding frontage, or any City standard, unless the property owner can meet the hardship criteria for granting a variance. Other than neighborhood sentiment, GoTden Valley has not had much experience with the liabilities of back lot splits at this time, but we don't really have that many back lots yet, either. Considering the large stock of property eligible for this practice, and the number of people seeking information about it, I think the situation could be quite different in five or ten years. Therefore, I advocate caution. If we discontinue the practice for now, it would be simple enough to reevaluate it at a future date, in view of the City's � changing needs or circumstances, and perhaps reinstate it in the ordinance. On the other hand, if we allow the practice to continue and the potential liabil- ities materialize into actual problems, it will be a little late for corrective action. Large Lot Neighborhoods Looking back through the City's old Zoning Ordinances, residential lot require- ments have remained pretty consistent at either 100 feet of frontage/12,500 square feet of area or 80 feet of frontage/10,000 square feet of area. Despite this fact, Golden Valley has quite a wide range of lot sizes within its City limits. They are not particularly stratified by location, either; throughout a good portion of the City, lots of up to an acre in size lie in relatively close proximity ta lots that barely meet the minimum standards. Some lots are larger than an acre, while others aren't even big enough to meet minimum standards. There are, however, some small but distinct areas of the City where a majority of the lots are significantly above the required minimum size. The most obvious of these, and the one that has brought to a head the controversy over preserving large lot neighborhoods, is the Tralee Addition south of the former Golden Valley Lutheran Bible Institute. The anger and resentment generated among the residents of this neighborhood is, in a sense, one of the impacts of our minor subdivision regulations. � - 5 - � Golden Valley's subdivision ordinance has no provisions for preserving large lot neighborhoods. The only really enforceable provisions at this time are the minimum lot requirements of 80 feet of frontage and 10,000 square feet of area. Even those provisions have been modified by the practice of allowing back lot splits with minima] street frontage. There are no provisions for ensuring that split lots will be reasonably buildable from an environmental standpoint. Each of these factors has a negative impact on large lot neighborhoods. The main impact of the minimum lot requirements appears to be financial . According to our City Assessor, there is some truth in the claim that splitting lots into smaller sizes will reduce the property values of adjacent lots. Increasing the development density of an area decreases its exclusivity. One or two lot splits in an area will not make a significant impact, but if a trend begins to take hold then it will inevitably result in a change away from the exclusive character of the area. Less exclusivity translates to less value. This of course is a pretty broad simpli�ication. Lot size is not the only indicator of exclusivity or of overall value. There is also the side issue of how much responsibility a city should take for protecting property value above and beyond established city-wide standards for sound and attractive develop- ment. Nevertheless, as their use continues, the long term impact of Golden Valley's existing minor subdivision regulations will be to make the City's large lot neighborhoods more like its "average" neighborhoods, thus reducing their exclusive character as well as that portion of property values that is based on their exclusive character. � This process may also have a spillover impact on Golden Ualley as a whole. There is no doubt that providing a diversity of neighborhood types helps to promote the broad appeal of a community. Maintaining the character and value of neighborhoods helps to protect the community tax base. If it goes far enough, then, the breaking up of properties in large lot neighborhoods could damage the City's assets. Once again I am simplifying the issue, but the concept of property value is really very difficult to discuss without going into a detailed analysis of a specific situation. The potential liabilities of back lot splits were listed earlier. It was also indicated :that because of the changes in the City's minimum lot size require- ments there are quite a few lots that qualify for back lot splits. Many of these occur in neighborhood groupings that don't really stand out on a map without close examination, so Mark and I didn't really deal with them when we tried to identify large lot neighborhoods. Without measuring on a lot by lot basis, we can't be sure how many of these neighborhoods exist, but it seems obvious that any liabilities the City might suffer from back lot splits will be magnified in neighborhoods where several lots are eligible to be split in that way. � - 6 - * The impact of on-site environmental conditions _is felt in development cost and quality. Many of Golden Valley's large lot neighborhoods are in areas with steep slopes or problems with wetness. The latter item was of particular concern in the Tralee Addition case. No lot is undevelopable if the proper engineering techniques are applied, and to some extent this is controlled at the building permit stage, but if the proper techniques turn out to be prohib- itively costly, that stage is a bit late to be finding out. An oversized lot with a large yard - even in a "natural" state - is more of an asset to the neighborhood than a smaller untended vacant lot or a poorly developed one. Again, this is magnified in neighborhoods where several lots might meet the same fate. If the City decides to take the stand that it does have a responsibility to try and mitigate some of the impacts of minor subdivisions on large lot neighbor- hoods, there are several options available. Some are more obvious than others. Some are more realistic than others. Some have effects that extend to lot splits in general rather than just in large lot neighborh�ods. All are outlined in the following paragraphs. The most obvious option is the already-discussed elimination of back lot splits. Not only is this a good idea for improving the quality of lot splits in general , but it also offers automatic protection to any neighborhood where the lot size is based more on depth than on width. It has no effect at all , however, in neighborhoods where lots are wide enough to provide full frontage after being � split. Another option is to require up-front engineering studies before granting subdivision approval f�r any lots where drainage or slopes might cause develop- ment problems. The regular subdivision provisions already include a drainage plan requirement, so it wouldn't be a major departure from policy to add a similar provision to the minor subdivision regulations. I think it would be to our benefit if we could evaluate drainage and slope problems as part of the lot splitting process, and the added responsibility on the applicant might discour- age some of those who are merely looking to make a quick financial gain by selling off a split lot. Like the first option, this will raise the quality of all lot splits. Golden Valley could also increase its minimum lot requirements again. This would have the effect of increasing the threshold size required in order to qualify for splitting. Naturally the result would be fewer splits. This, however, flies in the face of the Metro Council 's guidelines for affordable housing standards, the City's own commitment to increase the availability and affordability o� its housing, and tfie axiom that increasing urbanization ultimately demands increasing density of use. In addition, it fails to dis-. tinguish between a single oversized lot surrounded by lots at or near the standard size, and a whole group of oversized lots that establishes a low density character for an area. I think that, throughout much of Golden Valley, the established minimum lot size is suitabTe. Therefore, I feel that this option creates more problems than it solves. � - 7 - aIt is perhaps not fair to say that neighborhood hostility is caused by the existing ordinance since it is virtually impossible to establish regulations that govern people's actions without making some of them unhappy. I do think, though, that we make matters worse by not having an ordinance that clearly spells out what we will and won't allow, and why. We also need to ensure that staff, Planning Comnissioners, and Council Members are well versed in the ordinance and supportive of it and its rationale. It might not hurt to have a occasional column in the Eity newsletter that takes time to explain various provisions of the ordinance - or of any City ordinance - to people when they are not in an obviously adversarial mood. All of these are options with benefits that go beyond large lot neighborhoods. Yet another way to regulate residential lot splits is to ban them. Of course a complete ban is out of the question, for practical if not for legal reasons. A modified ban could be enacted, though, whereby neighboring property owners could vote to lift the ban with regard to any specific property. Believe it or not, this type of setup has actually withstood court scrutiny in at least one case, though that involved setback rather than subdivision regulations. The court determined that there was no improper delegation of power because the property owners did not enact the ban, they could only relieve their neighbor from the burden of the city-enacted ban. I would never seriously re�ommend a practice of this sort, because I consider it shockingly bad practice, but it certainly would give the neighbors the sort of input they desire. More seri- ously, it serves to illustrate the extent to which communities can go in trying to resolve issues such as those before us in this study. � An option that comes closer to the specific objective of preserving large lot neighborhoods is the creation of an additional zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance is the standard source for establishing lot sizes. The problem in Golden Valley is that the pattern of existing lot sizes does not lend itself to the reasonable deTineation of a low density zoning district. Just establishing the basic requirements for the new district would be a controversial under- taking, because we have more of a eontinuum of sizes rather than easily separ- able groupings. District boundaries would look pretty irrational in many areas, and our best efforts would still result in a large number of newly nonconforming lots; even in the earlier mentioned Tralee Addition there are lots that are not much larger than the currently established minimum size. Assuming we could manage to put the district in place, I would expect to face a literally endless series of rezoning requests. Instead of solving the problem of preserving large lot neighborhoods, I think we would only transform it from a subdivision issue to a zoning issue, and we would create other problems along the way. It is not impossible to create a new residential zoning district in Golden Valley, but I don't recommend it as a good solution to any existing problem. I said above that the Zoning Ordinance is the standard source for establishing lot sizes. There is no law, though, that says it must be the only source. Minnesota Statutes 462.358, reproduced in Appendix B, specify that a � - 8 - � subdivision ordinance must be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, but it still may address lot size as well as many other items. In my opinion, estab- lishing a minimum lot size in a zoning ordinance does not necessarily grant every property owner the right to reduce all lots to that minimum size; it establishes only that under no circumstances may lots be reduced below that minimum size. I think that it would be perfectly legal to identify, in the subdivision ordinance, certain circumstances in which lot sizes must remain larger than the established minimum. I offer this as a final option for directly preserving large lot neighborhoods. In the period of time allowed for this study, I have seen no existing examples of this option, but I can't see anything to prevent it, either. My planner's analysis of the legal require- ments is outlined in the next paragraphs. In granting cities the authority to regulate subdivisions, the statutes relate this activity to the protection of the public hea]th, safety, and welfare. I believe we can show that preserving large lot neighborhoods serves the general welfare. By statute, our regulations can contain different provisions for different types or classes of subdivisions as long as they are applied con- sistently within each class. I believe that this can be accomplished as well . We would greatly strengthen our position by amending our comprehensive plan to include the preservation of large lot neighborhoods as a clear housing goal , but I 'm not sure that this would be entirely necessary; statutes specifically allow the prohibitivn of certain types of subdivisions "in areas where prohi- bition is consistent with the comprehensive plan" (MS 462.358, Subd. 2a) , but � general consistency with the comprehensive plan is optional rather than mandatory. Finally, of course, the subdivision provisions would have to be so written as to constitute standards, requirements, and procedures that an applicant could read and use to determine the reasonable likelihood of gaining approval for a subdivision request. I think that this, too, can be accomp- lished. As I indicated before, I am not an attorney. We would have to get a real legal opinion before we could go ahead and implement the type of subdivision provisions that I have just discussed. I believe, however, that this offers the best option if Golden Valley decides to adopt a stand in favor of protecting against the impacts of minor subdivisions on large lot neighborhoods. It would allow us to directly address the issue of large lot neighborhoods, as the Zoning Ordinance does, but unlike the Zoning Ordinance it would not require us to operate by district, and we wouldn't have to worry about nonconforming lots or rezonings. Summary of Recor�nendations Throughout this report, I have made quite a few suggestions for ways in which the minor subdivision regulations of Golden Valley could be improved. From my staff perspective, some of these suggestions make more sense than others. In closing, I present a list of my recommendations for key improvements to the existing ordinance. � - 9 - � 1. The organization and formatting of the text could be improved to make it more readab7e. 2. Certain provisions should be added or deleted as necessary so that all of the things we mean to require are spelled out right within the minor subdivision section and all of the currently incorrect material is removed. 3. All provisions should be written so as to constitute standards, requirements, or procedures that are understandable and unambiguous. 4. The practice of splitting off back lots should be discontinued for now, and the ardinance should clearly state that full frontage is required for all lots. If the Planning Corranission or City Council finds this recor�nendation too extreme, the alternative would be to first determine whether 20 feet is in fact an acceptable minimum for street frontage, and then have an appropriate provision incorporated within the minor subdivision section along with the reason for it. 5. Engineering studies could be required for any lot where wetness or steep slopes might constitute a significant development constraint. 6. Large lot neighborhoods should be defined and protected from lot splits that would be uncharacteristic of the area. If the City Attorney determines that this cannot legally be done with the � subdivision ordinance, there is no good alternative solution. If forced to choose between increasing minimum lot size and establishing a new zoning district, the former is preferred as being easier to defend and easier to implement. I have also prepared a sample set of minor subdivision regulations to illus- trate how these improvements might look. Although I have tried to make them precise and comprehensive, I don't necessarily consider them ready for adoption without further refinement. They are presented in Appendix C. � �I��OTI � '' Tel: 952.224.3644 xl Scott M. Lucas* �. a �ll('�1:�► l,� ��f'(�f�01�(�, P.,1. Fax: 952.400.3203 scottl(�>olson-law.com .iti.c�rn��s :�t Ir��' www.olson-law.com OIIP�111'�NII'ilfl`Conl��r I� i�01�Irt�t�I�nnl�a�ii.itil.Rni��3i:i hili�uG 11X ti��:l October 12, 2015 VIA E-MAIL Allen D. Barnard, Esy. Best& Flanagan 225 South Sixth Street Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Colden Va[ley Minor Subdivision Applications Proposed Subdivision- 7200 and 7218 Harold Ave. Our File Number: 14203 Dear Mr. Barnard: I am writing to you regarding the above-referenced minor subdivision applications ("Applications") made by Robert and Claire Alber, and Fred and Vicki Gross (collectively, "Applicants"), which are set to be heard by the Golden Valley Planning Commission on October 26, 2015. The Applications, made pursuant to Golden Valley City Ordinance ("GVCO") Section 12.50, each seek to divide one residential lot into two lots. The Applications meet each requirement of Section 12.50, including the following one: "The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street, and the minimum front setback line shall be established thirty-five (35) feet distant from the street right-of-way line." GVCO Section 12.50 subd. 3(a). The lots in question abut Highway 55, which is such a street, and meets the definition set forth under GVCO Section 12.03: "Street: A public right-of-way for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway,thruway, road, avenue, boulevard, land, place or however otherwise designated." GVCO Section 12.03, subd. 22 (emphasis added). Golden Valley Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman has stated in an e-mail to the Applicants that "the City does not believe the proposed lots are consistent with [the] zoning code" for the following reason: 'I�iSBA BOARD CERTTFIAD REAI.PROPERTY SPECIALIST Allen D. Barnard, Esq. Best& Flanagan October 12, 2015 Page 2 of 3 "Although the new lots being created would be adjacent to Highway 55, the purpose of the City's frontage requirement has been to provide access to the site. Asking to allow Highway 55 to provide the frontage while utilizing a private easement to provide access via Harold Avenue is in conflict with the original intent of the zoning language, which was developed as a way to prohibit flag lots. The lots being proposed are, in essence, flag lots -albeit using driveway easements rather than 20 foot wide parcel 'fingers'as has been done in the past." See Exhibit A, attached, Jason Zimmerman E-mail, July 17, 2015 (emphasis added). In other words, the City is stating that the implied intent of the ordinance is that access must be made from the road abutting the property. However,that not what the ordinance says. And, where an application meets the requirements set out in an ordinance as it is written, it must be granted. In fact, to deny such an application is arbitrary as a matter of law: The Applications meet the ordinances as written . . . [i]n the past we have considered several cases with similar issues within the context of zoning ordinances rather than subdivision ordinances. . . `It is now settled that where a zoning ordinance specifies standards to apply in determining whether to grant a special use permit and the applicant fully complies with the specified standards, a denial of the permit is arbitrary as a matter of law.' So, too,where a subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which complies in all respects with the subdivision ordinance. Nat'1 Capital Corp. v. Vill. oflnver Grove Heights, 222 N.W.2d 550, 552 (Minn. 1974) (citations omitted). When a "subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which complies in all respects with the subdivision ordinance." Odell v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792, 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), citing National Capital Corp, v. Village oflnver Grove Heights, 222 N.W.2d 550, 552 (1974). As for the intent of the ordinance: In Minnesota, unless an ordinance is ambiguous, intent cannot be used to intrepret it. Unless the ordinance is "ambiguous"the Courts will not "look beyond the words of the ordinance."Mohler v. Ciry ofSt. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 635 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). As the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated in 2008: [W[here the meaning of an ordinance or statute is free from ambiguity, there is no room for construction. Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n v. Paster, 437 N.W.2d 52, 56 (Minn.1989). An ordinance is ambiguous if it is susceptibie to two or more meanings. Hamline—Midway Neighborhood Stabiliry Coalition v. City ofSt. Paul, 547 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.App.1996), review denied(Minn. Sept. 20, 1996). Only if the court Allen D. Barnard, Esq. Best & Flanagan October 12, 2015 Page 3 of 3 determines that an ordinance is ambiguous, should the court ascertain the legislative intent behind the ordinance and construe it so as to effectuate that intent. Id., at 634-35 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). Here,the ordinance is unambiguous. But, even if the ordinance were to be construed, it would be construed according to the plain meaning of its language, and it would interpreted against the city and in favor of the Applicants as property owners. [W]e(1)construe terms in an ordinance according to plain and ordinary meaning, (2). construe ordinances strictly against the government and in favor of property owners, and (3)consider ordinances in light of their underlying policy. Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 756 N.W.2d 716, 721 (Minn. 2008). ` So, in short, the language of the ordinance that controls. Here, that compels the right and equitable result, approval of the application. The Applicants seek to build two single family homes on their new lots. The subject properties are zoned R-2: Moderate Density Residential, a designation that a(lows "up to eight(8) units per acre." GVCA Sec. 1 I.22, subd. l. 'T'hus both "Two-Family dwellings" and ""I'ownhouses" are permitted. GVCA Sec. 1 1.22, subd. 2. Townhouses consist of units of 2 to 8 attached dwelling units. Id. The Applicants' lots, at roughly three quarters per acre for one and nine-tenths of an acre for the other, so their properties could be put to uses with much higl� population density. However, the Applicants believe their proposal is better for them, the neighbors, and the community. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request on behalf of the Applicants that the Applications be approved. Thank you very much, Sincerely, Scott M. Lucas SML/ cc: Client Jason Zimmerman, City of Golden Valley Planning Manager Tom Garry BEST&iIANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9717 b0 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry@bestlaw.com 7EG612.339.7127 PAX 612339.5897 BESTLAW.COM BEST & FLANAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY (izimmerman@goldenvalleymn.�ov) October 23, 2015 City of Golden Valley Planning Commission c/o Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 7200 Harold Avenue ("Application") Fred and Vicki Gross ("Applicants") Dear Mr. Zimmerman: As attorney for the City of Golden Valley, we have reviewed the staff inemo prepared by you that reviews the above referenced Application. We believe your memo correctly applies the City Code to the Application and adequately responds to the arguments raised by the attorney for the Applicants, Scott M. Lucas, in his letter dated October 12, 2015. Sincerely, / � 1� � Thomas G ry TGG/clb 000090/4805 6 8/2237444_1 Zimmerman, Jason From: Carol Paschke � Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:20 AM To: Zimmerman,Jason Subject: Two Harold Ave. Minor Subdivisions (Alber Addition and Calderjax Addition) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Mr. Zimmerman, My husband Craig Paschke and I wanted to express our support for the proposed plan for four single family homes to be on the two lots. IYs much better than the cul de sac, dense options that were floated in the past. We understand our opinion can be included in the Planning Commission's packet for Oct 26. We open the Planning Commission will continue to be aware that the neighborhood is NOT in favor of dense housing (apartments, townhomes, or single family dwellings close together)on Harold Ave. We live at 330 Louisiana Ave N. Thank you, Carol Paschke i Wittman, Lisa Subject: FW: Sub Division Proposal on Harold Ave From:Zimmerman,Jason Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 4:07 PM To: Wittman, Lisa Subject: FW: Sub Division Proposal on Harold Ave From: Matt Dalle _ _� _ Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:01 PM To: Zimmerman,lason;Julie Dalle (Wife) Subject: Sub Division Proposal on Harold Ave '��Ir. Zimmcrman I am writin�; in rc�;ards to thc l'lanning C��minis,ion mcetin�; c�n (�)ct 2G��,, Durin�; that me�tin�; y�ou ��°ill be hearin�; a proposal for a subdi�rision on Harold .1ve. Julie and I li��e at �425 F-larold .��-e and tnet ��ith 1'eter I�.naeble on his p.�-opc�sal. Julie aiid I �u�>uld like to share ��-ith ��ou our support far this sub di�Jision proposal. `�v'c havc secn the lai�out c�f the homes oz1 tl�e �ropert��, alad we belie�Te it brin�s forward a goc�d option to up�r�de some of the hotnes on Har��ld. ti�luch like the improvement that was cornpletcd an Rhodc Island, havin� new construction in the area brin�s ne��, ti�oun� families and new people to Golden�'alleti7. These new families mo�-ing into our neighborhood st�engthens the sense of community as we come r.ogethcr to enjo�- our parl:s and open spaces. `�'c are stron� ad�-ocates of upgrading thc current homes c�n Harold or anywher� within �;oldcn Valley�. �X�'e really enjoy the cin� of Uolden �'alley �vith is cent.r.al locatic.>n w�itlzin the n�in cities, it out�tandin�;parks, and it acccss to good school districts. '1'hank you for your time on this mattcr, and I look for�yard to hea.r.in� about the appro�ral of dzis plan. �inccrcl�� ulic and ilZatt Dallc 7�?5 t-f�:trc>Id ;1�-e C;c>lderi `'allc��, �IN i Wittman, Lisa From: Zimmerman, Jason Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 4:08 PM To: Wittman, Lisa Subject: FW: Planning Commission hearing Mon. Oct. 26, 20i5 From: Glen Amundson Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:48 PM To:Zimmerman,Jason Subject: Planning Commission hearing Mon. Oct. 26, 20i5 My name is Glen L. Amundson. I live at 7236 Harold Avenue, Golden Valley. Since I will be unable to attend any planned meetings, I wish to make it known that I have seen the plans for the proposed subdivisions at 7200 and 7218 Harold Ave., and I am not Opposed to them. Glen L. Amundson October 21, 2015 i ci�� ,��f t�� r� � �. Ph sical Develo ment De artment ��.. �'.