The URL can be used to link to this page

11-17-15 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber November 17, 2015 6:30 pm The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Roll Call B. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes 1. City Council Meeting - November 4, 2015 3-7 2. Special City Council Meeting - November 10, 2015 8 B. Approval of Check Register 1. City 9 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 10 C. Licenses: 1. On-Sale Wine (including Strong Beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License 11 - The Early Bird Café dba Mort's Delicatessen D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Human Services Fund - October 12, 2015 12-13 2. Open Space and Recreation Commission - July 27, 2015 14-16 3. Environmental Commission - August 24, 2015 17-18 E. Bids & Quotes: 1. Purchase Galaxy Radio Transmitter Modules for Water Meter Reading System 19 Upgrade F. First Consideration - Ordinance #583 - Establishing A 2016 Master Fee Schedule 20-40 G. Restricting On-Street Parking for Streets Adjacent to and Including Douglas Drive 15- 88 41-46 H. Call for Public Hearing to Vacate Easements at 7751 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North (Liberty Crossing PUD) 15-89 47-49 I. Board/Commission Appointments 50 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Calderjax Addition - 7200 Harold Avenue 51-125 B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - 7218 Harold Ave - Alber Addition 126-164 C. Public Hearing - Ordinance #584 -Amending Section 11.55 Planned Unit 165-257 Developments 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. METRO Blue Line Update 258-260 B. Announcements of Meetings C. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT city of UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING golden- ll GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA November 4, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Garry and City Clerk Luedke. 1B. Pledge of Allegiance 1C. Presentation - 2015 George Warren Fuller Award to Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Physical Development Director Nevinski introduced the Award Committee from the American Water Works Association's Minnesota Section: current Chair Mr. Jim Sadler, and past chair Ms. Carol Blommel Johnson. The Award Committee presented Mr. Tracy with the 2015 George Warren Fuller Award. Mr. Tracy thanked the Committee for the Award. Council congratulated Mr. Tracy and thanked him for his years of service. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of November 4, 2015, and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the consent agenda of November 4, 2015, as revised: removal of 3D-Award Douglas Drive Power Service Conversion Contract and 3G-Authorization to sign the Funding Agreement for the Toward Zero Deaths Grant Program and the motion carried. 3A1. Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of October 20, 2015. 3A2. Approve Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of October 26, 2015. 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1 . Planning Commission - September 28, 2015 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - September 29, 2015 3. Human Rights Commission - September 29, 2015 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - September 17, 2015 3$ Authorize Douglas Drive Power Service Conversion Contract between the City and Nelson Electric, Inc. in the amount of$19,300.00. 3E. Authorize City Manager and Mayor to sign contract for Master SAC Deferral Agreement. 3F. Receive and file the September 2015 Financial Reports. 3G Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Funding Agreement with the City of Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- November 4, 2015 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3D. Award Douglas Drive Power Service Conversion Contract No. 10-14 Physical Development Director Nevinski answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to authorize Douglas Drive Power Service Conversion Contract between the City and Nelson Electric, Inc. in the amount of $49,300.00 and the motion carried. 3G. Authorization to Sign Funding Agreement for the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Grant Program Council Member Fonnest described the TZD Program and how it involved the City. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Funding Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the Toward Zero Deaths Grant Program and the motion carried. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Boone Avenue Convenience Center PUD No. 110, Amendment No. 1 - 600 Boone Avenue North - Linn Investment Properties, LLC, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amended PUD Permit for Boone Avenue Convenience Center PUD No. 110, Amendment No. 1 and the motion carried. 6B. Liberty Crossing PUD No. 123, Minor PUD Amendment - 7751- 7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North - Intuitive Investment Partnership, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the Liberty Crossing Minor PUD Amendment. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the amended plans for Liberty Crossing PUD No. 123 and the motion carried. 6C. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the METRO Blue Line Extension update. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to receive and file the METRO Blue Line Extension Update and the motion carried. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- November 4, 2015 6. NEW BUSINESS - CONTINUED 6D. Resolution Affirming City Positions Regarding the METRO Blue Line Extension Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and recommended point 5 on the purposed resolution be deleted in its entirety and replaced with "New or improved pedestrian and bicycle connections shall be incorporated into the design of bridges reconstructed over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line as part of the light rail project." Mr. Zimmerman answered questions from Council. Mr. Rich Baker, and Ms. Gillian Rosenquist, METRO Blue Line Extension Community Advisory Committee members, addressed the Council regarding the purposed resolution affirming the City's position regarding the METRO Blue Line Extension and answered questions from Council. Council thanked Mr. Baker and Ms. Rosenquist for their participation on the METRO Blue Line Extension Community Advisory Committee and their continued commitment to the City. Mr. Dan Soler, Projector Director for the Blue Line Extension Project, answered questions from Council regarding the Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Line Extension. There was much Council discussion regarding the City's position regarding the METRO Blue Line Extension. Council directed staff to amend the purposed resolution by adding "as part of the project" to points 2 and 4. In point 2, the phase would be added after "public parking must be provided." In point 4, it would be added after "light rail project shall be mitigated." Council also accepted the recommendation from staff to revise point 5 as stated above. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope adopt Resolution 15-85, Affirming City Positions Regarding the METRO Blue Line Extension as amended upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Snope, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Clausen and the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6E. First and Second Consideration - Ordinance #582 - Amending Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations regarding Conditions for Approval or Denial Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Garry answered questions from Council. Ms. Bea Bakke, 4600 Roanoke Road, presented a survey of her lot with the setback lines. She asked Council to consider her lot subdivision to be exempt from the purposed ordinance because her purposed subdivision currently meets the rules before the ordinance is voted on. She also asked Council to reassess the ordinance because it would affect other residents who would like to subdivide. There was Council discussion regarding amending Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations regarding Conditions of Approval or Denial. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- November 4, 2015 6E. First & Second Consideration - Amending Section 12.50 - continued MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt first consideration, Ordinance #582, amending Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations regarding Conditions for Approval or Denial upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest and Harris and the following voted against: Snope and Schmidgall and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to suspend the rules requiring a second consideration of the ordinance at a separate meeting upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Snope and Harris and the following voted against: Schmidgall and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt second consideration, Ordinance #582, amending Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations regarding Conditions for Approval or Denial upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest and Harris and the following voted against: Snope and Schmidgall and the motion carried. 6F. Authorize Agreements for Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study Physical Development Director Nevinski presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 15-86, authorizing a Cooperative Agreement for Cost Participation in a Feasibility Study upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Snope, Clausen, Fonnest and Schmidgall and the following voted against: none and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to authorize the agreement with SEH, Inc. for Professional Services for the Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study and the motion carried. 6G. Appreciation for the City of Robbinsdale from the Joint Water Commission City Manager Cruikshank presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Resolution 15-87, Thanks and Appreciation for the City of Robbinsdale upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6H. Announcement of Meetings The Fall Leaf Drop Off will be on November 6 and 7, 2015, at Brookview Park. Some Council Member may attend the Board/Commission Interviews and discussion of appointments on November 10, 2015, at 5:30 pm in the Council Conference room. A Special Council meeting to canvass the 2015 Election Results will be held on November 10, 2015, at 6:15 pm in the Council Chambers. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- November 4, 2015 6H. Announcement of Meetings - continued The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on November 10, 2015, at 6:30 pm. City Offices will be closed on November 11, 2015, in observance of Veteran's Day. Some Council Members may attend a program "Honoring our Veteran" on November 11, 2015, from 9:30 to 11 am at Westphal Legion in Robbinsdale. Open for Business will have office hours on November 13, 2015, from 9 to 11 am in the Council Conference room. The next City Council meeting will be held on November 17, 2015, at 6:30. Some Council Members may attend the League of Minnesota Cities/Metro Cities Regional meeting on November 18, 2015, at 11 :30 pm at the Minneapolis Ramada. 61. Mayor and Council Communication Council Member Clausen thanked Golden Valley residents for electing her for four more years. Council Member Snope congratulated Mayor Harris and Council Members Clausen and Schmidgall on their re-election. Mayor Harris congratulated the Council Members and thanked all of the candidates that ran this year. He also thanked staff for their assistance in this year's election. 7. ADJOURMENT MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 pm. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city ofUNOFFICIAL MINUTES golden SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Valley GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA November 10, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:15 pm. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Fonnest, Snope, and Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, and City Clerk Luedke. 1B. Pledge of Allegiance 2A. CANVASS 2015 ELECTION RESULTS City Clerk Luedke presented the election returns for the City Election held on November 3, 2015, and answered questions from the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to accept the submitted Hennepin County's Election Abstract of Votes Cast in the Precincts of the City of Golden Valley and declare the Results from the Abstract to be the Official Results and the motion carried. 3. ADJOURMENT MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 pm. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city of Aden MEMORANDUM v, e Administrative Services Department -/ 763-593-8013/763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city of ,. g11 olden MEMORANDUM ValleyAdministrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city ( 1 �ni��Mllla „„„„, 1.0„,„ . ., 11„11,1„ , 11111111111111 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111„1„„„„„„ �� ,4 �iVIU "'.. 1111101 10100 jAdministrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. On-Sale Wine (including Strong Beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License -The Early Bird Café dba Mort's Delicatessen Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary The City received an application from The Early Bird Café dba Mort's Delicatessen for an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License located at 525 Winnetka Avenue. The existing establishment will continue to operate as Mort's Delicatessen under the new ownership of The Early Bird Café, Inc. The City Attorney has reviewed the application, and has found the application documents are in order. The Police Department has completed the background investigation and has found no reason to deny the license. Recommended Action Motion to issue an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to The Early Bird Café dba Mort's Delicatessen located at 525 Winnetka Avenue with a license term through June 30, 2016. Golden Valley Human Services Fund (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes October 12, 2015 Present: Denise La Mere-Anderson, Hilmer Erickson, Alan Ingber, Andrea Mac Arthur, Toots Vodovoz, and Andrew Wold. Also present: Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison. Excused Absence: Kathryn Frommer, Elissa Heilicher and Peggy Watkins. Tim Cruikshank, City Manager, introduced himself to the GVHSF members. Call to Order: Wold called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Agenda Changes or Additions: Agency presentations were moved to the fourth item on the agenda. Run the Valley was added to the agenda. Agency Presentations: TreeHouse. Andy Swanda, VP of Advancement, presented the mission of TreeHouse. Started in 1984 by a Robbinsdale teacher, the program has grown to nine locations. The mission is to bring living hope to youth and families leading to life transformation through three programs: support groups, going deeper and mentoring one-to-one. Funds would be used for transportation and programming for Golden Valley residents. Crisis Nursery. Joel Bergstrom, Development and Communications Director, presented the mission of Crisis Nursery. The mission of the Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery is to end child abuse and neglect and create strong, healthy families. Twenty seven children from twenty families in Golden Valley accessed the Crisis Nursery services in 2015. Funds would be used to support programming including the 24-hour crisis line, overnight shelter and the home visiting program. PRISM. Eleanor Trenary, Volunteer and Thrift Shop Manager, presented the mission of PRISM. Started as a grassroots effort in 1972 to walk alongside families, offering support- based programs that encourage self-sufficiency, PRISM was incorporated as a 501c 3 in 1973. PRISM's programs and services offer dignity with accountability as the families, volunteers, and staff work together toward solutions. PRISM collaborates with area helping agencies to avoid duplication of services and the programs serve specific geographic areas. The increase in requested funding is due to the increased number of people asking for services. Over 900 Golden Valley residents have accessed PRISM services on an average of three times over the year. Funds would be used to support the program expenses, including Golden Valley residents. GVHSF members thanked the agency representatives for presenting at the meeting. September 14 Minutes: Erickson moved and Mac Arthur seconded the motion to approve the minutes from September 14. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business: Solicitation Letter: Fackler has talked with Communications about the 2015-2016 letter. Canvas Health/Crisis Connection, Dinner At Your Door, Sojourner and The Bridge for Youth have sent quotes from participants about the services received from the agencies. The goal is to have the letter in the mail by mid-November. Website Update: The Golden Valley website has been updated to include the phone numbers of the agencies funded by the GVHSF per the members' request. 2016 meeting dates: The proposed 2016 meeting dates were distributed. Meeting dates will be discussed at the November meeting. Applications for Funding: Members discussed the applications and felt all agencies are worthy of funding. After discussion the following allocations will be recommended to the Council after approval by the GVHSF in November: Agency Request Recommended allocation Canvas Health/Crisis Connection $2,200 $2,000 Crisis Nursery $5,000 $2,500 Dinner At Your Door $8,000 $8,000 PRISM $12,000 $12,000 Senior Services HOME $5,000 $5,000 Senior Services Outreach $3,500 $2,000 Sojourner Project $5,000 $5,000 The Bridge for Youth $5,000 $4,000 TreeHouse $5,000 $4,500 YMCA — New Hope $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL $55,700 $50,000 Agencies will be directed to use the funds for program costs for Golden Valley residents, when possible. Run the Valley: Fackler announced that Bassett Creek Dental has committed to sponsoring the Kid's Fun Run, will supply bags for all run/walk/fun run participants plus be a sponsor of the Run event. After reviewing the evaluation of the 2015 event, the walk fee will be $25, including "day of" registration. Run the Valley will be added to RecTrac, the Golden Valley on-line registration program. Registrations taken through the GV website will not charge the credit card processing fee to the participant. It was suggested to approach Armstrong, Cooper, Benilde-St. Margaret's track teams and Meadowbrook, SEA and Breck administration and offer a team price. This will be discussed at the November meeting. Wold announced the next meeting will be held on Monday, November 9 at 6:45 pm. Adjournment: Erickson moved to adjourn the meeting, La Mere-Anderson seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Wold, GVHSF Chair Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes July 27, 2015 1. Call to Order Mattison called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. 2. Roll Call: Present: Open Space and Recreation Commissioners: Roger Bergman, John Cornelius, Bob Mattison, Gillian Rosenquist, and Dan Steinberg. HGA Representatives: Glenn Waguespack and Jessica Horstkotte. Director of Parks and Recreation, Rick Birno: and Administrative Assistant, Sheila Van Sloun. Absent: Kelly Kuebelbeck, Anne Saffert, and Dawn Speltz. 3. Approval of Minutes — April 27, 2015 and June 22, 2015 MOTION: Moved by Steinberg and seconded by Bergman to approve the April 27, 2015 and the June 22, 2015 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Brookview Community Center Replacement Presentation/Review Waguespack and Horstkotte from HGA presented a scaled down version of the proposed community center plan. They said the scaled down version does not include a kids' play structure, but does still supports community gathering as a goal. Cornelius said he would like to see the new facility a little bigger with the play structure added back into the plan. Rosenquist agreed. MOTION: Moved by Steinberg and seconded by Rosenquist to recommend to Council an increase in the project budget to under $20 million, and the project plan to include an indoor kids' play area. Motion carried. 5. Appoint 2015/16 Teen Committee Members Birno said eight applications were submitted and nine seats are available. He said staff recommends that all eight are appointed. MOTION: Moved by Steinberg and seconded by Rosenquist to accept the staff recommendation of appointing all eight applicants. Motion carried. 6. Lions Park Trail and Parking Update Birno gave details on a two-day observation done by city staff. He said staff observed the area and did number counts on parking and traffic in the area of Lions Park. He said the observation concluded that the changes made have gone very well. He complimented the Golden Valley Girls Softball Association for their changes and adjustments. Cornelius added that the shortened games didn't make a lot of difference with the flow of traffic. Birno said the time changes may have more of an impact. He plans to talk to the association to get feedback. Birno also said the new sidewalk along Louisiana Avenue is complete. Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation and Environmental Commissions July 27, 2015 Page 2 7. LAWCON Funded Park Areas Birno explained that the property on the southwest corner of Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue is LAWCON (Land and Water Conservation Property), which means it needs to remain open space for public use. 8. Metro Blue Line Extension Update Rosenquist said an open house is being hosted on Tuesday, July 28 at the Robbinsdale Middle School. She said environmental and noise/vibration studies have been done, as well as the studies on the impact to residents. Rosenquist suggested having a representative from Metro Transit come to a future OSRC meeting to discuss the studies. 9. Sandburq Athletic Facility Project Progress Birno said bids for fencing and irrigation came in very high and no bids were received for the concrete work. Golf staff will help with some of the irrigation work, and 90% of the concrete work will be done in house. He said the project schedule is on time. 10. Staff Updates a. Park Dedication Fees Birno said the process is still moving along. He said the consultant has asked to separate the percentage of use on all facilities based on resident use and corporate use. He said the goal is to take the recommendation to Council in September or October. b. Sochacki Park Kick-off Event Birno said the event went great and was hosted by Three Rivers Park District. c. Paisley Park and Golden Ridge Nature Area Birno said Paisley Park and Golden Ridge Nature Area are open spaces maintained by the city that he will be adding to the recognized park listing. They will also be available for adopt-a-park. d. Park Tour in September Birno said the parks and open spaces tour will take place at the September meeting. e. Next Scheduled Meeting Birno said there will not be an August meeting. The next scheduled meeting is September 28. 11. Updates 1) Chair - None. 2) Commission Members Rosenquist said the girl scouts have proposed adding charging stations at Brookview Park. Birno said he would talk to Public Works and if viable, will invite them to a future meeting to discuss. Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation and Environmental Commissions July 27, 2015 Page 3 12. Adjournment MOTION: Moved by Steinberg and seconded by Rosenquist to adjourn at 9:15 pm. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Mattison, Chair ATTEST: Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 24, 2015 Present: Commissioners: Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Dawn Hill, Larry Johnson (left meeting at 8:45pm), and Jim Stremel; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist; and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant Absent: Commissioners Lynn Gitelis (joined meeting via phone at 7:50pm) & Debra Yahle, and Council Member Larry Fonnest Call to Order Dawn Hill, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Approval of Regular Commission Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2015 MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Stremel, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2015 regular meeting. Composting and Organics Recycling Bokashi Composting Barbara Ego with Bokashi Works, LLC and President of the Golden Valley Garden Club, gave a presentation on Bokashi Composting. This method uses microbes which ferments food waste instead of allowing it to rot. After two weeks in an air tight bucket, the food waste can be buried in the yard or garden for another two weeks and then it can be used for planting. This method aids in killing or discouraging the growth of most E-Coli and Salmonella bacteria by lowering the PH levels in the soil. The cost to get started with a 2 gallon bucket & 5oz bag of microbe mix is $16. A one pound bag of microbe mix is $8 and estimated to last a one person household approximately 9 months. Review Organics Recycling Report Eric Eckman presented a composting/organics recycling options report which gave existing options available to residents as well as some potential options to consider. Other items discussed to include in the report to the Council were: listing examples of what other cities are doing in regards to recycling; listing success rates for organized and unorganized cities who are offering organic recycling; reference State Statute requirements on recycling; and providing pros and cons for each potential option. Staff will discuss the potential options with the City Attorney before forwarding to the Council. Commissioners will email any other ideas to Eckman within the next couple of weeks before the report is finalized. Pollinator Article Eckman presented a recent email sent by staff in response to a concern about the decline in pollinator numbers. The City Council has directed the Environmental Commission to develop educational information about pollinator species and their habitats to inform and encourage residents to explore ways to increase their populations. One member offered to invite a resident named "Organic Bob" to present to the Commission on ways to use fewer chemicals in our gardens and yards. It was also suggested to place natural resource topics on the website or in a newsletter to educate the residents of Golden Valley about their environment and to provide them with ways that they can help sustain a native wildlife habitat. Minutes of the Environmental Commission August 24, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Program/Project Updates The complete program/project summary is on file. Eckman provided additional updates on the DeCola Ponds flooding issues and the evaluations done regarding the effects of lowering the water level of the ponds. Also, he gave an update on the Liberty Crossing project and the possibility of creating additional flood storage in that area. Commission Member Council Reports None Other Business CenterPoint Energy is constructing a new office/warehouse near the intersection of Golden Valley Rd and Douglas Dr. which will house 50 to 60 of their employees. Part of their stormwater management plan includes two ponds with native plantings. City Council tasked the Environmental Commission with reviewing the proposed revisions to the Tree Preservation Code. This will be looked at in September or October. Adjourn MOVED by Stremel, seconded by Anderson, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:57pm. Claire Huisman Administrative Assistant city o golden , MEMORANDUM Valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17 2015 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Purchase Galaxy Radio Transmitter Modules for Water Meter Reading System Upgrade Prepared By Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Joe Hansen, Utility Maintenance Supervisor Summary Golden Valley Public Works is in the process of upgrading the water meter reading system to the new Galaxy Fixed Base Meter Reading System. Wireless Galaxy transmitter modules will be installed on every water meter throughout the City. Purchase and installation of the Galaxy radio module is required to read the water meters in the fixed base meter reading system. The Galaxy radio transmitter module upgrades are an integral part of the radio meter reading system. The purchase of the transmitter modules will be funded by the Water and Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Account (W&SS-063, page 87) as listed in the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program. Public Works staff has received quotes from Metering and Technology Solutions and National Meter and Automation, Inc. The price quotes are listed below for the Model 25 Gallon RTR with Galaxy Module for a quantity of 236 units. Metering and Technology Solutions $190.00 per unit Total $45,000.00 National Meter and Automation, Inc. $220.95 per unit Total $52,144.20 Recommended Action Motion to approve purchase of the Galaxy Radio Transmitter Model 25 Gallon RTR with Galaxy Modules from Metering Technology and Solutions for a cost of$45,000.00. city of golden11 MEMORANDUM ValleyAdministrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. F. First Consideration - Ordinance #583 - Establishing A 2016 Master Fee Schedule Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Council discussed the Master Fee Schedule at the Council Manager Meeting on November 10. The resident rate for the car seat installation was removed from discussion at that meeting. The changes from 2015 are noted in yellow. All changes will be effective on January 1, 2016, unless noted such as the utility rates. The utility rates will be effective for any billing after April 1, 2016. Second consideration will be at the December 1, 2015, Council Meeting. Attachments • Ordinance #583 - Establishing A 2016 Master Fee Schedule (20 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt first consideration, Ordinance #583, establishing A 2016 Master Fee Schedule. ORDINANCE NO. 583, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Establishing A 2016 Master Fee Schedule The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1 . The City Code requires that certain fees for City services and licenses be established from time to time by the City Council. Section 2. The Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby adopted as the city's fee schedule effective January 1, 2016, unless otherwise noted and shall be added to Chapter 25 of the City Code. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in its entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of November, 2015. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Permits If the work has been started the fee will double for all permits such as building,plumbing, mechanical,and electrical. All building permit values will be based on the current Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Building Valuation Data. Building&Fire Permit Fees based on fee schedule below. Mandatory State Surcharge:per permit is a minimum of.50 and when a permit fee is over$1,000 in value the state surcharge is.0005 times the permit value. Surcharge is remitted to MN State Treasurer. Permit Cancellation Policy:80%of the permit fee will be returned upon written notice of cancellation. If job has been started no refund will be made. No surcharge or plan review fees will be returned(includes the fees for stormwater management, right-of-way(ROW)and tree preservation permits). Building/Fire/Commercial Mechanical Plan Review Fee-65%of the permit fee(no surcharge) re-inspection fee 100.00 Administrative 75.00 Seasonal, Farm Produce,Christmas Tree Sales,etc in Commercial Zoning District Electrical State Surcharge-each permit 5.00 All Services new,replace or repair There is a$2 per circuit charge for replacing circuits that are disconnected in the old service panel and reconnected in the new panel. 0 to 300 Amp 50.00 400 Amp 58.00 500 Amp 72.00 600 Amp 86.00 800 Amp 114.00 1000 Amp 142.00 1100 Amp 156.00 1200 Amp 170.00 Add$14.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Circuits and Feeders The inspection fee for the installation,addition,alteration or repair of each circuit, feeder,feeder tap or set of transformer secondary conductors: O to 30 Amp 8.00 31 to 100 Amp 10.00 101 to 200 Amp 15.00 300 Amp 20.00 400 Amp 25.00 500 Amp 30.00 600 Amp 35.00 700 Amp 40.00 Add$5.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Minimum Fee Minimum permit fee is$40.00 plus$1.00 State surcharge.This is for one inspection only. Minimum fee for rough-in inspection and final is$80.00 plus$1.00 State surcharge. Maximum Fee Maximum fee for single family dwelling or townhouse not over 200 Amps is$175.00 plus$1.00 State surcharge. Maximum of 3 inspections. 1 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Electrical(continued) Apartment Buildings Fee per unit of an apartment or condominium complex is$70.00.This does not cover $80 per unit service and house wiring. Swimming Pool $80.00 This includes 2 inspections Additons, Remodels or Basement Finishes $80.00 This includes up to 10 circuits and 2 inspections Accessory Structures $50.00 for panel plus$8.00 per circuit Traffic Signals $7.00 per each standard Street Lights and parking lot lights $4.00 per each standard Transformers and Generators $10.00-up to 10 KVA,$40.00-11 to 74 KVA, $60.00-75 KVA to 299 KVA,$150.00-over 300 KVA Retro Fit Lighting $.65 per fixture Sign Transformer $8.00 per transformer Remote Control and Signal Circuits $.75 per device Reinspection fee $40.00 Fire Alarm System(New Installation or Alteration of Existing) Up to the 1st$1,200 in value 50.00 Over $1,200 value-use fire suppression fee Fire Commercial Cooking Ventilation Systems Inspection 75.00 Re-inspection 150.00 Fire Pumps 200.00 Fire Suppression&Special Fire Suppression Systems: FM 200 system,CO2 systems,spray booths,kitchen extinguisher systems,hoods,etc. No change Total valuation based on below fee schedule: Value Range 2004 LMC/AMM Recommendation $150 $500 $25.00 $501 $2,000 $25.00 for the first$500 $3.25/additional$100 $2,001 $25,000 $73.50 for the first$2,000 $14.75/additional$1,000 $25,001 $50,000 $415.75 for the first$25,000 $10.75/additional$1,000 $50,001 $100,000 $682.50 for the first$50,000 $7.50/additional$1,000 $100,001 $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first$100,000 $6.00/additional$1,000 $500,001 $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first$500,000 $5.00/additional$1,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first$1,000,000 $4.00/additional$1,000 2 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Fireworks/Pyrotechnic Special Effects 100.00 Permit requires rental of fire engine and crew for stand-by at display House/Building Moving 300.00 Demolition 300.00 Mechanical: HVAC,Gas Piping, Refrigeration and Fireplace (Includes all types of fireplaces-masonry,gas,gas log,gas insert,etc.) Value Permit charge $0- $999 $25.00 $1,001- $5,000 $31.50+2.60%over$1000 $5,001- $10,000 $135.50+2.15%over$5000 $10,001- $25,000 $243.00+ 1.85%over$10,000 $25,000- $50,000 $520.50+ 1.65%over$25,000 $50,001- over $933.00+ 1.30%over$50,000 Mobile Food Vending City Parks Up to 3 days $40 per day Non-residential zoning districts Up to 3 days(City Parks-limit 3 days) $40 per day Up to 120 days 150.00 Native Vegetation Landscape Permit 100.00 Parade/Special Event 25.00 Petroleum/Compress Gas Tanks Installation -per dispenser 75.00 Installation-per tank 75.00 Piping associated with tanks 75.00 Removal-per tank 75.00 Temporary LP Tank(per site) 75.00 Temporary above ground fuel tanks(per site) 75.00 Plan Review Fee-65%of the fee(no surcharge) Plumbing and Piping Fixtures Includes hydraulic sewer valves, rain water leaders,and alteration to existing systems. Value Permit charge $0- $999 $25.00 25.00 $1,001- $5,000 $31.50+2.60%over$1000 $5,001- $10,000 $135.50+2.15%over$5000 $10,001- $25,000 $243.00+1.85%over$10,000 $25,001- $50,000 $520.50+1.65%over$25,000 $50,001- over $933.00+1.30%over$50,000 3 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Right Of Way Driveway Replacement Permit 100.00 Permanent Obstruction Permit, per obstruction (includes courtesy benches) 100.00 Temporary Obstruction permit No Charge Temporary Access Permit 25.00 In Boulevard Excavation Permit per opening 100.00 In Pavement Excavation Permit per opening(includes curb alterations) 200.00 Overhead Utility Repair per location No Charge Underground Utility: Length Permit Charge 0 to 100 Feet $250 administrative fee+$1/foot over 100 Feet $350 administrative fee+$.50/foot over 100 feet Service Drop meeting conditions: No charge Not parallel to right-of way at least 10'from any City facility or utility, less than 1'wide,and depth in accord with law or, if none, industry standard Stormwater Management Land Disturbance up to one half acre(0 to 21,779 square feet} 100.00 200.00 -- - - - - -- - - - -- - -- Projects that do not require watershed review- No post construction BMPs Projects that require watershed review require Post Construction BMPs 100.00 300.00 Sign Permit Base fee 50.00 Area fee(per sq ft of sign area) +3.00/sq ft Plan Review(Pylon and Monument Signs) 40.00 Standpipe Installation of each standpipe(up to 5 floors) 50.00 Each additional floor 25.