� y P p 763 593-8095/7b3-593-8109(fax) Date: October 26, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 7218 Harold Avenue—Alber Addition —Robert and Claire Alber, Applicants Summary Peter Knaeble, representing the applicants Robert and Claire Alber, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 7218 Harold Avenue into two lots. There is one existing single family home on the south portion of this lot which would remain. A second single family lot would be created to the north. The existing lot at 7218 Harold Avenue is 31,269 square feet. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 11,000 square feet in the R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District. The proposed Lot 1 would be 16,255 square feet. Lot 2 would be 15,014 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 100 feet of width at the front setback line. Both of the new lots would have over 109 feet of width. The dimensions of the newly created lots would provide a sufficient building envelope for development. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The applicants' proposal is for a minor subdivision because the property located at 7218 Harold Avenue is an existing platted lot of record, it will produce four or fewer lots, and it will not create a need for public improvements. The applicants have submitted all required information to the City to allow for review and evaluation. Staff Review The property in question is a long narrow lot that fronts on Harold Avenue to the south and backs up to Highway 55 to the north. The current proposal intends to utilize the site's proximity to Highway 55 to provide the frontage necessary to subdivide and create a new lot to the north, while accessing Lot 2 (the north lot) via a shared driveway and easement over Lot 1 (the south lot)to Harold Avenue. 1 This site was the subject of an application for subdivision early in 2014. At that time, it was proposed to be subdivided into two long, narrow, north-south lots with a single family home on each. The proposal required variances from the lot width requirement as well as side setback requirements.The proposal was withdrawn after the Planning Commission recommended denial. Also in 2014 this property, along with the neighboring property at 7200 Harold Avenue South, was the subject of two Planned Unit Development applications. Under these proposals, the two lots were to be combined and the replatted into first six—and later five—new lots, all with access off of Harold Avenue. In the face of concern regarding the driveway length of some of the lots and the pattern of development that would be established,the first proposal was withdrawn at the City Council meeting. The second proposal was denied by the City Council. The current proposal submits that Highway 55 be utilized as frontage for the proposed Lot 2 in order to meet the Code's frontage requirement for a minor subdivision. Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A) requires that for a minor subdivision to be permissible "the front of each [resulting] lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street." The term "public street" is defined, for the purposes of Chapter 12, to be a "public right-of-way for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, thruway, road, avenue, boulevard, lane, place or however otherwise designated." Therefore,the frontage of each lot resulting from a minor subdivision must "abut entirely on an improved [public right-of-way for vehicular traffic)." In short, each new lot must (i) abut on a public right-of-way and (ii) the abutment must be on the part of the public right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic. While the applicants' proposed Lot 1 does not abut the improved public right-of-way for Harold Avenue, staff has determined there is a reasonable expectation this gap can be bridged via a City- issued Right-of-Way Permit and the installation of a driveway. Since Lot 2 does not abut Harold Avenue, the applicants submit that the proposed lot 2 meets this requirement by virtue of its proximity to the State's public right-of-way easement for Highway 55. The applicants' submission on this point, however, does not satisfy the Code's requirements. First, the proposed Lot 2 will not abut on a public right-of-way. Under Minnesota law, when a property abuts on a public right-of-way, the owner of that property has a right of access to that right- of-way. This access right is an independent real property interest held by the abutting property owner. In other words, in addition to having the same right as the general public to travel on the right-of-way, the abutting property owner also has the separate right to access the public right-of-way from his/her property. Here, the proposed Lot 2 will not have a right of access to the Highway 55 public right-of-way. As reflected in the property records for 7218 Harold Avenue,that access right was severed from the property and acquired by the State in the eminent domain proceedings related to the Highway 55 public right-of-way. An examination of MnDOT's right-of-way plat/map further evidences this by showing an "access control" between the northern border of proposed Lot 2 and the Highway 55 right-of-way. Accordingly, Lot 2 does not abut on a public right-of-way, but rather abuts on the State's "access control," which is not part of the public right-of-way (i.e., not part of the right-of-way which the general public has a right to use). 2 Second, even if the proposed Lot 2 did abut the public right-of-way for Highway 55, it does not abut that portion of the right-of-way that is improved for vehicular traffic, as required by Section 12.50. According to the project's site plan, an approximately 90 foot gap exists between the northern boundary of the proposed Lot 2 and the portion of the public right-of-way improved with paving for vehicles: When a new lot resulting from a minor subdivision abuts a public right-of-way but not the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic,the applicant can remedy this by proposing to obtain a Right-of-Way Permit from the City to install private improvements in the right-of-way (e.g., a driveway) to bridge the gap between the lot line and the existing improved portion of the right-of- way. Here, the applicants have not addressed how they intend to construct such improvements in the Highway 55 public right-of-way, including obtaining the State's approval. As discussed in the City Engineer's attached memo, the City does not have the authority to grant a permit for the construction of such private improvements in the Highway 55 public right-of-way. Moreover, the Applicant's submission with respect to the proposed Lot 2 runs counter to the purposes behind the street abutment requirement in Section 12.50. A principal reason for the abutment requirement is to prevent "back lot splits" that result in the creation of so-called flag Iots via a minor subdivision,which is effectively what the applicants seek with the proposed Lot 2. The abutment requirement prevents flag lots by requiring the entirety of a lot's frontage be immediately adjacent to a public street improved for vehicle traffic. A 1989 planning staff inemo—prepared at the time this abutment requirement for minor subdivisions was first considered by the Planning Commission and eventually adopted by the City Council—notes that the requirement was added with the aim of preventing the creation of flag lots via minor subdivision and requiring direct access between lots created by minor subdivision and the public streets adjoining them. (See attached June/July 1989 staff report, pages 2-4, especially paragraph 2 on page 3.) This 1989 staff report also articulated the underlying policy reasons why the City wants to prevent flag lots and require direct access between lots and abutting public streets. (See attached June/July 1989 staff report, pages 3-4.)These reasons include that flag lots: (i) compromise the ability of police patrols to observe residences from a public street; (ii) generate difficulties for emergency vehicles in accessing residences; (iii) set up poor spacing of driveways; and (iv) create new "back lots" that conflict with the privacy expectations of adjoining property owners with respect to their existing backyards. These policy reasons that originally motivated and justified the City's adoption of the abutment requirement 25 years ago have equal application today, both to the City generally and to the applicants' proposal specifically. With respect to policing and emergency services considerations, see the attached memos from the Police Department and the Fire Department both recommending denial of the applicants' proposal. The spacing of driveways and the privacy conflicts created by new "back lots" continues to be a concern for the City and residents. As a result, these policy reasons only confirm the conclusion that the applicants' proposal for Lot 2 does not meet the Code's requirements. (See Section 12.01 of the Code requiring that the provisions 3 of the subdivision be interpreted and applied in a manner to promote public health, public safety and the general welfare in the City.) A neighborhood meeting was held on October 19, as required under City policy, and approximately 14 people attended. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Code, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district or the additional dimensional requirements. Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision does not meet the requirement that the front of each lot abut entirely on an improved public street. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sevver and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. The addition of the new lots would not likely place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. Approval of the minor subdivision would require the dedication of new utility and driveway easements as discussed in the Engineering memo and shown on the preliminary plat. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision,the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. MnDOT has commented that there is the potential for a recreation/bike trail on the south side of Highway 55. Specific engineering details and funding have not been identified. Nevertheless, this possibility of a trail between (i) the portion of the Highway 55 right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic and (ii) the northern boundary of the proposed Lot 2 further illustrates that the proposed Lot 2 does not abut an "improved public street." In addition, as discussed above, for the proposed Lot 2 to meet the requirement that it abut the portion of the Highway 55 public right-of-way improved for vehicular travel, there would need to be additional private improvements within the Highway 55 right-of- way. This right-of-way is within MnDOT's jurisdiction and, therefore, any such improvements would need to be authorized by MnDOT. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 4 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of $865 (2% of the estimated land value pro-rated for the size of the new lot) would be required for this subdivision. 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All conditions have not been met. Recommended Action As the regulations governing approval of the minor subdivision have not been met, staff recommends denial of the proposed minor subdivision. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from the Fire Department, dated July 20, 2015 (1 page) Memo from the Engineering Division, dated October 22, 2015 (4 pages) Site Plans prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc., received June 25, 2015 (3 pages) Letter from City Attorney Thomas Garry, Best and Flanagan, dated October 23, 2015 (1 page) See 7200 Harold Avenue agenda item for the following attachments: Statement.from the Police Department, dated October 22, 2015 (1 page) Color Site Rendering, received October 20, 2015 (1 page) Letter from MnDOT, dated October 5, 2015 (2 pages) Highway 55 Title Document (2 pages) MnDOT Right-of-Way Plat/Map (1 page) (see 7200 Harold Ave) Planning Staff Report on Issues and Recommendations Relating to the Regulation of Minor Subdivisions in Golden Valley (9 pages) (see 7200 Harold Ave) Letter from Scott Lucas, Olson, Lucas & Redford, dated October 12, 2015 (3 pages) (see 7200 Harold Ave) Emails from residents (3 pages) (see 7200 Harold Ave) 5 7505 30.=:�..0 I 742t, 550� '� � 555 31:_�.'.` L—}-541 7220 ;7200~��—L— 7030 SSS~`r��'� 54 .5 1�_� '-..i � 31�=;,� I 531 ' -_ , � 71A0 , 31G '�'-� 530 - T115 �\� / � : _ 321 521 LL I `'r�7. /7120 �.�� 521 - �_ 2 50 ~'`'-'-__ �� 1 �Vo `�e`/ 70J 1 ' 1�JSD 71G21517442 � . T201 I � �� ' 6910 c 185{2� 74f,0 17 �x i4�30 511 � 510 I 7151 �� 7040�7020 gp1 - �190 I 7458�927438 I Y � � 7100 - •,�q 145G:1 21 7436 510 180 15C 7455 z327434 -522520� 7101 I J �, _ 165�iii� 7500 7550 52ca[/as/33 7330 .yCllr,on hlemo�� ' r � 14P115 __� �,,..�v.., 27�$ Subject Property ��`�' -- - -- ssz - -- ---- - - � •,,..,.;.,:.,r.W--�--....�-.-.-^""".'"�% . -, -- -� -..- --- -- --- --- --- -- - --- --- - -- -- - - --- _ _ _ - - - - --�-`~ 69 _ �. [ �Qya 7001 G931 Z - - - - . 13 - --- -- - -" - _'� 7045 1j 09�,:; • I � '.. �,�.I:.'. 7340 -: ,��-- �07I'-410 �;.:� :�. 7031 � 68 405 _-106 7�i� 7430 7420 _ 69f10 a�l_y`�a _,_� .-= : � \ 7236 n� n00 7182 7025 - � ui� 7330 7324 �s� 715G 7146 -—7650 ..�.-�.�.,.�I 6900 _7700� � f1:ii-��rt A,t- 69�0 7601 7523'S1 i75057501 7465 7445 7425 T303 � 340 • 6920 755 752 9 1 � � � f I i I I � � I 7300 - 6945 • 7605 7531 7527.75137505J � � 7521751'�7507 7320 T309 330 6929 11503 � i� Iii� � 7310 7310 � 17607 7599 7519 7503 vl,_ � 7315 " 320 6941 -• �_ 7330 " ` : � i:� i i.i�,'L1�,,��, " � T325 G925 � �_ 1' Ur 310 g935 ,� 7340 � � � �, 7325 7327 \ _ �_ 300 240 232 230 � l,il�, �,: �ya '�y�u � �:. 7350 73d0 � ' •� � ��9 Lior�s Park 7335 '� �vLi _'�' .'�vlv .�_ �! 7350 220 U -_:: � 'alr` �, 'd'` -:. 151 245 225 i � � '.��alu �'� ' �i� T360 7345 i �e�z3'Ta4�l�.E'!)b6!!;Arf9tSf1 - � �_. soo 2os zoo � � � � „� �, �aoo� ��aoi-� ': �� 1�aos ,so ,ss �.. ,so al: .._...'y(i..:--a�.�...::�..yIu..._:�vlc< 7410 � v!v.� ,yu-.:�. vlu .: �� ti 7505 . . , i �7409� 130 135 130 � �,-- - 7420 7407 d„' .a�. ��t �'��. . , ��.��.��'�� .,.�� '��,. �'` Fire De�artment �63-593-8079 J 763-593-$098 (fax) Date: July 20, 2015 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner Cc: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: SU17-13 —Alber Addition — Minor Subdivision 7218 Harold Avenue The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the drawings submitted on June 25, 2015 for 7218 Harold Avenue. This minor subdivision proposes to split the large lot in half, approximately. The existing home will remain on the southern half of the lot. This existing house / lot as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The north half of the subdivided lot proposes a home that sits approximately 230+ feet off of Harold Avenue. To access this home a proposed shared driveway will run along the west side of the lots. The driveway appears to be 12 feet in width. Lot #2 as proposed does not meet the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The driveway that the fire department would use is approximately 255 feet in length. A fire road that exceeds 150 feet shall be provided with an approved turn around. The fire road needs to be designed to carry the weight of a fire truck. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Golden Valley Fire Department DOES NOT recommend approval of a minor subdivision. The narrow and long private road/driveway is not adequate to traverse with a fire truck. It is unknown if the driveway is capable of supporting the imposed loads of a fire truck. The fire department would not be able to provide a reasonable level of fire protection to this home. Note: The biggest challenges facing the fire department are the very lengthy and narrow driveways (fire trucks are 8' 6" wide), the distance to a water supply and our ability to turn around and get back to a public street. Typically the fire department will park on the street in front of a house and lay a 200 foot pre-connected hose which will reach ALL interior points of a home. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, icrellv@�oldenvalleymn.gov city of olden MEMORANDUM g . Va, ey Public Works Department 763 593 8030/763 593 3988(fax) Date: October 19, 2015 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer� Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist�� Subject: Alber Addition - Minor Subdivision - 7218 Harotd Avenue Engineering staff has reviewed the application for a minor subdivision, called Alber Addition, located at 7218 Harold Avenue. This plan involves the subdivision of an existing parcel on Harold Avenue to create two new parcels. The existing parcel will essentially be divided in half, with the south half becoming Lot 1 and the north half becoming Lot 2. The existing house at 7218 Harold will remain and will be situated on the proposed Lot 1 abutting Harold Avenue. Lot 2 will be located between Lot 1 and Trunk Highway 55 with no apparent direct access to a public street. The comments contained in this review are based on plans submitted to the City dated June 18, 2015. Engineering comments are as follows: 1. Site Plan and Access a. According to City Code, the front of each lot must abut entirely on an improved public street. Lot 2 is located between Lot 1 and Trunk Highway 55 with no apparent direct access to a public street. There is no direct access to Harold Avenue,the City does not have the authority to grant a permit for the construction of such private improvements in the Highway 55 right-of-way, and the developer has not shown evidence of a permit from MnDOT for access onto Highway 55. The developer is proposing to provide access to Harold Avenue via a shared driveway located within a 20-foot private driveway easement on the west side of Lot 1. The width of the proposed driveway is not indicated on the plan. Based on past experience and professional judgment, staff has concerns about shared driveway situations and has seen many instances where problems arise regarding driveway design and materials, maintenance responsibilities, and cost obligations. In addition,the shared driveway width must be adequate to allow vehicles to pass one another during all times of the year, especially in winter where snow creep G:\Developments-Private\Alber Addition 7218 Harold\alber addition 7218 harold-minor subd_501915.docx can narrow the driveway. Therefore, it is suggested that the driveways be a minimum of 16 feet in width. In order to assure the long-term success of the shared driveway situation, the Developer must draft and record a private driveway easement that clearly address the concerns above. The draft easements must be reviewed by staff prior to final approvals and must be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. Copies of the recorded easements must be submitted to Engineering. b. If the existing driveway is reconstructed, the new driveway must meet City standards including the installation of a concrete apron. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. c. Harold Avenue was reconstructed by the City as part of the 2012 Pavement Management Project. According to the City's Right-of-Way Management Ordinance and restoration standards, open cutting a pavement less than five years old requires a full-width pavement mill and overlay at a length determined by the City Engineer. The details and extent of the restoration will be determined by the City Engineer at the time the Developer applies for a Right-of-Way Permit to install the utilities and driveway. 2. Preliminary Plat a. The existing property proposed for development is part of Auditor's Subdivision Number 322. It appears there are no existing public easements across this property. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and 12-foot easements centered on all interior lot lines. The preliminary plat appears to meet this requirement. b. The proposed development is adjacent to Trunk Highway 55 and therefore is subject to the review and comment of MnDOT. 3. Utilities a. The City's water and sanitary sewer systems that provide service to this property have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. b. New water and sewer services are proposed to serve Lot 2. Staff has a concern about the length of the sewer service to Lot 2 and the long-term maintenance of the service. Although the Developer has proposed cleanouts every 100 feet or less on the plan,the City has concerns about the deposition of solids. Before the subdivision is approved, the Developer must submit an analysis showing that the service can be constructed as proposed without experiencing hydraulic issues. c. The City has a Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Reduction Ordinance. The Developer has entered into a deposit agreement with the City for the property at 7218 Harold Avenue to ensure future compliance. All existing and new sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. 4. Grading and Stormwater Management a. The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. However, due to the size of the development,the project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). b. The project will require a City stormwater management permit that includes a stormwater management plan (including erosion and sediment control measures) prepared to City standards. Stormwater must be retained and managed on site to the extent feasible and runoff must not be channelized and directed onto adjacent properties. Staff will review the stormwater plan in more detail when submitted. c. The Developer must submit a drainage map and calculations to the City showing how it determined the high water level and emergency overflow of the wetland located on the adjacent property to the east. In addition, contours do not extend far enough east to see the entire drainage area. Calculations indicating the high water level of the wetland with a blocked outlet pipe condition may also be required. High water level elevations are used to help determine the lowest floor elevation of the new home, which must have adequate freeboard according to the City's stormwater plan standards. More information is needed to determine if the overall preliminary grading plan meets these standards. In addition, because the lot will be custom graded and the building plan may be subject to change, the Developer or Builder must ensure that the stormwater management plan submitted with the permit application meets the City's freeboard standards. 5. Tree Preservation Permit-The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan showing the removal of significant trees. A Tree Preservation permit will need to be obtained before beginning any work onsite. A tabular inventory of the significant trees proposed to be removed and replaced must also be submitted. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail at the time of permitting. 6. The Developer must obtain Stormwater Management, Right-of-Way Management, Tree Preservation, Sewer and Water, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. Recommendation Engineering staff recommends denial of the application for minor subdivision based on the fact that a new lot is being created that does not have frontage on an improved public street. However, if this application is approved, staff recommends that approval be subject to the comments contained in this report. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other governmental organizations. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager AI Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Tim Kieffer, Street Maintenance Supervisor 1oe Hansen, Utilities Supervisor Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician RJ Kakach, Engineer Eric Seaburg, Engineer LLLO ZZ9 E9L Xe� 5LE6£6S£9L ��a��P"� �� 'N ��''� 1.� � zLVSS elosauuiW 's��odeauuiyy �'d '�q°°`M '�J°�°d �•W ��1� N3010� � M �� nrouioov a3e� .� � o anuany poomual9 Z009 � � � .� � � � '�M`�M�1�3 Wi M�q«R��R�3 � � � � �� m ,w•°�•��; NVId SNOLLIONO� JNLLSIX3 �� w�w nw ma��•x+i �6 O W y�y .�3YQ�LR�,� � p ��m)W � x OmF � :� a<WW� W ��$ G9 n A N N ��<� ��t �� al lC7 Z N = r� � _ ��r� � � o �� /// p i W � � i W N�2�C F Z a+�+..�.av-� n 'Y' F��'�d ay� N ��a Z��a� 0 O V�..,� �<s�a ��oo Z� �� - � � � =z��< m __� � � tQ"> �� IJ�W� U Y - � �— —� �WF�Ut N � �( �., �'. . � � � . ��4! I .._. ... ..__ - � .. <YFWO __ .09'8tiE _ 8�i�� - ..._., .- �. _ - �\. � wr : f—" -I m> �'� �!--— ! I I o �;�� // � �\� I x I o � , N \ � c� � -� z F; o . � \ Wo�O� � . , - �. I � I �� . 2 I . '. . � \ y .o I � .. L---J ,. ��., ^ w"o�� ' � . Q pq . ,. / vop�� - . . _ /q �p� o � r--'""T-.-------- �- a � = cu oo Z o w � � � � � � � ��Q a�°o W a�ci X ¢3z � W�O�� I W � i , N �„� l3w �> '� � L.:::--�- - ------- -- �u o�v ' C �� Z�f Y W ,t, .�� . �� '" � � � ..� d� �� W �� ODOD A � J W L o3 3.SO.bE•OO$ .E2�OtrE � �lHSeJ .fZ-.S8 '� � � Z aoH� �j o ;.� 7 i .-----;--- -- '� �zz I Q ;' O , '� Z : X502 iRAlS d�21 .81 Z v a..... ... \ ~~Z~ Z . ` -� . . G1 i �J tn^' . 'c�' �i' .� . � _. . — — —— 1 3 _ N ..� ` Q�oNCi N�O o� �N _--- I .p �� o o � � ��. ��o� / � � �� , � � m - • F.- . . �. p =a \ 3 q N(�+y�p._.. .. ... Y t�r� N . . .;� � u .. � ...o � S.l I I Q C�i d ^ Q � / ( F- � - i L''f cE N ""----_.. _�('1(� Q�, �� t � �� 1 ��o� ^N�.` "� .¢ .. . ,V N �._.-._. WQO �'T� !�� a �J � `.. . . erv lu .�. . n �� . .. . M �. �--: . . . N � �M r e.. �-L.,� _ ; m�. I� . - � .. �� a� a � I . . . � ��. N � .._ � . � ~� � L.� " �� .� . � �� . � ��O�j� ._.� O h I ��. o--a�- - 3. Q �. nS V'n -� r� � " � � ao p, n� V � � � � c, �r� � ►---=-� ,. (� �. v�^ Y , � n � � � ' ''� '�v' 3 ^ I � � � L�l� _ /`'� �� ..�(� �y � �`n �G�io N � m O .._� � o`,r✓, �}� .r-�Q . ' �� O� . a�•i� ��tiY' ` M n , � ~ v�i o O� __ � _ �; �'p - '�`'' : n a o _ I~� � I . . .... � .. W V O .w W _'a- ��.-,. "', ( ' , Z �� nL I � /� ��b�� 2.� , ' / � . � /��8�i E��N j� �O�� N:�NN �' NM .�..3 �C+ ...._. .__ � < N�� • � �� ,99 � � z � . ..� I I � � N ��„JN �� .. - .... �� N � � N ' � o � � " a W f W �b' = �} � I v'� cu o �� N � 'M3S A'�S 'X3 Q , ~i v`-i ,-'" y ----- - �U ` z� I('1 �' � .. U N t � �`�.,. =q . O . q '. a V J H l! J _ �,} YN� � ..< � . = l.f� 6, � � -� � o� W R' /�� W � � � If1 H• y� . 1-.L. F- � ` � }= 3 �. ��- Q ; _ �ti 3 = z N < , , �,� ,� �g � �P ; , « z� _ :� �� ;�,a . ; : -------- I� � � ;� 3n�aa x3 �----- --- --- - - -- - ` --------- -------------- � W �- ----- , Z. �'`� � `� � � . . ^ �� a�� _.-n � - ,°1L,J �a � �� , _ __ - _ � _ � . <C r ��'° o i- � �——i-— -•' -�- ^ U Q 3 � � � U . �� Q �' � °' � �� _ � o aN � � � _ . '_' � L--� IN " �---- — � �� 1 . � ^ � -- - � � I� � I � Naals � , / I I I I = � I ; __ � � U � � . _ waals I � � -_/ _L----J ,• _ � ; --. � .. : i � __ ' s .0'04 _. _ I _ _ _ _ ._ I __ __ I r � LILO Li5£9L:xe� 9L£6£69£9L �,�µ�P"� �t '� '�� NW '�l3llVn N30109 1[� ZZhSS elosauuiw 'si�odeauuiyy 3'd �� '�� M anuantl Poomua i�ioo9 � � � —�`�'1"°" NOL1100d �1381H ..