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Partial Certificate of Occupancy 100.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 100.00 Extension of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 200.00 Penalty for expired Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 300.00 Tent/Canopy Inspections-required for tent exceeding 200 sq ft and 50.00 canopies exceeding 400 sq ft(per site) each additional tent and/or canopy(per site) 25.00 Tree Preservation Permit 100.00 150.00 Tree and Landscape Permit 150.00 4 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Utility Permits Water Meter Permit 100.00 Water Tapping Permit 100.00 Water Cut-off Permit 100.00 Sewer Permit(connection) 100.00 Sewer Repair Permit 100.00 Sewer Cut-off Permit 100.00 Licenses Renewal Date Auctioning Auctioneers do not need to be licensed in the City of Golden Valley. However,they have to show us a copy of a license or bond from the county or state and provide us a letter on the date,time and place of the auction. Chicken Coop License Initial Application Fee 75.00 Annual License Renewal Fee 1-Apr 25.00 Cigarettes-Tobacco Products over the counter 1-Jan 275.00 Contractors-Heating,Ventilation,Air Cond and Refrigeration 1-Apr 75.00 Dog Kennel-per kennel 1-Apr 200.00 Entertainment Amusement and Shows 1-Apr 50.00 (movies-per screen;caravans,circuses,amusement rides) Bowling Alley(each lane) 1-Apr 15.00 Dancing&Entertainment 1-Apr 375.00 Pinball Machine,Video Game or Pool Table each location 1-Apr 15.00 each device 1-Apr 15.00 Fireworks Retail consumer fireworks that sell other items 1-May 100.00 Retail consumer fireworks,retailers that sell only fireworks 1-May 350.00 Garbage Haulers-per vehicle 1-Apr 50.00 (See also Recylcing Haulers) Gasoline Stations Per Location Dispensers 1-4(each) 1-Apr 75.00 Over four dispensers(each) 50.00 Lawful Gambling License 1-Jan First year 250.00 Renewal after 1st year 100.00 5 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Licenses(continued) Liquor License Application Packet 20.00 Liquor-Investigation Fee (Liquor On-sale,Off-sale,and Sunday sale and Wine) new applicant 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation Liquor-Miscellaneous Change thru the year per change 100.00 Liquor On,Off and Sunday Sale and Wine(renewal or misc changes) Renewal Date Liquor License(State law) Sunday sale 1-Jul 200.00 Off-sale 340A.408 1-Jul 200.00 On-sale 1-Jul 8,000.00 Wine On-sale 1-Jul 2,000.00 Club 1-Jul up to 200 members 300.00 200-500 members 500.00 501-1,000 members 650.00 1,001-2,000 members 800.00 2001-4000 members 1,000.00 4001-6000 members 2,000.00 Over 6000 members 3,000.00 Liquor-On-sale 1-Jul Non-Intoxicating Malt 500.00 Brewer Tap Room 600.00 Cocktail Room 600.00 Liquor-Off-sale 1-Jul Non-Intoxicating Malt 150.00 Brew Pub-Malt Liquor 200.00 Small Brewer 200.00 Distilled Spirits 200.00 Liquor-Temporary Non-Intoxicating/Intoxicatng Malt Liquor License Section 5.31-City Code 100.00 Liquor-Investigation Fee 500.00 Massage Therapist-Individual Certificate(each individual/person) 1-Jan 100.00 Investigation fee 100.00 Massage Therapist Premise License 1-Jan Operating location 500.00 Investigation fee 200.00 New/Used Vehicle Sales 1-Sep 400.00 Peddlers and Solicitors 1-Jan Each Employee(background check/Identification card) 30.00 6 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Pawnbroker and Precious Metal Dealer Location 1-Jan 5,000.00 Dealer 1-Jan 400.00 Investigation Fee 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation APS Transaction Fee 1.30 Licenses(continued) Renewal Date Recycling Haulers(Multi Family Apartment) -per vehicle 1-Apr 50.00 Rental Dwelling License Single Family Dwellings One Unit Dwelling License Expires July 1 125.00 Re-inspection 100.00 Twin Homes&Duplexes License per Dwelling Unit Expires May 1 125.00 Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Condominiums&Townhomes License Per Dwelling Unit Expires Sept 1 125.00 Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Group Homes/homes with services Expires Nov 1 125.00 License Per Dwelling Unit Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Multiple Unit Dwelling(3 or more units)per building 1-Mar 0.00 3-50 Units 125.00 51-150 Units 175.00 151+Units 250.00 Re-inspection(per building/per address) 100.00 License Transfer(pro rate) minimum 50.00 Star Program Fees(Based on participation level) Non-Participant $30/unit $35/unit Level 1 $12/unit $20/unit Level 2 $10/unit $12/unit Level 3 $6/unit $8/unit Level 4 $0/unit Administrative Citations on(all)Rental Dwellings 1st citation 100.00 2nd citation 250.00 3rd citation 500.00 4th citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 500.00 Citation Appeal 25.00 Sexually Oriented Business License Fee(operating location) 1-Jan 5,000.00 Investigation Fee 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation 7 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Street Assessments Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dwelling unit on local street 6,600.00 Multi Unit Residential(more than 2 dwelling units)on local street 76.3/ft Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dwelling unit on state aid street 1,650.00 Multi Unit Residential(more than 2 dwelling units)on state aid street 81.71/ft Other Zonings,Local Streets 91.73/ft Other Zonings,State Aid Streets 99.21/ft Administrative Fee for Driveways and/or Sanitary Sewer repairs $250/maximum (Seven percent of total or maximum fee-whichever lessor) Low Income Level for Senior/Retired due to Disability Deferral 2015 HUD Limits Miscellaneous Fees Address Change 50.00 Administrative Citations-Non Rental Housing 1st Citation 100.00 2nd Citation 250.00 3rd Citation 500.00 4th Citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 500.00 Alarm System-False Alarms(12 month period beginning March 1 of each year upon given notice) 1-3 false alarms 4-10 false alarms 100.00 11-15 false alarms 150.00 16 or more false alarms 250.00 Animal Control Impound Fee for dogs 50.00 Boarding Fee for dogs and cats per day(7 day maximum) 20.00 Dangerous Dog License 250.00 Building Plan/Storage Retrieval 50.00 Carseat Installations/Inspections Non-resident 25.00 Each additional 10.00 Certification Fee(Special Assessment) 30.00 City Cemetery Cemetery Plot 500.00 Open/Close Fee: Crematory(up to 2 per lot) 200.00 each Burial 750.00 8 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Miscellaneous Fees(continued) Documents City Code Full book in binder 200.00 Updates 15/each Zoning Chapters Only 10.00 City Maps:, Plats, Record Drawings,Other Plats(i.e.address maps, building plans,comp pia 10.00 Comprehensive Plan Copies of any black and white, letter or legal size documents of 100 or .25/pg fewer pages(Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300,subpart 4.) Copies of any color,letter or legal size documents .33/page Digital Format Aerial photography time&material Custom Maps or Map Layers time&material Topography time&material Special Assessment Search(non-owner) 15.00 Video Reproduction(per tape, DVD,CD+shipping) 20.00 Domestic Partner Registration Initial Registration 40.00 Amendment/Notice of Termination 25.00 Certified copy of Registration 5.00 Equipment Charge per hour Fire Engine(includes personnel) 250.00 Fire Aerial Truck(includes personnel) 350.00 Police and Fire Rescue Truck(includes personnel) 250.00 Utility Vehicle(includes personnel) 100.00 Squad Car(includes personnel) 100.00 Utility Equipment(sewer jet,vac truck,sewer camera,sewer rodder) 200.00 Heavy(front end loader,360 Backhoe,Pickup sweeper, 125.00 tandem axle truck,aerial truck) does not include personnel costs Medium(single axle dump truck,water truck,tractor backhoe, utility tractor/ 80.00 accessory, 15 ft cut lawn mower, brush chipper,asphalt roller)does not include personnel costs Light(truck-one ton and under,air compressor,water pump,generator, 45.00 steamer,asphalt/saw,concrete,cable tracer)does not include personnel costs Fire Boat(includes personnel) 75.00 Fire ATV(includes personnel) 75.00 Fire Life Safety Trailer(includes personnel) 200.00 Gas Lines,construction damage with Fire Department Response 250.00 Filing Fee(Administrative Citation Appeal)per violation 25.00 Fingerprinting Golden Valley Resident 10.00 Anyone employed in GV 25.00 Additional Card Forced Tree Removal cost of removal+20% 9 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Miscellaneous Fees(continued) Forfeited DWI Vehicle Administrative Fee 750.00 1000.00 Hydrant Meter Rental Residential(per day+consumption) 2.00 Commercial(per day+consumption) 5.00 Deposit(residential) 200.00 Deposit(commercial) 1000.00 Nuisance Service Call Fee(after three calls) 250.00 Personnel Off Duty Police Officer(minimum applies as determined by 75/hour City Manager/designee) Firefighters, Lieutenants, Captains, Batallion Chief 35/hour minimum Public Works Employee 60/hr minimum Sump Pump Inspection 50.00 Weed Eradication/Lawn mowing-per hour(see minimums) Vacant land- 1 hour minimum 125/hr Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property-3 hour minimum 125/hr SECOND OR MORE VIOLATIONS IN ONE SEASON Vacant land- 1 hour minimum- 250/hr Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property-3 hour minimum 250/hr Planning&Zoning Fees Comprehensive Plan Amendment 500.00 Conditional Use Items Conditional Use Permit 400.00 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 300.00 Extension for Conditional Use Permit 125.00 Easement Vacation(each request) 500.00 Flood Control Management(Special Permit) 75.00 Floodplain Search Letter 25.00 Park Dedication Fees 2%of Land 4%of Land (per Minnesota Statute 462.358) Market Value Planned Unit Development Preliminary Design Plan 400.00 600.00 Final Plan of Development 400.00 600.00 Extension of Planned Unit Development 150.00 Planned Unit Development Major Amendment 400.00 ori ry n of 250.00 Final Plan of Development 250.00 Extension of Planned Unit Development 150.00 Planned Unit Development Minor Amendment 250.00 Planned Unit Development-Administrative Amendment 100.00 10 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Planning&Zoning Fees(continued) Rezoning 500.00 Subdivision 400.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat 125.00 Subdivision-Minor 250.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat 125.00 Variance from City Code- Zoning Chapters Single family residential 200.00 Extension 150.00 All others 300.00 Extension 150.00 Wetland Management(plus professional fees if necessary) 75.00 Zoning Examination Letter 100.00 Temporary Retail Sales in Industrial Zone 150.00 (for each sale, up to five days) Utility Fees Driveway Covers-Replace 150.00 Hydrant Inspection(Private) 3.75/month Hydrant Maintenance(Private) Actual Cost materials, parts, labor+20% admin Meter Testing(to be returned if meter is in error of 5%or more of read) 50.00 Sanitary Sewer Inspections and Compliance Fees(Ordinance No.352) Noncompliant discharge into sanitary sewer(or refuse inspection) Single Family Residential 500/month Non Single Family Residential 1000/month Application fee for noncompliant winter discharge into sanitary sewer 250.00 Application fee for certificate of sewer regulations compliance Single Family Residential (R-1 or R-2), per structure 250.00 Non Single Family Residential (all other structures), per structure 750.00 Fee to review residential video record completed by private licensed plumber 100.00 Fee to review non-residential video record completed by private licensed plumber 375.00 Water on/off per each event (business day) 100.00 (after hours) 165.00 Utility-Manual Read of Water/Sewer Meter 100.00 Water Meter and Parts(All) At cost+20% 11 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Utility Billing Rates-Effective April 1,2015 Residential Utility Rates-quarterly billing (includes all residential classes except those classified as apartments) ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Inspection Fee for Fire lines 6.00 Penalties(for late payment) 10% Sanitary Sewer(in 1000 gallons) Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-5 and under units-winter qtr consumption 56.89 59.19 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-6-15 units-winter qtr consumption 61.36 63.81 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-16-19 units-winter qtr consumption 67.20 69.89 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-20-25 units-winter qtr consumption 76.86 79.93 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-26-39 units-winter qtr consumption 100.29 104.31 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-40-59 units-winter qtr consumption 115.50 120.12 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-60-79 units-winter qtr consumption 122.62 127.53 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-80 to 99 units-winter qtr consumption 140.49 146.10 Residential (per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-100 and over units-winter qtr consumption 166.69 173.40 Recycling Residential curbside(per unit) 12.00 14.00 Storm Sewer Utility Rate Charge for a Residential Equivalent Factor of 1.00 66.00 Each single family residential property is considered to be 1/3 of an acre. Street Lights Ornamental(per unit) 10.80 11.13 Overhead (per unit) 7.05 7.56 Water Minimum fee, includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 9.00 9.60 Water meters up to and including 1" 9.00 9.60 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 62.03 66.14 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 86.57 92.35 Water meters over 4" 110.95 118.37 Above 1,000 gallons of flow per quarter up to 79,000(per 1,000 gallons) 5.30 5.65 80,000 gallons and over of flow per quarter(per 1,000 gallons) 5.33 5.68 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 0.20 Water Connection Fee(State Charge for each water hookup) 1.59 1.59 Irrigation Accounts(All)-Monthly Billing Minimum fee, includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 9.00 9.60 Above 1,000 gallons of flow per month(per 1,000 gallons) 5.30 5.68 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 ACH Payment Credit (1.00) 12 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Utility Billing Rates-Effective April 1,2015(continued) Commercial&Industrial Monthly Billing ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Inspection Fee for Fire lines 2.00 Penalties(for late payment on monthly billings) 5% Sanitary Sewer Water meters up to and including 1" 7.49 8.61 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 19.05 22.05 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 27.19 30.78 Water meters over 4" 34.23 39.46 Based on per 1,000 gallons 3.99 4.15 Note:Water Meter Flow is used to establish sewer flow unless a separate sewer flow meter has been established. Storm Sewer Utility Rate Charge per acre for property with a Residential Equivalent Factor of 1.00 22.00 Street Lights Ornamental(per unit) 3.50 3.71 Overhead (per unit) 2.25 2.52 Water Connection Fee (State Charge for each water hookup) 0.53 Water Usage: Minimum fee, includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 9.00 9.60 Water meters up to and including 1" 9.00 9.60 Water meters over 1" and including 2" 20.69 22.05 Water meters over 2" and including 4" 28.85 30.78 Water meters over 4" 36.98 39.46 Water rate above 1,000 gallons 5.30 5.65 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 13 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Brookview Golf Course Rates Regulation Course 18 Hole Non-patron 37.00 18 Hole Patron 30.00 18 Hole Sr Patron 26.00 18 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 30.00 18 Hole Non-patron League 37.00 18 Tournament 37.00 9 Hole Non-patron 20.00 9 Hole Patron 17.00 9 Hole Sr Patron 15.50 9 Hole Non-patron Senior 17.00 9 Hole Non-patron League 20.00 9 Hole Tournament 20.00 2nd Nine Non-patron 17.00 2nd Nine Patron 13.00 Sunrise/Sunset Rate 17.00 Twilight Non-patron 21.00 Twilight Patron 17.00 Junior Rate Patron 21.00/12.00 Junior Rate Non Patron 23.00/14.00 Par 3 Course 9 Hole Non-patron 12.50 9 Hole patron 9.00 9 Hole Sr Patron 8.00 9 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 9.50 9 Hole League 12.50 9 Hole Tournament 12.50 9 Hole Junior Rate 8.00 9 Hole Junior Non-Patron Rate 9.50 2nd 9 Par 3 7.50 Patron Cards Resident Adult Patron 75.00/70.00 Non-resident Adult Patron 115.00/110.00 Resident Senior Patron(age 62+) 45.00/40.00 Non-resident Senior Patron (age 62+) 80.00/75.00 Resident Junior Patron (17 yrs&under) 35.00/30.00 Non-resident Junior(17 yrs&under) 40.00/35.00 Par 3 Patron Card 30.00 Driving Range Warm Up Bucket 3.00 4.00 Small Bucket 5.00 6.00 Large Bucket 7.00 8.00 10 Bucket Punch Pass 57.00 67.00 Large Patron Bucket 5.00 6.00 14 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Brookview Golf Course Rates(continued) Cart Rates 18 Hole Power Cart 30.00 31.00 18 Hole Tournament Cart 30.00 31.00 18 Hole Patron Cart 24.00 25.00 9 Hole Tournament Cart 20.00 20.50 9 Hole Power Cart 20.00 20.50 9 Hole Par 3 Power Cart 15.00 16.00 9 Hole Par Patron Cart 16.00 16.50 Pull Cart/Regulation Course 5.00 Pull Cart/Par 3 Course 4.00 Trailer fee/Use of personal power cart 15.00/10.00 Club Rentals 18 Hole full rental-Regulation 20.00/30.00 9 Hole full rental-Regulation 10.00/15.00 9 hole Par 3 half rental 10.00 Locker Rental Season 20.00 Daily 1.00 Towel fee 2.00 Miscellaneous Fees USGA Handicap Service MGA Non-patron 40.00 Patron Annual 25.00 No Show Fee FULL FEE Lessons Adult Group 99.00 Junior Group 199.00 Lawn Bowling League Fee M-Th evenings(7 week league) 350.00 Single Court Rental-resident and golf patron 20.00/hour Single Court Rental-non-resident 25.00/hour Private Rental of Four Courts 100.00/hour Private Rental of Eight Courts-exclusive use 200.00/hour Summer Kids Leagues 10.00-50.00 Senior Leagues 10.00-50.00 Rental of Green/4 courts for corporate golf outings 100.00/hour Deck Rental(0-4 hours) 100.00 Game Official For Private Rentals/Events 25.00/hour Game Equipment Use For Leagues&Rentals 0.00(Provided) 15 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule- Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee_ Park&Recreation Fees Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrative fee. A non-resident fee is added to all Park and Recreation programs and rentals. Resident status is live or work in the City of Golden Valley. 2016 Non-resident additional fee scale $1.00-25.00 $2.00 $26.00-50.00 $3.00 $51.00-75.00 $4.00 $76.00+ $5.00 Youth Fees Baseball- Park 36.00 37.00 Basketball-Mites 42.00 45.00 Basketball-Youth 45.00-47.00 55.00 Bike Rangers 36.00 37.00 Catch, Kick&Throw 31.00 remove Chess Club 30.00 30.00 Drama Club(Summer) 62.00 63.00 Drama Club(Fall &Winter) 64.00 65.00 Explorers Hiking&Biking Club 34.00 35.00 Football-Flag 32.00 33.00 Football/Basketball/Soccer Skills 32.00 33.00 Hockey Ice Skills Camp 2,99 remove Hockey-Rink Rat 48.00 48.00 Jewelry Making 33.00 34.00 Jump Rope 20.00 21.00 31.00 remove Kids Club 46.00 46.00 Kids Korner 32.00 33.00 Pre-School Players 39.00 40.00 •-• •.. - • - , 2-6:00 remove Pitch by Coach 36.00 37.00 Playgrounds 0.00- 10.00 0.00- 10.00 Preschool Playtime-per time 2.00 2.00 Preschool Playtime-10-time punch pass 15.00 15.00 Soccer- Fall 37.00 38.00 Soccer Nerf 35,00 remove Soccer- Indoor 36.00 Summer Survivor 33.00 remove Tap& Ballet 41.00 42.00 T-Ball 36.00 37.00 Tennis Full Day Camp 200.00 230.00 remove Tennis Half Day Camp 180.00 200.00 remove Tennis Teen Team League 195.^arr00-200..00 remove Volleyball-Sand 31.00 32.00 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees(continued) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstratiye fee. Adult/Senior Activities Ballroom Dance-Swing&Social 50.00 55.00 Basketball-Open Drop-in Fee 4.00 4.00 10-time Punch Pass 28.00 28.00 Belly Dancing 56.00-80.00 64.00-80.00 Bridge Beginning 8240 remove Bridge Intermediate ;248 remove Broomball L ague Co Rec Resident 4504}8 remove Alen-Resident 540.00 remove line Dancing 45-00-60.00 remove Soccer League-Co-Rec 550.00 Resident 4 0.00 remove Nen--Resident 6-20.00 remove Softball Leagues- Fall 415.00 Resident 340. 0 remove Nen--Resident 455.00 remove Softball Leagues-Spring/Summer 815.00 Doubleheader L ague Resident 615.00 remove 840-00 remove Tae Kwan Do 54.00-70.00 70.00 Tai Chi 40.00-60.00 40.00-60.00 Tennis L ague Mixed Doubles 26.00 remove Tennis L ague Singles 20.00 remove Volleyball -Open Drop-in Fee 4.00 4.00 10-time Punch Pass 28.00 28.00 Volleyball League-Sand 250.00 Resident 230.00 remove Non Resident 260.00 remove Yoga& Pilates 55.00-95.00 55.00-95.00 Senior Programs Bowling Tourney 5.00 5.00 Coffee Talk 2.00 2.00 Craft/Art Classes 6.50-70.00 6.50-70.00 Defensive Driving(refreshments only) 1.00 1.00 Living Well and Wise 1.00-4.00 1.00-4.00 Lunch Events 9.00-20.00 9.00-20.00 Membership Dues 5.00-8.00 5.00-8.00 Money Matters 1.00-3.00 1.00-3.00 Remember When 1.00-2.00 1.00-2.00 Special Events 4.00-20.00 4.00-20.00 Trips-Extended 2-6 Days 250.00-1200.00 250.00-1200.00 Trips-One Day 8.00-95.00 8.00-95.00 17 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees(continued) {A Non Resident fcc of 5 .r.' - :-•- ---.::-- - - - •:. .-: --•: - Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrativc fee. Other Park&Recreation Fees Small Park Shelter Resident(up to 50 people) 95.00 100.00 Non-resident 110.00 115.00 Large Park Shelter Resident(up to 100 people) 125.00 130.00 Non-resident 145.00 150.00 Brookview Gazebor(Concert/Ceremonies/Services) Resident-4 hour rental 125.00 Non-resident-4 hour rental 150.00 Beer/Wine Permit(only with Picnic Shelter rental) 25.00 30.00 FoodTw-ek MOVED TO PERMITS-MOBILE FOOD VENDING /10.00 Brookview Community Center Resident(over 75 people; 12 hours; includes deck) 560.00 600.00 Non-resident(over 75 people; 12 hours) includes deck) 645.00 690.00 Resident(up to 75 people; 5 hours max) 25 per hour $35 per hour Non-resident(up to 75 people; 5 hours max) 35 per hour $45 per hour Private Industry or Commercial Use- Resident/Non-Resident 55-65 per hour $65-75 per hour Non-Profit/Community Organization-Resident/Non-Resident 0-35 per hour $0-35 per hour Brookview Community Center- Deck(0-4 hours) 100.00 Resident 125.00 Non-resident 150.00' Davis Community Center Gym 25 per hour remove Resident $25 per hour Non-resident $30 per hour Sand Volleyball Court(per court) 20.00/hour remove Resident $20 per hour Non-resident $35 per hour Tennis Court Pickleball Court Tournament-per day/per court 40,00 remove Resident 40.00 Non-resident 50.00 Court/hr/wkday &00 remove Resident $6.00 per hour Non-resident $8.00 per hour Picnic Kit - 4-54)0 remove Athletic Field (per field) Per hour 110.00 remove Resident 25.00 Non-resident 40.00 W/Lights per hour 55-00 remove Resident 40.00 Non-resident 55.00 All day tournament Resident 150.00 Non-resident 300.00 Field Attendant $15.00 per hour Prep per field(extra drag) 35.00 remove Chalking pe field €00 remove -- _ _ .. per hour 3--599 remove 18 City of Golden Valley 2016 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2015 Adopted 2016 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees(continued) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrativc fcc. Other Park&Recreation Fees(continued) Commercial Use of Park (Fee does not include facility rentals) 1-00,00-1-2-5,09 Resident $100 per hour Non-resident $125 per hour Park Building per hour 49:00 Resident $35 per hour Non-resident $40 per hour Hockey Rink per hour 3&99 Resident $25 per hour Non-resident $35 per hour Youth Athletic Association Maintenance Fee per player 6.00 $7-$15 Invitational Tournament per field per day 50.00 50.00 19 city °. " golf. en MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. G. Restricting On-Street Parking for Streets Adjacent to and Including the Douglas Drive Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Seaburg, EIT, Engineer Summary The reconstruction of the Douglas Drive corridor is anticipated to begin in early 2016 and conclude in 2017. As a result of its reconstruction, several local roadways that intersect Douglas Drive will be partially reconstructed in order to create a smooth transition, including County State Aid Highways (CSAH) and Municipal State-Aid Streets (MSAS). State-aid standards dictate minimum lane width, buffer width, and parking stall widths for on-street parking eligibility. Douglas Drive and portions of Sandburg Road, Country Club Drive, and the North TH 55 Frontage Road are all being modified to include turn lanes, medians, and bike lanes and will not meet the minimum parking width standards. As such, staff proposes that these roadways be established as no-parking zones by City Council resolution. The following is a list of specific areas that require resolutions authorizing parking restrictions: Douglas Drive: Both Sides from TH 55 to Medicine Lake Road Country Club Road: Both Sides from 600' West of Douglas Drive to Douglas Drive TH 55 Frontage Road: North and East Side from Douglas Drive to 765' South and East Sandburg Road: Both Sides from 400' West of Douglas Drive to Douglas Drive Attachments • Location Maps (4 pages) • Resolution Restricting Parking on portions of Douglas Drive, Country Club Road, North TH 55 Frontage Road, and Sandburg Road (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution restricting parking on portions of Douglas Drive, Sandburg Road, Country Club Drive, and the North TH 55 Frontage Road. j 1 ■"Y-11."'i'Y'ir-i nii i--ivL-iii -iriirii—Y ii lief 7i-7i'Y'i'-IVY"' '----..—: r----__—_.—..—.. ..—..—_.—..�. FIN ,1 Sdndburg Rd Proposed Restriction z t .,.. No Parking (anytime) A isit1,••• '• • • ufh St •• IN IN in t • a gul Ili j v - - - - Olympia St - ;I - ,1 I - I I • _ d , # • I •0 /***°— 01,„0 1•. •0 rA_ e '° •#‘ #. vt �•' 1 Lindsay St • • . , I! _ • O NNel,•,' b 41 - M ■ •laeI' �'• W I v r A I N I Oa . Parking Restrictions 11NFr„ntageIRd No Parking (current) -t1i �rrrr.rr: i i ■ In NW 1 Proposed No Parking _ - .4. Olson Mei Hwy .• _ Frontaa, Rd ter. we _ city Of Print Date: 11/4/2015 g Sources: 0 golden Douglas Dr N -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for valley Property Lines(2015)&Aerial Photography(2012). Y Parking -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 500 1,000 2,000 I !Feet +; Z L a . as J cs, `"„, 0 , 0 0 Proposed Restriction No Parking (anytime) i 11 Count Club Dr 1 1 NNW I 1 / ` -...,,,_ -._ , g5 State"v" N Z L. 3 e N No, 55 _-- o° tat 1 s �` .6 Oa N Son Mem v 'i' a) 1 1;k v) a) (.) CD I OP \ C .-- Print Date: 11/6/2015 0 Lily ofSources: golden Country Club Dr -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines(2015)&Aerial Photography(2012). valley Parking -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 50 100 200 IMEgEFeeT s • . • 44':kIl • • • • • • I I 1 z Proposed Restriction o I No Parking (anytime) N as DI I OP o o o '_ I— . m ' 0 IE Ia) 12 I 0 1 N '0 I I I I I I I ' I ' 1 ' 1 I t % S • • `` State Hwy No. 55 Print Date: 11/4/2015 e c l ty Of Sources: golden Hwy 55 Frontage Rd -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines(2015)&Aerial Photography(2012) valley Parking -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 50 100 200 FPP'. • 1 i CC I ,)\ Proposed Restriction ' No Parking (anytime) Z Sandburg Rd (co ,. rn ----i ` o \\\,_;\ ( 11 1 i i I I' i I i lir i q 1 0 i I Print Date: 11/6/2015 L 11)UJC p Sources: golden„ San Rd -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines(2015)&Aerial Photography(2012). -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. valley Parking 0 50 100 20u Resolution 15-88 November 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON DOUGLAS DRIVE, SANDBURG ROAD, NORTH TH 55 FRONTAGE ROAD, AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has the power and authority, pursuant to Chapter 9.06, subd. 2 of the City Code, to designate no parking zones and areas, and it appears that no parking zones should be created on certain portions of Douglas Drive, Sandburg Road, North TH 55 Frontage Road, and Country Club Drive; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley to authorize the parking restrictions on the following: 1 . Both sides of Douglas Drive from TH 55 to Medicine Lake Road 2. Both sides of Sandburg Road from 400 feet west of Douglas Drive to Douglas Drive 3. North and east side of the North TH 55 Frontage Road from Douglas Drive to 765 feet south and east of Douglas Drive 4. Both sides of Country Club Drive from 600 feet west of Douglas Drive to Douglas Drive Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. city of golden MEMORANDUM Valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 1763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17 2015 Agenda Item 3. H. Call for Public Hearing to Vacate Easements at 7751 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North (Liberty Crossing PUD) Prepared By Jeff Oliver P.E., City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary A developer has proposed the construction of a residential planned unit development, called Liberty Crossing, near the intersection of Winnetka Avenue North and Medicine Lake Road (see attached location map). The existing parcels will be consolidated and the entire property re- platted to prepare for development. As part of this process, the existing public easements must be vacated and the developer must dedicate new public right-of-way and easements on the final plat. The locations of the new easements will better reflect the locations of the proposed buildings and utilities. Staff sent a letter to all private utility companies requesting their review and comment on the easement vacation, and there has been no objection. Since the easements are not adjacent to public water, no notice to the Commissioner of Natural Resources is required for this vacation. If City Council approves the call for public hearing, staff will publish and post a notice of public hearing and send letters to all affected property owners consistent with state statute. Attachments • Liberty Crossing Location Map (showing easements to be vacated) (1 page) • Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing to Consider Vacation of Easements in the Plats of Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051 and MCTAC ADDITION (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution establishing a Public Hearing to consider Vacation of Easements in the Plats of Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051 and MCTAC ADDITION on December 1, 2015, at 7 pm. Easement to be Vacated G C 4 / QDevelopment Boundary (rj 775 -75 ,: .. ,. , ry In N - * 251 o Co co in ILO in . N O _ N z I a) CO CO C in a tu N N o 0 t CI' CC I N 1 z * . 1 o a . 4 CD I NI CO E k' o ` V 5, .. 1-,N 2337 0 �� 3 �. N 2 L - Print C1t;r Ui Ilk IAN, Sourceste: 8/28/2015 0 1 * Hennepin County Surveyors Office for if Oh � ' Liberty Crossing Property Lines(2015)&Aerial Photography(2012) t l a ey -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. V 333 0 50 100 200 iiiiel Feet Resolution 15-89 November 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATION OF EASEMENTS IN THE PLATS OF GOLDEN VALLEY VFW POST NUMBER 7051 AND MCTAC ADDITION (7751 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North) WHEREAS, the City desires to consider vacation of all easements dedicated in the recorded plat of Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the City desires to consider vacation of all easements dedicated in the recorded plat of MCTAC Addition, legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, MCTAC Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby schedules a public hearing on December 1, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. to consider vacation of the easements. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. city of golden MEMORANDUM valley City Administration Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. I. Board/Commission Appointments Prepared By Shep Harris, Mayor Summary Each year the City Council conducts interviews with persons who have applied to serve on a board and/or commission. After the interviews are conducted the Council makes their appointments. Recommended Action Motion to make the following appointments: Human Services Fund Aaron Black 1 year term term expires - May, 2016 Scott Charlesworth-Seiler 2 year term term expires - May, 2017 Sarah Meyerring 3 year term term expires- May, 2018 Open Space and Recreation Commission Andrew Bukowski 3 year term term expires - May, 2018 Human Rights Commission Nabil Pruscini 3 year term term expires - May, 2018 city of golden11MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 60 day deadline: August 24, 2015 60 day extension: October 23, 2015 30 day extension: November 22, 2015 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat Approval - Calderjax Addition - 7200 Harold Avenue Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the October 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered the application for a minor subdivision of the property located at 7200 Harold Avenue. The applicants, Fred and Vicki Gross, are proposing to subdivide the 39,630 square foot property and reconfigure the existing lot into two new single family residential lots. As proposed by the applicants, each of the two new lots would meet the necessary lot area and lot width requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code. However, staff believes that Lot 2 (the north lot) of the proposed subdivision fails to meet the Subdivision Code requirement that the front of each lot abut entirely on an improved public street, as no access is available from the front of the lot to the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic. The Planning Commission was unable to arrive at a recommendation of approval or denial for this proposal. A motion to recommend approval failed on a 3-3 vote and the application was forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation. Analysis The staff recommendation of denial of this proposal can be summarized in three key points: 1. Based on the lot layout being proposed, the subdivision requirements are not met. Specifically, there is no possibility for access from the front of Lot 2 to the portion of the right- of-way of Highway 55 that has been improved for vehicular traffic, as required by City Code. The only access to this lot is proposed to be via a rear driveway and easement to Harold Avenue over the lot to the south. This creates, in essence, a flag lot. 2. The City modified its Code to prohibit flag lots in 1990 based on a number of concerns, including those of Fire, Police, and Engineering, as well as Planning. Most of those concerns remain valid today. The inclusion of those concerns in the staff report to the Planning Commission and in the form of statements from other departments are not findings upon which the recommendation of denial is based, but do provide insight into to the rationale behind the existing policy and current City Code. 3. The Lawn Terrace subdivision cited by the applicants' representative and approved by the City in 2005 appears to have had similar conditions with respect to lot frontage and restrictions on access. The City Attorney believes that the analysis at that time likely did not go far enough and that the project could have been denied using the same rationale being advanced now. However, the City may have had legitimate interests in working with the applicant to arrive at a solution that allowed for the subdivision of the property and the accommodation of the lack of direct access effectively served as a variance from the subdivision requirements. This should not, however, relieve the current proposal from adherence to those same requirements. The more technical aspects of the abutment requirement can be found in the attached memo to the Planning Commission and in communication from the City Attorney. In short, the City Code requires that access to the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic be available via the front of the lot. In most lots created through subdivision, this occurs through the issuance of a City Right-of-Way Permit and the construction of a driveway. As access to Highway 55 from this parcel has been taken by the State through eminent domain, Lot 2 cannot meet this requirement and therefore the subdivision should not be approved. Staff have met with the representative for the applicants on more than one occasion to discuss this proposal and acknowledge a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the City Code. The applicants' representative argues that although the current proposal may be inconsistent with the intent of the City's Subdivision Code with respect to the abutment requirement of Chapter 12.50, Subd. 3(A), he believes it meets the literal reading of the requirement. In addition, the applicants' representative agrees that there are no sections of City Code outside of the one in question that require access to be provided to a newly created lot. If, as the representative holds, the abutment requirement does NOT require access in order for a lot to be approved, then it follows that developers could force the City to approve the creation of land- locked parcels. This interpretation is clearly inconsistent with the City's long-held position regarding land-locked parcels. Correction In the staff report to the Planning Commission it was stated that a previous application for this property that proposed five single family lots was denied by the City Council in 2014. In fact, it was not denied but was sent back to the Planning Commission and the applicant at that time was asked to redesign the proposal. Instead, the applicant chose to withdraw the application. Attachments: • Location Map (1 page) • Letter from City Attorney Thomas Garry, Best and Flanagan, to the City Council dated November 13, 2015 (2 pages) • Letter from City Attorney Thomas Garry, Best and Flanagan, to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 13, 2015 (17 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department, dated November 10, 2015 (2 pages) • Driveway Installation Packet (5 pages) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 26, 2015 (8 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission, dated October 26, 2015 (5 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department, dated July 20, 2015 (1 page) • Memo from the Engineering Division, dated October 19, 2015 (5 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) • 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) • 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) • Emails from residents (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat for Calderjax Addition, 7200 Harold Avenue, based on the following findings: Section 12.50, Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations, Subd. 3(A): The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. While Lot 2 is proximate to Highway 55, there is no possibility for access from the front of the lot to the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic. Section 12.50, Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations, Subd. 3(I): Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. As the proposal fails to meet Subd. 3(A), it also fails to meet Subd. 3(i) by definition. i . 7:53._+102 7421 541 ,�env-._ _,t 71 /7220` i 7021 \555 550 545 `41 30..1.,..0 550 tl. 7200`! t 31".7:.•-,:-!•-•,.5,. I 531 � 7740\ 7028 7030 545��540 537 t 31b="-, } 316 41 530 .5:',:-.---------------„,7115 `� .i i I_321 w 'N.• 7120 `1 521 525 521 C 520 ec G' 7031 i 746215171 442 _> 7201 cJ� 6930 "68206810— c� 7460 17 11t r440 511 a 7151.,:. 0 7020 501 095 I 745819 2 7 1 Y 5107100 7040 .> 0 7456-1 22 7436 '1`510 r •150125100 7454 2.327434 5��520i7101 J + W 7500 ,745/0452t a2/vi i orialH Y.---''J 4211M• 7430 5m ` Subject Property _ __ 01sor1 Me"1 .- 7001 6931 6921 s�_Y ________T-______ -------------------------------------------- 040 6830 7045 `- t — .�' . — 6N. r 44: :._ :"14:.:7::.:. 7031 686 7600 7420 '�.•�`.:' • 6 • 7430 `` '•_ - 6900 w. .. 7236 7218 24 7182 7025 7330 7324 7156 7146 h- ,t.: 1 6900. 6855 6845. Harold Ave 1 6930 ,9 7523!51/75097501 7465 7445 7425 7300 7303 -+ 6945 • GE ( II 11111 IL527751 37505 Qa' z 61� _ �• > , 721 751'+7507 7320 '�, 4 tilt i t 7310 X10 ,., 69Q9 7519.17503J • c + 6941 - c) 7315 `1•. 7330w ' vv Hail Moon O. S + 69256905 3 .yv -' 6935 v 7340 7325 7327 —2 73� ++ 240 232 + Z t 7350 Lions Park _ 22-5 7335 7329 221 � - _..vly �14c 1 C 2: 7350 c 245 225 -4 >- vlv 1cr::" .-i v .:. 151 .t;- .1_.vke 7360 7345 5 Z _ u y� :. ▪:; -: _-7400 17401 200 • 205 Q 200 131 _ •",yt(L - T 7403 i 150 155 '_' 150 •vlv ii • ayv 7410 125 ''-Ti / i - 7405 t- a -- _. ` 'w' I �.� t .17409,?._,....: 130 135 130 I Tom Garry BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT612.341.9717 60 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry©bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAX 612.339.5897 BESTLAW COM BEST & FLANAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY(izimmerman(a,goldenvalleymn.gov) November 13, 2015 Mayor Harris and Council Members City of Golden Valley c/o Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Application for Minor Subdivision of 7200 Harold Avenue ("Application") Fred and Vicki Gross ("Applicants") Dear Mayor Harris and Council Members: This is a summary of our firm's legal review of whether the above referenced Application satisfies the requirement in City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A), which provides that each lot resulting from a minor subdivision must abut a public street(the "Street Requirement"). When the Council reviews a subdivision application, like this one, it is acting in a quasi-judicial, or judge-like, capacity. As such, the Council's only task is to determine whether the given application meets the Code's requirements. In doing this, the Council engages in a two-step analysis. First, the City construes the Code's terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning, to the extent terms are not defined in the Code. In doing so, each word is to be given effect whenever possible. Second, if after a plain and ordinary reading, an ordinance is reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations, then it is ambiguous and the City should use the same tools that courts employ to interpret ambiguous ordinances, principally looking at the legislative purpose behind the ordinance while giving weight to the right of property owners to use their property as they desire. Applying this analysis, we agree with the City's planning staff that the Application does not satisfy the Street Requirement and therefore must be denied. Under a plain and ordinary reading of the Street Requirement, all lots resulting from a minor subdivision must "abut entirely on an improved public right-of-way for vehicular traffic" and not all of the Application's proposed lots do so. In the context of the Street Requirement, "improved public right-of-way" means that part of the right-of-way that has been improved for vehicles to drive-on (e.g., streets, curb cuts, and driveways). Lot 2 of the Application only abuts an unimproved portion of the right-of-way for Highway 55. Moreover, because (i) Lot 2 has no legal access to the Highway 55 right-of-way, (ii) only the state (not the City) has authority to permit the construction of a driveway connecting Lot 2 to the paved surface of Highway 55, and (iii) the Applicants have not provided evidence that the state would November 13, 2015 Page 2 grant such access and permit, there is no basis on which the City could find that Lot 2 abuts or will abut improvements that connect it to Highway 55. If there was any ambiguity in the Street Requirement's meaning, the purpose for which the requirement was enacted makes the meaning clear. As evidenced by a 1989 planning staff memo, the City enacted the Street Requirement in 1990 to ensure that all lots resulting from minor subdivisions had independent and direct access to public streets. The Street Requirement does that by prescribing that each lot border improvements in the right-of-way that allow for vehicular traffic (e.g., curb cuts and driveways). An interpretation of the context in which the Street Requirement appears in Chapter 12 further evidences that the requirement was enacted for this purpose. In addition, the same staff memo indicates the rationale for the Street Requirement. The City wanted, among other things, to prevent minor subdivisions resulting in so-called "back lot spits." This is the splitting of existing deep lots into two, with the resulting lot furthest from the street either having a narrow independent driveway fronting the street or access via a private driveway easement over the lot fronting the street. The Street Requirement prevents "back lot splits" by requiring each lot to front in its entirety on the public street. In other words, with the Street Requirement the City intended to prevent the very type of subdivision proposed by the Applicants. Lastly, the Applicants have argued that the City previously approved a minor subdivision (Lawn Terrace) that would not have satisfied the Street Requirement as the requirement is being applied to the Application. It appears the Street Requirement may not have been fully analyzed, or was analyzed incorrectly, in that previous subdivision application. Regardless, Minnesota law is clear. The City is not prevented from correctly enforcing its ordinances, even if the City previously applied its ordinances incorrectly and a property owner relied on that prior incorrect decision to its detriment. In short, any previous decision on a minor subdivision application, in contradiction of the Code, is not binding on the City's review of subsequent applications, including this one. For the above stated reasons, the Code requires that the City deny the Application. As proposed, Lot 2 does not satisfy the Street Requirement. If you have any questions or want to discuss this mater, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas Ga� TGG/clb Tom Garry BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9717 60 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAX 612.339.5897 III-STI AW Come BEST & FLANAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY (jzimmermana,goldenvalleymn.gov) November 13, 2015 City of Golden Valley c/o Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Application for Minor Subdivision of 7200 Harold Avenue ("Application") Fred and Vicki Gross ("Applicants") Dear Mr. Zimmerman: You asked our firm, as counsel for the City of Golden Valley, to provide a legal analysis of how the City's Code should be applied to the above referenced Application. Specifically, you asked whether the Application satisfies the requirement in Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A), which provides that each lot resulting from a minor subdivision must abut a public street(the "Street Requirement"). We agree with the conclusion of the City's planning staff that the Application does not satisfy the Street Requirement. Under a plain and ordinary reading of the Street Requirement, all lots resulting from a minor subdivision must abut an improved public right-of-way and not all of the Application's proposed lots do so. Therefore, the City must deny the Application. This letter proceeds in four parts. Part 1 sets forth the Street Requirement and the relevant facts with respect to the Application. Part 2 lays out the legal standard for how the City interprets the Code with respect to subdivision applications like this one. Part 3 applies the plain and ordinary meaning standard to the Street Requirement and, in turn, assesses the Application. Part 4 addresses several arguments the Applicants have made in support of their Application. In addition, attached to this letter is an Appendix that, for the sake of having a more complete record on this matter, contains an analysis using the tools Minnesota courts have provided to construe ambiguous ordinances, including an examination of the purpose behind the ordinance. (As described in the Appendix and the planning staff report related to the Application, the clear purpose of the Street Requirement is that lots resulting from a minor subdivision each have independent and direct legal access to a public street). The analysis in the Appendix arrives at the same outcome as the analysis in this letter—that the City must deny the Application. The analysis in the Appendix is provided separately because we conclude that the Street Requirement is unambiguous in those respects necessary to make a decision on the Application, and therefore the City need not consider the analysis in the Appendix to resolve this matter. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 2 Part 1. The Street Requirement and the Application. A dispositive determination for the Application is whether it satisfies the Street Requirement. This requirement is set forth in the Code's Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A), and provides in relevant part: [T]he front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street, . . . The term "street" is defined in Section 12.03(22) as 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." Of these terms listed in 12.03(22), the only one further defined in Section 12 is "boulevard", which is defined as "[t]he portion of the street right-of- way between the curb line and the property line".' Thus, in substance, the Street Requirement reads: The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public [right-of- way for vehicular traffic], . . . Under the Code, if the Application does not meet this requirement the City must deny the Application, unless the Applicants request a variance.2 Based on information from the City's planning staff, the following are the most relevant facts regarding whether the Application satisfies the Street Requirement: a. The Application proposes to create two new lots, "Lot 1" and "Lot 2". b. For the Application to be granted, Lot 1 would need to satisfy the Street Requirement by virtue of the adjacency of its southern boundary to Harold Avenue and Lot 2 would need to satisfy the Street Requirement by virtue of the adjacency of its northern boundary to Highway 55. c. The southern boundary of Lot 1 is separated from the paved surface of Harold Avenue by an unpaved City right-of-way. City staff has determined that the Applicants may apply for a right-of-way permit under Code Chapter 7, and there is a reasonable likelihood that, if applied for, such a permit would be granted in accordance with the City's normal standards for such permits.3 A right-of-way permit would grant the Applicants the right to construct improvements (i.e., a driveway) on the City right-of-way to provide Lot 1 vehicular access to the paved surface of Harold Avenue. Code Section 12.03(1). The defined term "boulevard" is only used in Section 12 as part of the definition of"street". 2 Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(I). 3 Code Section 7.08, subd. 1, and Section 7.04, subd. 3. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 3 d. The northern boundary of Lot 2 is separated from the paved surface of Highway 55 by (i) the state's ownership of the right to access the Highway 55 right-of-way from Lot 2, and (ii) the state's unpaved right-of-way. City staff has determined that it does not have authority either to grant Lot 2 access to the state's right-of-way or grant a right-of-way permit to construct improvements (i.e., a driveway) to provide Lot 2 vehicular access to the paved surface of Highway 55. The state would have to grant any such permit or right of access, and the Applicants have not provided evidence indicating that the state would do so. e. The Applicants have not requested a variance. Part 2. How the City Makes Decisions on Subdivision Applications. When the City, including the Council, reviews a subdivision application it is acting in a quasi- judicial, or judge-like, capacity. As such, the City's only task is to determine whether the given application meets the Code's requirements. The City does not consider whether the Code's requirements are appropriate or desirable. The City must apply the Code as it is. Because in the context of subdivisions, the Code only sets forth general requirements (i.e., City- wide, not property-specific requirements), those requirements must be interpreted to apply them to the details of a given application. Decisions from the Minnesota Courts provide rules for how the City should interpret its ordinances.4 First, the City construes the Code's terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. In doing so, each word is to be given meaning whenever possible.' Technical words and phrases, or words defined for the applicable Code section, are construed according to their technical meaning or definition.6 Second, if after a plain and ordinary reading, an ordinance is reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations, then it is ambiguous and the City should use the same tools that courts use to interpret ambiguous ordinances. (The attached Appendix describes some of these tools.) Part 3. Plain and Ordinary Meaning of the Street Requirement. The first step is to apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the Street Requirement's terms to the Application. If the result is unambiguous, the City does not go further in its analysis.' If, however, 4 See e.g., SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 1994). 5 See e.g.,In re Reichmann Land& Cattle, LLP, 867 N.W.2d 502, 509 (Minn. 2015);State v. Otterstad, 734 N.W.2d 642, 647 (Minn. 2007) ("The rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances."). 6 See e.g., Gassier v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 584 (Minn. 2010). See e.g., Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 634-635 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 4 the result is ambiguous (i.e., the requirement is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations when applied to the Application)then the City employs the interpretive tools mentioned above. Again, the Street Requirement provides in relevant part: "the front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public [right-of-way for vehicular traffic]." Whether the Application satisfies this requirement under the plain and ordinary meaning standard turns on two questions: Question 1. Must each lot resulting from a minor subdivision: (A) entirely abut a surface in the public right-of-way improved for vehicle use (i.e., street curb cuts, street pavement or a driveway); or (B) entirely abut a public right-of-way in which there is an improved surface for vehicle use, but which surface the lot does not abut in whole or in part? Question 2. Does the Applicants' likely entitlement to a City right-of-way permit to construct a driveway in the boulevard abutting Lot 1 mean the Application could satisfy the Street Requirement? Each of these questions will be addressed in turn under the plain and ordinary meaning standard. For the sake of simplifying the analysis, we make several assumptions about the meaning of certain words used in the Street Requirement. Though as alluded to in the Appendix, there may be ambiguity about the meaning of some of these words in the context of the Street Requirement, we set-aside those ambiguous for purposes of this letter's analysis. We do so because even if these ambiguities were resolved in favor of the Applicants, those interpretations would not differ materially from the assumptions made here, and would therefore not change the outcome of this letter's analysis. Assumptions: • The term "front" does not have a meaning that would decisively change whether the Application is granted or denied. • The term "abut" has the meaning given such word in Black's Law Dictionary: "to join at a border or boundary; to share a common boundary".8 • The boundaries of a "lot" are not extended by any easements that may benefit a given lot. This assumption is based on Code Sections 12.03(7) and 12.03(11) which separately define "lot" and "easement" and which definitions provide no textual indication that the term easement extends the boundaries of a lot for any purposes. • The phrase "public right-of-way" has the meaning given such phrase in Black's Law Dictionary: the "right of passage held by the public in general to travel on roads;" or 8 Black's Law Dictionary 11 (8th ed.2004). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 5 similarly, the public's "right to pass through property owned by another".9 By definition in Section 12, the term "public right-of-way" includes the boulevard area of the right-of-way (i.e., the area between street curbs and the lot lines).10 • The term "improved" refers to surface street improvements such as road pavement, curb cuts, or driveways since the term is used in modification of the phrase "public right-of-way for vehicular traffic"." In other words, the term does not refer to other possible improvements of a public right-of-way unrelated to vehicular traffic (e.g., bike paths, sidewalks, etc.). Question 1: Must each lot: (A) entirely abut a surface in the public right-of-way improved for vehicle use; or (B) entirety abut a public right-of-way in which there is an improved surface for vehicle use, but which surface the lot does not abut in whole or in part? The answer to this question hinges on how the term "improved" is read to qualify "public right-of- way for vehicular traffic". Under the most straight-forward reading, the word "improved" restricts the meaning of the term "public right-of-way", such that the term "public right-of-way" only refers to that part of the right-of-way that is actually improved. With this reading, each lot must abut an improved surface in the right-of-way. Conceivably, the term could alternatively be read to indicate that each lot need only abut a public right-of-way so long as that right-of-way contains improved surfaces for vehicles, regardless of whether the lot actually abuts those surfaces. In effect, this would read the term "improved" as only requiring each lot to abut an unimproved boulevard (i.e., the portion of the public right-of-way between the street curbing and the lot line not improved with driveways). The problem with this alternative interpretation is that it reads the term "improved" out of the language of the Street Requirement; that is, if this alternative reading were correct the Street Requirement would effectively read: "the front of each lot shall abut entirely on aft ifftpfevessi public right-of-way for vehicular traffic," or equivalently "the front of each lot shall abut entirely on aft ifftpfeved boulevard." Yet under the plain and ordinary meaning standard, whenever possible, each word is to be given effect; "no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant."' 9 Black's Law Dictionary 1351 (8th ed.2004). Non-legal dictionaries provide a similar definition that is not different in substance. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary defines "right-of- way" as the "strip of land over which facilities such as highways, railroads, or power lines are built". 1554 (3rd ed. 1992). 10 Code Section 12.03(1). " See e.g., State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 2011) (in construing a statute, undefined words are understood in their context). 12 Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., LLC, 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 6 Here, giving the word "improved" meaning and significance is not only possible, but entirely reasonable. Moreover, the plain meaning of an ordinance can only be disregarded when it "utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose."13 As discussed in the Appendix and the planning staffs report on the Application, the clear legislative purpose of the Street Requirement is to create lots with independent and direct legal access to public streets. Thus, reading the terms of the Street Requirement in a manner that gives meaning and significance to the term "improved" is only consistent with this legislative purpose, not in conflict with it. For the stated reasons, we believe the straight-forward reading of"improved" first described above is correct and unambiguous under the plain and ordinary meaning standard. With this reading, Lot 2 does not satisfy the Street Requirement because it does not abut a surface improved for vehicle use. Rather, it only abuts the unimproved portion of the Highway 55 right-of-way. Lot 1, however, may still satisfy the Street Requirement, depending on the answer to Question 2 below. However, since each lot must satisfy the Street Requirement for the Application to be approved, the City must deny the Application regardless of the status of Lot 1. Because the Street Requirement answers this Question 1 unambiguously and that answer is dispositive of the Application, the City need not assess the Street Requirement as though it were ambiguous with respect to this Question 1. (The Appendix runs through the analysis if the Street Requirement were considered ambiguous with respect to this Question 1, and finds that the outcome would be the same as under the plain and ordinary meaning standard.) Furthermore, because the answer to this Question 1 is dispositive of the Application in its entirety, the City need not consider Question 2 below with respect to Lot 1. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, this letter proceeds with addressing Question 2. Question 2: Does the Applicants' likely entitlement to a City right-of-way permit to construct a driveway in the boulevard abutting Lot 1 mean the Application could satisfy the Street Requirement? Under Code Section 7.04, a right-of-way permit grants a property owner the right to construct a driveway in the public right-of-way adjacent to the owner's property.14 In effect, the permit entitles a property owner to add improvements to the boulevard such that there can be a continuous area of improvements for vehicular traffic in the public right-of-way between the street curbing and the lot line. Thus, the Applicants could satisfy the Street Requirement as to Lot 1 if they constructed, pursuant to a City right-of-way permit, a driveway in the boulevard along the entire length of Lot 1. In such event, Lot 1 would "abut entirely on an improved public right-of-way for vehicular traffic". Chapter 7 does not expressly condition the issuance of this permit on the prior satisfaction of the Street Requirement. Section 7.04 does, however, provide that the construction of the driveway 13 Weston v. McWilliams&Associates, Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Minn. 2006). 14 Code Section 7.04, subd. 3. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 7 "must conform to the requirements of the City." The City's published requirements for driveways include a restriction that residential driveways cannot be greater than 25-feet in width.15 As a result of this restriction, Section 7.04 and the Street Requirement are in conflict. The former prevents a driveway from running the entire width of Lot 1 and the latter requires it. The plain terms of Section 7.04 and the Street Requirement do not provide an express way to resolve this conflict. When ordinances are in conflict, they are deemed ambiguous and, thus, answering this Question 2 with respect to Lot 1 requires the use of the interpretive tools mentioned above and discussed in the Append ix.16 With respect to Lot 2, though, this conflict is irrelevant. State law is clear. Only the state has the authority to issue a right-of-way permit with respect to the Highway 55 right-of-way." Accordingly, absent a permit from the state, Lot 2 cannot satisfy the Street Requirement regardless of this conflict between Section 7.04 and the Street Requirement. The Application does not include evidence that the state will issue a permit to the Applicants to construct a driveway in the Highway 55 right-of- way. Again, since both Lot 1 and Lot 2 must each satisfy the Street Requirement for the Application to be approved, the City must still deny the Application despite this Question 2 not being resolved as to Lot 1. (The Appendix runs through the analysis of resolving this Question 2 as to Lot 1 and concludes that, using the tools for interpreting conflicting ordinances, Lot 1 would satisfy the Street Requirement if a City right-of-way permit were issued for Lot 1 in conformance with the City's requirements.) Part 4. The Applicants' Arguments. In an October 12, 2015 letter to the City, counsel for the Applicants argues in substance that the Application satisfies the Street Requirement because Lot 2 abuts Highway 55 and Highway 55 is a public right-of-way for vehicular traffic. However, even if it is assumed for argument sake that these two assertions are true, that does not result in the Application satisfying the Street Requirement. As discussed above, the Street Requirement by its plain terms requires that, for the Application to be approved, Lot 2 must "abut entirely on an improved right-of-way for vehicular traffic." If Lot 2 in fact abuts any portion of the Highway 55 right-of-way, it abuts an unimproved portion, which does not satisfy the Street Requirement under the plain and ordinary meaning standard. Further, as discussed in the attached Appendix, if there were any ambiguities regarding the significance of the word "improved" in the Street Requirement, or ambiguities in the Street Requirement generally, the rules of ordinance interpretation would require the City to look at, among other things, the legislative purpose behind the requirement to resolve those ambiguities. As City 15 A copy of these requirements is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. 16 See e.g., State v. Coolidge,282 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 1979). 17 Minn. Stat. 160.18; Minn. Rule 8810.440. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 8 staff has communicated to the Applicants or their representative, and as discussed in the planning staff memo, the clear purpose behind the Street Requirement is to require that any lots resulting from a minor subdivision have independent and direct legal access to a public street. The Street Requirement does this, under its plain terms, by requiring that each lot abut improvements that allow for vehicular traffic in the public right-of-way. In addition the letter from the Applicants' counsel refers to policy reasons why the City should approve the Application (e.g., the subject property could be put to a higher density use than proposed in the Application and therefore the Application is better for the community). Regardless of their merits, these policy considerations are irrelevant for the City's decision of whether the Application satisfies the Street Requirement. The City must apply the Code's terms as they are. To the extent the Applicants have policy or equitable considerations that support their Application, those considerations may only be weighed, if at all, within the context of a variance request. Lastly, the Applicants or their representative have argued that the City previously approved a minor subdivision (Lawn Terrace) that would not have satisfied the Street Requirement as the requirement is being applied to the Application. It appears the Street Requirement may not have been fully analyzed, or was analyzed incorrectly, in that previous subdivision application. Regardless, Minnesota law is clear. The City is not prevented from correctly enforcing its ordinances, even if the City previously applied its ordinances incorrectly and a property owner relied on the City's prior incorrect decision to its detriment.18 In short, any previous decision on a minor subdivision application, in contradiction of the Code's terms, is not binding on the City's review of subsequent applications, including this one. Conclusion For the above stated reasons, the Code requires that the City deny the Application. As proposed, Lot 2 does not satisfy the Street Requirement. While Lot 1 may satisfy the Street Requirement if a City right-of-way permit were applied for and granted, that option is not available for Lot 2 since the City cannot grant a right-of-way permit with respect to the Highway 55 right-of-way. 18 Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 607 (Minn. 1980) ("The law in Minnesota is clear that administration of zoning ordinances is a governmental not a proprietary function, and the municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing the ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior city action."). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 9 Please contact me if you have any questions about this matter. Sincerely, ( r Thomas Gar TGG/clb Enclosures: Appendix Exhibit A. Right-of-Way Permit Plan, General Requirements and Plan Standards. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 10 APPENDIX This Appendix provides further analysis of the Street Requirement, beyond the analysis provided in the letter to which this Appendix is attached (the "Letter"). 19 As stated in the Letter, the City need not reach the analysis in this Appendix to make a decision on the Application. As described in the Letter, when the City applies its Code to a subdivision application, it engages in a two-step analysis. First, the City construes the Code's terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Second, if after a plain and ordinary reading an ordinance is reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations, then it is ambiguous and the City should use the same tools that courts use to construe ambiguous ordinances. This Appendix provides the second step of this analysis. It does so to the same Question 1 and Question 2 set out in the Letter. For Question 1, the outcome of the analysis in this Appendix is the same as in the analysis in the Letter; the Code requires that the Application be denied. For Question 2, the analysis concludes that Lot 1 would satisfy the Street Requirement if a right-of-way permit was granted as to it. That conclusion, however, does not change the result that the City must deny the Application. Question 1: Must each lot: (A) entirely abut a surface in the public right-of-way improved for vehicle use; or (B) entirety abut a public right-of-way in which there is an improved surface for vehicle use, but which surface the lot does not abut in whole or in part? As stated in the Letter, we believe the Street Requirement answers this question unambiguously. If, however, the City found that there was an alternative plain and ordinary reading of the Street Requirement that was reasonable and provided a different answer to this Question, then the Street Requirement would be ambiguous as applied the Application. This would be the case because there would be two alternative, reasonable interpretations of the Street Requirement. In such event, the City would need to proceed with this second step of interpreting an ambiguous ordinance. 19 Capitalized terms used in this Appendix, but not otherwise defined in this Appendix, have the same meaning given such terms in the Letter. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 11 If an ordinance is ambiguous, the City uses the following interpretative tools to decide how to apply the ordinance: A. Employ the same conventions courts use to construe ambiguous laws. These conventions are set-forth in caselaw and codified, in part, in state statute.20 The objective of using these conventions is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Council when it enacted the ordinance. B. Construe the ordinance against the City and in favor of property owners. If there are multiple available interpretations, the City must give weight to the interpretation that is the least restrictive of the Applicants' right to use their land as they desire. C. Consider the underlying policy behind the ordinance. The City should give weight to the interpretation that furthers the City's goals that motivated the ordinance when it was enacted.21 A. The conventions for interpreting ambiguous laws. There are a number of the standard interpretive conventions implicated by the Street Requirements. The most relevant are: 1) General words are construed to be restricted in their meaning by preceding particular words;22 2) Ordinances should be interpreted to give effect to the Council's intention in enacting the ordinance, including the problems that prompted the enactment, as evidenced by the contemporaneous legislative history;23 and 3) Provisions in an ordinance should be interpreted as a whole, not in isolation.24 Each of these conventions will be addressed in turn. 20 See State v. Otterstad, 734 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2007) ("The rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances.") (quoting Smith v. Barry, 17 N.W.2d 324, 327 (1944)); Minn. Stat. § 645. 21 See e.g., SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 1994). 22 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.08(3). 23 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.16. 24 American Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277-78 (Minn. 2000). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 12 1) Preceding particular words restrict general words that follow. Under this interpretive tool, if a particular word precedes more general words, the particular word restricts the meaning of the general words. Applying this to the Street Requirement, the term "improved" restricts the more general words that follow it, "public right-of-way for vehicular traffic". This tool, thus, points to the Street Requirement meaning that each lot must abut improved (i.e., paved) portions of the right-of-way. This result provides further support for the conclusion set- forth in the Letter. 2) Interpret ordinances in light of the legislative history. The Street Requirement was enacted in 1990 as part of larger changes to the City's minor subdivision ordinance. A City staff memo prepared for the Planning Commission and the Council in mid-1989 (the "Memo") outlined the need and rationale for the changes. (A copy of the Memo was provided to us by the City planning staff without any of its attachments or appendices.) The Memo indicates that, prior to the 1990 amendments, the Code did not mandate that lots resulting from a minor subdivision have street access. Nevertheless, as a matter of practice, City staff required that lots have a minimum 20-foot street frontage to provide direct access to the lot from a street. The Memo stated on page 3: 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 easement, 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 Memo went on to recommend on page 9: [T]he ordinance should clearly state that full frontage is required for all lots. If the Planning Commission or City Council finds this recommendation 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 with the minor subdivision section along with the reason for it. With the enactment of the Street Requirement as part of the 1990 Code amendments, the Council apparently chose to accept the staff's recommendation of requiring lots to have "full frontage" on a public street and that this "frontage" provide direct and independent legal access to a public street (i.e., access without the benefit of a private easement). In short, the Memo provides clear evidence Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 13 that the purpose behind the Street Requirement was to ensure that lots resulting from minor amendments have direct access via the street on which they front. For purposes of answering Question 1 then, this further supports the Letter's conclusion that the Street Requirement requires lots to abut directly on a paved portion of the public right-of-way. It is only in this fashion that the Street Requirement fulfills its apparent purpose of ensuring that lots have direct legal access to a street. If the Street Requirement only required each lot to abut an unimproved boulevard, this purpose could be frustrated because there could be some legal or physical obstacle in the boulevard that prevents access. This is in fact the case with the Lot 2 in the Application. The state's ownership of the right of access prevents Lot 2 from having street access via Highway 55. Moreover, the Memo provides rationales for the Street Requirement. Among other things, the City wanted to prevent so-called "back lot spits" in which where deep existing lots were split in two, with the lot furthest away from the street either having a narrow independent driveway fronting the street or access via a narrow private driveway easement over the lot fronting the street. The Street Requirement did this by requiring each lot to front in its entirety on the public street that provided the lot vehicle access. In other words, with the Street Requirement, the Council intended to prevent the very type of subdivision proposed by the Applicant. In sum, the legislative history behind the Street Requirement provides plain evidence that the Council's intent with the requirement was to require each lot abut directly on a paved public right- of-way, to ensure that each lot had direct legal vehicular access to a public street. 3) Provisions in an ordinance should be interpreted as a whole, not in isolation. Reading Section 12 and the Code as a whole provides further evidence confirming the analysis set forth above and in the Letter. Below is a non-exhaustive list of features within the Code which suggest that, when the Street Requirement is placed within the larger context of Section 12.50 and the Code generally, it needs to be read as a requirement that lots abut a public street so that they have direct street access. First, the sentence in which the Street Requirement appears reads: Furthermore, 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. The latter part of this sentence states that the setback line is to be measured from the "street right-of- way line". Consistent with this, elsewhere in the Code front setback lines are measured from the front lot line. Thus, when read within the larger context of the Code, this sentence (i) provides that the front lot line and the right-of-way are coterminous, and (ii) where they meet, the right-of-way Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 14 must be improved. Read as such, and given the purpose behind the requirement, the terms of the Street Requirement reflect the Council's selection of a specific method for ensuring each lot had direct street access. Second, Section 12 treats limited access highways, such as Highway 55, differently than it treats other streets. With respect to non-minor subdivisions, if the subdivision borders on a limited access highway, the Code empowers the Council to "require a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such [limited access] right-of-way at a suitable distance for the appropriate use of the intervening land."25 This suggests the Council did not intend to treat limited access highways the same as other public streets, specifically because such highways did not provide access to adjacent land. This points to the conclusion that adjacency to a limited access highway—unlike adjacency to a"street"(as defined in Section 12.03)—is not sufficient to satisfy the Street Requirement. Third, if it does not serve to ensure access to a public street, it is not apparent from the language of Section 12.50 what, if any, purpose the Street Requirement serves. In other words, if the Street Requirement were stripped of its access-requirement purpose, it would effectively be read out of the ordinance. Moreover, if the Street Requirement did not operate to require each lot to have street access, the terms of Section 12.50 would require the City to approve minor subdivisions that create parcels without access, if that is what an applicant submitted to the City. This is because there is nothing in Section 12.50 under which the City could compel an applicant to provide private easements to serve lots that, in the absence of such easements, would be landlocked. Reading Chapter 12 in this fashion would run counter to the stated purposes for which it was enacted: Each new subdivision becomes a permanent unit in the basic physical structure of the future community, a unit to which the future community will of necessity be forced to adhere. In order that new subdivisions will contribute toward an attractive, orderly, stable and wholesome community environment with adequate City services and safe streets, all subdivisions hereafter platted within the incorporated limits of the City shall in all respects fully comply with the regulations set forth in this Chapter. In interpretation and application, the provisions of this Chapter shall be the minimum requirements necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.26 In light of this stated purpose and intent behind Chapter 12, it would seem illogical for the Council to choose to impose the Street Requirement on minor subdivisions, but also chose not to grant the 25 Code Section 12.20, Subd. 3(L). 26 Code Section 12.03. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 15 City the authority to prevent the use of the minor subdivision process to create landlocked parcels.27 The more logical and reasonable reading of Section 12.50 is that, with the Street Requirement, the Section does not permit the creation of landlocked parcels as a matter of right. If a particular application cannot satisfy the Street Requirement, the applicant could seek a variance, and through that process the City could require a private access easement in lieu of strict conformance with the Street Requirement—if the conditions for a variance were otherwise satisfied. Based on these three examples, it is apparent from the larger context in which the Street Requirement sits within the Code, that the requirement was a particular method selected by the Council to ensure that lots have direct legal vehicular access to a public street. Collectively then, these interpretative conventions point strongly to the same answer to Question 1 as provided in the Letter.28 B. Construe the ordinance against the City and in favor of property owners. If an ordinance is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, the City must give weight to the interpretation that is the least restrictive of the Applicants' rights to use their land as they want. Here, this factor plainly favors the Applicants as they seek to interpret the Street Requirement in a manner that would permit them to subdivide their property. However, the mere existence of any ambiguity does not mean that the Applicants' reading of the requirement prevails. The City's interpretation, if contrary to the Applicants', is entitled to its own measure of weight, though not as much weight as the Applicants. Moreover, for the Applicants' interpretation to prevail, the City must find that their interpretation is reasonable, does not distort the ordinance and is within the confines of the ordinance's terminology. Even then, this presumption favoring the Applicants' must be weighed against any evidence supporting an interpretation different from the Applicants'. C. An ordinance must be interpreted in light of its underlying policy. The City must interpret the Street Requirement in light of the underlying policies the requirement seeks to further. As discussed above, the purpose behind the Street Requirement is clear. 27 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (it is presumed a legislature does not intend a result that is absurd). 28 We note further that the word "abut" is used in the Street Requirement. However, elsewhere in Chapter 12 where issues involving common borders between roads, properties, land uses, and the like, the term "adjacent" is used instead of"abut". Under Minnesota law, the term "abut", when used in regard to common boundaries between private property and a public right-of-way carries with it connotations of access to that right-of-way. See Johnson v. City of Plymouth, 263 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1978). This further suggests that the Street Requirement was intended to ensure there was street access. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 16 Furthermore, the staff Memo from 1989 and the planning staff memo reviewing the Application articulate the policy and public safety rationales supporting this purpose, and there is no need to repeat those rationales here. This Street Requirement's purpose and rationales would be frustrated by a reading of the requirement that permitted approval of the Application, as evidenced by the City staff memos reviewing the Application. Therefore, this factor favors denial of the Application. On balance, all these interpretive tools point strongly to the same outcome reached in the Letter with regard to this Question 1. Though there is a legal presumption favoring the Applicants in these circumstances, that presumption is outweighed here by the strong evidence from the Code's language and the legislative history that the Street Requirement requires each lot resulting from a minor subdivision to abut a paved portion of the public right-of-way. Question 2: Does the Applicants' likely entitlement to a City right-of-way permit to construct a driveway in the boulevard abutting Lot 1 mean the Application could satisfy the Street Requirement? The Letter concluded that, with regard to this Question 2, the Street Requirement and Section 7.04 dealing with right-of-way permits were in conflict. This was because the Street Requirement requires the abutment on the improved public right-of-way be for the entire width of Lot 1, while Section 7.04 limits driveway improvements in the abutting right-of-way to 25-feet in width. Therefore, it could not be determined under a plain and ordinary reading whether a City right-of-way permit, if granted, would enable the satisfaction of the Street Requirement. Again, we apply the same three interpretive tools discussed above. A. Employ the standard conventions courts use to construe ambiguous laws. For this analysis we do not have the benefit of the legislative history related to Section 7.04 and our analysis remains subject to legislative history that may contradict the conclusions here. With that said, two interpretive conventions point to a relatively clear result for how this conflict between the two ordinances should be resolved. 1) Two ordinances in conflict should be construed if possible to give effect to both.29 Section 12.50 states that it lists the only conditions on which a minor subdivision may be denied and none of those listed conditions include the denial of a right-of-way permit. This suggests that the 29 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 17 denial of a right-of-way permit, because the Applicants want to build a driveway in the right-of-way wider than 25 feet, is not a basis on which a minor subdivision is to be denied. However, the purpose of the Street Requirement — to ensure lots have street access — can still be given effect even if the width of the abutment between the lot and the improved right-of-way is limited to 25 feet or less. The City has determined that a driveway in the public right-of-way of no greater than 25 feet is sufficient for vehicle access purposes. 2) When two ordinances conflict, the special provision governs over the general one, especially when the special provision was enacted later.3 Section 7.04 relates specifically to the regulation of the City's right-of-way, including the construction of driveways. In comparison, the Street Requirement is more general with regard to the regulation of the right-of-way. Moreover, the City enacted the current Section 7.04 in 2001. The Street Requirement was enacted in 1990. In such circumstances, courts typically construe the later, more specific law to prevail to the extent there is a conflict with an earlier general law. This is based on the inference that with the later ordinance the Council intended to amend the earlier ordinance. We see no reason not to apply this inference here. Together, these two conventions lead to the conclusion that, if a right-of-way permit were granted with respect to Lot 1, it would enable Lot 1 to satisfy the Street Requirement, notwithstanding that Section 7.04 would limit the abutment to no more than 25 feet. B. Construe the ordinances against the City and in favor of property owners. This presumption favoring the property rights of the Applicants only supports the conclusion above. C. Consider the underlying policy behind the ordinances. As discussed, reconciling the Street Requirement and Section 7.04 in this manner allows the purpose of the Street Requirement to be fulfilled, while also giving effect to the policies behind Section 7.04. Thus, with respect to this Question 2, we conclude that if a right-of-way permit were to be granted with respect to Lot 1, that would enable Lot 1 to satisfy the Street Requirement. But as discussed in the Letter,this conclusion on Question 2 does not change the conclusion as to Question 1 that the Application must be denied. 30 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1. c'1 h1' c?i golden11 ILJ valley Fire Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098 (fax) Date: November 10, 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 This proposed project was originally submitted as a minor subdivision with one house located behind the home that fronts Harold Avenue and there was no mention of providing a residential fire sprinkler system on the plans. On November 3, 2015, Peter Knaeble called to inquire if adding a residential fire sprinkler system to these homes would have an impact on staff's recommendation. Adding a residential fire sprinkler system will enhance the life safety characteristics of living in this home. A National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13D fire sprinkler is a designed as a life safety system and not as a property protection system. Systems designed to the NFPA 13D standard are designed to be cost effective and placed in areas that are occupied by people including bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens. Fires that can occur in these area should be quickly controlled. It should be noted that there are a number of areas that will not be protected by fire sprinkler heads including the attic, closets, most bathrooms, floor truss areas and only partial protection of the garage. Fires that start in these areas can be progressive and destructive events. The project going before City Council proposes to split this large lot 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 could 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 and life safety 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@goldenvalleymn.gov Golden Public Works Department 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8030 www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us Right-of-Way (ROW) Management General Requirements and Plan Standards Driveway Installation Applicants are responsible for becoming familiar with the Pertinent Regulations listed on the back of the Permit Application form and with the City's ROW ordinance(see ROW Management brochure).In addition,City staff will use the following requirements and standards when reviewing plans.Plans that do not include all of these standards will not be approved. All permittees must: O follow all procedures outlined in the City's ROW 0 construct all driveways with positive grade at the street Management brochure. 0 use City-specified approach or apron(see attached O submit a separate permit application for each address details). where a driveway is being constructed. 0 not place rebar or steel mesh in the ROW. O provide security in amount and form approved by the 0 adhere to a 25-foot maximum driveway width in a ROW City($500 cash or cashier's check for non-registered or easement. applicants that are non-commercial residents of City; minimum$5,000 bond for all others) 0 install concrete or concrete paver driveways no closer than one foot to the edge of pavement on bituminous O submit an original Certificate of Insurance($100,000- streets without concrete curb and gutter.The City will $300,000 liability,$25,000 property damage)and patch the driveway to the street at no cost. Permittee adequate Worker's Compensation according to must call the City(763-593-8030)to request this statutory requirements. service. O have available a copy of the approved permit and plan 0 provide work zone traffic control,warning devices,and at the work site. barricades that conform to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. ---""14141111111=21111111.1 ------ General wwwGeneral Plan Detail Requirements Permittees must provide construction plans that show all of the following(lot surveys,plot plans,and sketches are accept- able): 0 location,address, and street name 0 accurate location of proposed driveway, including O a north arrow size(length,width,depth)and description of material 0 plan scale(shown graphically on a bar scale) of: 1 inch 0 location of topographical features:curb, sidewalk, = 20 feet, 1 inch = 30 feet, 1 inch = 40 feet, or 1 inch driveways,lights,poles,significant vegetation, = 50 feet. Plans in other scales will not be reviewed. landscaping,retaining walls,hydrants,etc 0 boulevard width (distance between curb and property 0 ROW width,street pavement width line) 0 accurate location and width of proposed curb cut . 4,, .., ile„valle PUBLIC WORKS DEPT: RIG H T U F WAY PLAN 763.593.6030 -51 � �� M`N N GUS ¢ Sample Plan for B�(V R8 P 24"Ook �° Driveway Construction 9O.5 ....\.. ...----� "-\ S. i cc- \ CWP \ NA \ -�pR4 0 \,., 3 \ 9� N 99' \ \ 2 \ 5\ \ CJO 1 INCH = 30 FEET 1 \ # G�NOU51r 1 k CP \ \ S \ \ 10 \ \ \ AREP V�000�o I* \ \ \ • 100.28 3 CIM WETLAND WETLAND \ Lot Survey / r // RESIDENT Lot 2 , Block 10 NOTES: 1. Driveway will be constructed with ADDITION NAME positive grade to the street. 2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 'TN.•:E-) 'J COUNTY, MINNESOTA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx St to _o :n mt• .)f rec°ro, if any. (EXISTING DRIVEWAY) MIN. 14.0' ,0' MAX. 25.0' /PN.SiO .JOINT. IF APRON ABUTS,CONCRETE . . . . .EXPANSION JOINT TOP VIEW • CURB CURB TAPER TAPER TOP VIEW DROP CURB AT DRIVEWAYS (NO SCALE) 6" I � 5 1/4" 6" 3/4" 4 � ,3•s' q 4 • 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 DROP CURB AT DRIVEWAY OPENINGS. (TRANSITION TO BE MADE IN 3.0'.) APPROVED DECEMBER 1, 1999 DRIVEWAY APPROACH CITY OF WITH CONCRETE APRON GOLDEN 1111\144' / "' (3618) VALLEY CITY ENGINEER REG 23110 EXPANSION JOINT / CONTRACTION JOINTS / SPACED EQUALLY WITH NO / CURB LENGTH OVER 10 FT. / V /IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII°:- \\ SII J ill Q I I CONTRACTION > JOINTS I i i NO. 5 REBAR I II ri A III A ION J J I NO. 5 REBARS - 12" CTRS. \\ /// } 6.0% SLOPE 6.0% SLOPE 7" ' .. ` le• .4i* ir,. Niois a, \ 1 k 18" 22" aid \ 3.0' RADIUS VARIES. 15' TO \ SECTION AA THRU GUTTER TO BACK OF CURB TYP. PLAN APPROVED DECEMBER 1, 1999 CITY OF COMMERCIAL CROSS GOLDEN ‘011\14" /F =� OGUTTER DRIVEWAY VALLEY CITY ENGINEER REG 23110 LICENSE & PERMIT BOND CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY STATE:OF MINNESOTA,Coca\'OF HE"NEP(N,Ss, KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, of the City of - ------ ----- State of ,as Principal,and duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota,as Surety,are held and firmly bound unto the City of Golden Valley, State of Minnesota, Obligee, in the penal sum of Five Thousand Dollars($5,000), lawful money of the United States, to be paid to the said Obligee, for which payment well and truly to be made,we bind ourselves and legal representa- tives,jointly and severally by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION IS SUCH.That whereas,the said Principal has been licensed by the said Obligee to undertake construction in the street or right-of-way according to City standards and specifications. NOW THEREFORE, if the said Principal shall faithfully perform the duties and in all things comply with the laws and ordinances and conditions, including all Amendments thereto,appertaining to or included in the license or permit applied for,then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect for a period commenc- ing on the day of ,20 and ending on the day of ,20 unless renewed by continuation certificate. This bond may be terminated at any time by the Surety upon sending notice in writing to the City of Golden Valley Public Works department at its address and to the Principal at its address,and at the expiration of thirty-five (35)days from the mailing of said notice,this bond shall ipso facto terminate and the Surety shall thereupon be re- lieved from any liability for any acts or omissions of the Principal subsequent to said date. DATED THIS DAY OF , 20 PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL Countersigned By Resident Agent Surety Company Name By Its: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SURETY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF On this day of _ 20 ,before me,the undersigned officer,personally appeared , who acknowledged himself to be the aforesaid officer of the that he as such officer,being authorized so to do,executed the foregoing instrument for the purpose therein contained,by signing the name of the corporation by himself as such officer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal. C4,) Notary Public 'Golden Valley Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 2 -s of December 31, 2015, but the City do s have four tax increment districts. He asked if three tax increment districts that were :pproved in 2015 will have tax increment bonds afte certain period of time. Virnig state that there are four TIF districts and that the hello. a. .a ment project will have a bond -sued in order to make the public improvemen Kluchka asked howl-- IP would be imp cted if street reconstr .ct1 n or bonds were halted or delayed becaus- . the financial risis mentioned ir}.a"past City newsletter. Virnig stated that Council and 1ff look a he impact on the taxpayers She explained that in 2008, during the recession, � - Pa -ment Mar �ement Program�wa delayed due to the impact it would have on the tax::, a She added that the City'bonds for the improvements done that year. Kluchka as -d if4hs CIP has been affected by the financial crises. Virnig stated that the CIP looks at t PA r five years. She added that,the Community Center is not in the CIP yet b- rause ,-re hasn't been a final plan.`Kluchka said he noticed that the only new thing ei g built was a gazebo and, asked if there is anything else new in the CIP. Virnigltated ..hat a lot of this CIP is for the;replacement of things although there are some new impro -ments and egti ment and a new retaining wall program. • Waldhauser asked why .r expenditures o street replacement step a ,in 2018. Virnig stated that the City usi'i to do four miles of ,treet`irl a yearend then wilrbo to two miles per year so there a :`�about four more years o finish thee remainder of the rt3eds. Segelbaum as, -d about the expenditures in luded in the CIP for the Comprehensive Plan updat- irnig explained that in 2016 th `GOP includes $107,000. $40,000 of'tech is for a stud -long Harold Avenue. All projects ill be approved by the Council at a lat date. A discussion, the consensus of the Plann ,g Commission was that the 2016-2020 :pital Improvement Program is consistent h the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 3 Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 3 and 4 were combined. Zimmerman stated that the applicants are proposing subdivisions which would convert two existing single family lots into four single family lots. One existing home would be demolished and three new homes would be built. He explained that the minimum lot size requirement in the R-2 Zoning District is 11,000 square feet in size with 100 feet of width. All of the proposed new lots would exceed those amounts. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the proposed subdivisions`and noted that the proposal provides three driveways for four homes with one shared driveway. There would be no access to Highway 55, so there would need to be driveway easements across the southern lots to provide access to the northern lots from Harold Avenue. Zimmerman noted that this is the fourth proposal for these properties. The first proposal was for two detached townhome units on narrow lots which required variances from the lot width requirement and the side yard setback requirement, the second was for six single family homes as part of a PUD and there were issues with the lot shapes and shared driveways, and the third was for five single family homes as part of a PUD that had issues with the number of curb cuts and the setbacks from neighboring houses. Zimmerman stated that in addition to area and width requirements, City Code states that when subdividing "The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street." He added that the Subdivision Code defines a public street as "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 requirement that the front of each lot "abut entirely on an improved public street" becomes a requirement that the front of each lot "abut entirely on an improved public right-of-way for vehicular traffic" so the front of each lot must abut on a public right-of-way and the abutment must be where the right-of-way is improved for vehicular traffic. He explained that typically a newly subdivided lot does not abut on the improved right-of-way, but on a boulevard adjacent to the improved portion of the right-of-way. In order to bridge this gap, the City evaluates if a right-of-way permit can be issued to connect the property to the improved portion of the right-of-way via a driveway and in most cases this can be done. In this case, staff finds that this requirement cannot be met for the northern lots. He added that Minnesota law has established that properties abutting public right-of-way also have right of access and all access was taken from these properties by the State when land for Highway 55 was acquired. Also, the City is not able to grant a right-of-way permit for driveway connections to Highway 55, as they would for access to a City-owned street. Without access to Highway 55, the proposed northern lots do not technically "abut" the right-of-way and therefore do not meet this requirement. Zimmerman discussed the City's policies prohibiting "flag lots" and to require direct access when subdividing. He referred to a Planning report from 1990 where it discusses several Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 4 reasons to prohibit "flag lots" such as the inability by police patrols to view the back lots, the difficulty of access for emergency vehicles, the potential for poor spacing of driveways, and the privacy concerns from neighboring properties. He stated that the requirements outlined in the City Code have not been met and staff is recommending denial of the minor Subdivisions proposals. Kluchka asked how the word "abut" is defined. Zimmerman stated that the City Code doesn't define the word "abut." The dictionary says it means to be up against. He added that abutment without access doesn't qualify as abutment. Kluchka asked if that is an interpretation or if that language is in an actual ordinance. Zimmerman said it is,the City Attorney's interpretation of Minnesota case law. Blum asked Zimmerman to describe "flag lots." Zimmerman explained that a "flag lot" is a lot that is behind another lot with limited frontage along the street right- of-way giving it a flag shape. Blum asked why the City doesn't allow or encourage "flag lots." Zimmerman said it is to prevent one home behind another essentially in someone's back yard. He stated that there are also fire concerns about the distance of the house from the street and the ability to turn around, and police don't have good sight to the house in back. He added that lots were previously assessed per their street frontage so it wasn't fair compared to "flag lots" that have narrower fronts. Kluchka referred to the recently approved Sweeney Lake Woods PUD and asked about the differences between long driveways, shared driveways and flag lots. Zimmerman stated that the main difference is that the Sweeney Lakes Wood development is a PUD and the shared driveway was already located within an existing lot. Segelbaum stated that there is a statement in the Subdivision Code requiring the front of properties to abut right-of-way. He asked if the Code defines the front of a lot. Zimmerman stated that the front of a lot is the area closest to the street. In this proposal the north properties would be'closest to Highway 55 and the south properties would be closest to Harold Avenue.' Segelbaum asked about the distance of the gap between the north property lines and Highway 55. Zimmerman said there is approximately 50 to 90 feet between the property lines and the edge of the right-of-way. Segelbaum referred to the Police and Fire concerns and asked if those concerns fall under the requirements of approval for a subdivision. Zimmerman said no. The Police and Fire concerns could be an issue during the building permit process, but not as part of the subdivision of the land. He reiterated that those concerns did help form the policy against "flag lots." Segelbaum asked if MnDOT would have conditions for approval that could not be met. Zimmerman stated that MnDOT didn't have concerns because the plans show access on Harold Avenue, not on Highway 55. Johnson stated that if Public Safety has issues it seems like the Planning Commission should as well. He asked about the Planning Commission's protocol for making a decision when there are two different attorney views. Zimmerman explained that Public Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 5 Safety is looking at potential future homes, not really the subdivision of the property, but staff feels it is better to address the issues up front during the subdivision process. He added the City Attorney's role is to protect the best interest of the City. Kluchka said he is not finding language on how the policy around "flag lots" made