�. \ � RI 'aN'A�Iwau1�3 «q N wq w��wol6�u3 � � � p,,�� p ,�,.�,�;�;; NVId A.LIILLfI � 1Vld �wr��d k� � � � � � �� W W N (A �H M ~ ��WS ~ �N � ��OmF � y p O OF p� W �tWw> Z � �� w� U�� J�� FF N Qoftl N ZV<< � ��N < �� Z= >- li��VI ¢ �� J V1 V1 V1 F li l� Z N Z o W� �GI p y QYIl7V'2NH '.� y I�InM�� O��mj 3J pq V NoN�D p� �a ti Q �vi.rivi°DM.� o �f=� � Vl RJ o.,.-..-.N t`')t� W�VZZ�� F=-a W W N 3 �tAW��< P�1.. N N W N 0 < ylpy Q� � Z N"'� O� N F Y9N< W N � =�3�} In O W H� p �� OM\Q W � QO��Md£ j��0 NQW~ NF-W f-ZQIWJC� �<S�a OCl7�Y ��0 NEfQL7Wd ��CZpg 00��¢U�Wa ��W}< `~ � � � ~=>a�wv~i w ii��< ��>NW�JW I I (j<�� Q3V;Wl--y�pq V T i-i-aaz� x co �— —� xF'y� i ��w��WVP°ixa� �n — `�W�oso ��y� � �� XX. . E s s E co N'.�.3 co N .O9 Sb� �JFNO �� ———� ��>� �___�� wr �� i � � � O �3<�4� �v�/ 0 �\ � � � p 1 = \ I V � O 1 N \ 2 �� I �� f � � �� 1 � � � � A > m�.'coao � �' � J � °° �o�m� I r�—T---- ----- -- X a OD O �2 N� �W � I � I o ¢' /Q' �°°woQ " a+3" � o� � � �i � a � �3� ao�°'�� l_--L---------- -- o' o'�v f �ozz � �� Z�2f W ,�}, �f � � S� W WWOD � �W c ab 3.80.4£.00S ,£Z'O4£ � �tsv� ,iZ-,se $ � -� Ejj 0 7 LSOa iiMOlS d7M .8T —�Z —— —— ��+Z Z 1 Q��a� NZ � ^ � Z�N4Q ----- - -- in � JvoNo i �s I o � �j�•�o,W3 / N � 3GNYJ r�i 4 �_ / I i °D» '�——--.—.�./ r-1 I �N �J � � m � n ,� t `�~ ��1 ' ? `'1 ~ I�L� Q�� VOJ� � �� I o–_�if3S_ _ 3,. I ir�. (7'�1 � n w � ----- - � � � Z M \./ L��_J ^ � I �o� 3 � v-� `o ^ m � �� 1 a rl �n ` . , z �m � .LO'04 .ZS'T4i (,4S'06Z) .ZO'64Z ❑b ,99 � � � A.80,4£.00N j� _____————-3SH3 nBa ,ot �__'3Stl3 nBa •oi__— ess .si � N � I N � 1 n, � r ___._ _ _ __ _ __ess;s� Q �� ._ __ _._._ _._.._ _._ _ � I N M (1/ fh � i � w) Q j N 1 I N W �F LC._ I � �� ' �, w �y I � ! A � ! �' ' a ----- - -- > o IIft � N�I I I � �nl � �a Im N � �H W I 'M3$ /17S 7( Q Vl Q (r} o , � � � ��o �� i ��q) ----- - �a � 3 1(-1 � II N i I l�N � �N W � ONoI o Q � S LJ J U 1� � � I m.i ; v'� � ; .''. i J`O"� o J o = - o� � 4 ,r? y� v � b j v' i vw, � c7 � >-- �� N �,' � �, �� I ; a �'` � [Y � � � � N� WV c�II > nN_ '.� I ' I I O '� ' � IVI �0. �� •--r Z N �i� � ~ � � I 3Sb3 fiBU .02m I f 0 1_ » Q: o �� I I '3Stl3�3nR1U ,02m �--1 _, � � --^------------ � z = �� L._..___,r[ .._.._.._..m.. ..J �, L.._.._.._?�__ ass..�l._.._.._.._.- -J ti ass";s � a3s n�s •�aa � W �———— — '3Stl3 nBQ ,ot = c., r.oa> �u � 1� � ,SL'££i . . . , N u3 _ 6 ' ——— ——— m Z Wa Q ^ � � � � _� vPr N � � r- a� r� T Z � _� a I � I o I I � I M o � y� m m �r��j = � � °-N a � �-�-� I� _ �----- �— � � � II � 1 �aois � , I I l � � � � � i � � � i i � W?lO1S 1 L____J � _ � _ � ,Q'04 i I LTLO ZT9£9L Xe� 9ZE6£65£9L ��P"� ►►8�'t 'ON '�a�Cj�'°u�0 �1 ♦ /��/�n ZZb55 e�osauuiw 'sgodeauuiyy 3'd I4�A 'P�d N� /��/� N3t7 1VJ � � � � �v Nouiornr a3e-ro ,�, � o � anuany poomual9 I009 �� ` ` ,,,, ,,,,,o, ,��q ,,,,,, �tl� NVId NOLLV/�2�3S321d 332ll 00 � � � o w� �H�o�� m�,��.�„�, � �wova� -wr�ad �� ,o�aa aa w�a��i fi � Z � ~ <�pwj=vf � 'J � �Z TW O xO�mF 'Z-' �<fnWF �� N W � n�w�� N <�� Zr Q <V<� �O jP° � � Z N = ��mo =o � � o �_�� ...� W W �� a�a,. A " 3 ��o w tn o yw zl ¢� � M C�� F� ��Zy 0� W N y ��< v�o� t~i� � ��z�d�q�j (iF-MIA H ZK�OA NaW� ��W �U��W o. �� vx-� �S« a �0o Jy �a �o ��¢cYiYWa o��c Wwwa�= z� 7d' �QU�NWWQQ � I � Z2�`< Q3�W�NVIP�9W , . fFN<m�0 i I �<W Y � ��mJ��v�if � L---� $WFmc�i X X. � t� �� • . . i f� V) 7 fEfEC��N�f��1N � 0�� oO� �+ �}FW� . . ____. ___ - ___. ___......_ i�7 O�G .__ _. O�4T� _..._ . __ �(.i r �— T �,> �� ——-- � � � y� � o �3<�� - �� o ��\ � � � o v�, � ( Z � ' ` . � �,� � >„ 1 \ �� o �� I � � I \ v�woom I L_n` _J � �� ,_ _ .,o�� ' r��'�---------- -- I� N�ZOW � ( � � . i f� ��aOQ I � - � W ' �� . � � ODKp�� . � ;" 4� l�— - �� l3 f �ozz -1- ------- -- < a Z�ffW l -� � . �. . � � J�L . � � -- � �oti�, , �� __ �----- -- � � ~Z� e ------ -- ., , _ �„ Z��a � ��-- ��\ � �� , � � . . � _ J��V10 N�O . 4:( ]�� .._.._ C .. � . . . . Q \ �:,:.. :W J�.0 3 � -\,✓ , '� .' -- �il�m . _ ^ N _ m � � � , � : � 3w�Nc°��ro-_ __ / O � ^O � . �t , � '-� �--� �� - _ � cA� � • �__ . . � . . ...,. � M N � . ` y� . . . . V�n` O N �1l � . ..T:N �� 41 �... . N N � � \ / �. . - �. lq N i/� �-f :'- � \/ ;O m � �- .. , L . `: �-� _ m � _ - . _ y '� n/ �'�l'� _I � � �—�- O,tn � �� O �� :L_��_J � _ _ � n .c`^' �� ''� �� s '� pa ..._`,., .. ..... '�o._� . •�� . ,r�..f :� ,C M �. r�S. . ' � 1f1.^. � l7 . . p "�. p . � �m � �"�-. O O~ .. .._. • ... �: �� . . � . .. / /� O,'O =0Q . V / �_, ^ h � � . . �..��.....� ._.__ : � ` � Mob .99 z / � � � � �M�UfU~-�� N,�T'� . . O N i • � � r � P _ � .. 3- . .. �. a , 4 -�, o - �y� � _ . �, �' W C� F-+-1 � �h m W / ��f"�J . W `"W�m = /� r" r"1 �� m , N t�--+ Q I—� �. �!/ �Lr a � I �u�� a ��' � d/ h �f vwi m 1--' _J �f"") {I� 1 �' N W �� O L� � I ��a i� '� _�' _^'�n .. � _ � �% � F- X o X'�"� ,o J --,` � �',, p I 6' w�- W W' , �R" CJ ; _ ' `w <^ �4�, ,,J �; 3 �� _ � � � � �- w � . , r , < ,. , ___. 3 = - `/''� P� y � � _ � �( ) � F P ..I �O � �, � � '"N rJ \�.. � . � � �� . : �- ' "'_"'_ "' r ' 3n�aa x3 � ' � . � . _ N ..._.. ',. ' . . . .�r. � - ��., �,' '�______ _ ____-`__ ___ W = _ __"____' � � �/`'� Qa �,�� , � � � " �, �� /� � � -�( ) �b � � � - -.. < � N_ _ , \L U � �--— ——�-— —•.:r— � �� ^' V J I � I I � I � .. O . W I� = I p. �—_-� I� = L_ �� ------- -- I � I I i ? � j __ I_ ! �-_--J ._ _ '_' — — — =' �- _ _. � �� -'� �; r _ _., � �. ._ ' . _, __ � __ �' _ _ � .- Tom Garry BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney �ieeCT 612341.9717 60 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry@bestlaw.com TEL612339.7721 FAx 612339.5$97 BESTLAW.COM BEST &� FLAIVAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY (jzimmermanC�oldenvalle�gov) October 23, 2015 City of Golden Valley Planning Commission c/o Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 7218 Harold Avenue ("Application") Robert and Claire Alber ("Applicants") Dear Mr. Zimmerman: As attorney for the City of Golden Valley, we have reviewed the staff inemo prepared by you that reviews the above referenced Application. We believe your memo correctly applies the City Code to the Application and adequately responds to the arguments raised by the attorney for the Applicants, Scott M. Lucas, in his letter dated October 12, 2015. Sincerely, � � 1� � Thomas G ry TGG/clb 000090/48056 8/2237444_1 �� Ol��'Yt � � NI E �� C� 1J �1� � . ��„ �� Physical I�ev�lopment Department 763-593-8095/763 5�33 81�9(faxj Date: October 26, 2015 To: Golden Vailey Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Code Text Amendment—Planned Unit Developments Background During the previous discussions on August 24 and September 28, staff received feedback regarding the direction and content of proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Code. Staff has prepared a set of recommended amendments for review by the Planning Commission. Updated Amendment Recommendations Language added to clarify how amendments will be qualify when they do not identify with any of the specific changes listed below (see bolded language). Administrative amendments are reviewed and approved by City staff. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment shall not qualify as a minor amendment or major amendment and it shall include: • Change in utility plans; • Change in landscaping plans; • Change to interior building plans; • Change to outdoor lighting plans; • Change to grading/erosion control plans; • Change to architectural elevations; or • Any other change determined by City Manager or his/her designee not to have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, is determined consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, and is determined to be administrative in nature; Minor amendments shall be approved by a simple majority vote of the City Council with or without referral to the Planning Commission. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment shall not qualify as an administrative amendment or a major amendment and it shall include: • Change in the land use to a use that is permitted in the underlying Zoning District; • Increase in the number of residential units by less than 10%; • Demolition or addition of an accessory structure; • Change to a front yard, side yard, or rear yard setbacks that meets minimum requirements set forth in the underlying Zoning District; • Change in the number of parking spaces that meets the minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in this Chapter; • Change in parking lot configuration or design with no change in number of parking spaces; • Increase in impervious surfaces up to the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District; • Change in building coverage up to the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District; • Change in gross floor area in any individual building by less than 10%; • A significant change to architectural elevation plans in a way that alters the originally intended function of the plans; • A significant change to landscape plans in a way that alters the originally intended function of the plans; or • Any other change determined by City Manager or his/her designee not to have a significant impact to surrounding land uses and determined as consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved; Major amendments shall be reviewed by Planning Commission and approved by a simple majority vote of the City Council. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment shall; • Eliminate, diminish, or disrupt the preservation and protection of sensitive site features • Eliminate, diminish or compromise the high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, or building materials; • Alter the location of buildings and roads • Increase in the number of residential dwelling units by 10% or more • Introduction of new uses • Demolition or addition of a principle structure • Change to front yard, side yard, or rear yard setback that does not meet minimum requirements set forth in the underlying Zoning District • Change in the number of parking spaces that does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in this Chapter • Increase in impervious surfaces above the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District • Change in building coverage above the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District • Change in gross floor area in any individual building by 10% or more • Increase the number of stories of any building • Decrease the amount of open space by more than 3%or alter it in such a way as to change the original design or intended function or use • Create non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the Final PUD Plan • Any other change determined by City Manager or his/her designee to have a significant impact to surrounding land uses or determined as inconsistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or the PUD as it was originally approved. Updated PUD Points System Recommendations Based on feedback from City Council and Planning Commission, staff is recommending the adoption of a points system to track the public amenities provided within each new PUD (not amendments). All new PUDs will require a minimum of five points in order to receive approval. Changes to staff recommendations since the informal public hearing on September 28 are represented in bold in the following table. PUD Amenity Options *Bolded Items represent changes made since September 28 informal public hearing Points Amenity Standards 5 Green Roof Installation of an extensive, intensive, or semi-intensive, modular or integrated green roof system that covers a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total roof area proposed for the development. 5 Affordable Housing Units Three options of affordability include: • At least ten (10) percent of units within development are rented or sold at 30% of Area Median Income or less. • At least twenty (20) percent of units within development are rented or sold at 50%of Area Median Income or less. • At least thirty (30) percent of units within development are rented or sold at 80%of Area Median Income or less. PUD Amenity Options *Bolded Items represent changes made since September 28 informal public hearing Points Amenity Standards 4 Public Open Space Contiguous ground level outdoor open space that is provided beyond the amount of open space required in the underlying Zoning District requirements. 4 Utilization of Renewable Use of a photovoltaic or wind electrical system, solar Energy Source thermal system and/or a geothermal heating and cooling system for at least fifty(50) percent of the annual energy costs in new and existing buildings. The applicant must demonstrate that the quantity of energy generated by the renewable energy system(s) meets the required percentage through a whole building energy simulation. 4 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve LEED Platinum Environmental Design certification approved by a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED) Platinum (LEED-AP) by a date determined in the Development Certification Agreement. During the PUD approval process, the developer must submit a LEED checklist and documentation to the City that shows the project will comply with LEED Platinum requirements. 3 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve LEED Gold Environmental Design certification approved by a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED) Gold Certification (LEED-AP) by a date determined in the Development Agreement. During the PUD approval process, the developer must submit a LEED checklist and documentation to the City that shows the project will comply with LEED Gold requirements. 3 Community Garden Permanent and viable growing space and/or facilities such as a greenhouse or a garden, which provides fencing, watering systems, soil, secured storage spaces for tools, solar access, and pedestrian access as applicable. The facility shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the development to minimize the visibility of mechanical equipment. The food produced shall be provided to those living or working in Golden Valley. 3 Public Recreation Area An active, safe, and secure outdoor recreation area open and visible to the public that includes equipment or natural features suitable for recreational use. 3 Public Plaza Plazas shall be open to the public during daylight hours and provide opportunities for the public to interact with the space using outdoor furniture, art, or other mechanisms. PUD Amenity Options *Bolded Items represent changes made since September 28 informal public hearing Points Amenity Standards 3 Public Art The art shall be maintained in good order for the life of the principle structure. The art shall be located where it is highly visible to the public. If located indoors, such space shall be clearly visible and easily accessible from adjacent sidewalks or streets. 2 Enhanced Bicycle and Eligible facilities may include a combination of the Pedestrian Facilities following: heated transit shelter, bicycle repair tools, rest area, wayfinding signs, sheltered walkway,woonerf, and other amenities that increase the convenience and encourage the use of public walkways and bikeways. 2 Creation or Preservation Creation, preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of of Significant/Historic designed historic landmarks or significant architectural Architecture features as a part of the development. 2 Enhanced Stormwater The design must provide capacity for infiltrating Management stormwater beyond what is required by the City and Watershed District and the design must serve as a visual amenity to the property. 2 Underground Parking At least Seventy-five percent (75%) of parking on-site shall be located underground. 1 Water Feature Usable to A water feature, including but not limited to a reflecting Public pond, a children's play feature, or a fountain shall be located where it is highly visible and useable by the public. 1 Shared Bicycle and Vehicle Accommodation for shared vehicles or shared bicyctes on Facilities. site. The shared service provider must be committed in writing to the use of the space in order to be eligible. 1 Decorative Fencing Installation of high quality metal fencing where visible from the public street, public sidewalk or public pathway. 1 Enhanced Exterior Lighting A lighting plan that highlights significant areas of the site or architectural features of the building(s) and acts as a visual amenity to the development. 1 Informational/Interpretive Permanent signs that inform the public of unique aspects Displays or history of the property. 1 Enhanced Landscaping A landscaping plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect that provides exceptional design with a variety of native trees, shrubs, and plant types that provide seasonal interest and that exceed minimum City standards. 1 Electric Car Charging An electric vehicle charging station accessible to Station residents and/or employees of development. Updated list of Miscellaneous Code Revisions Staff is also recommending the following set of changes to this section of City Code. Those in bold represent additions and adjustments made since the September 28 informal public hearing. • Update all job titles to City Manager or his/her designee • Restructure and reorder content in the section in order to increase the readability and usability. Administrative amendments are now listed before Minor and Major amendments in the Code. • Remove sign plan from list of items required in an application. The sign plan will be reviewed by City staff in a separate approval process. • Remove size requirement for wetland and pond riparian buffers. Engineering staff relies on other sections of City Code as well as State of Minnesota standards instead. The following language was added for clarification, "The applicant shall comply with regulations set forth by the City of Golden Valley, Bassett Creek Watershed, and the State of Minnesota." • "Garbage and Refuse Plan" changed to "Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan" • A neighborhood communication plan shall be referenced in the Development Agreement if applicable to the PUD. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to Section 11.55 of the Zoning Code regarding Planned Unit Developments. Attachments Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 28, 2015 (6 pages) PUD Amendment Process Comparison (4 pages) City Code Outline Comparison (2 pages) Existing City Code Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development (16 pages) Proposed City Code Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development (18 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 5 . Impact of Pests: The proposed us is not anticipated to attract pests. . Visual Impact: Due to the fact that he applicant does not intend on redesigning the otprint of the building, but rather t e interior design and layout, staff does not an � � ate any negative impacts on e visual quality of the property. 10. Othe pacts to the City and Re idents: Staff does not anticipate other negative ects caused by the pro sed use. Conditions: 1. The site plan prep d by Paul Mey r Architects and rec � ed on Se��raber 17, 2015, shall become a rt of this ap roval. '"'` 2. The Montessori school/c � care fac� ity shall be li ' d to 160 �lie�'ts, or the��:a � amount specified by the Min sota epartment ealth, w��i�'hever i�,less. �� 3. All necessary licenses shall be tai ed by t innesota��partrnenf�f��lth and/or the Minnesota Department duc �n before sch�� nd chilc��are operations may commence. Proof o icensing shall t�e pr�sented;t� the �� ti,�� Planning Manager. fl�, � � 4. If any future changes to the site ar ade the norfh��i�e �f the �uilding, the "IA�. owner will be required to remov n drivew ��r�tir�r�ces i#��t��?�s not intend to use for vehicle access and replac em ith cui'� d gufk�r to match into the existing curb line. The owner will al e req ired to eXten the ` idewalk from the building to the north in order to co ect to th �itji��ideu��lk� � �ountry Club Drive. 5. The hours of normal o ration shaE�� e Mor�elay thr�� Friday from 7 am to 6 pm with occasional eve on even�r�gs r� .�ieek��. 6. All improvements the buildir�g�sFi'� ��t the City's Buildi and Fire Code requirements. '"' 7. All signage t meet the require�'n'� ts of the City's Sign Code ection 4.20). 8. This appro is subject to a(�oth�r,�s te, federal, and local ordina s, regulations, or laws ' authority i�ver this devel=�� pment. 9. Failure comply with a�i��the ter of this permit shall be grounds f� � revo tion. , �. � ��g �� Kluc a asked if the Cit��(�as e��r appro hed MnDOT in order to get some kind o w ome/g�#�way si�n n�r this location her than the standard green street sign. C ra ted t�at th�e Ct�rnrtii��ia�n could sugges to the City Council that they consider placing elcome�si�ns°in gatew�y locations. 3. . Inform�t� Pu�lic Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending PUD t��quir��nents —ZO00-102 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider modifications to PUD requirements when considering major, minor, or administrative amendments Goellner reminded the Commissioners that this item was continued at their last meeting. She explained that the purpose of the text amendment is to simplify the entitlement process and the cumbersome timeframe. The current PUD process can take up to six Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 6 months to create a new PUD or to make a major amendment to an existing PUD, and a minor amendment can take up to finro months. The proposed new process would still take up to six months to create a new PUD, however the amendment process would be shorter at three months for a major amendment and finro months for a minor amendment. The proposed new language also allows for administrative amendments. Goellner discussed the proposed differences befinreen major, minor, and administrative amendments. She explained that a major amendment would be required when the proposal does not meet the underlying zoning requirements, it significan�l�:effects the original design and intention, or it requires more public review. A minQr �mendrt��nt would be required when a proposal meets the underlying zoning re�uir�r�ents, a�d is proposing less significant changes. An administrative amendmer��iould�� allow �d when the proposed changes are items that are already review��'adm��istr�tiv�l�`�the proposal were not a PUD. �, ��' � �� =6, Cera asked if a proposed new building fa�ade would b� �onsidc�red a��_tYtinor or administrative PUD amendment. Goellner said that,woul� pr,obably be considered a minor amendment. Waldhauser referred to the proposed language re�arding r��jor amendments and asked if requiring a PUD amendment when there i5°a ct��n��{�n floc�;r area from 5% to 10% is just because there have been so many nuis��ce rrt��or arrtendments using the 5% cutoff. Goellner said yes, and added that 5%,is�qt��t��fo�iv��drreally isn't the amount of change that should require more public r��r�w.'�lurri�asked if the change in the floor area comes from the original PUD approval or;�rom 5ubsec�uent amendments. He added that he thinks an increase in floor area sh��l� h�,t�''refer to the original PUD proposal. �, :,; Baker said he is struck by�t�e wartls "si�t��ficant" and "sensitive" because they are qualitative words th�t:don't h��e a definition in the ordinance. He asked about past experience in decid��r h�gn sdmething is significant. He said he understands the need for flexibility, b��rthos��wo��re�vi�ithout meaning leave him uncomfortable. Kluchka not�d thafEitl,the PowerPoint presentation the word "design" was used, but in the propos�d n��v�cc�de�l�r��uage in Subdivision B (10) & (11) it is not. He asked if that was intention�l,�nd �tated that it is a very important word and he would like it to be added to th�.proposed cod+�,language to make sure design is a consideration. Waldhat�ser r�ferred to the list of things that would qualify as an administrative amendme��and said it seems unclear to her when something would be "bumped up" from an administrative amendment to a major or minor amendment. Goellner explained that PUDs aren't approved by using the lists, the lists help determine which process an amendment should go through. Goellner stated the proposed new language also requires that new PUDs would be subject to an amenity point system. She explained the point system and noted that applicants would need five points from a list of designated amenities and may be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 7 awarded a portion of points for each amenity. She added that the list of amenities is focused on amenities used in, and seen from the outdoors. Goellner discussed some other proposed text changes including requiring an applicant to meet with staff prior to final application submission, and to address all conditions of the preliminary PUD approval. She stated that the some of the sections of the PUD ordinance have been restructured/reordered to provide for better readability and usability and noted that the language regarding submittal of a sign plan and the language regarding wetland buffers have been removed. 3 .�� ' � �E�:: ��;�. Baker referred to the language regarding the size of wetland buffer� a�c�asked v�t�at language is proposed to be removed from the current PUD code �equire;ii��ts G��ellner stated that the current PUD code requires a 25-foot buffer strip,: 5he e�plai��tl tl� t the Engineering staff would like that standard removed from thefiPl��9�s��ion of t�e City Code because they do their reviews based on other standards and f�e nu�nber�R;��he PUD section was arbitrary. She added that wetland buffer is�ues are;.address�d as part of the stormwater and erosion control plan review process. Baker:said'he hopes to add language requiring a 50-foot buffer to the City sta��arc�s i� the��prehensive Plan. Zimmerman added that another reason to remov� the standards fr"om the PUD section of the City Code is so that the City can follow th� St�rt.e stand��s without having to amend the City Code every time standards char��e��V��Jdfi�user asked if those other standards should be referenced in the City Code.i �ker r��terat�d��t he would like to City Code to match the State standard and requil�;��ef��ff�r;�ven though that standard refers to agricultural land. s ` ` � � Johnson suggested that the,,prapos�d r�ew language be reordered so that the amendment process starts with a�ministrative amendments then goes on to minor amendments, then to major amendments,in order to help streamline the process. Segelbaum suggested t�e,Corrir�xission discuss the proposed amenity point system. 'g�. �� j�lii� �� Y'�� Baker questione� �rhy��'amer�ity point system isn't being proposed at this time for PUD amendme �� nly �� n�� PUDs. Goellner stated that the PUD amendment proposals currentl��i��'ti��t��p�h� process might not meet the amenity point requirements. Se�elbaurr��saic��fhinks requiring applicants to have five amenity points seems high. Baker said �te woulc�'push for the requirement to be ten amenity points. Segelbaum said he is concerned abo�t smaller projects and suggested that past proposals be reviewed to see what wou��t�ve been approved had amenity points been required. Kluchka agreed that he would like to quantitate what the City has approved recently to know how harsh or lenient it has been. Johnson agreed that five amenity points is too many. The items on the amenities list are expensive things and the City already asks applicants to do many things as part of a PUD. Baker stated that applicants are getting something from the City when they are granted a PUD. Blum said he doesn't know how useful a study would be regarding past PUD projects, but starting with a lower number of amenity points seems more reasonable. Cera suggested more items be added to the amenity list which may make it easier to get to five points. Kluchka said he is not sure if giving all five points to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 8 one amenity seems like the right thing to do. Waldhauser said she would be fine with requiring five amenity points. Baker said he agrees five amenity points is ok and putting all five points in one amenity is ok too because it is a good way to incent the amenities. Johnson said he thinks the City is going to see a lot of amenities that are cheaper for the developer such as shrubs, signage and bike racks. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Cera referred to the amenity regarding enhanced bicycle and pedestri�;ri facili�ies and said the creation of public sidewalks should be added rather than just encouragih� the use of public walkways. He referred to the amenity regarding en�h��ced��fp�rmwa��r management and asked if refers to engineered stormwater m��i�`gemy��t, o�?t� ��tural stormwater management such as rain gardens, ponds, etc �, af�l��er noted=that the proposed language states that the design must serve as a visual a`m�nity ��the property. ''�� (��>. `��i� ' ! ° ' . Cera said he would like to remove the amenities re��diri��co�tive ��ncmg and enhanced lighting. He said he would rather have �i��'�e��r�g and does not want to encourage more lighting. Zimmerman suggested,#he lang�i�`�qe be�amended to address the quality of light fixtures. p� ��" ' _�� <�� =�`� Blum asked if the amenity regarding bil�e`and �destri�rr eonnections was taken out. Goellner said yes because that is alr��dj�� r��`�t��r�t elsewhere in the Code. Blum noted that the amenity re��ding mmi��i�y gardens has a lot of points, but public open space seems more va ��e k� ��se it serves more eo le. Kluchka a reed that �� r, � p P 9 the points for a community`�'ard��t sli�ld be lowered. Segelbaum questioned what would qualify as open space. Zirrtmerrr��n stated that partial points could be awarded. Kluchka suggested a�tlirtg an �r�enity regarding mixed use. Cera stated that a mixed use that is available,to the publ�� shou�d get five points. Kluchka suggested �ddirt�, an amenity regarding wind power. Cera suggested saying alternative re�,eii��k�l�,�ne'rgy rather than just wind. Kluchka ref��ed''tQ the amenity regarding LEED certification and asked if it has to be LEE� "certified?' or"`qualified." Goellner said she would like the language to say certified. Segelba,�m q��tioned who would determine between "certified" and "qualified.° Cera said there arc`LEED auditors. Goellner said she could do it because she has LEED accreditation. Blum questioned if Gold and Platinum LEED certification should have the same amount of points. Goellner suggested they have a difference of one point. Kluchka suggested adding an amenity regarding the creation of unique architecture that would be worth four points. Segelbaum questioned if the word unique should be used. Baker said he doesn't like the word unique. Kluchka suggested the words architecturally significant instead of unique. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 9 Waldhauser referred to the amenity regarding a public recreation area and suggested that the language stating "...play equipment or natural features suitable for recreational use by children and families" be removed. Segelbaum questioned if that language is removed if it would then be considered open space instead of a public recreation area. Waldhauser suggested adding language about an increase in the variety of housing and tife cycle housing to the affordable housing units amenity. Kluchka questioned if the definition of affordable is beyond current incentives or subsidies, and if the City is getting something more. Zimmerman stated there are certain thresholds but the ��n��,is to encourage affordable housing units. ,��+�'� '��. , °��. Blum suggested adding an amenity that would give points for off��i�g un�,�rgrour�l parking, and also adding an amenity regarding covered walkw��s. �� Cera referred to the amenity regarding rooftop solar panels a�� s�rg�este��F�at the language be changed to require the system to cover a=�t�rtinimuri�:of 5��o��'`energy needs, rather than to cover 50% of the total roof area. v�� }� Segelbaum said the suggested additional ameni�ies seem �yorth studying further and that he would like to see some other amenities th�t wpt�ld be wo��th one point. � �� fi �-;�t �� Cera referred to the items required to b��subm�t�ed dut�ing the Final PUD process and stated that he would like a recyclin��plan �c�d+�i�'fo#��;�list. ��,�i ��;, Baker referred to the proposed f��ua�� rega��g riparian buffer requirements (Subd. 6(A)(3)(a)) and reiterated th�t he w�r��the buffer requirement language in the PUD ordinance to be 50 feet whi�h is consi��gnt with the State requirements. Zimmerman stated that staff would like'�hat la4�guage>lremoved from the PUD section of City Code in order to reduce the number of�onflicts and to be consistent with what the Bassett Creek Watershed Commis�ion and th��tate require. Waldhauser suggested language be added to the Ci�y Cod� stating��li��the buffer requirements will be consistent with State requirements. Segelbaum agreed that the requirements should be consistent code-wide. Blum a��ed�i��l�r��g� regarding snow removal requirements should be added. Zimmerm�n stated that`there already are snow removal requirements listed in the PUD section of t�e Code. Blum questioned if the height of snow banks should be addressed. Zimrn�rman said that could be included as part of a snow storage plan. f, Kluchka ask�ef if language regarding communications plans should be added. Zimmerman stated that communication plans regarding construction are usually required post PUD plan approval. Goellner stated that communication plan requirements could be part of the development agreement process. Kluchka asked if it could be part of the standard conditions discussed during the PUD process so the Planning Commission doesn't have to remember to add it every time. Zimmerman stated that a communication plan is not required as part of a PUD submittal. Waldhauser noted that some PUDs don't need to have a communication plan. Minutes of the Golden Vailey Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 10 MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this item to the October 26, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. --Sh rt Recess-- 4 Reports on Meetings of the Ho ing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning App Is and other Meetings Zimme an gave an update on the 3. 4, the Xenia, Liberty Crossing, a��! Garnerstone Creek ap ent projects. He stated t at the Comprehensive Plan S�,�ems Sfat�ments have arrive the amendment proc s will be starting soon. �; :?: ;x, 5. Other Bus ess ,�� a�� E� v�Y t • Council Liai n Report - report was given. _�, �a';�''�° ��_ �' �cic� �;�a Cera stated that due to heaf conditi ns he would � e to'�r��n"�s Chair. .�r�y � , MOVED by Waldhauser, second Ba and motion c;�rried unanimously to elect Segelbaum as Chair, and Cera as air, ��; 6. Adjournment � '�`�� ,,. °: � The meeting was adjou � d at 1 Q;4 ��;, a _� ''x ��. N��; � � ��I�:, r, �;° �a;s. _�:;, `'' ` �,. � a. ��, n Kluchka, S��{etaty Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant !!i Current Major PUD Amendment Process Estimated Time 6 Months (10 steps) � Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment -. • - • Submit application and preliminary plans . • Applicant holds a neighborhood meeting ., � All property owners within 500 ft of development are notified • Application is reviewed by Physical Development and Fire Departments .. . • Staff reports are prepared • Planning Commission reviews preliminary plans at an informal public _� hearing ,+ • City Council reviews preliminary plans at public hearing • Applicant meets with City staff to review submission of final plans .� . • Submit application and final plans .� • Planning Commission reviews final plans at an informal public hearing .� • City Council reviews final plans at a public hearing • City Council approves Final Plat, PUD Permit, and Development Agreement Proposed Major PUD Amendment Process Estimated Timeline 3 Months (7 steps) . � • Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment +� . , • Submit application and final plans • Applicant holds a neighborhood meeting " ' � All property owners within 500 ft of development are notified • Application is reviewed by Physical Development and Fire Departments " ' • Staff reports are prepared . . , • Planning Commission reviews final plan at an informal public hearing • City Council reviews final plans at a public hearing ' i • City Council approves Final Plat, PUD Permit, and Development Agreement if " • applicable Current and Proposed Minor PUD Amendment Process Estimated Timeline 2 Months (5 steps) . � • Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment • . i • Submit application and final plans . • Applicant holds a neighborhood meeting ' ' • All property owners within 500 ft of development are notified • Application is reviewed by Physical Development and Fire Departments ` ' • Staff reports are prepared . � • City Council reviews final plans Proposed Administrative PUD Amendment Process - Estimated Timeline 3 Weeks (3 steps) � Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment . • • Submit application and final plans - . . � � � Staff reviews plans and updates PUD Permit � c .N � 0 2 N � +-� in C C � � � }' � O O o ,o � E � � C '«+ v, a`, �o v o c`o f° a v a a � o � � c � ° - a '6 'a a � �E c '^ U � � - � co -a � � v o � � v � � � �, �a a m � Q u Q a = c� � � a .a a 'c v° � o o ri �i � � L L � � Q� � C'� l� � � �F Q � � V (d (d iJ � Q � � 0 � 0 0 (n � J d W Il (n Z a U LL Q .N .N .� .N .N .N C9 = _ � �c � � Z O a U a� > '> '> '> '> '> -a v =a -a v �a � � � � � � � � > > � � � � � � � � 'a � � � a 'a � k � �^ �° ro c � a � a G � �. a� O � C Y N p +� in a �a c c U G� fO Q � �' a v �o on � � � � � � v a � O c •�• .� p .� � a � ° � ° v c 4 3 � N � v c m 0 > � � � ` ° '� � c� � v � O �i Oi y a 'i c � G1 � p +.. � � � � � � �p 0 N i.i � y "�O O � -� Oui � � � � 7 � p `+ � � � p_ (� v � O �' O � c v Cp u � a -p c�a � � �, ... �.. c � ,v .� O �;, +-� c � ,C c LL � W "a � � — � � � c v a` C � .� a � � co v '^ � � Z N a �' tO •t�C '^ � t�9 -0 �,�j � C � � v�i c ..�. ii. � •v ia ca c c � _ �, LL Q � u � � o Q � • o a � � � t � �o �"' cC .° t�a r`a u 7 "' a � c � � u a Q- � v � r° 'ca � c � a -p d 'O . d O - • _ � 'D � _ � a� G � y 'a p � y� � •c� ` Q. O p 0 U c o' a:. � � ca •� � ..�.� O Il) C � a�+ � Y N � � L y � p. Q fl' y �++ OA GO � vf � O ++ f6 U ` N a N � v v f° � a ;� Q .o a � � .� � o u,� Q u � c v a v v r �-{ .-i N Pn C � N C �a.. Ct 0��! '� Q � t1'f y0 'Q C � V � lD 4 �a 'd *' � � S Z � O O O N 11 ln d = 0! � •� � d Z � �I Q a a C> LL � a Q � � � � Q W � in in vi .0 v_� � �n � �n O � O �p �p 'p Q m U � W �, � � Q m U =p � Q m U � W � H Q LO U 0 W LL � 7 7 3 7 •0 7 L 3 � V N N N N N � � � N � a o, = � v \ � 3 �' _ W v Z � ` -a c � � � � � � v a� �+ � �� G� � � � O cLo -�a a� � E �° n c > � -a v 'c � � a�i � � � Q � Q Q U Q p C L L .--I N ri O O rl .-I c � � 'io c c o Q � � o 0 .N .N .N .� .� .� � Q o0 U 'a � � � � 7 7 7 N N N N � C N �, � C � N � �+ +-' � �n � � G1 N � � � � � � � � Q Q a � � a c p ru �� +-' v � a o � � � � � � a 0 � c°� v � a 0 c�o 0 N i U � d N �'_' � "a O � � co � � N W ? Q � � � � � 3 '� � �o � o v c a� � �� a -a „ � Z � � � v � Z o a a�i c �I v �I � m E u �1 a +,�', ra v, � ... ,n U a� � a� � a c i.i '� v � 1— c c � � Q- " v v o � o µ, v o .a o � � a a � co � L � � � v� +_ � v, � -a � � > �� c � c v no v � +� � � a a a v � � c a o a o v v � u � a � Q O d � � •� � � U v V O L � V OC � � 'p +� � Q- �p � N Y � � O +' (O L co � 0 Q' � Q" � � � � �!1 � Q v� ca � ti�o � `n `n � v��, Q a � ,c o c � � Q a Q o a m � U N G1 � ' � r"1 C C C � � UJ C � > > � � � � c0 �� (o c0 � Q � Q = � � O � O O O C � N � N L 'L �v � 7 p � L 41 i C � O �" O Q" O O O .N .N .N i..� in � t/> d d 2 a a .� (7 n. Z a i.i i i .N Q .N Q .N .� .N O � > > > > > > > > > }' � � =o Q m c.i � ui �i C7 = - � � Q om c.i � u; �i � a � Q =a � � p� v � � � � � � � � � a� a c./) in in �n cn �n in �n in �n § 11.55 ��; S-I� � Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development Subdivision 1. Intent and Purpose It is the intent of this Section to provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility from the other provisions of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code, including flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot and similar regulations. A. The purpose of this section is to: 1. Encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. 2. Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. 3. Encourage preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, waterways, wetlands and lakes. 4. Encourage construction of afFordable housing and a variety of housing types. 5. Encourage creativity and flexibility in land development. 6. Encourage e�cient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public facilities. 7. Allow mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels. 8. Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. 9. Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 10. Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. 11. Encourage development that is sustainable and has a high degree of energy efficiency. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 16 § 11.55 B. This Section applies to all Planned Unit Developments existing in the City on the date of its enactment and all subsequently enacted Planned Unit Developments. Subdivision 2. Applicability A. Optional Land Use Control. Planned Unit Development provisions provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility in the uses allowed and other regulating provisions including setbacks, height, parking requirements number of buildings on a lot and similar regulations provided the following requirements are met and the PUD plan complies with the other provisions of this and other Planned Unit Development sections. Approval of a Planned Unit Development and granting of a PUD agreement does not alter the existing zoning district classification of a parcel in any manner; however, once a PUD has been granted and is in effect for a parcel, no building permit shall be issued for that parcel which is not in conformance with the approved PUD Plan, the Building Code, and with all other applicable City Code provisions. B. Uses. Once a Final PUD Plan is approved, the use or uses are limited to those approved by the specific approved PUD ordinance for the site and by the conditions, if any, imposed by the City in the approval process. C. Maintenance Preservation. All features and aspects of the Final PUD Plan and related documents including but not limited to buildings, setbacks, open space, preserved areas, landscaping, wetlands, buffers, grading, drainage, streets and parking, hard cover, signs and similar features shall be used, preserved and maintained as required in said PUD plans and documents. Source: Ordinance No. 318, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-31-04 Subdivision 3. Standards and Guidelines A. Size. Each residential PUD must have a minimum area of two (2) acres, excluding areas within a public right-of-way, designated wetland, or floodplain overlay district, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee the existence of one (1) or more of the following: 1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 16 § 11.55 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories. Source: Ordinance No. 547, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-26-IS B. Frontage. Frontage on a public street shall be at least one hundred (100) feet or adequate to serve the development. C. Setbacks. 1. Principal Building. No principal building shall be closer than its height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts on a single-family zoning district. 2. All Buildings. No building shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from the back of the curb line along those roadways which are a part of the internal road system. Some minor deviations may be allowed provided adequate separation is provided through additional landscaping, berming or similar means. D. Private Service Facilities or Common Areas. In the event certain land areas or structures are proposed within the planned unit development for shared recreational use or as service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City to assure the continued operation and maintenance to a pre-determined reasonable standard. These common areas may be placed under the ownership of one of the following as determined by the Council: 1. Dedicated to public where community-wide use is anticipated. 2. Landlord 3. Landowners or Homeowners Association, provided appropriate conditions and protections satisfactory to the City are met such as formation of the association, mandatory membership, permanent use restrictions, liability insurance, local taxes, maintenance, and assessment provisions. E. Intent and Purposes. A PUD shall meet and be consistent with the intent and purpose provisions and all other provisions of this section. Subdivision 4. Pre-Application A. Qualifications. Application for a PUD may be made only by: 1) the owner of the land involved in the PUD application, or by a duly authorized representative, or 2) an option or contract holder, provided the application is accompanied by fully executed agreements or documents from the owner stating that such owner has no objections to the proposed application and is in fact joining in the same as such owner's interest may appear. The City Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 16 § 11.55 may act as a petitioner on its own behalf or on the behalf of an afFiliated governmental body. B. Pre-Application Conference. Prior to filing a PUD application and prior to conducting a neighborhood meeting, the applicant shall meet with the city staff for a pre-application conference. The primary purpose of the conference is to allow the applicant and stafF to discuss land use controls, appropriate use of the site, design standards, how the plan will achieve higher quality and meet the PUD purpose and design requirements, the application process, and the general merits of the applicant's proposal. C. Neighborhood Meeting. At an appropriate point during development of a preliminary PUD plan, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the proposed PUD, discuss the concepts and basis for the plan being developed and to obtain information and suggestions from the neighborhood. Subdivision 5. Application Procedure - Preliminary PUD Plan A. Application. The applicant shall complete and sign the application and submit a Preliminary PUD Plan. All application requirements must be completed and submitted for the application to be processed. If it is proposed to develop a project during a period which will exceed two (2) years, the applicant may request approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan for the entire project and permission to submit a Final PUD Plan only for the first stage of the project. Separate public hearings and a Final PUD Plan shall nevertheless be required respecting such successive stage of the project as the same is reached. Except to the extent the City Manager or his/her designee requires more or less information, the application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: Source: Ordinance No. 318, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-31-04 1. Preliminary PUD Plan. A Preliminary PUD Plan of the proposed development illustrating the nature and type of proposed development, shall identify all land uses and proposed square footage, the location of buildings, existing and proposed roadways and accesses, pedestrian ways and sidewalks, proposed parking areas, preliminary traffic volume projections, areas to be preserved, public and common areas, preliminary building elevations including height and materials, preliminary utilities plan, the location of the parcel's boundaries, the net and gross density of the development, the total area occupied by the development, lot coverage, a lighting plan (subject to the requirements in Section 11.73, Outdoor Lighting) and the amenities to be provided and a development schedule. Source: Ordinance No. 365, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-23-07 Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 16 § 11.55 a. Preliminary Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan b. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan c. Preliminary Building Code Analysis 2. Preliminary Plat. All data required for a preliminary plat by the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations Chapter of the City Code. This requirement may be waived if the PUD is an amendment to an approved PUD. 3. Narrative. A narrative statement explaining how the proposed PUD will meet the purpose and other provisions of the PUD Ordinance including how it will: a. Encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. b. Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. c. Encourage preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, water ways, wetlands and lakes. d. Encourage construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types. e. Encourage creativity and flexibility in land development. f. Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public facilities. g. Allow mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels. h. Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. i. Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. j. Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 16 § 11.55 k. Encourage development that is sustainable and has a high degree of energy efficiency. 4. Future Requirements. The applicant is advised to consider the requirement for a Final PUD Plan when preparing the Preliminary PUD Plan. 5. Other. An applicant may submit any additional information which may explain the proposed PUD. B. Planning Department. Upon submission of a completed application, the Planning Department shall: 1. Refer. Refer the application to the Physical Development Department for their written evaluations regarding those aspects of the proposal which affect the particular department's area of interest. 2. Notify. Notify by mail property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area to be determined by the City, of the public information meeting. However, failure of any property owner to receive notification shall not invalidate the proceedings. 3. Report. Prepare a report and refer it to the Planning Commission for review at the informal public hearing. C. Planning Commission. 1. Informational Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold an informal public hearing and consider the application for consistency with the Intent and Purpose provisions and other PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to in the City. The Planning Commission's report to the Council shall include recommended changes, conditions, or modifications. 2. Petitioner. The petitioner, or the petitioner's representative, shall appear at the public information meeting in order to answer questions concerning the proposed PUD. 3. Findings. The findings and action of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council. D. City Council. 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing, and take action on the application. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. The public hearing shall be called and notice thereof given in the manner req u i red by statute. Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 16 § 11.55 2. Findings. The findings and action of the Council may include a request for plan amendments, approval, denial, or other action deemed appropriate by the Council such as referral back to the Planning Commission. E. Findings. Approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan requires the following findings be made by the City. 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. EfFicient - Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Source: Ordinance No. 318, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-31-04 Subdivision 6. Application Procedure - Final PUD Plan A. Application and Final PUD Plan Requirements. Unless the applicant has obtained City Council permission under Subd. 5(A) hereof to develop a project over more than two (2) years, the applicant shall submit a complete Final PUD Plan within one hundred eighty (180) days of Preliminary PUD Plan , approval. Such one hundred eighty (180) day period may be extended for additional one hundred eighty (180) day periods by the City Council in the exercise of its sole discretion subject to such additional conditions as it deems appropriate. The Final PUD Plan shall be consistent with the Preliminary PUD Plan approved by the City Council, as well as the PUD Intent and Purpose provisions hereof. The standards and other provisions of this section shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Source: Ordinance No. 419, 2nd Series Effective Date: OS-29-09 Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 16 § 11.55 1. Site Plan/Development Plan. Plans of the proposed PUD development which identify all land uses and proposed square footage, the location of buildings, existing and proposed roadways and accesses, pedestrian ways and sidewalks, proposed parking areas, traffic volume projections, areas to be preserved, public and common areas, building elevations including height and materials, preliminary utilities plan, the location of the parcel's boundaries, the net and gross density of the development, the total area occupied by the development, the amenities to be provided and the development schedule. 2. Setbacks. Setback measurements from buildings, roads, parking and high use outdoor activity areas to the nearest lot lines shall be shown on the Site Plan. A narrative shall describe these setbacks and provide the rationale and justification. The City may allow some flexibility in setbacks if it benefits all parties and the environment. Requiring greater or allowing lesser setbacks may be based on uses on and off the site, natural amenities and preservation, topography, density, building heights, building materials, landscaping, lighting and other plan features. 