into the Zoning Code. Zimmerman stated that the language regarding "flag lots" came from the Planning study done in 1990. Segelbaum asked if "flag lots" were allowed, if there would be many other proposals like this. Zimmerman stated that this is a fairly unique situation. Peter Knaeble, Civil Engineer representing the Applicants, stated that environmental concerns and fire suppression technology has changed since the Planning Study done 25 years ago on the issue of"flag lots." He said the City Code could be changed to state that single family homes have to abut a residential street. He stated that seven families attended the neighborhood meeting he held and they were generally supportive of the proposal. He said that applicants Fred and Vicki Gross have had,the property in their family for 67 years and currently rent it out. The other applicants, the Alber's, have a two year old daughter and want to live in this house for years to come. They have done an extensive remodel on the house at 7218 Harold Avenue in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood which he feels is important and makes it not a good candidate for a teardown. Knaeble said the City Code clearly states that the front of a lot only has to have frontage on public right-of way. He said he underitandswhat staff is saying, but he respectfully disagrees. Improved right-of-way just means there is a street within the right-of-way and doesn't mean there are driveways coming to them. He said he thinks that is an inappropriate interpretation and that the typical interpretation is that an improved right- of-way is a street within a right-of-way which is common sense because there is a street within Highway 55 and these properties abut up to and touch Highway 55's right-of-way. Knaeble stated that the City Code allows up to eight units per acre in this zoning district so they could buildup to 13 units on these properties. They could also build two twin homes with four driveways onto Harold Avenue without planning approval. He handed out renderings of the previous proposals for these properties and said he thinks these current proposals meet all of the requirements of the City Code. He said he thinks it is a difficult leap to recommend denial now when the staff recommended approval of six lots in the past. The neighbors did not want that many units and the two homeowners have no interest in creating a higher density development. He said there is overwhelming support for the properties to be split with just three driveways and saving one of the existing homes. He reiterated that these proposals protect the character of the neighborhood and noted that these proposed lots are greater in size than the required minimum lot size and other lots in the area. Knaeble stated that the new homes would be custom designed with the topography and shape of the lots and would either be one or two story homes with two or three garage stalls in the $450,000 to $500,000 price range. He stated that there are two families Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 6 already interested in building homes here and the City needs to understand there is a demand for these types of properties. Knaeble referred to the issue of having long driveways and stated that the Code does not require access through the frontage and the driveways could be shorter if the houses were built in different locations. He stated that the neighboring homes have varying setbacks and some do not have a view from Harold Avenue. He said that in regard to fire safety, it is an important concern that he takes seriously and that is why he has said that he would mandate that the rear homes would include fire suppression systems as a condition of approval which would take away the Fire Chief's concerns. He referred to the Police concerns and said he thinks this is the first time he hasever seen a staff report or comments from a Police Chief regarding a subdivision. He stated that there is no policy or code that states homes should be visible`from the street and there are many homes in Golden Valley that are screened from the street. He said he understands the concern, but he doesn't think they are appropriate'for this,proposal. He said there needs to be consistency in staff recommendations and added that the two rear lots will be visible from Highway 55. Scott Lucas, Attorney representing both applicants, stated that City staff has called out language in the ordinances that he respectfully disagrees with the interpretation of. He said the City implies that the word "abut" includes the requirement of access and that is not true. Abut means to border on, and these lots border on Highway 55. He said staff also says that right-of-way constitutes just the paved,area for vehicular traffic. That is not so, it includes the entire area up to the property line. He stated these proposals comply with the strict language of the ordinance and that intent is only used to interpret when an ordinance is ambiguous, which this ordinance is not. He added that there is a long history in the City of lots having frontage, not access on a public street. Blum referred to the handout regarding the Lawn Terrace subdivision and asked if that subdivision was approved. Knaeble said yes, and stated that one of the lots in that subdivision had restrictedaccess on Glenwood and that he was allowed to use Glenwood as frontage without'access. He reiterated that the Code says that there has to be full frontage, not access, on a street. He added that staff and the Planning Commission supportthe Lawn Terrace subdivision. Segelbaum stated that the City Ot often looks at how an ordinance has been applied and interpreted in the past and he is not sure what to make of the Lawn Terrace subdivision handout. Lucas said they are referring to the Lawn Terrace subdivision in terms of stating that abutment requires access or right-of-way only means pavement. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he approves 100% with these proposals and they are better than they were before. Perry Thom, 320 Louisiana Avenue North, said he is in favor of this development and of not stripping the community of its homeownership and its uniqueness of having wonderful homes and people who are very proud of their homes. He said he would like Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 7 to see just two new homes, but he realizes this development keeps out the very large, dense, transient population that the City seems to have a plan for. He said he would appreciate if the City would not keeping pushing density on the community because Golden Valley residents want to have a nice, quiet community for families. He said he would appreciate it if the Planning Commission would approve this four-unit project and let it go forward as the City Council has suggested during past proposals for more units on these properties. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Cera asked staff if they have any comments on the Lawn Terrace Estates exhibit that was handed out. Zimmerman said this proposal is different from the Lawn Terrace proposal because the Lawn Terrace lots are not typical flag lots with:homes plated in someone's back yard. He said there was a possibility in the Lawn Terrace proposal to access Glenwood, but the City supported a shared driveway in that case to help reduce traffic on Glenwood. He added that in this case there is no opportunity for access onto Highway 55. Cera asked if Glenwood is a County road and if's`'o, what the requirements are. Zimmerman said Glenwood is a County road and that they have driveway spacing requirements among others. Segelbaum stated that there are some times where there is ambiguity in the way in which the Code is applied. He asked if in the case of the Subdivision Code, the City has in the past followed the practice that the frontage of a lot also permits the right of access. Zimmerman said staff does look back at past interpretations. He said he doesn't know of other similar situations, but this proposal is more challenging because it is on Highway 55 and not on a more typical City street. Waldhauser said her common sense understanding regarding abutment on a vehicular roadway would be that you could take a car and drive it onto that roadway. Admittedly, the ordinance doesn't say that, but she doesn't know if common sense or the literal words of the ordinance should take precedence. She said there are many things about this proposal that arc attractive and desirable and even though there may not be precedent for this precise'layout and access, it seems like a reasonable use of the property and a practical'solution. Segelbaum said the Planning Commission's role is to find facts based on the conditions of approval listed the Subdivision Code. Kluchka said in some cases he appreciates subjectivity being incorporated into the ordinances so issues can be evaluated for the time or situation. He said over the last couple of years they've heard a lot about subdivisions and neighborhood character, so subjectivity has to play a role. Cera said he thinks if access is restricted legally versus the preferred access, there might be a difference. He added that there is probably precedence regarding highways. Johnson asked staff how the language went from what is in the Code to the interpretation about frontage and access. Zimmerman referred to the conditions of approval in the Subdivision Code and stated that one of the conditions talks about lots Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 8 having to abut a public street. The definition in the same chapter defines a public street as the public right-of-way for vehicular traffic. Waldhauser questioned if allowing a driveway easement, or shared driveway is opening up the discussion about flag lots. Cera stated that the City has said it won't approve permits if this proposed subdivision is approved. Zimmerman said staff stated that if the subdivision is approved, the concerns would have to be addressed during the building permit process. Johnsonsaid he doesn't understand the Fire Department's policy and asked if a fire truck goes to a house that has a fire suppression system, or what they do if a driveway can't support a fire truck. Blum asked staff to describe the terrain between Highway 55 and the north edge of the lots. Zimmerman said there is a wooded area and a large berm between the two. Blum said he has heard a lot of positive points about this proposal. He referred to the lot size and said it is important that they are not seeing something that is the absolute smallest it is allowed to be because that helps maintain a variety,of housing stock. He said he thinks this proposal also helps preserve the character of the neighborhood and refresh the housing stock. He said the proposed fire safety improvements seem reasonable, and in regard to the public safety concerns he doesn't agree with the applicant that 40,000 cars speeding by on Highway 55 will be a good crime deterrent for these homes. He said the apparent flag lots pointed out on the Sweeney Lake Woods and Lawn Terrace proposals have several distinct differences from this proposal. The lots in the Sweeney Lake Woods proposal are part of a PUD and are on Noble Drive which is a local street. Also, the Statedid not specifically carve out a space directly in between Noble Drive and the Sweeney Lake Woods development or in between Glenwood Avenue and the Lawn Terrace development. He stated that the applicants' attorney defined abut as meaning to join at the border or boundary, or to be adjacent. So the ability to be adjacent to Highway 55 is important in the interpretation of the statute. He said through eminent domain the State specifically removed access between Highway 55 and these properties and that clearly distinguishes the prior developments that have been put before the Planning Commission to draw precedent to the current proposal and perhaps it could be treated differently if this were a PUD rather than a subdivision. He said there were also comments about using common sense. He said common sense tells him that this proposal on Highway 55 is very different than being adjacent to Glenwood Avenue or Noble Avenue. Kluchka said his own findings are that these properties are zoned R-2, but nobody wants this neighborhood to be R-2 so he thinks this proposal is a happy medium for what the neighborhood has said they want. He said the properties have visibility from Highway 55 and police could stop at the side of the road and see into the back lots of this development. He added that that safety standard hasn't been applied anywhere else in the City and that is a concern to him. He said this proposal is for 4 lots which is what he has asked for in past proposals for these properties and he thinks this is a unique opportunity to develop these R-2 properties using tactics the City and staff wanted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 9 Segelbaum said he sees the City Attorney's interpretation as very much the legal interpretation. He said if there are reasons why the Planning Commission doesn't think it's the appropriate interpretation he'd be interested in hearing them. He said if the City is held to the exact language in the Subdivision Code it will see a lot more situations like this one. He said he thinks they should follow what the City Attorney has interpreted the Code to be. Johnson said the question is whether the properties abut on a public street or not if the state owns what is in between the property line and the road. He said the properties seem to abut land that is adjacent to a street. Kluchka said the same thing could be said about their own properties. They all own property that is adjacent to a street and easements the City owns. Segelbaum said the distinction there isAhat they are able to build a driveway over that land. Johnson said there are a lot of contradictions with this proposal and it seems reasonable, because it does abut on a street, but the rules say a public street is a right-of-way. Kluchka asked if the question about abutment would apply at all if this were a PUD. He said it is unfortunate here that they are using legal semantics when if this was a PUD the City would have approved a proposal for three flag lots. Zimmerman stated that ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council didn't approve the past PUD proposal on these lots. He said through those conversations it was realized there are some better options to move away from flag lots. Also,'itwas decided by the City Council to set aside some money to do a;study of this area and not develop it in a piece meal way. Waldhauser suggested looking at the zoning of these properties because at one point the City thought it would be a goodarea for R-2 zoning, but maybe it is not because that is not what is happening. She said approving this development preserves this area as R-1. She agreed that redeveloping this area piece meal, lot by lot, is not a good way to do it. Cera noted that if these properties were zoned R-1 it would go forward with the same arguments so this is really not an R-1 versus R-2 issue. Waldhauser said the issue is that this area was directed for R-2 development and that is not happening. Knaeble added that the Lawn Terrace development had a restricted access by MnDOT and that Glenwood Avenue could not be used for access similar to this Highway 55 proposal.Blum noted that the line shown on the Lawn Terrace exhibit is parallel to Glenwood and not to Highway 100 which is another distinction between those proposals and this proposal. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion tied 3 to 3 to recommend approval of the subdivision proposal for the property at 7200 Harold Avenue. Commissioners Blum, Johnson and Segelbaum voted no. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion tied 3 to 3 to recommend approval of the subdivision proposal for the property at 7218 Harold Avenue. Commissioners Blum, Johnson and Segelbaum voted no. city v golden11MEMORANDUM Physical Development�'� y 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 applicants 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 existing 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 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 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 public street improved for vehicle traffic. A 1989 planning staff memo—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 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. 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. 7. The minor 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 city of aollC cn valley Fire Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098 (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: SU17-12—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 lot 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@goldenvalleymn.gov city of goier MEMORANDUM 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 //i Eric Eckman, Public Works Sp-cialist 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%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, Physical Development Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Al 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 LTLO ZIS£9L:xed SZ£6£65£9La, w„� feat' 'ON '60a st/at/a :era ZZVSS etosauuiyy'siiodeauuiyy 3•d 'f,owd NW A311VA N30100 in anuantl poomual0 2009 1 ,. vX Nou100V xvr21301V0 .]3Wt, o '24',UPO9M O3 Gia to erg oql awn 6 \ 4 �,� NVId SNOIlION00 �JNLLSIX3 r *ow Aq pootaa saw 33001U JO ucw ON tpa ARYOO ba I 31W�33cr 0 n 8 T-$w oFOoIli w = 14,' (Na 'gill j^rl Z ” Z =W�:.W LIU - 1 y G 6z 5' 3 <p2ZGZ WW iS 011 o =om o,-z ,, 000z0014F �l �'N -' W<W > 2 L J z YsWFm0 �- Z8 6W]rT 1 _ 3`JybW .09'81VE 8t�rm 1 <J.< — / i I o �3 I - ��' 1�� I I - o y I U • 1 \ N I .o 1 �� I \ a i W Io ) yWo�O, I L —J x W ohm a o M v go'co I c - T^ re W 4cu 2 ti� I I w • _ �J m fp Z fa - a3¢ ~ fD •ceOOce I I W 1 n�Y A <\ J z x z w *3.80,4£.005 .£Z'04£ �� aNtSN7 .eZ-.S8 Yo J a» co a O v :i„:-F i=)� Q l xsoa pis a�a .ex 7y �zz I _ (9a \ . et; n 3sv n�a s —� n f (yam)�3L7 r 3 in m r`Jao�p / Nrmiv •TO cu m Ap e� �.(�� '0 1t ,33 Vicu YN (t n Y 1/ + Q _ Z :o'er �V v � � I a� ��3- I • ') - Q to N O�V W coW as N N V ti ix. III r IA PI°°,-. 00 �O N 3 �" Z" _ O } � n uj V' _ V" Y Z 0�p V Uo so Nm I .H O O rYj O t. (~WA m s• Q . M r- 1 i^ ('� m I IX O 0 ?"� --- �h N. (.T9'0££) ' • z I Us sm r ^ W� .99 3 LO'04 ON a. 0 (.4S'06z) M021 V) 1 /� 1 A.80.4£.00N w mo. oa co - -- o in I D "' _ OrT 1 I (xf µ 3 U. z at tr (moi! L..1j CI ce + �. W o O I P. r, ` $3s nes •x '- Q i—�y �. N JI a tll N V g n I -_ I� IJ lJ / tU 3 U 2 ar i o I= w• 'o 0.; cu _ � O in 03 I Up - O I -- ----- z --- = I_ J La- z' U I/f O On, m 0I cif =0 ::; SFU; 0 pNq W U CeyQj tz U O > wbUIS x N ) 2 pq I - WbU1S I "Y x .0'04 ..i, 1 Luo z19 69L:Xed szss sss S9L r' »9►1 'ON '662I'3 d s1/9111 9-w°° NW ')l311bn N30109 in 64ss elosauum'sllodeautim ,. y 1 anuanv pooMualO 1009 .1 -- dux ��/i NOLLiQOV XV1'83aivo ., . oCo _ cti -am lut wug o c lop t o Jo o Jeo�3 9 I B„� W° mW Nbld JllilU.fl lb+ld 'WI1321d S .o sw 6y pa,oa.,a soft,.°ate k tD $ ,°WO WI aow Aniaa miaow I _31111 1336 4 I- 0 w I- Z W w 14-°;°1)-11.1Z w 1- x5omF Z on yKainwP ti W a8 L7 1-~ H o OW O N a850$ _Z Z= W N N V6<08 Z 70 A 'U Un- Z8goiS N z� ur ti M an-, Z (n _ �m�, J F" Y vWWWVI,e•-•, Z ' aWp J I-Q p UQ N N Vl.1-.W W 0P ,-.g J z -v W W m.pm0 o 0 W2 1< W W A N N a:Y p;N O N ../x 0 Q PD. V1 0 o.-.N...(li N'O ty� �ZF-7dZ. Ole s_ XY W 1-�` w .-. Vl O N y F1�< H>-=om\o F- 0 .pc Z N.NI 1•I7.;.;0 0> p zed¢ Z34¢.� , 0 Li I- �a g0 CIA WO Li I- 1111-W ��p0}Wf 01- 17/--0o�JY �42a Q 0 1---' f gpp o Q z 1-V3'..^Ld'<X0 CL MX.OZ 0 ZOW < ~Z.. WWpaQU2 QIWXXY 7 <Z,--,_ 3Q1=-3paW°°a¢a�w wYY¢C1Wf1 000zZF q~&jAU>yW WQQ I I FF,<V 0 :¢3-RF y NpgW I I VJ<WgO ¢rrQaZcew X• 1.4ivF Z�WFos Vl 0 W' Z >.LI Z.ZZ a alA ill oN A Z O�=�O 171VMZ Z Z S N N.-.N N I %I.Fa'/- W ,09'8jEleol"'Y� — WaJ 4a I I o a�1A- �� o •---,.... C)I 8 I o 1 �� I i 1 I �_� Z1- 0 I X.w I ca H v,0.-0, I -----� 2 = as cii w"op�� a p Q q 1...-- co N 1 r--,T�- iu 1.‘:1_,..2 /e CU I I gu I e m // \:.) L,— a J Xa 1 I x I ¢o po /3� ao›- ID q L_W c. o�v. Q O o.Z-.Z X ,h 1. :r N �`ODaD ( 03 \ -J F r Z Z S w * 3.80.4E.00S .E2'04E �v - - %USIYJ .4Z-.Sa To J s» 11 �?n 12'022 =�\ o rsoa LXlrs �b .st ÷iJ.2o�2i ----- i >ce�Z A Q..0 J Vl- / i13S M9S SS ,S7 ,— m N � ?ld _ _ _ _ _ � - nq in J v o Vl f=3 7:/-7377A-.11- �_ �__ vi�.CO'2> -'3583�•I� .02 pj n I 1 a f W J 03 / / '3Stl W B; 17H .S2 I m 3SH3 ma ,SZ ; ;• -_�}----'1 Co i M4 / / z 1 i / ' yr UN 1 \ in� // / / cs al ! N i r 1 3SH3 1790 / ��1 ! 1 ��W 1 --JfA 1 `�^+ H r.. HSS In ,SZ _....../. .— V :o ) ., co', L'I 713$ NYS)X3 _ N 11 'V 2 I I o I O u�i I03 0 O m W Q 1 Z M al N• i 'N N I I �I H Q n wpD o i pv i� I n �.I O 3 el I u -I 1- _, J In I .JN �N I a ! ,09rnm J .._.._ _ L._ _ v.\ .._.._.._.._.._.._.._._ _. ._.__.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..-BSS SI 1 '3SH3 f1B0 .01 J I 8SS 9 �� L '35113 1190 .01 a I 6S'OR t,i9'OEE) 20'021 • Z sm LO'O4 (,4S'O62) MO?1 ,99 1 /� A.80,4E.00N in I N N ill M p I-1 CU N W 2 1'-'�'.'iI oy e ------ f---1 1 In W a W I 'M3S MS 7X3 Q ti to ti I ___ 1221 I� o 63 Xr Z LI) U N .�� _ I q J o l= U� In 1b, W I s o el 1 ¢ _ ain s I .,:z ix U I-- IN S— 3 •D.00 /L -� _ ICAo LZ I U� I L-------- Iw L 1 z A.4E.4E.00N . LL'282 W,, I W i--- ^ in a in 32 U N h LI .fir N --\g-.,- N E / 1 I W In 8 O vaOw I ti aa x7...-n. o °� 5 O 1•4801S s o N 2 N 1cax U 1 (......_____>_____/1 W?1015 l_ i 1 I .0'04 1 LiLO Zig£9L:xEJ CZE6 E69 E9L 9.n 7.1.911 .°N '�M SL/91/9 :07°O ono ZZVsc eLoseuum ' 6iodeauu9yy '3�d/y�lv �yT asiod NW A311VA N30100 it) MI anuanv poomuam 1009 • 4 1 ! --N`ji "v)( V /•osseuuviV Noulaav xdra3o1da . , o -ositIvassmuilhiaeta ,I AIM 0,asui Ndld NOLLVAa3S3ad 33x1 Icqs °r° 9 I 9� ill 1 win °"�d'als ;�.; ONIOVJO 'WI132Id coo9 OCCV1221 Jo u01d sp17 7041.(7!W0 Agway I 371!1.1 ave A N n i-• o 1- W6jWZ o J <Z OYW Z XOgmZ .Z. c of p� 3 a W 0Z4C0WF l7 F~ N N o �g z =o A <U<Ha CN o-Z.Cq N N = U Z8 ▪S Z_ 41 F¢- Q w p W• gso Z F'.~. W IA qWZ U Z pi 1:11.., A I- 3 `ceWxp Vl _1(f/7 N 0 c`U� W� Z7d W I-W U .Z.. n N 7--y�< OL p- La W N = Z 'N¢ U -I A o. WU (() t) ca<b_, IX IW- .:-.."'W9<¢¢6I zoU7d7d' W co co A WGVay WFmq‹ ' I ZZO« a I I FFm DE •a3PlWZOL.,wLJ I I tn?<'a'go .1Qa Z¢W X WVW�Y ��w�1.1.ceQ � L—L_J I (9W�'�a / Iil m JaaU( IZZXX N Z nW'T,ZZW 1 .-..--.QQA III jno� Nt Z Vrg 171 EZf E(7 N.r(•7N - ,09'8bE 3 8▪z re▪� Wa � I I of I 0 I o N ,� N ` I IE I 1 ~ Qcn v)Li -aN I WvogOD vo�W� I r".,-,7"—T-- / = cu:::: cew I I I 1 /� 3z13° WOQ I I w l3 � o�; ZZ 0 ....X l. A Q4y`� - Z - \ voIill>\Zi a -or J IYONO 1uF`O ./ %cg - ^� N 4 ;- a1. 3 a�aa -- �� tnl �" a I 1 g .o �_ O Y W (� ion a -. - 1 x Nn-m �'Rl ec.."21 7 N P1T. 91 N. N 1Q ...-..... _-_. _ P _.‘1" Ur. ON,n V _ 1 O JCS S 1-\� •� 1 f H Wi CSON ;n40. I a t.t701u) a. aOch at co) 11a•• _ �0 o u� m aye✓X: 4-0 �N n Z e J '• x Y/ �, ` /v I U '�s b ZaSN 0 //��_ '' t 7J W.. __._ ? [/�l��Jf�' S /1021 ,99 I2 I� N AO H W <� I N Q LcJ - o 1/4 0°3 N S CI _ -o0 t --------- W� �} Alt 5 � in °' N { �C 1 r n� cu. N I. _ _ — -N —_ / I--TE-1 � k3 I 1 l �( 1 CI "' I Co13. _— -`W J (Vh. Z I- m I I - L. ___J Tom Garry BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9717 60 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAX 612.339.5897 BESTLAW.COM BEST & FLANAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY (jimmerman@goldenvalleymn.gov) October 23, 2015 City of Golden Valley Planning Commission do 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 memo 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, Thomas Gay ry TGG/clb 000090/480568/2237444_1 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 ALBER & CALDERJAX ADDITIONS • - GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 6/18/15 _ --- ----- STATE HWY, 55 REW ` C0 0 r � a \I I lif r, , . � � . N- D tg ., _ ,, IfT4191iiz, = � 1�23,A6GIISON-OhL2i. .,,. •attlG a66. mmir.\\ Alf 111 or__ rtn,t,-.--1.2.,. . am. erH�' ' 11 ;y : Il` , LOW QUALITY 4r1RAM ' NOR 866.2 CF`ES INv., SHOT) ' C MIM: OPENYR. 6 . (.0EST.) N1111 MIN. FLOOR OOR 8902 I t LOT 2 ;ik• ORD. EtF 8930 1 illi — PPHOUSE (9 f _ I l— 1i EX. GAR.1 PR!'R, HGJ$t L-J17. LOT 2 if*40 O 195'nary I P236 1 I5. •---- --. iii-,--_,_ 0 1,, 3, 113.7'r--i EXISTING HOUSE ;' r ,�� I EX. GAR.' [ 13.4, _ _ I#7182•———_ —r——— 15.5' ; t 4..J PR7F. HOUSE j EXISTING HOUSE 3' !2 5.�� - 41141K' "4'4�`' ' L J j 'I I i 'I • I 1 C I i I ! LOT 1 LOT l I j 1 I 1 109.07' jl 0 1 r I i 100,00' . I 1 0 W HAROLD AVE. LIINS PARK 0"Es'4° Minnesota Department of Transportation g Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 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 5th, 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.caseyAstate.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.craig@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@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@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, (0-46/1/1— 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 • � ~ 360 DEEU ) eoor,214 2 F 4._ 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA 3 )s4i34 IN DISTRICT COINS• COUNTY OF HFNNEPIN FCTFTh JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, by J. A. A. Pumquist, its Attorney General, Petitioner vs. Harriet S. Eberle, C. E. Edwards, Lenora G. Edwards, Adolph J. Eberle, Walter t Schubert, Augusts Schubert, Ida Hoine, County of Hennepin, Fletcher M. Oleen, Wary Olson, also all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, interest or lien in the real notate described in the petition herein, Respon dcrnts. • and -.1; State of Minnesota, by J. A. A. Pumquiet, its Attorney General, Petitioner, , V5. Raiaund Nongelkoch, Fidelis J. Kokos, Loretta Eckes, n. T. Eheronfoldt, Iyla Fheronfeldt, Albert H. Score, Theresa Score, The Minneapolis Savings and Loan Aesociatian, Willard Schrader, Margaret Schrader, Charles H. Aymar, Rose M. 1t'_t Aymar, Rose V. Wolf, Dwight 0. Bourdoeux, Eleanor L. Pourdeaux, Northwestern • i Eational Bank of Minneapolis, Frank I. Runnels Anna V. Runnels, Leonard A. Schiebo, Edwin C. Schiebe, Arthur H. Schiebe, C]aretta V. Schiebe, Marion J. Schiebe, Vernire hr. N. Knoll, E•y t1: C. Hckoe, iiurk Eckes, Ardis Schiebe, Donna Y. Schiebe, Charlotte Schiele:, Douglas Knoll, Gorham's Tavern, gilding Oslund, • Ann Oslund, Ewra Schiebe, County of Hennepin, Roland G. Sohtebo, Marguerite Schiebe, Elmet' B. Freeman, Grorgo Japs, National Advertising Company, Meyers Outdoor Advertising, Inc., Joe Kannoth Charles La Croix, Marjorie La Croix, Donald C. Mead, Eleanor L. Mead, The Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis, J. U. Holasok, Dickinson & Gillespie, Inc., Bankers Life and Casualty Co-pony, Christian Dressel, Lottie Drossel, Vary Katherine Hyor, The First National Bank of M.inneanolie, Jcmeph A. Steeber, Elate E. Steeper, Martin L. Huisinger, Ruth E. Huisinger, Mario Helen Yellen, Joseph Mellen, John Leahy, F. Hirschfield k Son Inc., William J. Halluska, Gertrude W. Halluaka, Arthur Au-vat Henseler, Roy Rudolph Henseler, Dorothy Elvins Bryant, June Heneeler, Amanda F. Heneol©r, Willard G. Bryant, E. H. Fligaro, Forne Flygare, Paul Ferraris, Paul I. Heigbstedt, Lora.ne F. Heighctedt, William H. Varner Mabel Edith Verner, Theodore H. Chrieteneea, Kate V. Christensen, Richard L. Tepley, Evelyn M. Topiny, Tester F. Johnson,, {' "Nilson C. Varner, Wilfred J. Buehard, Phyllis V. Pushard, Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Nicholas Serbanio, Grace Sorbanic, First Federal Savings and Doan Association of Minneapolis, Carl Hipp, Naegele Advertising Company, Christian S. Jensen, Wesley R. Jenson, Marcella Jenson, William J. Thaeae end Ruth Thomas, Lteepondente. IN THE MATTER Cr Ti?E COt1D:WATIQl OF CERTAIN RANDS FOR TRkB71C HIGH7AT FURPCI;ES t• • IN THE APCNE f3TITLED PRCFEDPIGS UHICH HAVE BEDI CONSOLIDATED PT ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT FINAL CERTIFICATE . i " 360 . '62142 Fac[428 By authority of Lfinnosota Statutes 1953, Section 117.20, T horoby certify that the lands herein described have been taken by the State of Minnesota in eminent domain proceedinge Tor trunk highway purpoeea'1in conformity with the requirements of chapter 117 of said statutes as amended; that commissioners were duly appointed by the Court to ascertain and report the amount of damages sustained by the several owners on account of such taking; that said cammiesioners qualified, - and made and filed their report of such damages; that the time for appeal from the awards in said report has expired; that all appeals taken have been finally concluded; that all damages as determined by award and by agreement of the parties, have beenpaid bythe State of Minnesota; that the , proceedings for the taking at certain rights and easements in said lands are now complete; and that said State now cane r � P f e ;r: an easement in said lands for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, improving, and maintaining thereon a trunk highmp, together with the followin rights, to-wit, -• To erect temporary enow !emcee upon the lands herein described and upon the lands adjacent thereto; to construct certain elopes, and to mai^.tain the sans after can- ,. emiction, ae provided in the plans and specifications on file at the office of the , Camaissimer of Highways in Saint Paul, Minnesota, at thcee specific places particularly 4 • described herein; to take the right of access to Trunk Highway55, being Route Number y1i�s • 188, from the owners whose lands front thereon in those oases which are hereinafter particularly mentioned; and to take all trees, shrubs, grass, ani herbage within the right of way of the trunk highway herein acquired, and to keep and have the exclusive control of the cams. I further certify that ouch rights and easements are limited only as here- inafter specifically mentioned. Said lands are situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and are described as follows: Parcel lA S.P. 2723-05 (55-188) 901 All that part of the following described tract: The northeast quarter of the southeast quarter (ni SES) of section 27, township 118 north, range 22 west; which lies within a distance of 150 feet northeasterly and 75 feet southwesterly of the following described liner -2- a IP t: , 6 . st • * Ix a 0 r / QD I . 4 /5., ' , zi . , 4 eiteihS p.2 4- g• 0 „"_ ti' �.... mow..' ................... Alt i • ye 4, St t4.. COO t - - 4 I 15 ,,..,,a dr i'''' Jr.j;), ,..... . ,..„.. ......4 ler.i,ill a 4144 1 . a*4 - # re.. 1 W 11161P w Amin , • 1 40 6 ii, ' • kil `'414- ' `'iti ' war ........ .--- 4•41•• 48 9 .4 i 1 .• , .4airo,006 A _ . . t` . . ep J 9 apw 1:13 • - •.. al O.P. , iir I VS .P. M ' cP * 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 members, 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 111 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 immediate 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 exception 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. S - 2 - III/ The components 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 violates the rule of practice that says that, for this type of land use decision,1 an applicant must be able to read the appropriate regulations and determine; the reasonable likelihood of getting an approval . It also falls short of fulfilling 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 have 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 the order in which the various provisions appear as well as their format and content. Ordinances should be as readable for average citizens as for the professionals who draft them. Back Lot Splits Golden Valley 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 100 feet, and quite a few of these are candidates for minor subdivision with the current minimum of 80 feet plus 20 feet to access the back 1111 half. More 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 requirements spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance. I have been enforcing the 20 foot provision 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 Sec. 12.52. There hasbeen some staff concern about whether 20 feet is indeed adequate for the design and construction of a proper access drive. The driving surface itself must be at least wide enough for a single car, and should be wide enough for vehicles such as moving vans or fire trucks. Engineering staff say that 14 feet is a standard rule of thumb, but they have allowed as little as nine feet for driveway width. Then, for any street with curb and gutter, City specifica- tions dictate an additional five foot turning radius on either side for a total of 19 to 24 feet. - 3 - 1111 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 all . The following paragraphs lay out the relative benefits and liabilities 1111 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 smaller 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 shown time and time again that residential development hardly ever pays its own way in 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 community 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 - 4111 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- ular 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 . However, 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, Golden 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 1110 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 to 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 - 1110 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 minimal 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'Iication. 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. 1111 This process may also have a spillover impact on Golden Valley 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. S - 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 neighborhoods. 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 11/1 split. Another option is to require up-front engineering studies before granting subdivision approval for 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 of its housing, and the 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 suitable. Therefore, I feel that this option creates more problems than it solves. - 7 - 411/ It 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 Commissioners, 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 City 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 recommend 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. 0111 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 delineation 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 continuum 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 S - 8 - 111, 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 health, 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 prohibition of certain types of subdivisions "in areas where prohi- bition is consistent with the comprehensive plan" (MS 462.358, Subd. 2a), but 111, 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 Recommendations 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. 10 - 9 - 1111 1. The organization and formatting of the text could be improved to make it more readable. 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 ordinance should clearly state that full frontage is required for all lots. If the Planning Commission or City Council finds this recommendation 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. /11 * Ol�t)11, T 7 Tel: 952.224.3644 xl Scott M.Lucas 1 jtleaS & Heal f..�. Fax: 952.400.3203 scottl(b)olson-law.com Attorn('�, At 1«IW www.olson-law.com Onr(l)rix)nitrCenter 1 14UI)Irt.ro Itoule%nrd.Suit,,,()Edina,',(N 1441 October 12, 2015 VIA E-MAIL Allen D. Barnard, Esq. Best& Flanagan 225 South Sixth Street Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Golden Valley 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: `MSBA BOARD CERTIFIED REAL 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'l Capital Corp. v. Vill. of Inver 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 of Inver 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. City of St. 