3. Preservation Plan. A Preservation and Open Space Plan showing the areas to be preserved and spaces to be left open shall be provided. Preference shall be given to protecting sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, waterways, wetlands and lakes. The plan shall include new plantings, fixtures, equipment and methods of preservation. Said plan and information may be included on the Landscape Plan. a. Wetlands and Ponds Guidelines. Wetlands and ponds shall have a riparian buffer strip at least twenty-five (25) feet wide composed of natural vegetation but not an improved and/or fertilized lawn. b. Buffers. Provisions for buffering the PUD site from adjacent uses shall be included. Natural amenities shall be used to the extent possible and be supplemented by additional landscaping, berms or other features as may be appropriate. Buffers shall be based on the type of uses on and adjacent to the site, views, elevations and activities. Buffers may be included on the Landscape Plan. c. Tree Preservation Plan. A complete tree preservation plan consistent with the PUD requirements and the Preliminary PUD Plan as approved by the City. d. Landscape Plans. Complete landscaping plans showing vegetation to be removed, vegetation to be retained and proposed vegetation. Plans shall include species, quantities, planting methods and sizes. Within any specific PUD, the landscaping may be required to exceed the City's policy on minimum landscape standards. Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 16 § 11.55 4. Public Space. Properties within PUDs are subject to the dedication of parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces, storm water holding areas and ponds as outlined in Section 12.30, subdivision 1 of the Subdivision Code, the Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans or other City plans. 5. Transportation and Parking Plan. A complete plan shall be submitted which includes: a. Proposed sidewalks and trails to provide access to the building, parking, recreation and service areas within the proposed development and connection to the City's system of walks and trails b. Internal roads, if any c. Driveways d. Parking, including layout dimensions of spaces and aisles, total parking by use, and a notation about striping/painting the spaces e. Off-street loading for business uses f. A plan for snow storage and removal g. A plan for maintenance of the facilities h. A calculation of traffic projections by use with assignments to the roads, drives and accesses serving the PUD, including existing traffic volumes for adjacent streets using the most recent counts and/or based on the uses and trip generation estimates i. A description of the alternatives and locations considered for access to the site and the rationale used in selecting the proposed location, width and design of streets, driveways and accesses. 6. Private Streets. Private streets shall not be approved, nor shall public improvements be approved for any private right-of-way, unless a waiver is granted by the City based on the following and other relevant factors: a. Extension of a public street is not physically feasible as determined by the city; b. Severe grades make it infeasible according to the city to construct a public street to minimum city standards; c. The city determines that a public road extension would adversely impact natural amenities; or Go/den Valley City Code Page 9 of 16 § 11.55 d. There is no feasible present or future means of extending right-of-way from other directions. e. If the City determines that there is need for a public street extension, this provision shall not apply, and the right-of-way for a public street shall be provided by dedication in the plat. 7. Private Street Design Standards. a. The street must have adequate width consistent with the Transportation Plan and must be located and approximately centered within an easement at least four (4) feet wider than the street. b. The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. c. The design and construction standards must result in a functionally sound street in balance with its intended use and setting. d. The number of lots to share a common private access drive must be reasonable. e. Covenants which assign driveway installation and future maintenance responsibility in a manner acceptable to the City must be submitted and recorded with the titles or the parcels which are benefited. f. Common sections of the private street serving three (3) or more dwellings must be built to a seven-ton design, paved to a width of twenty (20) feet, utilize a minimum grade, and have a maximum grade which does not exceed ten percent (10%). g. The private street must be provided with suitable drainage. h. Covenants concerning maintenance and use shall be filed against all benefiting properties. i. Street addresses or City-approved street name signs, if required, must be posted at the point where the private street intersects the public right-of-way. B. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans. Complete plans for grading, drainage and erosion control which meet the City's standards shall be submitted. The plan shall show hard surface calculations by areas - buildings, private streets, driveways, parking lots, plazas, walks, trails, and all other impervious surfaces. Hard surface coverage is expected not to exceed the following standards. Golden Valley City Code Page 10 of 16 § 11.55 Uses Maximum Hard Cover Percent Single Family 38% Townhouses 40% Apartments-Condominiums 42% Institutional Uses 45% Industrial Uses 70% Business Uses 80% Commercial-Retail 90% Mixed Uses of Housing with Retail, Office or Business 90% C. Utilities and Service Facilities. The applicant shall provide a plan showing how the site will be served by utilities. D. The applicant shall submit a Final Building Code Analysis. E. Refuse and Garbage. The applicant shall provide a refuse disposal Plan including provisions for storage and removal on a regular basis. (In residential developments, all waste/refuse shall be stored inside a principal structure or a garage until the day of pick-up. In commercial, business and institutional developments refuse may be stored in a principal building or in an enclosed screened in area designed of materials to match the principal building.) F. Architectural plans. The applicant shall submit architectural plans showing the floor plan and elevations of all sides of the proposed buildings including exterior wall finishes proposed for all principal and accessory buildings. Cross sections may be required. G. Sign Plan. The applicant shall submit a Sign Plan including the location of proposed signs, size, materials, color, and lighting. In those instances where not all signs are known, a sign policy shall be presented to the City for the City's review consistent with PUD requirements. Sign design, policies, style, colors, locations, size, height, materials and accompanying landscaping must be consistent with achieving a high quality development meeting the PUD intent and purpose provisions. H. Dwelling Information. The applicant shall submit complete data as to dwelling unit number, density net and gross, sizes, types, etc. I. Life-Cycle and Affordable Housing. If the PUD includes "life-cycle" or affordable housing, the applicant shall provide a narrative describing the housing, and the guarantees such as covenants to be used to secure such housing and maintain long term affordability. J. Population. The applicant shall submit a population component which shall contain a descriptive statement of the estimated population and population characteristics. Golden Valley City Code Page I1 of 16 § 11.55 K. Employees. If office, commercial, business, service firms or institutional uses are included in the PUD, the estimated number of employees shall be included. L. Final Plat. Unless waived by the City, the applicant shall submit a final plat, as required by Chapter 12 (Subdivision Regulations) of the City Code. The title of the plat must include the following "P.U.D. No. " (The number to insert will be provided by the City.) M. Schedule. The applicant shall submit a schedule and proposed staging, if any, of the development. N. Narrative. The applicant shall submit a description of the development especially as it relates to use of PUD provisions and explaining how it meets the purpose and other PUD provisions including how it will: 1. Encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. 2. Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. 3. Encourage preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, water ways, wetlands and lakes. 4. Encourage construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types. 5. Encourage creativity and flexibility in land development. 6. Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public facilities. 7. Allow mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels. 8. Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. 9. Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 10. Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. Golden Valley City Code Page 12 of 16 § 11.55 11. Other. The applicant may submit any additional information which may explain the proposed PUD. 12. City Manager or his/her designee. The City Manager or his/her designee may require more or less information than that listed above. O. Planning Commission. 1. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold an informal public hearing. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. 2. Consistency. The Commission shall review the Final PUD plan for consistency with the Preliminary PUD Plan as approved by the Council, and the conditions, if any imposed by the Council, the Intent and Purpose provisions, all other provisions of the PUD ordinance, and principles and standards adhered to in the City. 3. Findings. The findings, actions and report of the commission to the Council may include recommended conditions and modifications to the Final PUD Plan. P. City Council. 1. Public Hearing. The City Council shall hold a public hearing. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. 2. Action. The action of the Council may include plan amendments, approval, denial, or other action based on findings and deemed appropriate by the City Council. Q. Findings. Approval of a Final PUD Plan requires the following findings be made by the City: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. Efficient. Effective. The PUD plan includes efFicient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. Golden Valley City Code Page 13 of 16 § 11.55 4. Consistency. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. R. Approval. Approval of a Planned Unit Development shall be by ordinance requiring an affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council. Subdivision 7. PUD Agreement Following Council approval of a Final PUD Plan, City staff shall prepare a PUD agreement which references all the approved plans, specifies permitted uses, allowable densities, development phasing, required improvements, completion dates for improvements, the required Letter of Credit and additional requirements for each PUD, in accordance with the conditions established in the City Council approval of the Final PUD Plan and PUD ordinance. The PUD agreement shall be signed by the petitioner within thirty (30) days of the City Council's approval of the agreement. Subdivision 8. Building Permit Following approval of a Final PUD Plan and execution of the PUD agreement, the City may grant building permits for proposed structures within the approved PUD area provided the requested permit conforms to the Final PUD Plan, all provisions of the PUD ordinance, the PUD agreement and all other applicable City Codes. Subdivision 9. Multiple Parcels A PUD may be regulated by a single agreement which may include attachments. One (1) or more of the attachments may cover an individual lot. An applicant amending an approved PUD must show that the proposed change does not adversely affect any other property owner, if any, in the PUD, the terms of the PUD Plan and PUD Agreement, and the Intent and Purpose and other provisions of the PUD Ordinance. A proposed amendment which does not meet this requirement may be rejected by the City without review as would otherwise be required by the ordinance. Subdivision 10. Amendments An application to amend a PUD shall be administered in the same manner as that required for an initial PUD; however, a minor amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the City Council with or without referral to the Planning Commission. To qualify for this review, the minor amendment shall not: A. Eliminate, diminish or be disruptive to the preservation and protection of sensitive site features. Golden Valley City Code Page 14 of 16 § 11.55 B. Eliminate, diminish or compromise the high quality of site planning, design, landscaping or building materials. C. Alter significantly the location of buildings, parking areas or roads. D. Increase or decrease the number of residential dwelling units by more than five percent (5%). E. Increase the gross floor area of non-residential buildings by more than three percent (3%) or increase the gross floor area of any individual building by more than five percent (5%). F. Increase the number of stories of any building. G. Decrease the amount of open space by more than three percent (3%) or alter it in such a way as to change its original design or intended function or use. H. Create non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the Final PUD Plan. Subdivision 11. Cancellation A PUD shall only be cancelled and revoked upon the City Council adopting an ordinance rescinding the ordinance approving the PUD. Subdivision 12. Administration A. Records. The Planning Department shall maintain a record of all Planned Unit Developments approved by the City Council including information on the use, location, conditions imposed, time limits, review dates, and such other information as may be appropriate. Each approved PUD shall be clearly noted on the Zoning Map. B. Certification of Plans. The City may require that PUD plans be certified at the time of submittal and/or upon completion of construction. C. Time Limits. No application which was denied shall be re-submitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said denial. D. Letter of Credit. To Assure Conformance to the Final PUD Plan and Agreement the City may require the applicant to post a Letter of Credit in a form approved by the City, guaranteeing the faithful performance of certain work or matters covered in the agreement and in a sum equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) the total cost of all such items as determined by the Physical Development Department. The Letter of Credit or other surety may be reduced when specific parts or items are completed and upon recommendation of the Physical Development Department. Golden Valley City Code Page 15 of 16 § 11.55 E. Effect on Conveyed Property. In the event any real property in the approved PUD Agreement is conveyed in total, or in part, the buyers thereof shall be bound by the provisions of the approved Final PUD Plan constituting a part thereof; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to create non-conforming lots, building sites, buildings or uses by virtue of any such conveyance of a lot, building site, building or part of the development created pursuant to and in conformance with the approved PUD. Source: Ordinance No. 318, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-31-04 Golden Valley City Code Page 16 of 16 �� o�c� � � - Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development Subdivision 1. Intent and Purpose It is the intent of this Section to provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility from the other provisions of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code, including flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot and similar regulations. A. The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. 2. Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. 3. Encourage preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, waterways, wetlands and lakes. 4. Encourage construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types. 5. Encourage creativity and flexibility in land development. 6. Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public facilities. 7. Allow mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels. 8. Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. 9. Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 10. Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. 11. Encourage development that is sustainable and has a high degree of energy efficiency. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 1 of 19 B. This Section applies to all Planned Unit Developments existing in the City on the date of its enactment and all subsequently enacted Planned Unit Developments. Subdivision 2. Applicability A. Optional Land Use Control. Planned Unit Development provisions provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility in the uses allowed and other regulating provisions including setbacks, height, parking requirements number of buildings on a lot and similar regulations provided the following requirements are met and the PUD plan complies with the other provisions of this and other Planned Unit Development sections. Approval of a Planned Unit Development and granting of a PUD agreement does not alter the existing zoning district classification of a parcel in any manner; however, once a PUD has been granted and is in effect for a parcel, no building permit shall be issued for that parcel which is not in conformance with the approved PUD Plan, the Building Code, and with all other applicable City Code provisions. B. Uses. Once a Final PUD Plan is approved, the use or uses are limited to those approved by the specific approved PUD ordinance for the site and by the conditions, if any, imposed by the City in the approval process. C. Maintenance Preservation. All features and aspects of the Final PUD Plan and rPlated documents including but not limited to buildings, setbacks, open space, preserved areas, landscaping, wetlands, buffers, grading, drainage, streets and parking, hard cover, signs and similar features shall be used, preserved and maintained as required in said PUD plans and documents. Subdivision 3. Standards and Guidelines A. Intent and Purposes. A PUD shall meet and be consistent with the intent and purpose provisions and all other provisions of this section. B. Findings. Approval of a Preliminary or Final PUD Plan, or a PUD Amendment, requires the following findings be made by the City. 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 2 of 19 3. Efficient - EfFective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Consistency. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. C. Size. Each residential PUD must have a minimum area of two (2) acres, excluding areas within a public right-of-way, designated wetland, or floodplain overlay district, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee the existence of one (1) or more of the following: 1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories. D. Frontage. Frontage on a public street shall be at least one hundred (100) feet or adequate to serve the development. E. Setbacks. 1. The City may allow some flexibility in setbacks if it benefits all parties and the environment. Requiring greater or allowing lesser setbacks may be based on uses on and off the site, natural amenities and preservation, topography, density, building heights, building materials, landscaping, lighting and other plan features. The rationale and justification for these setbacks shall be described in the narrative. 2. Principal Building. No principal building shall be closer than its height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts on a single-family zoning district. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 3 of 19 3. All Buildings. No building shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from the back of the curb line along those roadways which are a part of the internal road system. Some minor deviations may be allowed provided adequate separation is provided through additional landscaping, berming or similar means. F. Private Service Facilities or Common Areas. In the event certain land areas or structures are proposed within the planned unit development for shared recreational use or as service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City to assure the continued operation and maintenance to a pre-determined reasonable standard. These common areas may be placed under the ownership of one of the following as determined by the Council: 1. Dedicated to public where community-wide use is anticipated. 2. Landlord. 3. Landowners or Homeowners Association, provided appropriate conditions and protections satisfactory to the City are met such as formation of the association, mandatory membership, permanent use restrictions, liability insurance, local taxes, maintenance, and assessment provisions. G. Private Streets. Private streets shall not be approved, nor shall public improvements be approved for any private right-of-way, unless a waiver is granted by the City based on the following and other relevant factors: 1. Extension of a public street is not physically feasible as determined by the city; 2. Severe grades make it infeasible according to the city to construct a public street to minimum city standards; 3. The city determines that a public road extension would adversely impact natural amenities; or 4. There is no feasible present or future means of extending right-of-way from other directions. 5. If the City determines that there is need for a public street extension, this provision shall not apply, and the right-of-way for a public street shall be provided by dedication in the plat. 6. If a waiver is granted for the installation of private streets, the following design standards shall apply: Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 4 of 19 a. The street must have adequate width consistent with the Transportation Plan and must be located and approximately centered within an easement at least four (4) feet wider than the street. b. The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. c. The design and construction standards must result in a functionally sound street in balance with its intended use and setting. d. The number of lots to share a common private access drive must be reasonable. e. Covenants which assign driveway installation and future maintenance responsibility in a manner acceptable to the City must be submitted and recorded with the titles or the parcels which are benefited. f. Common sections of the private street serving three (3) or more dwellings must be built to a seven-ton design, paved to a width of twenty (20) feet, utilize a minimum grade, and have a maximum grade which does not exceed ten percent (10%). g. The private street must be provided with suitable drainage. h. Covenants concerning maintenance and use shall be filed against all benefiting properties. i. Street addresses or City-approved street name signs, if required, must be posted at the point where the private street intersects the public right-of-way. H. Hard Surfaces. Hard surface coverage is expected not to exceed the following standards. Uses Maximum Hard Cover Percent Single Family 38% Townhouses 40% Apartments-Condominiums 42% Institutional Uses 45% Industrial Uses 70% Business Uses 80% Commercial-Retail 90% Mixed Uses of Housing with Retail, OfFice or Business 90% I. Public Space. Properties within PUDs are subject to the dedication of parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces, storm water holding areas and ponds as outlined in the Subdivision Code, the Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans or other City plans. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 5 of 19 J. Public Amenities. All PUDs created after November 1, 2015 shall provide at least one amenity or combination of amenities that total at least five (5) points from the Public Amenity Option table. Where an amenity does not meet all of the standards required, a portion of points may be allotted if approved based on proportionality by the City Manager of his/her designee. An applicant may petition for credit for an amenity not included in the Public Amenity Option table; however, if the petition is granted, the amenity may only be allotted up to two (2) points and shall be based on proportionality. PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards 5 Green Roof Installation of an extensive, intensive, or semi-intensive, modular or integrated green roof system that covers a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total roof area ro osed for the develo ment. 5 Affordable Housing Units Three options of affordability include: • At least ten percent (10%) of units within development are rented or sold at thirty percent (30%) of Area Median Income or less. • At least twenty percent (20%) of units within development are rented or sold at fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income or less. • At least thirty percent (30%) of units within development are rented or sold at eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income or less. 4 Public Open Space Contiguous ground level outdoor open space that is provided beyond the amount of open space required in the underlying Zonin District re uirements. 4 Utilization of a Renewable Use of a photovoltaic or wind electrical Energy Source system, solar thermal system and/or a geothermal heating and cooling system for at �east fifty percent (50%) of the annual energy costs in new and existing buildings. The applicant must demonstrate that the quantity of energy generated by the renewable energy system(s) meets the required percentage through a whole buildin ener simulation. 4 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve Environmental Desi n LEED Platinum certification a roved b a Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 6 of 19 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards (LEED) Platinum LEED Accredited Professional (LEED-AP) Certification by a date determined in the Development Agreement. During the PUD approval process, the developer must submit a LEED checklist and documentation to the City that shows the project will comply with LEED Platinum re uirements. 3 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve Environmental Design LEED Gold certification approved by a (LEED) Gold Certification LEED Accredited Professional (LEED-AP) by a date determined in the Development Agreement. During the PUD approval process, the developer must submit a LEED checklist and documentation to the City that shows the project will comply with LEED Gold re uirements. 