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 Assn v. Paster, 437 N.W.2d 52, 56 (Minn.1989). An ordinance is ambiguous if it is susceptible to two or more meanings. Hamline—Midway Neighborhood Stability Coalition v. City of St. 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 allows "up to eight(8) units per acre." GVCA Sec. 11.22, subd. I. Thus both "Two-Family dwellings" and "Townhouses" are permitted. GVCA Sec. 11.22, 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 high 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, Air Scott M. Lucas SML/ cc: Client Jason Zimmerman, City of Golden Valley Planning Manager Zimmerman, Jason From: Carol Paschke <cjpaschke@yahoo.com> 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. It's 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 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 [mailto:mattdaile33@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:01 PM To: Zimmerman,Jason;Julie Dalle (Wife) Subject: Sub Division Proposal on Harold Ave Mr. Zimmerman I am writing in regards to the Planning Commission meeting on Oct 26th. During that meeting you will be hearing a proposal for a subdivision on Harold Ave. Julie and I live at 7425 Harold Ave and met with Peter Knaeble on his proposal. Julie and I would like to share with you our support for this sub division proposal. We have seen the layout of the homes on the property, and we believe it brings forward a good option to upgrade some of the homes on Harold. Much like the improvement that was completed on Rhode Island, having new construction in the area brings new, young families and new people to Golden Valley. These new families moving into our neighborhood strengthens the sense of community as we come together to enjoy our parks and open spaces. We arc strong advocates of upgrading the current homes on Harold or anywhere within Golden Valley. We really enjoy the city of Golden Valley with is central location within th.e twin cities, it outstanding parks, and it access to good school districts. Thank you for your time on this matter, and I look forward to hearing about the approval of this plan. Sincerely Julie and Matt Dalle 7425 Harold Ave Golden Valley, MN 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 [mailto:glenl7@msn.com] 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 1 city of golden MEMORANDUM V ,. �� PhysicalDevelopment la DePpartment 763-593- -.8095/763.593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 60 day deadline:August 24, 2015 60 day extension: October 23, 2015 30 day extension: November 22, 2015 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat Approval - Alber Addition - 7218 Harold Avenue Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the October 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered the application for a minor subdivision of the property located at 7218 Harold Avenue. The applicants, Robert and Claire Alber, are proposing to subdivide the 31,269 square foot property and reconfigure the existing lot into two new single family residential lots. As proposed by the applicants, each of the two new lots would meet the necessary lot area and lot width requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code. However, staff believes that Lot 2 (the north lot) of the proposed subdivision fails to meet the Subdivision Code requirement that the front of each lot abut entirely on an improved public street, as no access is available from the front of the lot to the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic. The Planning Commission was unable to arrive at a recommendation of approval or denial for this proposal. A motion to recommend approval failed on a 3-3 vote and the application was forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation. Analysis The staff recommendation of denial of this proposal can be summarized in three key points: 1. Based on the lot layout being proposed, the subdivision requirements are not met. Specifically, there is no possibility for access from the front of Lot 2 to the portion of the right- of-way of Highway 55 that has been improved for vehicular traffic, as required by City Code. The only access to this lot is proposed to be via a rear shared driveway and easement to Harold Avenue over the lot to the south. This creates, in essence, a flag lot. 2. The City modified its Code to prohibit flag lots in 1990 based on a number of concerns, including those of Fire, Police, and Engineering, as well as Planning. Most of those concerns remain valid today. The inclusion of those concerns in the staff report to the Planning Commission and in the form of statements from other departments are not findings upon which the recommendation of denial is based, but do provide insight into to the rationale behind the existing policy and current City Code. 3. The Lawn Terrace subdivision cited by the applicants' representative and approved by the City in 2005 appears to have had similar conditions with respect to lot frontage and restrictions on access. The City Attorney believes that the analysis at that time likely did not go far enough and that the project could have been denied using the same rationale being advanced now. However, the City may have had legitimate interests in working with the applicant to arrive at a solution that allowed for the subdivision of the property and the accommodation of the lack of direct access effectively served as a variance from the subdivision requirements. This should not, however, relieve the current proposal from adherence to those same requirements. The more technical aspects of the abutment requirement can be found in the attached memo to the Planning Commission and in communication from the City Attorney. In short,the City Code requires that access to the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic be available via the front of the lot. In most lots created through subdivision, this occurs through the issuance of a City Right-of-Way Permit and the construction of a driveway. As access to Highway 55 from this parcel has been taken by the State through eminent domain, Lot 2 cannot meet this requirement and therefore the subdivision should not be approved. Staff have met with the representative for the applicants on more than one occasion to discuss this proposal and acknowledge a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the City Code. The applicants' representative argues that although the current proposal may be inconsistent with the intent of the City's Subdivision Code with respect to the abutment requirement of Chapter 12.50, Subd. 3(A), he believes it meets the literal reading of the requirement. In addition, the applicants' representative agrees that there are no sections of City Code outside of the one in question that require access to be provided to a newly created lot. If, as the representative holds, the abutment requirement does NOT require access in order for a lot to be approved, then it follows that developers could force the City to approve the creation of land- locked parcels.This interpretation is clearly inconsistent with the City's long-held position regarding land-locked parcels. Correction In the staff report to the Planning Commission it was stated that a previous application for this property that proposed five single family lots was denied by the City Council in 2014. In fact, it was not denied but was sent back to the Planning Commission and the applicant at that time was asked to redesign the proposal. Instead, the applicant chose to withdraw the application. Attachments: • Location Map (1 page) • Letter from City Attorney Thomas Garry, Best and Flanagan, to the City Council dated November 13, 2015 (2 pages) • Letter from City Attorney Thomas Garry, Best and Flanagan, to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 12, 2015 (17 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department, dated November 10, 2015 (2 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission, dated October 26, 2015 (5 pages) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 26, 2015 (8 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department, dated July 20, 2015 (1 page) • Memo from the Engineering Division, dated October 19, 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: • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 26, 2015 (8 pages) • 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) • 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) • Emails from residents (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat for Alber Addition, 7218 Harold Avenue, based on the following findings: Section 12.50, Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations, Subd. 3(A):The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. While Lot 2 is proximate to Highway 55,there is no possibility for access from the front of the lot to the portion of the right-of-way improved for vehicular traffic. Section 12.50, Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations, Subd. 3(1): Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. As the proposal fails to meet Subd. 3(A), it also fails to meet Subd. 3(i) by definition. __.i 7505 30._:`.0 7421 I 550 / 0•"l t L 1 I 555 i,. 7220 7200 I 31:_'.:`,5 541531 -.i -�• .......// 7028 I 7030 545 j 540 313=':. . 531 530 �''� ie 7140 1 Z 316 •'-i w 7215 �4L� • 321 00 ;521 4><20 )y(G'703t ` -J 195 200 I. 74621 5 1 7442 >, 72U1 ♦ ;(s m 6930 c 185190 7460 771x /440 511 y 510 /7151 50 704017020 501 > s I 74581 9 2 743 8 I 7100 '70 1456''1 22 7436 Y r a 180'15Ct25100 7454 23 2 7434 522520 510 I.----_. 7101 J 0 165 ..• /4521 a 2/a32 501 7330 1 ..--` eplOTia1 li*'. = 14F115 7500 7450 743 plso�M tx `�`------ I 2728 1 Subject Property _ _ - 71a3 s52 .. .N.- -------- -• . _ _ ��--` 7001 6931 69, 413 Z -___ - -_---- Y_ 7040 7045 409 Q; C/ 7340yly ±A - -407 Z.--410— -4 T - 7031 68 -405'4-406 7600 7430174201 _`.v_Iv.: 7200 6900 • E I 7025 -403'4,.---- y4, 7330 7324 7236 721 7182 71567146 t 6900 L -� 0—7650 ,�.• 1 IE _7700( ( _ , • _ Harold Ave X6930 7601 75n52-97523,51775097507465 7445 7425 7303 r g� • 6920 1 1 t i l 1 1 1 1 1 7300 6945 N. •• ,7605 7531 1 1752775137505- a z f4 e3 X11 03 7521 751/7507 7320 7309 > 330 r� 6929 -.8 1 , 11 ( 11 .: 7310 7310 ; c �� •7607 7599 7519 17503) it iT 7315 o 320 6941 .,6n.j!'":' 7330 a .2.:.._..a)Iv ' Halt Moon 0' 7325 O 6925 ° Or 310r 693 5 1.•,r .. sk.:`k •* 7340 7325 7327 -3-00-2N2 _-- ,- = L`:yjae:_.:?, i '7 300 1240 232 230 , Ake..--- .•f=,.; :- ' 7350 7340 7335 7329 Lions Park -- vite ;_dir c� ilei_. 220 = '-•A/2r;"-•-- . 7350 ,. ..:'-::7*.::--*"7::•,:yf.-_:a-4c•cc�. / ( 245 225 1 51 * :�: *• :-:illtc ••1 7360 7345 iii 1 —_ r .. Z ?lkt•_ .:yltr177-it:** .: 4.;*7- 41/ X7400 7461"`,/ 1 200 205 200 s:>-'4":.":'4; . : :." a age ^-y ..w... _= �� 7403 150 155 Y 150 '�_. -,y[am=.- d=e-..-y: `?a 7410 1f^ ! I r---.. 7405 Lvi:,,,i4-;�:• _: .:y "`� 7409' 130 135 m 130 7 - .t. "{b = x-_ Xi ".. :S._1 7420 f 7407~ ! Tom Garry BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9717 60 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry@bestlaw.com TCL612.339.7121 FAX612.339.5897 BEsn.AWCOM BEST & FLANAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY (izimmerman@a,goldenvalleymn.gov) November 13, 2015 Mayor Harris and Council Members City of Golden Valley c/o Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Application for Minor Subdivision of 7218 Harold Avenue ("Application") Robert and Claire Alber("Applicants") Dear Mayor Harris and Council Members: This is a summary of our firm's legal review of whether the above referenced Application satisfies the requirement in City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A), which provides that each lot resulting from a minor subdivision must abut a public street(the"Street Requirement"). When the Council reviews a subdivision application, like this one, it is acting in a quasi-judicial, or judge-like, capacity. As such, the Council's only task is to determine whether the given application meets the Code's requirements. In doing this, the Council engages in a two-step analysis. First, the City construes the Code's terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning, to the extent terms are not defined in the Code. In doing so, each word is to be given effect whenever possible. Second, if after a plain and ordinary reading, an ordinance is reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations, then it is ambiguous and the City should use the same tools that courts employ to interpret ambiguous ordinances, principally looking at the legislative purpose behind the ordinance while giving weight to the right of property owners to use their property as they desire. Applying this analysis, we agree with the City's planning staff that the Application does not satisfy the Street Requirement and therefore must be denied. Under a plain and ordinary reading of the Street Requirement, all lots resulting from a minor subdivision must "abut entirely on an improved public right-of-way for vehicular traffic"and not all of the Application's proposed lots do so. In the context of the Street Requirement, "improved public right-of-way" means that part of the right-of-way that has been improved for vehicles to drive-on (e.g., streets, curb cuts, and driveways). Lot 2 of the Application only abuts an unimproved portion of the right-of-way for Highway 55. Moreover, because (i) Lot 2 has no legal access to the Highway 55 right-of-way, (ii) only the state (not the City) has authority to permit the construction of a driveway connecting Lot 2 to the paved surface of Highway 55, and (iii) the Applicants have not provided evidence that the state would November 13, 2015 Page 2 grant such access and permit, there is no basis on which the City could find that Lot 2 abuts or will abut improvements that connect it to Highway 55. If there was any ambiguity in the Street Requirement's meaning, the purpose for which the requirement was enacted makes the meaning clear. As evidenced by a 1989 planning staff memo, the City enacted the Street Requirement in 1990 to ensure that all lots resulting from minor subdivisions had independent and direct access to public streets. The Street Requirement does that by prescribing that each lot border improvements in the right-of-way that allow for vehicular traffic (e.g., curb cuts and driveways). An interpretation of the context in which the Street Requirement appears in Chapter 12 further evidences that the requirement was enacted for this purpose. In addition, the same staff memo indicates the rationale for the Street Requirement. The City wanted, among other things, to prevent minor subdivisions resulting in so-called "back lot spits." This is the splitting of existing deep lots into two, with the resulting lot furthest from the street either having a narrow independent driveway fronting the street or access via a private driveway easement over the lot fronting the street. The Street Requirement prevents "back lot splits" by requiring each lot to front in its entirety on the public street. In other words, with the Street Requirement the City intended to prevent the very type of subdivision proposed by the Applicants. Lastly, the Applicants have argued that the City previously approved a minor subdivision (Lawn Terrace) that would not have satisfied the Street Requirement as the requirement is being applied to the Application. It appears the Street Requirement may not have been fully analyzed, or was analyzed incorrectly, in that previous subdivision application. Regardless, Minnesota law is clear. The City is not prevented from correctly enforcing its ordinances, even if the City previously applied its ordinances incorrectly and a property owner relied on that prior incorrect decision to its detriment. In short, any previous decision on a minor subdivision application, in contradiction of the Code, is not binding on the City's review of subsequent applications, including this one. For the above stated reasons, the Code requires that the City deny the Application. As proposed, Lot 2 does not satisfy the Street Requirement. If you have any questions or want to discuss this mater, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1 � efrs ," 4 Thomas Gar TGG/clb Tom Garry BEST S FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612 341 9717 60 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 F'x 612.339.5897 BESTLAw COM BEST & FLANAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY (jzimmerman@,goldenvalleymn.gov) November 13, 2015 City of Golden Valley c/o Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Application for Minor Subdivision of 7218 Harold Avenue ("Application") Robert and Claire Alber("Applicants") Dear Mr. Zimmerman: You asked our firm, as counsel for the City of Golden Valley, to provide a legal analysis of how the City's Code should be applied to the above referenced Application. Specifically, you asked whether the Application satisfies the requirement in Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A), which provides that each lot resulting from a minor subdivision must abut a public street(the"Street Requirement"). We agree with the conclusion of the City's planning staff that the Application does not satisfy the Street Requirement. Under a plain and ordinary reading of the Street Requirement, all lots resulting from a minor subdivision must abut an improved public right-of-way and not all of the Application's proposed lots do so. Therefore, the City must deny the Application. This letter proceeds in four parts. Part 1 sets forth the Street Requirement and the relevant facts with respect to the Application. Part 2 lays out the legal standard for how the City interprets the Code with respect to subdivision applications like this one. Part 3 applies the plain and ordinary meaning standard to the Street Requirement and, in turn, assesses the Application. Part 4 addresses several arguments the Applicants have made in support of their Application. In addition, attached to this letter is an Appendix that, for the sake of having a more complete record on this matter, contains an analysis using the tools Minnesota courts have provided to construe ambiguous ordinances, including an examination of the purpose behind the ordinance. (As described in the Appendix and the planning staff report related to the Application, the clear purpose of the Street Requirement is that lots resulting from a minor subdivision each have independent and direct legal access to a public street). The analysis in the Appendix arrives at the same outcome as the analysis in this letter—that the City must deny the Application. The analysis in the Appendix is provided separately because we conclude that the Street Requirement is unambiguous in those respects necessary to make a decision on the Application, and therefore the City need not consider the analysis in the Appendix to resolve this matter. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 2 Part 1. The Street Requirement and the Application. A dispositive determination for the Application is whether it satisfies the Street Requirement. This requirement is set forth in the Code's Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A), and provides in relevant part: [T]he front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street, . . . The term "street" is defined in Section 12.03(22) as 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." Of these terms listed in 12.03(22), the only one further defined in Section 12 is "boulevard", which is defined as "[t]he portion of the street right-of- way between the curb line and the property line".1 Thus, in substance, the Street Requirement reads: The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public [right-of- way for vehicular traffic], . . . Under the Code, if the Application does not meet this requirement the City must deny the Application, unless the Applicants request a variance.2 Based on information from the City's planning staff, the following are the most relevant facts regarding whether the Application satisfies the Street Requirement: a. The Application proposes to create two new lots, "Lot 1" and "Lot 2". b. For the Application to be granted, Lot 1 would need to satisfy the Street Requirement by virtue of the adjacency of its southern boundary to Harold Avenue and Lot 2 would need to satisfy the Street Requirement by virtue of the adjacency of its northern boundary to Highway 55. c. The southern boundary of Lot 1 is separated from the paved surface of Harold Avenue by an unpaved City right-of-way. City staff has determined that the Applicants may apply for a right-of-way permit under Code Chapter 7, and there is a reasonable likelihood that, if applied for, such a permit would be granted in accordance with the City's normal standards for such permits.3 A right-of-way permit would grant the Applicants the right to construct improvements (i.e., a driveway) on the City right-of-way to provide Lot 1 vehicular access to the paved surface of Harold Avenue. 1 Code Section 12.03(1). The defined term "boulevard" is only used in Section 12 as part of the definition of"street". 2 Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(I). 3 Code Section 7.08, subd. 1, and Section 7.04, subd. 3. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 3 d. The northern boundary of Lot 2 is separated from the paved surface of Highway 55 by (i)the state's ownership of the right to access the Highway 55 right-of-way from Lot 2, and (ii) the state's unpaved right-of-way. City staff has determined that it does not have authority either to grant Lot 2 access to the state's right-of-way or grant a right-of-way permit to construct improvements (i.e., a driveway) to provide Lot 2 vehicular access to the paved surface of Highway 55. The state would have to grant any such permit or right of access, and the Applicants have not provided evidence indicating that the state would do so. e. The Applicants have not requested a variance. Part 2. How the City Makes Decisions on Subdivision Applications. When the City, including the Council, reviews a subdivision application it is acting in a quasi- judicial, or judge-like, capacity. As such, the City's only task is to determine whether the given application meets the Code's requirements. The City does not consider whether the Code's requirements are appropriate or desirable. The City must apply the Code as it is. Because in the context of subdivisions, the Code only sets forth general requirements (i.e., City- wide, not property-specific requirements), those requirements must be interpreted to apply them to the details of a given application. Decisions from the Minnesota Courts provide rules for how the City should interpret its ordinances.4 First, the City construes the Code's terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. In doing so, each word is to be given meaning whenever possible.5 Technical words and phrases, or words defined for the applicable Code section, are construed according to their technical meaning or definition.6 Second, if after a plain and ordinary reading, an ordinance is reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations, then it is ambiguous and the City should use the same tools that courts use to interpret ambiguous ordinances. (The attached Appendix describes some of these tools.) Part 3. Plain and Ordinary Meaning of the Street Requirement. The first step is to apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the Street Requirement's terms to the Application. If the result is unambiguous, the City does not go further in its analysis.' If, however, 4 See e.g., SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 1994). 5 See e.g., In re Reichmann Land& Cattle, LLP, 867 N.W.2d 502, 509 (Minn. 2015); State v. Otterstad, 734 N.W.2d 642, 647 (Minn. 2007) ("The rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances."). 6 See e.g., Gassier v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 584 (Minn. 2010). 7 See e.g., Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 634-635 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 4 the result is ambiguous (i.e., the requirement is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations when applied to the Application)then the City employs the interpretive tools mentioned above. Again, the Street Requirement provides in relevant part: "the front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public [right-of-way for vehicular traffic]." Whether the Application satisfies this requirement under the plain and ordinary meaning standard turns on two questions: Question 1. Must each lot resulting from a minor subdivision: (A) entirely abut a surface in the public right-of-way improved for vehicle use (i.e., street curb cuts, street pavement or a driveway); or (B) entirely abut a public right-of-way in which there is an improved surface for vehicle use, but which surface the lot does not abut in whole or in part? Question 2. Does the Applicants' likely entitlement to a City right-of-way permit to construct a driveway in the boulevard abutting Lot 1 mean the Application could satisfy the Street Requirement? Each of these questions will be addressed in turn under the plain and ordinary meaning standard. For the sake of simplifying the analysis, we make several assumptions about the meaning of certain words used in the Street Requirement. Though as alluded to in the Appendix, there may be ambiguity about the meaning of some of these words in the context of the Street Requirement, we set-aside those ambiguous for purposes of this letter's analysis. We do so because even if these ambiguities were resolved in favor of the Applicants, those interpretations would not differ materially from the assumptions made here, and would therefore not change the outcome of this letter's analysis. Assumptions: • The term "front" does not have a meaning that would decisively change whether the Application is granted or denied. • The term "abut" has the meaning given such word in Black's Law Dictionary: "to join at a border or boundary; to share a common boundary".8 • The boundaries of a "lot" are not extended by any easements that may benefit a given lot. This assumption is based on Code Sections 12.03(7) and 12.03(11) which separately define "lot" and "easement" and which definitions provide no textual indication that the term easement extends the boundaries of a lot for any purposes. • The phrase "public right-of-way" has the meaning given such phrase in Black's Law Dictionary: the "right of passage held by the public in general to travel on roads;" or 8 Black's Law Dictionary 11 (8th ed.2004). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 5 similarly, the public's "right to pass through property owned by another".9 By definition in Section 12, the term "public right-of-way" includes the boulevard area of the right-of-way (i.e., the area between street curbs and the lot lines).10 • The term "improved" refers to surface street improvements such as road pavement, curb cuts, or driveways since the term is used in modification of the phrase "public right-of-way for vehicular traffic".11 In other words, the term does not refer to other possible improvements of a public right-of-way unrelated to vehicular traffic (e.g., bike paths, sidewalks, etc.). Question 1: Must each lot: (A) entirely abut a surface in the public right-of-way improved for vehicle use; or (B) entirety abut a public right-of-way in which there is an improved surface for vehicle use, but which surface the lot does not abut in whole or in part? The answer to this question hinges on how the term "improved" is read to qualify "public right-of- way for vehicular traffic". Under the most straight-forward reading, the word "improved" restricts the meaning of the term "public right-of-way", such that the term "public right-of-way" only refers to that part of the right-of-way that is actually improved. With this reading, each lot must abut an improved surface in the right-of-way. Conceivably, the term could alternatively be read to indicate that each lot need only abut a public right-of-way so long as that right-of-way contains improved surfaces for vehicles, regardless of whether the lot actually abuts those surfaces. In effect, this would read the term "improved" as only requiring each lot to abut an unimproved boulevard (i.e., the portion of the public right-of-way between the street curbing and the lot line not improved with driveways). The problem with this alternative interpretation is that it reads the term "improved" out of the language of the Street Requirement; that is, if this alternative reading were correct the Street Requirement would effectively read: "the front of each lot shall abut entirely on an impfeveci public right-of-way for vehicular traffic," or equivalently "the front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved boulevard." Yet under the plain and ordinary meaning standard, whenever possible, each word is to be given effect; "no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant."12 9 Black's Law Dictionary 1351 (8th ed.2004). Non-legal dictionaries provide a similar definition that is not different in substance. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary defines "right-of- way" as the "strip of land over which facilities such as highways, railroads, or power lines are built". 1554 (3rd ed. 1992). 1°Code Section 12.03(1). 11 See e.g., State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 2011) (in construing a statute, undefined words are understood in their context). 12 Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., LLC, 781 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Minn. 2010). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 6 Here, giving the word "improved" meaning and significance is not only possible, but entirely reasonable. Moreover, the plain meaning of an ordinance can only be disregarded when it "utterly confounds a clear legislative purpose."13 As discussed in the Appendix and the planning staffs report on the Application, the clear legislative purpose of the Street Requirement is to create lots with independent and direct legal access to public streets. Thus, reading the terms of the Street Requirement in a manner that gives meaning and significance to the term "improved" is only consistent with this legislative purpose, not in conflict with it. For the stated reasons, we believe the straight-forward reading of"improved" first described above is correct and unambiguous under the plain and ordinary meaning standard. With this reading, Lot 2 does not satisfy the Street Requirement because it does not abut a surface improved for vehicle use. Rather, it only abuts the unimproved portion of the Highway 55 right-of-way. Lot 1, however, may still satisfy the Street Requirement, depending on the answer to Question 2 below. However, since each lot must satisfy the Street Requirement for the Application to be approved, the City must deny the Application regardless of the status of Lot 1. Because the Street Requirement answers this Question I unambiguously and that answer is dispositive of the Application, the City need not assess the Street Requirement as though it were ambiguous with respect to this Question 1. (The Appendix runs through the analysis if the Street Requirement were considered ambiguous with respect to this Question 1, and finds that the outcome would be the same as under the plain and ordinary meaning standard.) Furthermore, because the answer to this Question 1 is dispositive of the Application in its entirety, the City need not consider Question 2 below with respect to Lot 1. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, this letter proceeds with addressing Question 2. Question 2: Does the Applicants' likely entitlement to a City right-of-way permit to construct a driveway in the boulevard abutting Lot 1 mean the Application could satisfy the Street Requirement? Under Code Section 7.04, a right-of-way permit grants a property owner the right to construct a driveway in the public right-of-way adjacent to the owner's property.14 In effect, the permit entitles a property owner to add improvements to the boulevard such that there can be a continuous area of improvements for vehicular traffic in the public right-of-way between the street curbing and the lot line. Thus, the Applicants could satisfy the Street Requirement as to Lot 1 if they constructed, pursuant to a City right-of-way permit, a driveway in the boulevard along the entire length of Lot 1. In such event, Lot I would "abut entirely on an improved public right-of-way for vehicular traffic". Chapter 7 does not expressly condition the issuance of this permit on the prior satisfaction of the Street Requirement. Section 7.04 does, however, provide that the construction of the driveway 13 Weston v. McWilliams&Associates, Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Minn. 2006). 14 Code Section 7.04, subd. 3. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 7 "must conform to the requirements of the City." The City's published requirements for driveways include a restriction that residential driveways cannot be greater than 25-feet in width.15 As a result of this restriction, Section 7.04 and the Street Requirement are in conflict. The former prevents a driveway from running the entire width of Lot 1 and the latter requires it. The plain terms of Section 7.04 and the Street Requirement do not provide an express way to resolve this conflict. When ordinances are in conflict, they are deemed ambiguous and, thus, answering this Question 2 with respect to Lot 1 requires the use of the interpretive tools mentioned above and discussed in the Append ix.16 With respect to Lot 2, though, this conflict is irrelevant. State law is clear. Only the state has the authority to issue a right-of-way permit with respect to the Highway 55 right-of-way.17 Accordingly, absent a permit from the state, Lot 2 cannot satisfy the Street Requirement regardless of this conflict between Section 7.04 and the Street Requirement. The Application does not include evidence that the state will issue a permit to the Applicants to construct a driveway in the Highway 55 right-of- way. Again, since both Lot 1 and Lot 2 must each satisfy the Street Requirement for the Application to be approved, the City must still deny the Application despite this Question 2 not being resolved as to Lot 1. (The Appendix runs through the analysis of resolving this Question 2 as to Lot 1 and concludes that, using the tools for interpreting conflicting ordinances, Lot 1 would satisfy the Street Requirement if a City right-of-way permit were issued for Lot 1 in conformance with the City's requirements.) Part 4. The Applicants' Arguments. In an October 12, 2015 letter to the City, counsel for the Applicants argues in substance that the Application satisfies the Street Requirement because Lot 2 abuts Highway 55 and Highway 55 is a public right-of-way for vehicular traffic. However, even if it is assumed for argument sake that these two assertions are true, that does not result in the Application satisfying the Street Requirement. As discussed above, the Street Requirement by its plain terms requires that, for the Application to be approved, Lot 2 must "abut entirely on an improved right-of-way for vehicular traffic." If Lot 2 in fact abuts any portion of the Highway 55 right-of-way, it abuts an unimproved portion, which does not satisfy the Street Requirement under the plain and ordinary meaning standard. Further, as discussed in the attached Appendix, if there were any ambiguities regarding the significance of the word "improved" in the Street Requirement, or ambiguities in the Street Requirement generally, the rules of ordinance interpretation would require the City to look at, among other things, the legislative purpose behind the requirement to resolve those ambiguities. As City 15 A copy of these requirements is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. 16 See e.g., State v. Coolidge,282 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 1979). 17 Minn. Stat. 160.18; Minn. Rule 8810.440. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 8 staff has communicated to the Applicants or their representative, and as discussed in the planning staff memo, the clear purpose behind the Street Requirement is to require that any lots resulting from a minor subdivision have independent and direct legal access to a public street. The Street Requirement does this, under its plain terms, by requiring that each lot abut improvements that allow for vehicular traffic in the public right-of-way. In addition the letter from the Applicants' counsel refers to policy reasons why the City should approve the Application (e.g., the subject property could be put to a higher density use than proposed in the Application and therefore the Application is better for the community). Regardless of their merits, these policy considerations are irrelevant for the City's decision of whether the Application satisfies the Street Requirement. The City must apply the Code's terms as they are. To the extent the Applicants have policy or equitable considerations that support their Application, those considerations may only be weighed, if at all, within the context of a variance request. Lastly, the Applicants or their representative have argued that the City previously approved a minor subdivision (Lawn Terrace) that would not have satisfied the Street Requirement as the requirement is being applied to the Application. It appears the Street Requirement may not have been fully analyzed, or was analyzed incorrectly, in that previous subdivision application. Regardless, Minnesota law is clear. The City is not prevented from correctly enforcing its ordinances, even if the City previously applied its ordinances incorrectly and a property owner relied on the City's prior incorrect decision to its detriment.18 In short, any previous decision on a minor subdivision application, in contradiction of the Code's terms, is not binding on the City's review of subsequent applications, including this one. Conclusion For the above stated reasons, the Code requires that the City deny the Application. As proposed, Lot 2 does not satisfy the Street Requirement. While Lot 1 may satisfy the Street Requirement if a City right-of-way permit were applied for and granted, that option is not available for Lot 2 since the City cannot grant a right-of-way permit with respect to the Highway 55 right-of-way. 18 Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 607 (Minn. 1980) ("The law in Minnesota is clear that administration of zoning ordinances is a governmental not a proprietary function, and the municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing the ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior city action."). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 9 Please contact me if you have any questions about this matter. Sincerely, is (iV` • / -fklibrnr Thomas Ga TGG/clb Enclosures: Appendix Exhibit A. Right-of-Way Permit Plan, General Requirements and Plan Standards. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 10 APPENDIX This Appendix provides further analysis of the Street Requirement, beyond the analysis provided in the letter to which this Appendix is attached (the "Letter"). 19 As stated in the Letter, the City need not reach the analysis in this Appendix to make a decision on the Application. As described in the Letter, when the City applies its Code to a subdivision application, it engages in a two-step analysis. First, the City construes the Code's terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Second, if after a plain and ordinary reading an ordinance is reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations, then it is ambiguous and the City should use the same tools that courts use to construe ambiguous ordinances. This Appendix provides the second step of this analysis. It does so to the same Question 1 and Question 2 set out in the Letter. For Question I, the outcome of the analysis in this Appendix is the same as in the analysis in the Letter; the Code requires that the Application be denied. For Question 2, the analysis concludes that Lot 1 would satisfy the Street Requirement if a right-of-way permit was granted as to it. That conclusion, however, does not change the result that the City must deny the Application. Question 1: Must each lot: (A) entirely abut a surface in the public right-of-way improved for vehicle use; or (B) entirety abut a public right-of-way in which there is an improved surface for vehicle use, but which surface the lot does not abut in whole or in part? As stated in the Letter, we believe the Street Requirement answers this question unambiguously. If, however, the City found that there was an alternative plain and ordinary reading of the Street Requirement that was reasonable and provided a different answer to this Question, then the Street Requirement would be ambiguous as applied the Application. This would be the case because there would be two alternative, reasonable interpretations of the Street Requirement. In such event, the City would need to proceed with this second step of interpreting an ambiguous ordinance. 19 Capitalized terms used in this Appendix, but not otherwise defined in this Appendix, have the same meaning given such terms in the Letter. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 11 If an ordinance is ambiguous, the City uses the following interpretative tools to decide how to apply the ordinance: A. Employ the same conventions courts use to construe ambiguous laws. These conventions are set-forth in caselaw and codified, in part, in state statute.20 The objective of using these conventions is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Council when it enacted the ordinance. B. Construe the ordinance against the City and in favor of property owners. If there are multiple available interpretations, the City must give weight to the interpretation that is the least restrictive of the Applicants' right to use their land as they desire. C. Consider the underlying policy behind the ordinance. The City should give weight to the interpretation that furthers the City's goals that motivated the ordinance when it was enacted.21 A. The conventions for interpreting ambiguous laws. There are a number of the standard interpretive conventions implicated by the Street Requirements. The most relevant are: 1) General words are construed to be restricted in their meaning by preceding particular words;22 2) Ordinances should be interpreted to give effect to the Council's intention in enacting the ordinance, including the problems that prompted the enactment, as evidenced by the contemporaneous legislative history;23 and 3) Provisions in an ordinance should be interpreted as a whole, not in isolation.24 Each of these conventions will be addressed in turn. 20 See State v. Otterstad, 734 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2007) ("The rules that govern the construction of statutes are applicable to the construction of ordinances.") (quoting Smith v. Barry, 17 N.W.2d 324, 327 (1944)); Minn. Stat. § 645. 21 See e.g., SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 1994). 22 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.08(3). 23 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.16. 24 American Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277-78 (Minn. 2000). Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 12 1) Preceding particular words restrict general words that follow. Under this interpretive tool, if a particular word precedes more general words, the particular word restricts the meaning of the general words. Applying this to the Street Requirement, the term "improved" restricts the more general words that follow it, "public right-of-way for vehicular traffic". This tool, thus, points to the Street Requirement meaning that each lot must abut improved (i.e., paved) portions of the right-of-way. This result provides further support for the conclusion set- forth in the Letter. 2) Interpret ordinances in light of the legislative history. The Street Requirement was enacted in 1990 as part of larger changes to the City's minor subdivision ordinance. A City staff memo prepared for the Planning Commission and the Council in mid-1989 (the "Memo") outlined the need and rationale for the changes. (A copy of the Memo was provided to us by the City planning staff without any of its attachments or appendices.) The Memo indicates that, prior to the 1990 amendments, the Code did not mandate that lots resulting from a minor subdivision have street access. Nevertheless, as a matter of practice, City staff required that lots have a minimum 20-foot street frontage to provide direct access to the lot from a street. The Memo stated on page 3: 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 easement, 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 Memo went on to recommend on page 9: [T]he ordinance should clearly state that full frontage is required for all lots. If the Planning Commission or City Council finds this recommendation 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 with the minor subdivision section along with the reason for it. With the enactment of the Street Requirement as part of the 1990 Code amendments, the Council apparently chose to accept the staff's recommendation of requiring lots to have "full frontage" on a public street and that this "frontage" provide direct and independent legal access to a public street (i.e., access without the benefit of a private easement). In short, the Memo provides clear evidence Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 13 that the purpose behind the Street Requirement was to ensure that lots resulting from minor amendments have direct access via the street on which they front. For purposes of answering Question 1 then, this further supports the Letter's conclusion that the Street Requirement requires lots to abut directly on a paved portion of the public right-of-way. It is only in this fashion that the Street Requirement fulfills its apparent purpose of ensuring that lots have direct legal access to a street. If the Street Requirement only required each lot to abut an unimproved boulevard, this purpose could be frustrated because there could be some legal or physical obstacle in the boulevard that prevents access. This is in fact the case with the Lot 2 in the Application. The state's ownership of the right of access prevents Lot 2 from having street access via Highway 55. Moreover, the Memo provides rationales for the Street Requirement. Among other things, the City wanted to prevent so-called "back lot spits" in which where deep existing lots were split in two, with the lot furthest away from the street either having a narrow independent driveway fronting the street or access via a narrow private driveway easement over the lot fronting the street. The Street Requirement did this by requiring each lot to front in its entirety on the public street that provided the lot vehicle access. In other words, with the Street Requirement, the Council intended to prevent the very type of subdivision proposed by the Applicant. In sum, the legislative history behind the Street Requirement provides plain evidence that the Council's intent with the requirement was to require each lot abut directly on a paved public right- of-way, to ensure that each lot had direct legal vehicular access to a public street. 3) Provisions in an ordinance should be interpreted as a whole, not in isolation. Reading Section 12 and the Code as a whole provides further evidence confirming the analysis set forth above and in the Letter. Below is a non-exhaustive list of features within the Code which suggest that, when the Street Requirement is placed within the larger context of Section 12.50 and the Code generally, it needs to be read as a requirement that lots abut a public street so that they have direct street access. First, the sentence in which the Street Requirement appears reads: Furthermore, 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. The latter part of this sentence states that the setback line is to be measured from the "street right-of- way line". Consistent with this, elsewhere in the Code front setback lines are measured from the front lot line. Thus, when read within the larger context of the Code, this sentence (i) provides that the front lot line and the right-of-way are coterminous, and (ii) where they meet, the right-of-way Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 14 must be improved. Read as such, and given the purpose behind the requirement, the terms of the Street Requirement reflect the Council's selection of a specific method for ensuring each lot had direct street access. Second, Section 12 treats limited access highways, such as Highway 55, differently than it treats other streets. With respect to non-minor subdivisions, if the subdivision borders on a limited access highway, the Code empowers the Council to "require a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such [limited access] right-of-way at a suitable distance for the appropriate use of the intervening land."25 This suggests the Council did not intend to treat limited access highways the same as other public streets, specifically because such highways did not provide access to adjacent land. This points to the conclusion that adjacency to a limited access highway—unlike adjacency to a"street" (as defined in Section 12.03)—is not sufficient to satisfy the Street Requirement. Third, if it does not serve to ensure access to a public street, it is not apparent from the language of Section 12.50 what, if any, purpose the Street Requirement serves. In other words, if the Street Requirement were stripped of its access-requirement purpose, it would effectively be read out of the ordinance. Moreover, if the Street Requirement did not operate to require each lot to have street access, the terms of Section 12.50 would require the City to approve minor subdivisions that create parcels without access, if that is what an applicant submitted to the City. This is because there is nothing in Section 12.50 under which the City could compel an applicant to provide private easements to serve lots that, in the absence of such easements, would be landlocked. Reading Chapter 12 in this fashion would run counter to the stated purposes for which it was enacted: Each new subdivision becomes a permanent unit in the basic physical structure of the future community, a unit to which the future community will of necessity be forced to adhere. In order that new subdivisions will contribute toward an attractive, orderly, stable and wholesome community environment with adequate City services and safe streets, all subdivisions hereafter platted within the incorporated limits of the City shall in all respects fully comply with the regulations set forth in this Chapter. In interpretation and application, the provisions of this Chapter shall be the minimum requirements necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.26 In light of this stated purpose and intent behind Chapter 12, it would seem illogical for the Council to choose to impose the Street Requirement on minor subdivisions, but also chose not to grant the 25 Code Section 12.20, Subd. 3(L). 26 Code Section 12.03. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 15 City the authority to prevent the use of the minor subdivision process to create landlocked parcels.27 The more logical and reasonable reading of Section 12.50 is that, with the Street Requirement, the Section does not permit the creation of landlocked parcels as a matter of right. If a particular application cannot satisfy the Street Requirement, the applicant could seek a variance, and through that process the City could require a private access easement in lieu of strict conformance with the Street Requirement—if the conditions for a variance were otherwise satisfied. Based on these three examples, it is apparent from the larger context in which the Street Requirement sits within the Code, that the requirement was a particular method selected by the Council to ensure that lots have direct legal vehicular access to a public street. Collectively then, these interpretative conventions point strongly to the same answer to Question l as provided in the Letter.28 B. Construe the ordinance against the City and in favor of property owners. If an ordinance is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, the City must give weight to the interpretation that is the least restrictive of the Applicants' rights to use their land as they want. Here, this factor plainly favors the Applicants as they seek to interpret the Street Requirement in a manner that would permit them to subdivide their property. However, the mere existence of any ambiguity does not mean that the Applicants' reading of the requirement prevails. The City's interpretation, if contrary to the Applicants', is entitled to its own measure of weight, though not as much weight as the Applicants. Moreover, for the Applicants' interpretation to prevail, the City must find that their interpretation is reasonable, does not distort the ordinance and is within the confines of the ordinance's terminology. Even then, this presumption favoring the Applicants' must be weighed against any evidence supporting an interpretation different from the Applicants'. C. An ordinance must be interpreted in light of its underlying policy. The City must interpret the Street Requirement in light of the underlying policies the requirement seeks to further. As discussed above, the purpose behind the Street Requirement is clear. 27 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (it is presumed a legislature does not intend a result that is absurd). 28 We note further that the word "abut" is used in the Street Requirement. However, elsewhere in Chapter 12 where issues involving common borders between roads, properties, land uses, and the like, the term "adjacent" is used instead of"abut". Under Minnesota law, the term "abut", when used in regard to common boundaries between private property and a public right-of-way carries with it connotations of access to that right-of-way. See Johnson v. City of Plymouth, 263 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1978). This further suggests that the Street Requirement was intended to ensure there was street access. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 16 Furthermore, the staff Memo from 1989 and the planning staff memo reviewing the Application articulate the policy and public safety rationales supporting this purpose, and there is no need to repeat those rationales here. This Street Requirement's purpose and rationales would be frustrated by a reading of the requirement that permitted approval of the Application, as evidenced by the City staff memos reviewing the Application. Therefore, this factor favors denial of the Application. On balance, all these interpretive tools point strongly to the same outcome reached in the Letter with regard to this Question 1. Though there is a legal presumption favoring the Applicants in these circumstances, that presumption is outweighed here by the strong evidence from the Code's language and the legislative history that the Street Requirement requires each lot resulting from a minor subdivision to abut a paved portion of the public right-of-way. Question 2: Does the Applicants' likely entitlement to a City right-of-way permit to construct a driveway in the boulevard abutting Lot 1 mean the Application could satisfy the Street Requirement? The Letter concluded that, with regard to this Question 2, the Street Requirement and Section 7.04 dealing with right-of-way permits were in conflict. This was because the Street Requirement requires the abutment on the improved public right-of-way be for the entire width of Lot 1, while Section 7.04 limits driveway improvements in the abutting right-of-way to 25-feet in width. Therefore, it could not be determined under a plain and ordinary reading whether a City right-of-way permit, if granted, would enable the satisfaction of the Street Requirement. Again, we apply the same three interpretive tools discussed above. A. Employ the standard conventions courts use to construe ambiguous laws. For this analysis we do not have the benefit of the legislative history related to Section 7.04 and our analysis remains subject to legislative history that may contradict the conclusions here. With that said, two interpretive conventions point to a relatively clear result for how this conflict between the two ordinances should be resolved. 1) Two ordinances in conflict should be construed if possible to give effect to both.29 Section 12.50 states that it lists the only conditions on which a minor subdivision may be denied and none of those listed conditions include the denial of a right-of-way permit. This suggests that the 29 See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1. Mr. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager November 13, 2015 Page 17 denial of a right-of-way permit, because the Applicants want to build a driveway in the right-of-way wider than 25 feet, is not a basis on which a minor subdivision is to be denied. However, the purpose of the Street Requirement — to ensure lots have street access — can still be given effect even if the width of the abutment between the lot and the improved right-of-way is limited to 25 feet or less. The City has determined that a driveway in the public right-of-way of no greater than 25 feet is sufficient for vehicle access purposes. 2) When two ordinances conflict, the special provision Foverns over the general one, especially when the special provision was enacted later.3 Section 7.04 relates specifically to the regulation of the City's right-of-way, including the construction of driveways. In comparison, the Street Requirement is more general with regard to the regulation of the right-of-way. Moreover, the City enacted the current Section 7.04 in 2001. The Street Requirement was enacted in 1990. In such circumstances, courts typically construe the later, more specific law to prevail to the extent there is a conflict with an earlier general law. This is based on the inference that with the later ordinance the Council intended to amend the earlier ordinance. We see no reason not to apply this inference here. Together, these two conventions lead to the conclusion that, if a right-of-way permit were granted with respect to Lot 1, it would enable Lot 1 to satisfy the Street Requirement, notwithstanding that Section 7.04 would limit the abutment to no more than 25 feet. B. Construe the ordinances against the City and in favor of property owners. This presumption favoring the property rights of the Applicants only supports the conclusion above. C. Consider the underlying policy behind the ordinances. As discussed, reconciling the Street Requirement and Section 7.04 in this manner allows the purpose of the Street Requirement to be fulfilled, while also giving effect to the policies behind Section 7.04. Thus, with respect to this Question 2, we conclude that if a right-of-way permit were to be granted with respect to Lot 1, that would enable Lot 1 to satisfy the Street Requirement. But as discussed in the Letter, this conclusion on Question 2 does not change the conclusion as to Question 1 that the Application must be denied. 3o See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1. city of goldenii valley Fire Department 763-593-8079 1763-593-8098 (fax) Date: November 10, 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 This proposed project was originally submitted as a minor subdivision with one house located behind the home that fronts Harold Avenue and there was no mention of providing a residential fire sprinkler system on the plans. On November 3, 2015, Peter Knaeble called to inquire if adding a residential fire sprinkler system to these homes would have an impact on staff's recommendation. Adding a residential fire sprinkler system will enhance the life safety characteristics of living in this home. A National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13D fire sprinkler is a designed as a life safety system and not as a property protection system. Systems designed to the NFPA 13D standard are designed to be cost effective and placed in areas that are occupied by people including bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens. Fires that can occur in these area should be quickly controlled. It should be noted that there are a number of areas that will not be protected by fire sprinkler heads including the attic, closets, most bathrooms, floor truss areas and only partial protection of the garage. Fires that start in these areas can be progressive and destructive events. The project going before City Council proposes to split this large lot 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 230+ feet off of Harold Avenue. To access this home a proposed shared driveway will run along the west 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 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, icrelly@goldenvallevmn.gov City of ;,t4. golden11 MEMORANDUM 1Physical 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 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 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 public street improved for vehicle traffic. A 1989 planning staff memo—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 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. 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 aoicien , 4L5 valley Fire Department 763-593-8079 /763-593-8098 (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, icrelly@goldenvalleymn.gov city of gyp\ golden , MEMORANDUM vaeyPublic Works Department J 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: October 19, 2015 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer)f%7 Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist4/ Subject: Alber Addition - Minor Subdivision - 7218 Harold 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_101915.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 Al 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 LTLO NS E9L:XEd 9ZE6£69£9L am •a avw, f/e►1 -0N'6ea 91/91/9 34°0 NW ATI-ivA N30100 in ZZGSS elosa v p 'silodeauul9 ` 1 v_ 3d ylvo°�H '1 -Mild `, anuan ooMua /IV /Vf /yc/� NOIIIQQd C381d ��norr � o V P I�i009 co .w a inn m..q .y,.y°'=w�"J..w""� g 1 0.11.191 is�� fqy�{ �,�; pact= NY1d SNOIlION00 ONLISIX3 i V O C J°u°W£4 1°W�1!Yo°#WQ+W I 31111/.336 In 4 �!xppZZmrW op'-on W &iiWfs; in CV N <V<V MSc zAS8S 1.4, Z N z Lief iXg18,2 4L_2 3 •--z-z tflle, 44 rz o z�a`z 0yy�� z6°i W I I I I zzzdi Q I _. I I cna pUWu-J 1�`,, r `�°� L —J coo3:68 \L ..- co 3:68 O sbe $8zWruc �.- -—---`- '_ r I o �3<a4iL CD �� I x I CD 0 �/ _ �1 1 I '• I a 1 °° I .� co o� I L _J = W�o�Oo < - O a -,co L. I �� e at Wra IQ 03 0 114 AI CO I I I S Asa /� °° a s I i I �a,so cu z < aozz i .c.c. W z...Y E w 3.80.'E.00S .£Z'04£ s� ^ 9NISV3 •f2-,S8 1) z s» JLIL '-'ZZ I „,-'- ,0 , >- om\ o 3d 7Z XS'02'S&�1S d'3L .BI �� Ct.-.-. och of a� 74 r cc a 3 in J voNo "'ao/ o.rj co I .O •m n \ ,i ° ,I-�wms ^�! I� �/ o am W f . \ ` ualcl-y alis W OS N +J m- • }- ° o N• 0 co V o� tee ~ I Z I AZZ IP f o vF, L I a• •13S nnS JO C fL _J o o n t7n u Y _ p . 0 in „P U� ND ym (/`.fir) �Q� I H U O O\:/ h NYS Q : rhon CI 3 t m (`7 rL� o a C(4><+h O P c,t9'QCE� z �) 1 4 - A021 ,99 I W v ,L0'04 oN a v C,4S'a6Z> c 1 /� M.80,4£.00N i. ' cu:'alp '* vN m --3 �f'1-.. cru I Iiii LJl£�✓} cNu ci PL) �. W tr N z1 a 4J �' r, - 2i3S /18S_X3 Q y as a h MI ?' zo r:=) a Ca ON at ` W ={/tsV El }- i e. I H o _o - - o ( ' -- z , 9Na0 X3 CY I z W .4£,4E•OON dselt( � a, W I UI < n a 8,* & � in :C c4 co H>` n`O to —-.••r— —'r —No- c / c. III I VJ LLi ' in 2(0 , V N cu OUCZ,AW - _. W O •+•• wools E 1 \ \\____ Ca y v WbO1S J cn E ,0'04 1 - I LLLO ZZS E9L:xed SZ£6£69£9L ,•41u3 0•4d Wet) ON -ewe SI/91/0 `°'°° NW '�t3lldn N30109 in ZZggg elosauuiw'siiodeauuiyy 41 N vx d � Nouiaav 8381V . o anuany pooMualg jppg ' •oM�Y/ NWS 00 W1/61100(013 eta p snot sq;..spun 0ssu16u3 \ 9 d' �� '• :�'"n NV-1d JUllufl IV�d 'WI132Id i m •aw dq peJodud son yoau k SwaSin3sr �o W»d circa 1410.R/!i Rgs+W I YTLLI 1.D6 CO 11us (n I-I- a W i.l x I- y to 1a))-8 2 C2 6omj H LO 0 W 8W5 F N o N VN QON Z,-.C4 I- C73 N < Y j= vWzX� o U/ VVl I- W Z in 2 '&3.J' O Z Zy N w< D ZR0 y QYIA.0- 3Jpot V NO N.0 at,, O c prz ' ~I' CO p0 0....�IN(7r NJ 60 I-„ W W NZr" w.. A vi CO0InC i< NJV) I- I- MN' OI 0 ort 0 % ('I -W - HZv 5W PZ WI-oin� -W 71'Xi�w- (U V W H IX CL Cr 0 a c3 JZ"Iz'...C I-ZX Z O tnz:Qawa U= 0VZ W �a gZ ZZa« W I U _ 0 I fig I Vied' � gOtc3I-D-1:::o4:: o^I'=oWuYCW=oOo 1.0n L— J 0 es ,_-_,- Z nJS 2y " cHLeLd ,09'8176 3 gErN r---, W,- J3 I ,� I o X32,1 V--- o �� I 8 I o N �� I I 03 01 al z 0 \ I I la 1 V)WO�P L —J > Z WvoatCD a Q L �m°Do 1 r T N Wo^q /= NOD C W I I o diQ i' NO LJ cg3Z ti m a ci I I I N �o,.o E poZZ% '- i 0 �WOD 0 a Z-. J co H E z z z w al, 3.80.4E.00S £Z'04E O� 9NtsV3 .r2-.S8 To d z�� 1 H o • isoa NOUS aaa .az �y \ce^-, I \ .�-. ZIr- �5 / I p� VI.Z.� ----�--r— N Jao C3 I / c• Lis ~.�•Mn.,m 3 0 \ Q N;"31 04 I V ii.R l 1 O U Iri 2 co J1 I U HI �/ I II I0 1 8 F 0 •a3S MIS_73 - V T+ o� h I Q to. .c co0 L---J On 1 3 I-II 1 pa co �n U :Li co m v mn N err': I no I C�'0(EE) P Zm V) LO'Otr ZS'i4t (,4S'O62) I 3sv3 n9a .oiZ0 64i /1021 ,99 1 /N O II.80.4E.00N it... 3sv3 nBa .01 I— EIS , t __.., 7 OZ Ca { Ca flSS .S7 I IQ i N I N 1. PCI 0 04 Le II uu'1 W `0�l II �� I e8 N I 'vl`i W 'a3s n9s 'x3_- Z ~�v~i N CD I p y - Q In 11 0 I I W N lu' W I Owo C Q Q-' 1 cu U{n I ml v, I/ �N y 'pot ��~ 0 CK O tQ'I ('� r I I{{/// I'S I J - 'p If.7 I L.I NI O p /7 I ,J 'I a I. qq1CK 1W- �- ocx QI r,•i Nm ��I �J � I I- An 11 Q \/ N Wl Z ntul I I I 0 I- I = CO so I I II •3Sd3 ma ,o2m . 1 O = Z lISa, I II I ( 1 1 '3SV3 13/�121a ,02m 1 I W CO �' ttt___»' z = "p IL.._.._.._,rL._.._._.._.m.. ..J a3s nss doad_._ __ gs§.$). _.._.._ ._.J L ass.S, if A l '3SV3 ma ,or > „ ro2> r (e "1 43 W zv n C. w SL'E£i n.4£,4E.00N • LL'Z8? k. _-20'64IN m j 3c zu 9. os Q r n (_ yy Z N a� 3 I--- 1 <— I 1/I I 134 0 U ON m at I LJ in N Z -� ce.9 c‘i o 1 O > \/) Nao1S 0 0 N 1al C-) A s U I' W21S71S I I z 1 A'0tr 1 1 LTLO Zi5 E9L:xe� 5Z£6 E65 E9L i.jPe 11101 'oN '5021 St/91/9 14°0 N 1 611311VA N3010O In ZZPI g55 etoseuuiw'silodeauuiyd 'Pa;" I7 anuany poomual0 T009 n /' v'+ d•olonouu� NOLLIOOV ?13814 . ao c WI I"i/9 1lk3 0 •'9 W Atom (N3 NVId NOLLYA J3S38d 332LL '- , .M pup JO: °,pluochuRamon W a.�t V ON IOY D '141138d r co .- i b mei gm Iota AMC*Aaa+w I nal 13.;1s 4 4;1 tn j J Zm}W Z xpOmF Z 0 OF o I W W<NWF 3 ou a81Wi6o 1--vi~ V7 h <Is1710 Li, N i..=§8 z8, Z _� w <U q NZ 04 z 1 N Z zwoZ �W .Z.PD N N J I.-.Q p Q O xmj zomd Z 1"'v W W y W2 W,. ? �W�OZ q 01 N '- -� W Wp� �WFH _J fel Z <(� F y�j,- x CI� W •Z-� N N = r,, m 4C N l�1-m1A 1in w 6 �W z3o< �ryv q�oo�OY (vMa C5<m a W ooQ UY 000 }Vl TQC Q(,Yia 2§(-)i ce3Q1=-0 1.-PQOIjW ( ClC90Z� q U (A W Q 0zQ3�w1-"ywW • I I sz'u' o �t�a OPJq,Z..�Wy � L---J Z6WF�U W >zzzaainin�o� - Z g) ,„6., l71(AZZZZ(7N.r('1(U 1 1 _ _ 3<rF8gEKW W 09'8be —_ I bt I o 3<24 �� o �� I 0 I o x I i I --. 1 N 1 I i z- o - / w coNm .W.omW(.. 1 /:./r/= wm �w /3 comm..--)- 0 f d 2' c, Z�ZZW t N an O ;1-=� e ----- - ?,m ZmywQ ) `I1 U ` - J�oNa NCO p0�" ND 1110-4,1 m wJ nm3 - �_ ....._...---1-y--) ( ) . oz; tS IAlk t W nil, ] Y I� 1C - 4/♦ ,SAO 11 1-11 Y =1.a 2 fO 111-- z JI O(F,1 O L-- hip o �O AK 04 ot- •� Uo a G o0 �f 0 NN [-"�y ( , Nry v ��pp� -. 111 f7 n O O N .O yt ISJ�... r I� vJ r-� A08 ,99 ` it .- i N 'Y?T AO / �o Z_ > r > mde W N 0 w m : ao(4. �� 7QRIN �'/N h =x h m F' - 0_ 1 i� �i.P9 ,o U) 1 t-- I �6, xo x ,( 1, '�'- of ' '~ W W + J I Z - � =N � � 3n121 X3� W 1 In ,O 1---- A 0 PI O N E-- / r1 (A X z 0 L_ m J CN 0 L • _ Q - L- —J A. 1 Tom Garry BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9717 60 South Sixth Street,Suite 2700 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 tgarry@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAX 612.339.5897 BESTLAW.COM BEST & FLANAGAN VIA EMAIL ONLY (jzimmerman@goldenvalleymn.