3 Community Garden Permanent and viable growing space and/or facilities such as a greenhouse or a garden, which provides fencing, watering systems, soil, secured storage spaces for tools, solar access, and pedestrian access as applicable. The facility shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the development to minimize the visibility of inechanical equipment. The food produced shall be provided to those livin or workin in Golden Valle . 3 Public Recreation Area An active, safe, and secure outdoor recreation area open and visible to the public that includes equipment or natural features suitable for recreational use. 3 Public Plaza Plazas shall be open to the public during daylight hours and provide opportunities for the public to interact with the space using outdoor furniture, art, or other mechanisms. 3 Public Art The art shall be maintained in good order for the life of the principle structure. The art shall be located where it is highly visible to the public. If located indoors, such space shall be clearly visible and easily accessible from adjacent sidewalks or streets. 2 Enhanced Bic cle and Eli ible facilities ma include a Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 7 of 19 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards Pedestrian Facilities combination of the following: heated transit shelter, bicycle repair tools, rest area, wayfinding signs, sheltered walkway, woonerf, and other amenities that increase the convenience and encourage the use of public walkways and bikewa s. 2 Creation or Preservation of Creation, preservation, rehabilitation, or Significant/Historic restoration of designed historic landmarks Architecture or significant architectural features as a art of the develo ment. 2 Enhanced Stormwater The design must provide capacity for Management infiltrating stormwater beyond what is required by the City and Watershed District and the design must serve as a visual amenit to the ro ert . 2 Underground Parking At least Seventy-five percent (75%) of parking on-site shall be located under round. 1 Water Feature Usable to A water feature, including but not limited Public to a reflecting pond, a children's play feature, or a fountain shall be located where it is highly visible and useable by the ublic. 1 Shared Bicycle and Vehicle Accommodation for shared vehicles or Facilities shared bicycles on site. The shared service provider must be committed in writing to the use of the space in order to be eli ible. 1 Decorative Fencing Installation of high quality metal fencing where visible from the public street, public sidewalk or ublic athwa . 1 Enhanced Exterior Lighting A lighting plan that highlights significant areas of the site or architectural features of the building(s) and acts as a visual amenit for the develo ment. 1 Informational/Interpretive Permanent signs that inform the public of Dis la s uni ue as ects or histor of the ro ert . 1 Enhanced Landscaping A landscaping plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect that provides exceptional design with a variety of pollinators and native trees, shrubs, and plant types that provide seasonal interest and that exceed minimum Cit standards. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 8 of 19 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards 1 Electric Car Charging An electric vehicle charging station Station accessible to residents and/or employees of develo ment. Subdivision 4. Procedures A. Qualifications. Application for a PUD may be made only by: 1) the owner of the land involved in the PUD application, or by a duly authorized representative, or 2) an option or contract holder, provided the application is accompanied by fully executed agreements or documents from the owner stating that such owner has no objections to the proposed application and is in fact joining in the same as such owner's interest may appear. The City may act as a petitioner on its own behalf or on the behalf of an affiliated governmental body. B. Preliminary PUD Conference. Prior to filing a PUD application and prior to conducting a neighborhood meeting, the applicant shall meet with City staff for a pre-application conference. The primary purpose of the conference is to allow the applicant and staff to discuss land use controls, appropriate use of the site, design standards, how the plan will achieve higher quality and meet the PUD purpose and design requirements, the application process, and the general merits of the applicant's proposal. C. Neighborhood Meeting. At an appropriate point during development of a Preliminary PUD Plan, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the proposed PUD, discuss the concepts and basis for the plan being developed and to obtain information and suggestions from the neighborhood. D. Preliminary PUD Review. 1. Planning Division. Upon submission of a completed Preliminary PUD Plan application, the Planning Division shall: a. Refer. Refer the application to other City departments for their written evaluations regarding those aspects of the proposal which affect public safety and the delivery of service. b. Notify. Notify by mail property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area to be determined by the City, of the public information meeting. However, failure of any property owner to receive notification shall not invalidate the proceedings. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 9 of 19 c. Report. Prepare a report and refer it to the Planning Commission for review at the informal public hearing. 2. Planning Commission. a. Informational Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold an informal public hearing and consider the application for consistency with the Intent and Purpose provisions and other PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to in the City. The Planning Commission's report to the Council shall include recommended changes, conditions, or modifications. b. Petitioner. The petitioner, or the petitioner's representative, shall appear at the public information meeting in order to answer questions concerning the proposed PUD. c. Findings. The findings and action of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council. 3. City Council. a. Public Hearing. The Council shall hold a public hearing and take action on the application. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. The public hearing shall be called and notice thereof given in the manner required by statute. b. Findings. The findings and action of the Council may include a request for plan amendments, approval, denial, or other action deemed appropriate by the Council such as referral back to the Planning Commission. E. Final PUD Conference. Following approval by the City Council of the Preliminary PUD Plan and prior to the submission of the Final PUD Plan for review, the applicant shall meet with City staff to demonstrate that all conditions or required modifications to the Preliminary PUD Plan have been addressed. Failure to hold this meeting prior to submission of the Final PUD Plan shall be grounds to deem the application incomplete. F. Final PUD Review. 1. Planning Division. Upon submission of a completed Preliminary PUD Plan application, the Planning Division shall: a. Refer. Refer the application to other City departments for their written evaluations regarding those aspects of the proposal which affect public safety and the delivery of service. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 10 of 19 b. Notify. Notify by mail property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area to be determined by the City, of the public information meeting. However, failure of any property owner to receive notification shall not invalidate the proceedings. c. Report. Prepare a report and refer it to the Planning Commission for review at the informal public hearing. 2. Planning Commission. a. Informational Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold an informal public hearing. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. b. Consistency. The Commission shal) review the Final PUD Plan for consistency with the Preliminary PUD Plan as approved by the Council, and the conditions, if any imposed by the Council, the Intent and Purpose provisions, all other provisions of the PUD ordinance, and principles and standards adhered to in the City. c. Findings. The findings, actions and report of the Commission to the Council may include recommended conditions and modifications to the Final PUD Plan. 3. City Council. a. Public Hearing. The City Council shall hold a public hearing. All property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the PUD, or a larger area as determined by the City, shall be given notice of the meeting. The public hearing shall be called and notice thereof given in the manner required by statute. b. Action. The action of the Council may include plan amendments, approval, denial, or other action based on findings and deemed appropriate by the City Council. 4. Approval. Approval of a Planned Unit Development shall be by ordinance requiring an affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council. Subdivision 5. Application - Preliminary PUD Plan A. Application and Preliminary PUD Plan Requirements. The applicant shall complete and sign the application and submit a Preliminary PUD Plan. All application requirements must be completed and submitted for the application to be processed. If it is proposed to develop a project during a period which will exceed two (2) years, the applicant may request approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan for the entire project and permission to submit a Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page il of 19 Final PUD Plan only for the first stage of the project. Separate public hearings and a Final PUD Plan shall nevertheless be required respecting such successive stage of the project as the same is reached. Except to the extent the City Manager or his/her designee requires more or less information, the application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: 1. Narrative. A narrative statement explaining how the proposed PUD will meet the purpose and other provisions of the PUD Ordinance. 2. Preliminary Site/Development Plan. A plan of the proposed development illustrating the nature and type of proposed development shall identify all land uses and proposed square footages, the locations of buildings, existing and proposed roadways and accesses, pedestrian ways and sidewalks, proposed parking areas, areas to be preserved, public and common areas, and the amenities to be provided. Setback measurements from buildings, roads, parking and high use outdoor activity areas to the nearest lot lines shall be shown on the Site Plan. 3. Preliminary Preservation Plan. A Preservation Plan showing the areas to be preserved and spaces to be left open shall be provided. Preference shall be given to protecting sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, waterways, wetlands and lakes. 4. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan. Preliminary plans for grading, drainage and erosion control which meet the City's standards shall be submitted. The plan shall show hard surface calculations by areas - buildings, private streets, driveways, parking lots, plazas, walks, trails, and all other impervious surfaces. 5. Preliminary Utilities Plan. The applicant shall provide a plan showing how the site will be served by utilities. 6. Preliminary Building Code Analysis. 7. Preliminary Plat. All data required for a preliminary plat by the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations Chapter of the City Code. 8. Preliminary Building Elevations, including height and materials. 9. Future Requirements. The applicant is advised to consider the additional requirements for a Final PUD Plan when preparing the Preliminary PUD Plan. 10. Other. An applicant may submit any additional information which may explain the proposed PUD. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 12 of 19 Subdivision 6. Application — Final PUD Plan A. Application and Final PUD Plan Requirements. Unless the applicant has obtained City Council permission under Subd. 5(A) hereof to develop a project over more than two (2) years, the applicant shall submit a complete Final PUD Plan within one hundred eighty (180) days of Preliminary PUD Plan approval. Such one hundred eighty (180) day period may be extended for additional one hundred eighty (180) day periods by the City Council in the exercise of its sole discretion subject to such additional conditions as it deems appropriate. The Final PUD Plan shall be consistent with the Preliminary PUD Plan approved by the City Council, as well as the PUD Intent and Purpose provisions hereof. Except to the extent the City Manager or his/her designee requires more or less information, the application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Narrative. The applicant shall submit a description of the development especially as it relates to use of PUD provisions and explaining how it meets the purpose and other PUD provisions. The narrative must demonstrate that all conditions or required modifications to the Preliminary PUD Plan have been addressed. 2. Final Site/Development Plan. A plan of the proposed development illustrating the nature and type of proposed development shall identify all land uses and proposed square footages, the locations of buildings, existing and proposed roadways and accesses, pedestrian ways and sidewalks, proposed parking areas, areas to be preserved, public and common areas, and the amenities to be provided. Setback measurements from buildings, roads, parking and high use outdoor activity areas to the nearest lot lines shall be shown on the Site Plan. 3. Final Preservation Plan. A Preservation Plan showing the areas to be preserved and spaces to be left open shall be provided. The plan shall include new plantings, fixtures, equipment and methods of preservation. Said plan and information may be included on the Landscape Plan. a. Wetlands and Ponds. Wetlands and ponds shall have a riparian buffer strip composed of natural vegetation but not an improved and/or fertilized lawn. The applicant shall comply with regulations set forth by the City of Golden Valley, Bassett Creek Watershed, and the State of Minnesota. b. Buffers. Provisions for buffering the PUD site from adjacent uses shall be included. Natural amenities shall be used to the extent possible and be supplemented by additional landscaping, berms or other features as may be appropriate. Buffers shall be based on the type of uses on and adjacent to the site, views, elevations and activities. Buffers may be included on the Landscape Plan. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 13 of 19 c. Tree Preservation Plan. A complete tree preservation plan consistent with the PUD requirements and the Preliminary PUD Plan as approved by the City. d. Landscape Plans. Complete landscaping plans showing vegetation to be removed, vegetation to be retained and proposed vegetation. Plans shall include species, quantities, planting methods and sizes. Within any specific PUD, the landscaping may be required to exceed the City's policy on minimum landscape standards. 4. Final Stormwater Management Plan. Complete plans for grading, drainage and erosion control which meet the City's standards shall be submitted. The plan shall show hard surface calculations by areas - buildings, private streets, driveways, parking lots, plazas, walks, trails, and all other impervious surfaces. 5. Final Utility Plan. 6. Final Building Code Analysis. 7. Final Plat. Unless waived by the City, the applicant shall submit a final plat, as required by the Subdivision Code. The title of the plat must include the following "P.U.D. No. " (The number to insert will be provided by the City.) 8. Other items, if determined to be applicable: a. Transportation and Parking Plan. A complete plan shall be submitted which includes: 1) Proposed sidewalks and trails to provide access to the building, parking, recreation and service areas within the proposed development and connection to the City's system of walks and trails 2) Internal roads, if any 3) Driveways 4) Parking, including layout dimensions of spaces and aisles, total parking by use, and a notation about striping/painting the spaces 5) Off-street loading for business uses 6) A plan for snow storage and removal 7) A plan for maintenance of the facilities Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 14 of 19 8) A calculation of traffic projections by use with assignments to the roads, drives and accesses serving the PUD, including existing traffic volumes for adjacent streets using the most recent counts and/or based on the uses and trip generation estimates 9) A description of the alternatives and locations considered for access to the site and the rationale used in selecting the proposed location, width and design of streets, driveways and accesses. b. Architectural Plans. The applicant shall submit architectural plans showing the floor plan and elevations of all sides of the proposed buildings including exterior wall finishes proposed for all principal and accessory buildings. Cross sections may be required. c. Lighting Plan. Subject to the requirements in Section 11.73, Outdoor Lighting. d. Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan. The applicant shall provide a refuse disposal plan including provisions for storage and removal on a regular basis. f. Dwelling Information. The applicant shall submit complete data as to dwelling unit number, density net and gross, sizes, types, etc. g. Life-Cycle and Affordable Housing. If the PUD includes ��life-cycle" or affordable housing, the applicant shall provide a narrative describing the housing, and the guarantees such as covenants to be used to secure such housing and maintain long term affordability. h. Population. The applicant shall submit a population component which shall contain a descriptive statement of the estimated population and population characteristics. i. Employees. If office, commercial, business, service firms or institutional uses are included in the PUD, the estimated number of employees shall be included. j. Schedule. The applicant shall submit a schedule and proposed staging, if any, of the development. Subdivision 7. PUD Permit and Development Agreement Following Council approval of a Final PUD Plan, City staff shall prepare both a PUD Permit and a Development Agreement which reference all the approved plans and specify permitted uses, allowable densities, development phasing, required improvements, neighborhood communication plan if applicable, completion dates for improvements, Letters of Credit and other sureties, and additional requirements for each PUD, in accordance with the conditions established in the City Council approval of the Final PUD Plan and PUD ordinance. The PUD Permit and Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 15 of 19 Development Agreement shall be signed by the petitioner within thirty (30) days of the City Council's approval of the permit and agreement. Subdivision 8. Building Permit � Following approval of a Final PUD Plan and execution of the PUD Permit and Development Agreement, the City may grant building permits for proposed structures within the approved PUD area provided the requested permit conforms to the Final PUD Plan, all provisions of the PUD ordinance, the PUD Permit, the Development Agreement and all other applicable City Codes. Subdivision 9. Multiple Parcels A PUD may be regulated by a single agreement which may include attachments. One (1) or more of the attachments may cover an individual lot. An applicant amending an approved PUD must show that the proposed change does not adversely affect any other property owner, if any, in the PUD, the terms of the Final PUD Plan, PUD Permit, Development Agreement, and the Intent and Purpose and other provisions of the PUD ordinance. A proposed amendment which does not meet this requirement may be rejected by the City without review as would otherwise be required by the ordinance. Subdivision 10. Amendments An application to amend a PUD shall be reviewed by the City Manager or his/her designee to determine whether the amendment qualifies as a major amendment, minor amendment, or an administrative amendment. A. Administrative Amendments. An administrative amendment is reviewed and approved by City staff. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment shall not qualify as a minor amendment or major amendment and it shall include: 1. Change in Utility Plan; 2. Change in Landscaping Plan; 3. Change to Interior Building Plans; 4. Change to Outdoor Lighting Plans; 5. Change to Grading/Erosion Control Plans; 6: Change to Architectural Elevations; or 7. Any other change determined by City Manager or his/her designee not to have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, is determined consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, and is determined to be administrative in nature; Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 16 of 19 B. Minor Amendments. A minor amendment shall be approved by a simple majority vote of the City Council with or without referral to the Planning Commission. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment shall not qualify as an administrative amendment or a major amendment and it shall include: 1. Change land use to a use that is permitted in the underlying Zoning District; 2. Increase the number of residential dwelling units by less than ten percent (10%); 3. Demolish or add an accessory structure; 4. Change a front yard, side yard, or rear yard setback that meets the minimum requirements set forth in the underlying Zoning District; 5. Change the number of parking spaces that meets the minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in this Chapter; 6. Change parking lot configuration or design with no change in number of parking spaces; 7. Increase impervious surfaces up to the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District; 8. Change building coverage up to the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District; 9. Change gross floor area in any individual building by less than ten percent (10%); 10. Significantly change architectural elevation plans in a way that alters the originally intended function of the plans; 11. Significantly change landscape plans in a way that alters the originally intended function of the plans; or 12. Any other change determined by City Manager or his/her designee not to have a significant impact to surrounding land uses and determined as consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved; C. Major Amendments. A major amendment shall be reviewed by Planning Commission and approved by a simple majority vote of the City Council. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment shall; Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 17 of 19 1. Eliminate, diminish or be disruptive to the preservation and protection of sensitive site features; 2. Eliminate, diminish or compromise the high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, or building materials; 3. Alter the location of buildings or roads; 4. Increase the number of residential dwelling units by ten percent (10%) or more; 5. Introduce new uses; 6. Demolish or add a principle structure; 7. Change a front yard, side yard, or rear yard setback that does not meet minimum requirements set forth in the underlying Zoning District; 8. Change the number of parking spaces that does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in this Chapter; 9. Increase impervious surfaces above the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District; 10. Change building coverage above the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District; 11. Increase the gross floor area of any individual building by ten percent (10%) or more; 12. Increase the number of stories of any building; 13. Decrease the amount of open space by more than three percent (3%) or alter it in such a way as to change its original design or intended function or use; 14. Create non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the Final PUD Plan; or 15. Any other change determined by City Manager or his/her designee to have a significant impact to surrounding land uses or determined as inconsistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or the PUD as it was originally approved. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 18 of 19 Subdivision li. Cancellation A PUD shall only be cancelled and revoked upon the City Council adopting an ordinance rescinding the ordinance approving the PUD. Subdivision 12. Administration A. Deposit. The City may require the applicant to make funds available to cover fees for professional services generated by the establishment or modification of the PUD. B. Records. The Physical Development Department shall maintain a record of all Planned Unit Developments approved by the City Council including information on the use, location, conditions imposed, time limits, review dates, and such other information as may be appropriate. Each approved PUD shall be clearly noted on the Zoning Map. C. Certification of Plans. The City may require that PUD plans be certified at the time of submittal and/or upon completion of construction. D. Time Limits. No application which was denied shall be re-submitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said denial. E. Letter of Credit. To assure conformance to the Final PUD Plan, PUD Permit, and Development Agreement the City may require the applicant to post a Letter of Credit in a form approved by the City, guaranteeing the faithful performance of certain work or matters covered in the agreement and in a sum equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) the total cost of all such items as determined by the Physical Development Department. The Letter of Credit or other surety may be reduced when specific parts or items are completed and upon recommendation of the Physical Development Department. F. Effect on Conveyed Property. In the event any real property in the approved PUD Agreement is conveyed in total, or in part, the buyers thereof shall be bound by the provisions of the approved Final PUD Plan constituting a part thereof; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to create non-conforming lots, building sites, buildings or uses by virtue of any such conveyance of a lot, building site, building or part of the development created pursuant to and in conformance with the approved PUD. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 19 of 19 ��ty �� ,�� ol� n � � Ph sical Develo ment De artment ��. �� Y P P 763 593 8095!763 593 81 t79{fax) Date: October 26, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Proposed Changes to Tree and Landscape Requirements Summary Staff has been working to address concerns regarding tree preservation that were raised as part of the Subdivision Study in 2014-15 as well as to incorporate minimum landscape standards into the City Code. Proposed revisions to Chapter 4 were presented at Council/Manager meetings on September 8 and October 13 and will be considered for adoption at the November 4 City Council meeting. Attachments Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 4.32: Tree and Landscape Requirements (11 pages) Clean Version of Section 4.32: Tree and Landscape Requirements (10 pages) Comparison of Code Section Outlines (1 page) § 4.32 Section q..32: Tree and Landsca�e Rec�uirementsD�^�^�T�+;^,� Subdivision 1. Findings and Purpose Statement The City Council finds it is in the best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to the development, redevelopment and alteration of trees or wooded areas. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City has established the comprehensive tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the following: A. Protection and preservation of the environment and natural beauty of the city; B. Assurance of orderly development and redevelopment within trees or wooded areas to minimize tree and habitat loss; C. Prevention or reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation and storm water ru noff; D. Evaluation of the impacts to trees and wooded areas resulting from development; E. �stablishment of minimal standards for tree preservation and the mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from tree removal; F. Provision of incentives for creative land use and environmentally compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal and clearcutting during development; and G. Enforcement of tree preservation standards ta promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Subdivision 2. Definitions For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall be defined as stated: � . , �:��,_�mmApplicant: Any person or entity that is required to submit and implement an approved tree preservation plan under this section. L:�?.__.,.._____Construction Area: Any area in which movement of earth, alteration in topography, soil compaction, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other change in the existing character of the land occurs as Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 11 § 4.32 a result of the site preparation, grading, building construction or any other construction activity. D-:C.____.___Critical Root Zone (CRZ): An imaginary circle surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of one foot per one inch of tree diameter, e.g., a twenty (20) inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of twenty (20) feet. �:D. Developer: Any person or entity other than a builder who undertakes t� improve a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon. ��E. Development or Redevelopment: Individual lot single-family or two-family residential development, single-phase development and two- phase development, as those terms are defined herein. G:�. Diameter Inch: The diameter, in inches, of a tree measured at diameter breast height (four and a half (4.5) feet from the uphill side of the existing ground level). �f:G. _,�Drip Line: The farthest distance away from the trunk that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree. �-:F6�___ _ Initial Site Development: The process generallx includes initial site grading�installation of utilities; construction of streetsf construction and grading of drainaqe ways; filling of any areas; grading of the pad area; utility r�ookups; construction of buildings, �arking lots� driveways storage areas, recreation areas, private streets, and any other activity within the construction area prior to construction. I �-- ..p,--�;�� . � � , , �4:I. Sinale Lot Development: The process �enerally includes grading of s�ecific pad areas; utility hookups; constructi�an of buildinqs, parking lots, driveways, storaqe areas�recreation areas, streets, and any other activitv within the specific construction zone. �— . ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 11 § 4.32 I , , , , � , f�l-:J�Tree: Any of the following type of trees, as each is defined herein: �-:— . , , � �-- • , , , , � �-1. Hardwood Deciduous Tree: Includes, but is not limited to ironwood, � catalpa, oak, maple (hard), walnut, a-s-k�;hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust and basswood. �-.2,___Significant Tree: A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) � inches in diameter for hardwood deciduous trees, as defined herein, or a minimum of twelve (12) inches in diameter for softwood deciduous trees, as defined herein, or a minimum of four 4 inches in diameter for coniferous/evergreen trees. All other trees that do not meet this definition are not considered siqnificant. -�.3. �Softwood Deciduous Tree: Includes, but is not limited to � cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, ash, willow, silver maple and elm. €>-4. Specimen Tree: A healthy hardwood deciduous tree measuring e�-aa� thirty (30) inches or greater in diameter and/or a coniferous tree measuring ' � twenty-four (24) inches or greater in- diameter#eig�. ; ; ; , ; • , ; , , , , , , ; te Subdivision 3. Permitting ProcessT�� "��-�.�-'�:-- "'--- � A. Tree Preservation Permit Eligibilitx. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City and implemented in connection with any of the following: 1. New development or redevelopment in any zoning district; Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 11 § 4.32 �—Expansion of the footprint of any existing building by ten percent (10%) or greater square feet, where an approved tree preservation plan is not on �le with the City. �--- � . Within Ssingle-F€amily Residential (R-1) and �r�t�i+y`Moderate DensitX Residential (R-2) Z�oning D�istricts, the provisions of this section shall not apply �o trees removed as a result of additions to existing structures or construction of new accessory structures. � B. Application Submission R�equirements. 1. The tree preservation plan required hereunder shall be submitted or I incorporated with a ' , ' ' stormwater mana_eq ment plan. All tree preservation plans must be certified by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applicant. 2. The tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the City at least five ( working days prior to the issuance of the ' , ' astet� e-e�elStormwater ��-Permit to ensure compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. 3. Building permit applicants for new single-family or twa-family homes, which are not part of a larger development, shall prepare an individual lot tree preservation plan when significant tree� or; specimen tr�es�e� exist on site as determined by the fl��i-�a�s�Citv Manaqer or his/her designee. Individual lot tree preservation plans for single-family or two-family residential buildings are not required to be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect. D. Plan requirements. The tree preservation plan, a narrative and map or series of maps, shall include the following information: 1. The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(es) of applicants, property owners, developers and/or builders; 2. A Certificate of Survey, prepared in accordance with City specifications; 3. Delineation of all areas to be graded and limits of land disturbance; 4. Size, species, and location of all existing significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands located within the project limits. These � significant trees and; specimen trees, should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; I 5. Identification of all significant trees and; specimen trees� ' ' ' �n+��d� proposed to be removed within the construction area. These Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 11 § 4.32 � significant trees and; specimen trees, should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; I 6. Measures to protect significant trees and; specimen trees, ' 't�a�r-+� �r-ee�4�#�; 7. Size, species, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule; and 8. Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan. E. Required protective measures. The tree preservation plan shall identify and require the following measures to be utilized during construction to protect � significant trees and; specimen trees, . 1. Installation of snow fencing or polyethylene laminate safety netting placed at the drip line or at the critical root zone (CRZ), whichever is greater, of � significant trees and; specimen trees_, to be preserved. No grade change, construction activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this fenced area. 2. Identification of any oak trees requiring pruning between April 15 and July 1. Any oak trees so pruned shall be required to have any cut areas sealed with an appropriate nontoxic tree wound sealant at the moment of trimming. 3. Prevention of change in soil chemistry due to concrete washout and leakage or spillage of toxic materials, such as fuels or paints. F. Additional protective measures. The following tree protection measures are I suggested to protect significant trees and,—_specimen trees��-��-i��=ri€iE-at� �+�� that are intended to be preserved according to the submitted tree preservation plan and may be required by the City: 1. Installation of retaining walls or tree wells to preserve trees. 2. Placement of utilities in common trenches outside of the drip line of significant trees, or use of tunneled instailation. 3. Use of tree root aeration, fertilization, and/or irrigation systems. 4. Transplanting of significant trees into a protected area for later moving into permanent sites within the construction area. 5. Therapeutic pruning of diseased tree branches or damaged and exposed root systems. 6. Installation of root severing protection barriers along Critical Root Zones. Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 11 § 4.32 7. Designation of areas for soil and equipment storage to prevent soil compaction in Critical Root Zones. G. Performance guarantee. Any applicant for any building or grading permit within a development covered by this section shall provide the required performance guarantee following preliminary approval of the tree preservation plan and prior to any construction and/or grading. The amount of the performance guarantee to be submitted shall be calculated for each tree preservation plan as follows: 1. One hundred percent (100%) of the cost of completing tree replacement mitigation as determined by the City unless the applicant provides tree mitigation in the form of cash dedication, or; 2. An amount to guarantee preservation of all trees to be preserved in the tree preservation plan which lie within fifteen (15) feet of the construction zone (measured from the construction zone to the nearest side of the tree trunk). The amount shall be based on the total diameter inches of significant trees and specimen trees to be preserved within this fifteen (15) foot zone at the rate of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per diameter inch 3. 4. Performance guarantee shall be in addition to any other landscaping bond required by the City. 5. Following written request by the applicant for acceptance, the performance guarantee will be released upon verification by the City that the tree preservation plan was followed and that the tree replacement schedule was complied with where necessary, but in no event shall the I performance guarantee be released earlier than one 1 �e-growing season� after the date of the approval of final inspection. H. Removal of diseased trees required. Prior to any grading, all diseased, hazardous, and nuisance trees on the subject property shall be identified by the City in accordance with the tree disease control and prevention regulations of the City Code. Any and all diseased or hazardous trees as identified in other sections of this code shall be removed from the property at the expense of the property owner, at the time of grading, if so directed. I I. Removal or destruction of protected trees . Any significant or specimen tree that was removed or otherwise destroyed within two years before any application for a grading, drainage and erosion control permit or building permit or other zoning or related application for development must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting the requirements of Category A, Subdivision 5.A. Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 11 § 4.32 herein. The replacement trees will be considered significant trees existing at the time of the development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original significant tree would have been allowed to be removed under this ordinance. � J. Compliance-�v+�k�-�a-�: 1. The applicant shall implement the tree preservation plan prior to and during any construction. The tree protection measures shall remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a I . request is made to and approved by the A��it�+r�e-�City Manager or his/her designee. � 2. No significant trees or;specimen trees, shall be removed until a tree preservation plan is approved and such removals shall be in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan. If a � significant tree(s) or,—specimen tree(s) that was intended to be preserved is removed without specific permission of the �-r�+�'��,=-City Manager or his/her desiqnee or damaged so that it is in a state of decline within one �(l�) year� from date of project closure, a cash mitigation, calculated per diameter inch of the I removed�+�+�:�e�e� tree or per total square foot of stg�t+f-'tEa�r� wr��r�+a-��ssianificant tree and specimen tree, in the amount set forth in the City fee schedule, shall be remitted to the City. 3. The City shall have the right to inspect the development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. The City shall determine whether the tree preservation plan has been complied with. ISubdivision 4. . Tree Removal ( A. Tree removal allowance. Specimen tree and,—_significant tree, . ' �s�� removal shall be in accordance with the City-approved tree preservation plan. Mitigation shall be required if the total number trees removed exceed the following percentages: � 1. Single-L�ot D�evelopment: a. Single- ' Fami� (R-1) and Moderate Density�R-2� Residential:; fifteen ��-percent (15�-8%) allowable removal arior to mitigation rec�uirements.- b. Medium R-3 and High Densitx �R-4) Residential and all other land uses:; thirty percent (30%) allowable removal prior to mitigation requirements: � 2. Two-Phase �-development.- Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of I1 § 4.32 a Initial Site Development• 20% of specimen trees and significant trees be removed ' . (1) The entitxresponsible for initial site development will be solely responsible far any mitiqation required and performance �uarantees will be required. , , r � b. Single L+ot �ws-�a�e-development.- � � � � �-}� Single- ' Familx (R-1) and Moderate Densitv R�esidential R-2 , fifteen �roet�-Percent (15�9%) allowable removal prior to mitigation requirements �-}-� Medium R- � and Hiqh Density �R-4) -Residential and all other land uses, thirty percent (30%) allowable removal prior to mitigation requirements- B. Exception. When practical difficulties result from strict compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the Cit� Manager or his/her designee may permit significant tree and,—_specimen tree, �nr�+a�d removal in excess of allowable limits in the Plan. In the event such exception is granted, a reforestation plan or cash mitigation will be required. The City shall determine which form of mitigation shall be utilized. ISubdivision 5. Tree R�eplacement�ret�tt:s A. Size of replacement trees: Category A trees shall be no less than the foll4wing sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than four (4) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than twelve (12) feet in height. Category B trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than two and a half (2�/z) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than six (6) feet in height. Category C trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 11 § 4.32 Deciduous trees, not less than one and one half (1'/z) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than four (4) feet in height. B. Significant and specimen tree replacement. Number of Replacement Trees Categork A or Category B or Category C I Significant Tree(s) �kr�e� --------e�Removed Coniferous, 12 to 24 feet high 1 2 4 Coniferous, 24 feet or higher 2 4 8 Hardwood deciduous, 6 to 20 inches diameter 1 2 4 Hardwood deciduous, 21 to 30 inches diameter 2 4 8 Softwood deciduous, 12 to 24 inches diameter 1 2 4 Softwood deciduous, greater than 24 inches diameter 2 4 8 � Specimen Tree(s) Removed 3 6 12 �-- . �e , • �:_C_._ ___.__Species requirement. Where ten (10) or more replacement trees are required, not more than fifty percent (50%) of the replacement trees shall be I of the same species of tree without the approval of the de�ig-�eeCit�Manager or hisJher designee. �D. Warranty requirement. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy, as determined by the City, or which subsequently dies due to � construction activity within one �-w-e-(1�) growing seasons after the date of project closure shall be removed by the applicant and replaced with a new healthy tree meeting the same minimum size requirements within eight (8) months of removal. � F:E. Tree Mitigation � 1. In any development that the treef�es�+�� allowable removal limits are exceeded, the applicant shall mitigate the tree loss by either reforestation (tree replacement) of appropriate areas within the development area, in Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 11 § 4.32 accordance with the tree replacement schedule, or payment to the City of the sum per diameter inch calculated from the total amount of diameter inches of the required replacement trees in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. The fee per diameter inch shall be set forth in the City fee schedule, and the payment thereon shall be deposited into an account designated specifically for tree mitigation. 2. The form of mitigation to be provided by the applicant shall be � determined by the �-r�►ir�+a�e�City Mana�er or his/her desi.gnee. 3. The planting of trees for mitigation shall be in addition to any other landscape requirements or minimum standards of the City. 4^Significant tree replacements will be calculated by replacing the largest diameter tree first, proceeding to the smallest diameter significant tree. 5. The location of reauired tree replacement shall be prioritized in the following order: a. On the.�roperty in which trees were previously removed b. Within the develo�ment praposal c. Off-site within the City of Golden Valley as determined by the Citv Manag.er or his/her designee Source: Ordinance No. 199, 2"d Series Effective Date: 5-13-99 Subdivision 6. Minimum Landscape Rec�uirements A. Eligibility. The followinq requirements are applicable to all properties within the following Zoning Districts: 1. Single-Family (R-l�and Moderate (R-2) Density Residential. a. New construction of principle structure b. One-hundred percent (100%) increase in buildin.cLfoatprint of principle structure 2.. Al) other Zonina Districts. a. New Construction of principle structure b. Ten �,ercent �,10%) increase in impervious surface B. Minimum Requirements. 1. Single-Family (R-1 and Moderate (R-2) Density Residential. a. Three �3) trees, one (1) of which must be located in the front yard b. Five (5) shrubs/perennials 2. Industrial and Light Industrial. a. One (l�tree per fifty (50� linear feet of street frontage b. One (1) tree per fifty (50) linear feet of perimeter abutting residential propertx c. One (1) tree per fifty �50) linear feet of perimeter abutting reqianal trail d. One �) shrub/perennial per five (5) linear feet of street frontage Golden Valley City Code Page 10 of 11 § 4.32 e. One (1) shrub/perennial per five (5} linear feet of perimeter abuttincLresidential property f. One (1) shrub/perennial �er five (5) linear feet of perimeter abutting regional trail 3. All other Zoning Districts. a. One (1) tree �er fifty �50� linear feet of perimeter b. One (1) shrub/perennial per five (5) linear feet of perimeter C. Calculatian. l. Existing and a�proved trees to be maintained and viable on the lot throuahout the buildina process and for one (1) growing season shall apply toward the required number of trees. 2 Calculations to determine the minirnum requirements are rounded up fio the nearest whole nurnber. 3. The Citx Manager or his/her designee reserve the right to modify landsca�ing requirements based on the form and nature of the buildin� and lot and the surrounding lots. Golden Valley City Code Page 11 of 11 § 4.32 Section 4.32: Tree and Landscape Requirements Subdivision i. Findings and Purpose Statement The City Council finds it is in the best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to the development, redevelopment and alteration of trees or wooded areas. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City has established the comprehensive tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the following: A. Protection and preservation of the environment and natural beauty of the City; B. Assurance of orderly development and redevelopment within trees or wooded areas to minimize tree and habitat loss; C. Prevention or reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation and storm water runoff; D. Evaluation of the impacts to trees and wooded areas resulting from development; E. Establishment of minimal standards for tree preservation and the mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from tree removal; F. Provision of incentives for creative land use and environmentally compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal and clearcutting during development; and G. Enforcement of tree preservation standards to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Subdivision 2. Definitions For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall be defined as stated: A. Applicant: Any person or entity that is required to submit and implement an approved tree preservation plan under this Section. B. Construction Area: Any area in which movement of earth, alteration in topography, soil compaction, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other change in the existing character of the land occurs as a result of the site preparation, grading, building construction or any other construction activity. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 10 § 4.32 C. Critical Root Zone (CRZ): An imaginary circle surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of one (1) foot per one (1) inch of tree diameter, e.g., a twenty (20) inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of twenty (20) feet. D. Developer: Any person or entity other than a builder who undertakes to improve a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon. E. Development or Redevelopment: Individual lot single family or two-family residential development, single-phase development and two-phase development, as those terms are defined herein. F. Diameter Inch: The diameter, in inches, of a tree measured at diameter breast height (four and a half (4.5) feet from the uphill side of the existing ground level). G. Drip Line: The farthest distance away from the trunk that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree. H. Initial Site Development: The process generally includes initial site grading; installation of utilities; construction of streets; construction and grading of drainage ways; filling of any areas; grading of the pad area; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways storage areas, recreation areas, private streets, and any other activity within the Construction Area prior to construction. I. Single Lot Development: The process generally includes grading of specific pad areas; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways, storage areas, recreation areas, streets, and any other activity within the specific construction zone. ). Tree: Any of the following type of trees, as each is defined herein: 1. Hardwood Deciduous Tree: Includes, but is not limited to ironwood, catalpa, oak, maple (hard), walnut, hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust and basswood. 2. Significant Tree: A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for Hardwood Deciduous Trees, as defined herein, or a minimum of twelve (12) inches in diameter for Softwood Deciduous Trees, as defined herein, or a minimum of four (4) inches in diameter for coniferous/evergreen trees. All other trees that do not meet this definition are not considered significant. 3. Softwood Deciduous Tree: Includes, but is not limited to cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, ash, willow, silver maple and elm. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 10 § 4.32 4. Specimen Tree: A healthy Hardwood Deciduous Tree measuring thirty (30) inches or greater in diameter and/or a coniferous tree measuring twenty-four (24) inches or greater in diameter. Subdivision 3. Permitting Process A. Tree Preservation Permit Eligibility. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City and implemented in connection with any of the following: 1. New Development or Redevelopment in any zoning district; 2. Expansion of the footprint of any existing building by ten percent (10%) or greater square feet, where an approved tree preservation plan is not on file with the City. Within Single Family Residential (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning Districts, the provisions of this Section shall not apply to trees removed as a result of additions to existing structures or construction of new accessory structures. B. Application Submission Requirements. 1. The tree preservation plan required hereunder shall be submitted or incorporated with a stormwater management plan. All tree preservation plans must be certified by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the Applicant. 2. The tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the City at least five (5) working days prior to the issuance of the Stormwater Permit to ensure compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. 3. Building permit Applicants for new single family or two-family homes, which are not part of a larger Development, shall prepare an individual lot tree preservation plan when Significant Trees or Specimen Trees exist on site as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. Individual lot tree preservation plans for single family or two-family residential buildings are not required to be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect. C. Plan requirements. The tree preservation plan, a narrative and map or series of maps, shall include the following information: 1. The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(es) of Applicants, property owners, Developers and/or builders; 2. A Certificate of Survey, prepared in accordance with City specifications; 3. Delineation of all areas to be graded and limits of land disturbance; Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 10 § 4.32 4. Size, species, and location of all existing Significant Trees and Specimen Trees located within the project limits. These Significant Trees and Specimen Trees should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; 5. Identification of all Significant Trees and Specimen Trees proposed to be removed within the Construction Area. These Significant Trees and Specimen Trees should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; 6. Measures to protect Significant Trees and Specimen Trees; 7. Size, species, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule; and 8. Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan. Subdivision 4. Tree Protection A. Required protective measures. The tree preservation plan shall identify and require the following measures to be utilized during construction to protect significant trees and specimen trees: 1. Installation of snow fencing or polyethylene laminate safety netting placed at the Drip Line or at the Critical Root Zone (CRZ), whichever is greater, of Significant Trees and Specimen Trees to be preserved. No grade change, construction activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this fenced area. 2. Identification of any oak trees requiring pruning between April 15 and July 1. Any oak trees so pruned shall be required to have any cut areas sealed with an appropriate nontoxic tree wound sealant at the moment of trimming. 3. Prevention of change in soil chemistry due to concrete washout and leakage or spillage of toxic materials, such as fuels or paints. B. Additional protective measures. The following tree protection measures are suggested to protect Significant Trees and Specimen Trees that are intended to be preserved according to the submitted tree preservation plan and may be required by the City: 1. Installation of retaining walls or tree wells to preserve trees. 2. Placement of utilities in common trenches outside of the Drip Line of Significant Trees, or use of tunneled installation. 3. Use of tree root aeration, fertilization, and/or irrigation systems. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 10 § 4.32 4. Transplanting of Significant Trees into a protected area for later moving into permanent sites within the construction area. 5. Therapeutic pruning of diseased tree branches or damaged and exposed root systems. 6. Installation of root severing protection barriers along Critical Root Zones. 7. Designation of areas for soil and equipment storage to prevent soil compaction in Critical Root Zones. Subdivision 5. Tree Removal A. Tree removal allowance. Specimen Tree and Significant Tree removal shall be in accordance with the City approved tree preservation plan. Mitigation shall be required if the total number trees removed exceed the following percentages: 1. Single Lot Development a. Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density (R-2) Residential: fifteen percent (15%) allowable removal prior to mitigation requirements b. Medium (R-3) and High Density (R-4) Residential and all other land uses: thirty percent (30%) allowable removal prior to mitigation requirements 2. Two-Phase Development a. Initial Site Development: twenty percent (20%) of Specimen Trees and Significant Trees be removed 1) The entity responsible for initial site Development will be solely responsible for any mitigation required and performance guarantees will be required. b. Single Lot Development 1) Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2), fifteen percent (15%) allowable removal prior to mitigation requirements 2) Medium (R-3) and High Density (R-4) Residential and all other land uses, thirty percent (30%) allowable removal prior to mitigation requirements B. Exception. When practical difficulties result from strict compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the City Manager or his/her designee may permit Significant Tree and Specimen Tree removal in excess of allowable Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 10 § 4.32 limits in the Plan. In the event such exception is granted, a reforestation plan or cash mitigation will be required. The City shall determine which form of mitigation shall be utilized. C. Removal of diseased trees required. Prior to any grading, all diseased, hazardous, and nuisance trees on the subject property shall be identified by the City in accordance with the tree disease control and prevention regulations of the City Code. Any and all diseased or hazardous trees as identified in other Sections of this Code shall be removed from the property at the expense of the property owner, at the time of grading, if so directed. D. Removal or destruction of protected trees. Any Significant or Specimen Tree that was removed or otherwise destroyed within two (2) years before any application for a grading, drainage and erosion control permit or building permit or other zoning or related application for Development must be replaced in the same general location by two (2) trees meeting the requirements of Category A, Subdivision 5(A) herein. The replacement trees will be considered Significant Trees existing at the time of the Development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original Significant Tree would have been allowed to be removed under this Code. Subdivision 6. Tree replacement A. Size of replacement trees: 1. Category A trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than four (4) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than twelve (12) feet in height. 2. Category B trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than two and a half (2�/z) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than six (6) feet in height. 3. Category C trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than one and one half (11/2) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than four (4) feet in height. B. Significant and specimen tree replacement. Number of Replacement Trees Category A or Category B or Category C Significant Tree�) Removed Coniferous, 12 to 24 feet high 1 2 4 Coniferous, 24 feet or higher 2 4 8 Hardwood deciduous, 6 to 20 inches diameter 1 2 4 Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 10 § 4.32 Category A or Category B or Category C Hardwood deciduous, 21 to 30 inches diameter 2 4 8 Softwood deciduous, 12 to 24 inches diameter 1 2 4 Softwood deciduous, greater than 24 inches diameter 2 4 8 Specimen Tree(s) Removed 3 6 12 C. Species requirement. Where ten (10) or more replacement trees are required, not more than fifty percent (50%) of the replacement trees shall be of the same species of tree without the approval of the City Manager or his/her designee. D. Warranty requirement. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy, as determined by the City, or which subsequently dies due to construction activity within one (1) growing season after the date of project closure shall be removed by the Applicant and replaced with a new healthy tree meeting the same minimum size requirements within eight (8) months of removal. Subdivision 7. Tree Mitigation A. In any Development that the tree allowable removal limits are exceeded, the Applicant shall mitigate the tree loss by either reforestation (tree replacement) of appropriate areas within the Development area, in accordance with the tree replacement schedule, or payment to the City of the sum per Diameter Inch calculated from the total amount of Diameter Inches of the required replacement trees in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. The fee per Diameter Inch shall be set forth in the City fee schedule, and the payment thereon shall be deposited into an account designated specifically for tree mitigation. B. The form of mitigation to be provided by the Applicant shall be determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. C. The planting of trees for mitigation shall be in addition to any other landscape requirements or minimum standards of the City. D. Significant Tree replacements will be calculated by replacing the largest diameter tree first, proceeding to the smallest diameter Significant Tree. E. The location of required tree replacement shall be prioritized in the following order: 1. On the property in which trees were previously removed 2. Within the Development proposal Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 10 § 4.32 3. Off-site within the City of Golden Valley as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee Subdivision 8. Minimum Landscape Requirements A. Eligibility. The following requirements are applicable to all properties within the following Zoning Districts: 1. Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2). a. New construction of principle structure b. One-hundred percent (100%) increase in building footprint of principle structure 2. All other Zoning Districts. a. New Construction of principle structure b. Ten percent (10%) increase in impervious surface B. Minimum Requirements. 1. Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2). a. Three (3) trees, one (1) of which must be located in the front yard b. Five (5) shrubs/perennials 2. Industrial and Light Industrial. a. One (1) tree per fifty (50) linear feet of street frontage b. One (1) tree per fifty (50) linear feet of perimeter abutting residential property c. One (1) tree per fifty (50) linear feet of perimeter abutting regional trail d. One (1) shrub/perennial per five (5) linear feet of street frontage e. One (1) shrub/perennial per five (5) linear feet of perimeter abutting residential property f. One (1) shrub/perennial per five (5) linear feet of perimeter abutting regional trail 3. All other Zoning Districts. Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 10 § 4.32 a. One (1) tree per fifty (50) linear feet of perimeter b. One (1) shrub/perennial per five (5) linear feet of perimeter C. Calculation. 1. Existing and approved trees to be maintained and viable on the lot throughout the building process and for one (1) growing season shall apply toward the required number of trees. 2. Calculations to determine the minimum requirements are rounded up to the nearest whole number. 3. The City Manager or his/her designee reserve the right to modify landscaping requirements based on the form and nature of the building and lot and the surrounding lots. Subdivision 9. Performance guarantee. A. Any Applicant for any building or grading permit within a Development covered by this Section shall provide the required performance guarantee following preliminary approval of the tree preservation plan and prior to any construction and/or grading. The amount of the performance guarantee to be submitted shall be calculated for each tree preservation plan as follows: 1. One hundred percent (100%) of the cost of completing tree replacement mitigation as determined by the City unless the Applicant provides tree mitigation in the form of cash dedication, or; 2. An amount to guarantee preservation of all trees to be preserved in the tree preservation plan which lie within fifteen (15) feet of the Construction Area (measured from the Construction Area to the nearest side of the tree trunk). The amount shall be based on the total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees and Specimen Trees to be preserved within this fifteen (15) foot zone at the rate of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per Diameter Inch. 3. Performance guarantee shall be in addition to any other landscaping bond required by the City. 4. Following written request by the Applicant for acceptance, the performance guarantee will be released upon verification by the City that the tree preservation plan was followed and that the tree replacement schedule was complied with where necessary, but in no event shall the performance guarantee be released earlier than one (1) growing season after the date of the approval of final inspection. Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 10 § 4.32 Subdivision 10. Compliance A. The Applicant shall implement the tree preservation plan prior to and during any construction. The tree protection measures shall remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a request is made to and approved by the City Manager or his/her designee. B. No Significant Trees or Specimen Trees shall be removed until a tree preservation plan is approved and such removals shall be in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan. If a Significant Tree(s) or Specimen Tree(s) that was intended to be preserved is removed without specific permission of the City Manager or his/her designee or damaged so that it is in a state of decline within one (1) year from date of project closure, a cash mitigation, calculated per Diameter Inch of the removed tree or per total square foot of Significant Tree and Specimen Tree, in the amount set forth in the City fee schedule, shall be remitted to the City. C. The City shall have the right to inspect the development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. The City shall determine whether the tree preservation plan has been complied with. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 D of 1 D N �-+ � �C C U1 �'' L � � � N N ,� � � C N c +�-� ~ � � pC °J � �o v �° v � a� � +J n � � � � '� a�i � � � N •� � � � o v � N N � 3 � a � o '^ � in F- � '+J � O vf � cN6 N � p�j � �+ ��,, � C r�o v� � � a G! C � � U L C C C � � iVif C Q' v � Z � 7 U O C � C F- O � 41 F- � a-+ '� N vi �-+ J a o •� o v > �a 3 v � v � � � c c � � � E J C c v, a N * � � u > a � L � � a� o- °1 � � � °�S � v ao �E c v '+� o � ,� �o N E � � . F- rv � p c +?� � a� o v °+-�' E Q vi v n � v .� ,� E � � o l7 � _ � °�'D :+' .+ ;Q cn a�i a` o a z � 0 0 ovc � c"o � �. � � �n, �o � a�i � � � � E ;ao o •� v a � v o 0 o v c °- +• v 'c o � c � �. Q � � w ,� �, v � � v � v p a, c oc � E o a, �. W N i�. � a +J � � �- � g �- � > > H � � � a�i � += � `° v E � � aN d' c c c v Q � � v � � v v v c :� � p�,� Q c ,ao .� � c °- v o � .� .� .� a Q a .°-° � Q •� F- cc ac .° � in in cn .� w � u ,o � a � OO . . . . . . . . oC u � � a d co u � d ao � d oo c� � a co u � '-'-o a co c� � a co c� � .� � .Q � � � � � a �n � � � � � � �, � � � � v �, y � � C ~ C U N � � G1 f0 � � +�-+ � Q- C U �-+ � � aJ � � � � � � tn � � p � �7 � � p � c N � � a > a v u +� 3 � v� ca o a � '^ �o � o � °c � � a i Q- o � °1 � v H o � c a�, � v °C c v a '+� � E � a� c -a '+� � a� ra � Y .� -a � a� W � -o fO o �' �^ > •+�-.. `�-° v°'i � a �' 3 a � v c�a a� E Z i = � v �*' '� c '+, � �° co : t ~ ° � °' Q- -a E �' J � v�i O a� � � v � }; � v � += °� Q a � � � v �� a� v_� o� � � � � :+-� a a o°1c v o a v � 0 3 � � o°1c � R �?° �� a�i � F- c `~ v a o .0 3 a �c � o ° � o ° c v a�i c c o°'c a o � N i.i � H � Q ,� v v o � > > '� a � � � � u cfO.� � � � Z � c c c o a�i � � � � `t E E E � v °u' c � o�,o � °v' � � W� O .� .� .� cn w v3i a � Q a � � v .° F�- w .� in in in v°�i � � � U "p 'o 'p Q m U � w �i C7 2 _ -; '-�-p Q m =p Q o0 U 0 w �i � 7 7 7 � 7 V l/� ln V1 V1 tn ln city of oZden MEMCIRANDUM g . va,. ev PhysYcal Development Department � 763 593 8095/763 593 8109(fax) Date: October 26, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Overview Summary In order to begin the official Comprehensive Plan update efforts, staff will be leading two discussions with the Planning Commission in advance of additional initial work with other City departments and the City Council this fall. Below, staff has outlined information and resources regarding Thrive MSP 2040, the system statements that were distributed to Golden Valley in September, the required and optional elements of the Comprehensive Plan update, and a general timetable to move the updating process forward. In November, staff will more fully examine the City's Comprehensive Plan document that was approved in 2008,the elements it contains, and how it has been—and continues to be—used. Thrive MSP 2040 Thrive MSP 2040 is a regional development guide made up of a set of documents that lays out the Metropolitan Council's vision for the metro area for the next 30 years. It was adopted in May of 2014 and contains policy plans for Transportation, Water Resources, Regional Parks, and Housing. As part of the guide, each City is given a community designation which will used to guide regional growth and development. Golden Valley has been designated Urban, similar to New Hope, Crystal, and Robbinsdale. Minneapolis and St. Louis Park have been designated Urban Center while Plymouth has been designated Suburban Edge. Urban communities are expected to plan for population and household growth at average densities of at least 10 units per acre for development and redevelopment. Of special note are the new requirements for minimum densities around light rail stations (outlined in the Transportation Policy Plan). This will come in to play with respect to the proposed Golden Valley Road station and the guided land uses that are ultimately considered there. For more information about Thrive MSP 2040 visit the Metropolitan Council's website: http://www.metrocou ncil.or�/Pla nni n�/Proiects/Thrive-2040.aspx System Statements From these overarching policies and goals, more specific requirements for individual cities and counties are carved out and passed on as system statements. Golden Valley received its system statement on September 21, kicking off the Comprehensive Plan updating process. This document includes forecasts for growth in Population, Households, and Employment, as well as an allocation of Affordable Housing to be accommodated by the City by 2030. 2010(actual) 2014(est.) 2020 2030 2040 Population 20,371 20,790 21,300 22,000 22,900 Households 8,816 8,940 9,300 9,600 9,800 Employment 33,194 35,099 36,000 37,500 38,900 Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Golden Valley At t�r below 309�o AMl 53 31%to 50%AM I 34 51%to 80%�4M I ' 24 Total Units 111 The entire Golden Valley system statement, including sections on Transportation, Water Resources/Wastewater, and Regional Parks can be viewed at: http://www.metrocouncil.or�/Communities/Plannin�/Local-Planning-Assistance/SVstem- Statements/System-Statements/02394924 GoldenVallev 20155S.aspx Plan Elements Within the Comprehensive Plan there are a number of Plan Elements that address different topics. For the 2018 update,there are six required Plan Elements and two optional Plan Elements. A significant amount of information about the Comprehensive Plan updating process, including details about each of the Plan Elements, can be found online in the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook (http://www.metrocouncil.or�/Handbook.aspx). A brief summary of each of the Plan Elements, taken from the Handbook, is listed below: Required Elements Land Use -To maximize returns on the regional investment in sewer, water, roads, parks, and other infrastructure, we need to consider how land will be used. Existing and future uses translate a community's forecasted growth into where, when, and how much development occurs in the community. It is this effort that enables effective planning for infrastructure. Other considerations include housing needs, employment patterns, recreational space, and commercial activities. The goal is to create livable neighborhoods, easy access to jobs, connected street patterns, and to protect our natural resources. Transportation -The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (2040 TPP) outlines the plans for regional facilities including principal arterial highways, metropolitan transit services and facilities, and the region's aviation facilities that communities should reflect in updating your local comprehensive plan. It includes chapters on the characteristics of the existing transportation system; goals, objectives and strategies; transportation finance and the plans and policy direction for each mode. The appendices also provide important resources. Water Resources-The prosperity, quality of life, and continued development of our region all depend on the sustainability of the quality and quantity of our region's water resources. Our water resources,from our aquifers to our surface waters, are the foundation for growth and vitality in the region. We need to manage our use of our aquifers for water supply, our surface waters for their ecological and development functions, and our land use patterns for their potential impacts to these resources. Along with policies and strategies on water supply, wastewater, and surface water detailed in the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, you will need to develop components in your comprehensive plan to address local issues related to water supply, wastewater, and surface water. Parks &Trails- Parks and open space are key contributors to the region's livability, sustainability, and quality of life. Parks and open space strengthen residents' physical, psychological, and social wellbeing by providing opportunities for recreation, stress reduction, and social interaction. Natural areas provide environmental benefits by preserving natural resources, reducing air pollution, and managing stormwater runoff. The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for the Regional Parks System. The Regional Parks System was created by the Legislature in 1974, and is supported by the Metropolitan Council in partnership with ten regional park implementing agencies that own and operate regional parks and trails. The Regional Parks System is one component of the greater recreation and open space system that includes local, state, and federal parks and open space areas, as well as private and nonprofit facilities. All play an important role in supporting and protecting the overall outdoor recreation system and should be recognized in your local comprehensive plan. Housin -The Council's overall housing policy priority is to: Create housing options that give people in all life stages and of all economic means viable choices for safe, stable and affordable homes. Housing choices allow households to find housing affordable to them in the communities where they want to live. A full range of housing types can help increase resiliency as local governments experience changing demographics and economic conditions. Housing elements are an opportunity to state a local government's specific policy priorities around housing choice within their community. Implementation - Most components of your comprehensive plan identify what your community intends to do over the next 30 years. The implementation portion of your plan lays out how your community intends to do it and when infrastructure investments will occur. The implementation plan needs to describe the local ordinances, policies, public programs, and capital improvement plans for local systems that ensure implementation of your comprehensive plan and protection of public infrastructure. Optional Elements Economic Competitiveness-As acknowledged in Thrive MSP 2040, regional economic competitiveness is a core element of the Region's sustained prosperity. Collectively, the region must provide great locations for businesses to succeed —particularly those industries that export products or services beyond the metropolitan area and bring revenue and jobs to the region. Economic competitiveness in the context of comprehensive planning refers to examining and strengthening the ability of the region to compete effectively and prosper in the global economy. Economic development typically refers to activities that directly aim to retain, attract, and grow businesses that bring wealth into a community or region. Economic development in our region is effectively carried out by organizations such as Greater MSP, economic development authorities, cities, port authorities, industry associations, the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), nonprofits, counties, chambers of commerce, and businesses. While the Metropolitan Council does not assume an active role in economic development,the Council's role in providing regional infrastructure, services, and amenities that serve as a foundation for economic growth is intended to align with and support ongoing economic development efforts to the greatest extent possible. Resilience -This section provides resources for communities working to integrate strategies into local comprehensive plans to be more resilient in the face of a changing climate. As communities adjust to increasingly extreme weather events, stress on public facilities, and higher costs of services, there is growing need to not only plan for these events, but to also reduce the impacts through conscious climate adaptation and resilience planning. Moreover, resiliency also considers reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions so that the extent of climate change does not exceed the capacity to adapt and become resilient. Thrive MSP 2040 encourages planning for climate change as part of your comprehensive plan update. Climate mitigation strategies such as promoting land use and development patterns will contribute toward achieving Minnesota's adopted greenhouse gas emissions goals. Climate adaptation strategies such as recognizing changing rainfall patterns that require additional storm water management capacity acknowledge the new and growing risks associated with climate change. Not all consequences of climate change are environmental; societal and economic challenges will need to be addressed as well. Resiliency is having the capacity to respond, adapt, and thrive under changing conditions. Consideration of vulnerabilities - and responses to those vulnerabilities -will strengthen your community's ability to prepare for and respond to climate impacts. Resiliency includes planning for more severe weather and prolonged heatwaves,for improved health of your residents, and planning for economic strength and diversity. As you may recognize from these examples, many elements that your community already includes in its plan and in actions it has already undertaken, address some resiliency issues. Initial Timetable Staff has developed the following general timetable to begin the updating process: 2015: October and November— Review current Comprehensive Plan with Planning Commission and discuss the plan elements to be included in the update. 2015: November—Staff from various departments meet internally to review the plan elements, discuss who is responsible for the completion of each, and structure a communications plan to accompany the updating process. 2015: December— Discuss Comprehensive Plan updating process with City Council at the Council/Manager meeting. Look for direction to move forward with discussions at various commissions to set priorities within each plan element. 2016:Januarv and Februarv—Staff works with various Commissions to carry out discussions and set priorities. 2016: March—Staff brings priorities back to City Council at the Council/Manager meeting for review and to develop the work plan going forward. 2016: April and bevond—Staff engages in work plan with Commissions, consultants, and the public to begin to draft content and revise priorities as needed. Additional timeline and intermediate goals to be determined. A finished plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018.