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 memo 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 Gat'r Y TGG/clb 000090/480568/2237444_1 city of olden MEMORANDUM 1 e, Physical Development Valley Department Y P 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing- Ordinance#584-Amending Section 11.55 Planned Unit Developments Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary The proposed changes address a strategic priority identified by City Council, which is to review and simplify the entitlement process in order to promote targeted development and redevelopment. There are 75 active PUDs in the City. While staff finds PUDs to be a helpful tool, there are some positive changes that can be made to the process to address the City Council's strategic priority. Following a set of three separate discussions and an informal public hearing, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the following changes proposed by staff. PUD Amendments Staff has acknowledged that there is a cumbersome timeframe required for approval of PUD amendment applications. By modifying the current requirements,the City can simplify and streamline the process without losing the ability to review and approve changes. Proposed Changes to PUD Amendments: • Add administrative amendments as an option • Be more specific and more generous with the projects that qualify as minor amendments • Reduce the length of entitlement process for major amendments from 6 months to 3 months Please see attached materials comparing the current process to the proposed process for PUD amendments. A list of projects that qualify as major, minor, and administrative amendments are found in the proposed version of the Code section. Application Requirements Due to the length of time required to establish a new PUD, developers commonly submit final PUD plans only days after receiving preliminary approval. The following changes are expected to mitigate the issues that arise when final PUD plans are submitted shortly after preliminary approval. Proposed Changes to Application Requirements: • Meeting with the applicant required prior to submission of the final PUD application • Final PUD application requires a narrative specifically addressing issues raised in preliminary PUD approval process; if items not addressed, staff may deem the application incomplete PUD Points System Staff recognizes that some developers have applied for a PUD in order to circumvent zoning regulations. While the developer receives the benefit of flexibility in uses, density, and setbacks, the community receives unique benefits from the PUD in return. In order to insure that the community receives unique benefits, staff recommends that the Zoning Code explicitly require that all PUDs provide a unique public amenity within the proposal. It is proposed that each amenity be awarded between 1 and 5 points. All new PUDs will require a minimum of 5 points in order to receive approval. Applicants 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 2 points. Recommended Public Amenity Options Green Roof 5 Significant/Historic Architecture 3 Affordable Housing Units 5 Enhanced Bicycle and Ped. Facilities 2 Public Open Space 4 Enhanced Stormwater Management 2 Utilization of Renewable Energy 4 Underground Parking 2 LEED Platinum Certification 4 Water Feature Usable to Public 1 LEED Gold Certification 3 Shared Bicycle and Vehicle Facilities 1 Community Garden 3 Enhanced Exterior Lighting 1 Public Recreation Area 3 Informational/Interpretive Displays 1 Public Plaza 3 Enhanced Landscaping 1 Public Art 3 Electric Car Charging Station 1 TOTAL 48 Miscellaneous Code Revisions Staff is also recommending the following set of changes to this section of City Code. • Restructure and reorder content in the section in order to increase the readability and usability. • 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. Attachments • Memo to Planning Commission dated August 24, 2015 (5 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated August 24, 2015 (3 pages) • Memo to Planning Commission dated September 28, 2015 (7 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated September 28, 2015 (6 pages) • Memo to Planning Commission dated October 26, 2015 (6 pages) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated October 26, 2015 (4 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 (19 pages) • Ordinance #584 (18 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #584 amending Section 11.55 Planned Unit Development. city of isvork, gen oldMEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: August 24, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Discussion - Zoning Code Text Amendment—Planned Unit Developments Summary Staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the direction and content of proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Code. The proposed changes address a strategic priority identified by City Council, which is to review and simplify the entitlement process in order to promote targeted development and redevelopment. The following changes received positive feedback from all members of City Council on August 10, 2015. Background There are 75 active PUDs in the City. While staff finds PUDs to be a helpful tool, there are some positive changes that can be made to the process to address the City Council's strategic priority. In researching the topic, staff referred to a helpful publication from the Environmental Protection Agency (see attached, "Rein In and Reform the Use of Planned Unit Development"). In reflecting on the PUD process, staff identified three key challenges: 1. Cumbersome timeframe required for approval of PUD amendments 2. Developers making multiple final plan submissions 3. The focus on the public purpose of the PUD plan has decreased over time Staff has identified two key goals for the proposed changes: 1. Simplification of the process 2. Clarification of the requirements PUD Amendments Particularly with recent PUD amendment applications, staff has acknowledged that there is a cumbersome timeframe required for approval. By modifying the current requirements, the City can simplify and streamline the process without losing the ability to review and approve changes. The creation of a new PUD typically takes six months. Most amendment applications are considered "major" under the current regulations and require a six month entitlement process as well. The application is reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council in both a preliminary phase and a final phase. Staff would like to modify the requirements so that major PUD amendments no longer require a preliminary and final phase; rather, a major amendment would be reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council once. It is estimated that this process would take three months rather than six months. Please see attached materials comparing the current process to the proposed process for PUD amendments. Minor amendments require a two month process in which the application is reviewed by City Council. The City Council has the discretion to decide whether minor amendments are reviewed by Planning Commission as well. Staff finds this process to be appropriate, but would like the City Code to be more specific and more generous with the projects that qualify as minor amendments. Current Code Language regarding 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. 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. Amendments to a PUD cannot currently be reviewed administratively, but staff is interested in allowing changes to outdoor lighting, utility, and grading/erosion control plans to be approved by City staff. Also, changes to landscaping and architectural elevation plans that do not alter the original design intent of the development could be reviewed administratively. These kinds of changes are currently reviewed administratively on properties that are not within a PUD. Proposed Major Amendments include: • Decrease in the amount of open space by more than 3% • Change in gross floor area in any one structure by more than 10% • Change to front yard, side yard, or rear yard setbacks that does not meet minimum requirements set forth in the underlying Zoning District • Change in the building area coverage by more than 10% • Change in the number of parking spaces that does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in this Chapter • Introduction of new uses • Demolition of a principle structure • Eliminate, diminish, or disrupt the preservation and protection of sensitive site features • Alter significantly the location of buildings, parking areas, roads, site access, or open space • Increase or decrease in the number of residential dwelling units by more than 10% • Increase the number of stories of any building or a significant alteration in the overall height of the building • Alter the original design or intended function of the development • Any other change determined by Physical Development staff to have a significant impact Proposed Minor Amendments include: • Increase in impervious surfaces up to the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District • Change in parking lot configuration or design (not the number of parking spaces) • Change in number of parking spaces that meets the minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in this Chapter • Change in gross floor area in any one structure by less than 10% • Change in the land use to a use that is permitted in the underlying Zoning District • Change in building coverage by the project up to the maximum amount allowable in the underlying Zoning District • Change in the number of residential units by less than 10% • Demolition of an accessory structure • Change to architectural elevation plans or landscape plans that alters the original design intent of the development Proposed Administrative Amendments include the following changes if approved by the City Manager or his/her designee: • Change in utility plan • Change in landscaping plan • Change to interior building plans • Change to outdoor lighting plan • Change to grading/erosion control plan • Change to architectural elevation plans Application Requirements Due to the length of time required, developers commonly submit final PUD plans only days after receiving preliminary approval. Developers feel rushed to submit an application without every item addressed so that the sixty-day clock can begin and final approval can be received as soon as possible. This is problematic for staff for several reasons. First, it causes staff to request extra plan submittals prior to Planning Commission. Multiple site plans can become confused with one another. Also, this demands additional staff time to communicate and coordinate with the applicant. Staff suggests that a meeting with the applicant be required prior to submission of the final PUD application in order to verify that all outstanding issues raised during the preliminary approval process have been addressed. In addition, the final PUD application should require a narrative specifically addressing these issues. If these items are not addressed, staff may deem the application incomplete. Public Purpose Requirement Staff recognizes that some developers have applied for a PUD in order to circumvent zoning regulations. PUDs require more time intensive review by staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and the landowner and/or applicant. PUDs are a good planning tool for the City. While the developer receives the benefit of flexibility in uses, density, and setbacks, the community receives unique benefits from the PUD in return. In order to insure that the community receives unique benefits, staff recommends that the Zoning Code explicitly require that all PUDs provide a unique public amenity within the proposal. The following examples are typically more costly to the developer, so they are not often provided in development plans when they are merely suggested and encouraged rather than explicitly required. PUD Points System At the Council/Manager meeting on August 10, 2015, City Council Members questioned how staff will determine which amenity meets the requirement. It is possible that developers will choose the most affordable option, which could result in an uneven amount of certain amenities. In response to that question, staff would like to discuss the option of a points system for public amenities, which is used by the City of Minneapolis (see City of Minneapolis PUD Amenity Summary attached). Public Amenity Options Affordable Housing (10%of units at 60%or Shared Bicycle and Vehicle Facilities below Area Median Income) Library Open to Public Public Open Space Fitness Studio Open to Public Public Recreation Space Electric Car Charging Ports for Public Community Room Bike Repair Tools or Shop Open to Public Community Garden Preservation of Unique/Historical Architecture Public Restrooms Bike and Pedestrian Trail Connections Public Art Innovative Stormwater Storage or Infiltration Public Plaza Sports Field Open to Public Game Room Open to Public Outdoor or Indoor Theater Open to Public Computer Lab Open to Public On-Site Renewable Energy Informational/Interpretive Displays LEED Silver Certification or Equivalent Discussion Staff is interested in gaining feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the proposed amendments to Section 11.55 of the Zoning Code regarding Planned Unit Developments. Attachments City Code Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development (16 pages) "Rein In and Reform the Use of Planned Unit Development" Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes, published by Environmental Protection Agency, November 2009 (4 pages) PUD Amendment Process Comparison (4 pages) Public Amenity Requirements for City of Minneapolis Planned Unit Developments (6 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 9 4. Discuss proposed amendments to the PUD Section of the Zoning Code. Goellner stated that staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission on some proposed changes to the PUD Section of the Zoning Code. She discussed several past PUD proposals and the challenges with the current PUD process including: a cumbersome timeframe, difficulties in coordinating multiple plan submissions, and a decreased focus on a public purpose when approving a PUD. She stated that the goals for the proposed changes are to simplify the process and clarify the requirements because creating a new PUD and approving a major amendment to an existing PUD can take six months. She explained that with the proposed new process it could still take up to six months to create a new PUD, but it would reduce the time it takes for a major amendment to three months. A minor amendment would take approximately two months, and administrative amendments would be allowed. Goellner referred to the current PUD amendment requirements and stated that the proposed new requirements would be more specific and more generous with the projects that qualify as a minor amendment. She stated that staff is proposing that a major amendment be required when the proposed amendment significantly affects the original design and intention, and requires more public review. Minor amendments would be required when there are less significant changes and the use meets the underlying zoning requirements and administrative amendments would be allowed when the proposed amendment is in regard to items already reviewed administratively if the property is not in a PUD such as: utilities, interior building remodels, grading and erosion control, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and architectural elevations. She added that if the original design intent is proposed to be altered, staff can deem the amendment a minor amendment and the applicant would go through the minor amendment process instead. Kluchka said he likes the idea of streamlining the process, but he wants to make sure the City is getting something better out of it. Waldhauser said one of the things the City would get out of it is the streamlining of the process for staff as well, and that PUD plans would be submitted at the beginning of the process with much more detail. Segelbaum agreed with streamlining the process and said that many times there isn't much difference between the preliminary plans and the final plans. Kluchka said if the City streamlines the process he wants to improve the quality of the process at the same time. He said he would like the Planning Commission to have more specific direction or powers in order to remove some of the vague issues that they've been told aren't in their purview, or have felt pushed to approve in the past. Segelbaum said he worries about a proposal similar to the Menard's PUD where it was considered a major amendment, even though the entire site was demolished and rebuilt. He said that type of situation is different than a proposal to just add a new wing on a building like the recent Struthers PUD amendment. Baker asked if there might be a way to reduce the definition of a PUD amendment and when necessary, require the creation of a new PUD. Cera said he is bothered by how close a major PUD amendment is to a creating a new PUD. He asked if the City can consider some major PUD amendment proposals as new PUD proposals instead. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 10 Johnson asked how this will change customer behavior so the PUD plans submitted are what is expected up front. Goellner said the proposed PUD changes will give staff the ability to get applicants to provide better detail at the beginning of the process. Segelbaum said it would be asking the developer to invest a lot up front without hearing from any City officials. Goellner stated that developers enjoy the certainty and they expect having to submit detailed plans. The Commission discussed various proposed uses that could be considered a major PUD amendments versus a minor PUD amendment such as the change in use, the introduction of a new use, changes in massing, changes in impervious surface, and traffic issues. Kluchka said the key issue to him is who is defining what a significant change in building elevation is and how "original design intent" is defined. Goellner explained that the Code currently has language regarding "good design" but there is no definition of design or any design guidelines. Kluchka said he always has to remind the Commission that they need to look at design and he would love the PUD requirements to have "more teeth" when it comes to reviewing design. Goellner stated that creating design guidelines were not part of the direction given by City Council. Baker said the Commission should push back at the City Council when it comes to design standards. Waldhauser questioned if construction standards could be imposed on all PUDs similar to the standards in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Kluchka stated that the City doesn't need to have design standards to have good architecture. Goellner said she thinks the term "good design" is too subjective and would be hard to enforce without have some specific standards. Cera stated that it might be easier to say what materials the City doesn't want to see used. Waldhauser referred to the proposal to allow an amendment to be considered a minor amendment if it is a use that is permitted in the underlying zoning district. She said that concerns her because a PUD could be approved for one use and the applicant could switch to another use that might not have been approved in the first place. She added that she would also like the Planning Commission to see amendments that include changes in landscaping and changes that bring the amount of impervious surface up to the maximum amount allowed. Kluchka said he would like to require that applicants have a neighborhood communications plan in place before, during and after a project is built, and he would also like to require that HVAC systems be screened, and that a snow removal plan is submitted at the time of application. Zimmerman stated those items might be better as a conditions of approval on a case-by-case basis rather than a requirement at the time a PUD amendment application is submitted. He explained that the feedback staff is looking for at this point is what would trigger a minor PUD amendment versus a major PUD amendment. Kluchka noted that the word "encouraged" is used in the PUD language and he would like that changed to "required." He said he would also like to add language about "architectural significance" as well as requiring color and sample boards to be submitted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 11 Segelbaum asked the Commission how they felt about the public amenities list that was in the agenda packet. Waldhauser asked how the point system works. Goellner explained that some cities give public amenities a point value and require developers to have a certain number of points. Segelbaum noted that applicants could contribute to a fund for public amenities instead. Baker said he found the list very compelling. Kluchka questioned if language regarding architectural significance could be added to a public amenity list. Cera said he is not sure a point system is the way to go. Segelbaum agreed and said the list they were shown goes too far. Waldhauser asked if the City could just enforce the public benefit requirement it currently has. Baker said he thinks the City should be asking for more public benefits and set the bar higher. Segelbaum expressed concern about the public amenities requirement squelching development and said he is worried developers will just go elsewhere. Johnson questioned the problem they are trying to fix. Baker said the City isn't getting any public benefit when approving PUDs. Johnson questioned if the City really wants the things listed on the example in the agenda packet. Baker said he thinks Golden Valley would be a better community if it had gotten some of the things on that list and that they haven't done a good job in getting something back from PUDs. Segelbaum noted that the City gets property developed that it wants developed. Baker said he'd like to hold out for better. Cera suggested the list focus on outdoor public amenities rather than indoor amenities. Kluchka suggested the public amenities include things like open space, community gardens, affordable housing, public art, informational displays, preservation, LEED certification, and bicycle/pedestrian connections. Blum said he would like bicycle/pedestrian connections to be required, not optional. Kluchka said he would also like to find ways to encourage healthy living such as stairs instead of elevators. Goellner said she would work on incorporating the items discussed into proposed new Zoning Code language and bring it back to the Planning Commission to review. Reports on Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of b Hing Appeals and other Meetings Zimmer -n stated that the ity Council has been engaged in the light rail station area planning a • the municipal onsent processes and will be scheduling a workshop and another open 'ouse in the ture. Waldhauser aske• the Ci is behind in st- • • work on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Amendment pros-ss. 'immerm • plained that work will start on the Comprehensive Plan U• - w = etropolitan Council Systems Statements have been received. 6. Other Bus' ss ouncil Liaiso -Report ► • report was given. city of golden '1' MEMORANDUM valleyDepartment Physical Development 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: September 28, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Code Text Amendment—Planned Unit Developments Background During the previous discussion on August 24, staff received initial 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. PUD Amendments Staff is recommending modifications to the list of projects that qualify as major, minor, or administrative amendments. Staff sees major amendments as changes that are not permitted in the underlying zoning district in which the PUD is located. These changes are significant and require a more extensive review process with Planning Commission and City Council. Staff sees minor amendments as changes that are permitted in the underlying zoning district and require only City Council review. Administrative amendments are seen as changes that are currently reviewed administratively on properties that are not within a PUD. They are most often reviewed by licensed engineers and building inspectors. Staff is proposing a modification to the requirements so that major PUD amendments no longer require a preliminary and final phase; rather, a major amendment would be reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council once each. It is estimated that this process would take three months rather than six months. Please see attached materials comparing the current process to the proposed process for PUD amendments. It is proposed that the minor PUD amendment process remain the same, but allow more changes to PUDs be considered minor rather than major. The approval process for minor amendments typically takes six weeks or less depending on the proposal. Current Code Language regarding 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. 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. Proposed Major Amendments include: • Eliminate, diminish, or disrupt the preservation and protection of sensitive site features • Alter significantly the location of buildings, parking areas, roads, site access, or open space • 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 or a significant alteration in the overall height of the 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 Physical Development staff to have a significant impact Proposed Minor Amendments 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 in architectural elevation plans that alters the intended function of the development. • A significant change in landscape plans that alters the intended function of the development. Review of Architecture and Landscaping At the discussion on August 24, several Planning Commissioners expressed that the preference that changes to architectural elevation plans and landscape plans be considered major amendments rather than minor or administrative amendments. Staff understands that high quality design is a key purpose of Planned Unit Developments, but there are no standards set forth in City Code to guide the implementation of high quality design. As a result, feedback is often subjective and unpredictable. In order to fulfill the City Council's strategic priority of revising the entitlement process in order to promote targeted development and redevelopment, staff recommends that changes to architectural elevations and landscape plans be primarily minor and administrative amendments. Changes to these plans that the City Manager or his/her designee considers to be a significant alteration to the intended function of the development will be deemed minor amendments. It is unlikely that an applicant would propose a significant change to building materials or landscaping without also proposing a significant change to the site plan or to the square footage of the buildings on site (which would most often be categorized as major amendments). Proposed Administrative Amendments include the following changes if approved by the City Manager or his/her designee: • 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 elevation plans The City Manager or his/her designee may categorize the proposed amendment as a major or minor amendment based on its impact to the original design. Application Requirements Staff recommends that a meeting with the applicant be required prior to submission of the final PUD application in order to verify that all outstanding issues raised during the preliminary approval process have been addressed. In addition, the final PUD application should require a narrative specifically addressing these issues. If these items are not addressed, staff may deem the application incomplete. PUD Points System 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. This point system would not be applicable to amendments in the immediate future. Staff would like to time to analyze how the points system is working with the creation of new PUDs before implementing the system for PUD amendments. Each amenity is awarded between one and five points. All new PUDs will require a minimum of five points in order to receive approval. In order to produce the best outcomes, staff will need a certain level of discretion in negotiating the points with the applicant. For example, if the applicant can only fulfill a portion of an amenity for a unique reason, staff could award the applicant a portion of the points allocated. However, staff will strive for simplicity, transparency, and efficiency in this negotiation process. Recommended Public Amenity Options Green Roof Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Community Garden Preservation of Unique/Historical Architecture Affordable Housing Units Enhanced Stormwater Management Public Open Space Water Feature Usable to Public Rooftop Solar Panels Shared Bicycle and Vehicle Facilities LEED Gold or Platinum Certification Decorative Fencing Public Recreation Area Enhanced Exterior Lighting Public Plaza Informational/Interpretive Displays Public Art Enhanced Landscaping 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 (50) percent of the total roof area proposed for the development. 5 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. 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. 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 Rooftop Solar Panels Installation of an extensive, intensive, or semi-intensive, modular or integrated solar roof system that covers a PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total roof area proposed for the development. 3 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve LEED Gold or Environmental Design Platinum certification approved by a LEED Accredited (LEED) Gold or Platinum Professional (LEED-AP) by a date determined in the Certification 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 or Platinum requirements. 3 Public Recreation Area An active, safe, and secure outdoor recreation area open and visible to the public that includes play equipment or natural features suitable for recreational use by children and families. 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 Bicycle and Eligible facilities may include a combination of the Pedestrian Facilities following: heated transit shelter, bicycle repair tools, rest area, wayfinding signs, and other amenities that increase the convenience and encourage the use of public walkways and bikeways. 2 Preservation of Preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of designed Unique/Historic historic landmarks or unique architectural features as a Architecture 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. 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 bicycles on Facilities site. The shared service provider must be committed in writing to the use of the space in order to be eligible. PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards 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). 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. Miscellaneous Code Revisions Staff is also recommending the following set of changes to this section of City Code: • 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 • 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. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to Section 11.55 of the Zoning Code regarding Planned Unit Developments. Attachments Memo to Planning Commission, dated August 24, 2015 (5 pages) Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 24, 2015 (3 pages) PUD Amendment Process Comparison (4 pages) Proposed City Code Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development (18 pages) Existing City Code Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development (16 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 5 . Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: he proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibration .. 8. pact of Pests: The proposed use not anticipated to attract pests., 9. Vi al Impact: Due to the fact that t applicant does not intend o iv-designing the footp of of the building, but rather th= interior design and layout,,- '-ff does not anticipa any negative impacts on th visual quality of the pr./-rty. 10. Other Imp ts to the City and Resi ents: Staff does notafi"ticipate any other negative effe ,s caused by the propo ed use. Conditions: , 1. The site plan preps'': • by Paul Meyzi ArchitectsraYnd received on September 17, 2015, shall become a cz rt of this ap•' oval. 2. The Montessori school/c,;ldcare fac''ity sh-,; .e limited to 160 clients, or the amount specified by the °n, esota ��epa r ` ent of Health, whichever is less. 3. All necessary licenses shall s obtai; e•-' y the Minnesota Department of Health and/or the Minnesota Departm- at o' 'ducation before schooling and childcare operations may commence. Proo' ,• l such licensing shall be presented to the Planning Manager. 4. If any future changes to the site are ; ;de on the north side of the building, the owner will be required to re I've an, d i. eway entrances it does not intend to use for vehicle access and rep -ce the j with •,,..rb and gutter to match into the existing curb line. The owner will "so be re•'uired to\, end the sidewalk from the building to the north in order to nnect to t I- City side' ,-Ik on Country Club Drive. 5. The hours of normal r'•eration shal,be Monday ough Friday from 7 am to 6 pm with occasional ev: ts on evenings;and weekends.`,. 6. All improvement/o the building sh ll meet the City's ilding and Fire Code requirements. ' 7. All signage /st meet the requirem nts of the City's Sign ,\,•e (Section 4.20). 8. This appro �I is subject to all other `tate, federal, and local or: '. ances, regulations, or laws ; authority over this dev= opment. 9. Failure,+ comply with any of the to sof this permit shall be group• . for revo s'ion. Kluch asked if the City has ever appro,-ched MnDOT in order to get some ki of wel•.•me/gateway sign near this locatio other than the standard green street sig Cera St. -d that the Commission could sugg; -t to the City Council that they consider pla•'• • -Icome signs in gateway locations. 3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending PUD Requirements —Z000-102 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider modifications to PUD requirements when considering major, minor, or administrative amendments Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 6 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 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 between 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 significantly effects the original design and intention, or it requires more public review. A minor amendment would be required when a proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements, and is proposing less significant changes. An administrative amendment would be allowed when the proposed changes are items that are already reviewed administratively if the proposal were not a PUD. Cera asked if a proposed new building façade would be considered a minor or administrative PUD amendment. Goellner said that would probably be considered a minor amendment. Waldhauser referred to the proposed language regarding major amendments and asked if requiring a PUD amendment when there is a change in floor area from 5% to 10% is just because there have been so many nuisance minor amendments using the 5% cutoff. Goellner said yes, and added that 5% is quite low and really isn't the amount of change that should require more public review. Blum asked if the change in the floor area comes from the original PUD approval or from subsequent amendments. He added that he thinks an increase in floor area should have to refer to the original PUD proposal. Baker said he is struck by the words "significant" and "sensitive" because they are qualitative words that don't have a definition in the ordinance. He asked about past experience in deciding when something is significant. He said he understands the need for flexibility, but those words are without meaning leave him uncomfortable. Kluchka noted that in the PowerPoint presentation the word "design" was used, but in the proposed new code language 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 code language to make sure design is a consideration. Waldhauser referred to the list of things that would qualify as an administrative amendment 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 7 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 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. Baker referred to the language regarding the size of wetland buffers and asked what language is proposed to be removed from the current PUD code requirements. Goellner stated that the current PUD code requires a 25-foot buffer strip. She explained that the Engineering staff would like that standard removed from the PUD section of the City Code because they do their reviews based on other standards and the number in the PUD section was arbitrary. She added that wetland buffer issues are addressed 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 standards in the Comprehensive Plan. Zimmerman added that another reason to remove the standards from the PUD section of the City Code is so that the City can follow the State standards without having to amend the City Code every time standards change. Waldhauser asked if those other standards should be referenced in the City Code. Baker reiterated that he would like to City Code to match the State standard and require a 50-foot buffer even though that standard refers to agricultural land. Johnson suggested that the proposed new language be reordered so that the amendment process starts with administrative amendments then goes on to minor amendments, then to major amendments in order to help streamline the process. Segelbaum suggested the Commission discuss the proposed amenity point system. Baker questioned why the amenity point system isn't being proposed at this time for PUD amendments, only for new PUDs. Goellner stated that the PUD amendment proposals currently going through the process might not meet the amenity point requirements. Segelbaum said thinks requiring applicants to have five amenity points seems high. Baker said he would push for the requirement to be ten amenity points. Segelbaum said he is concerned about smaller projects and suggested that past proposals be reviewed to see what would have 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 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 8 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 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 pedestrian facilities and said the creation of public sidewalks should be added rather than just encouraging the use of public walkways. He referred to the amenity regarding enhanced stormwater management and asked if refers to engineered stormwater management, or to natural stormwater management such as rain gardens, ponds, etc. Waldhauser noted that the proposed language states that the design must serve as a visual amenity to the property. Cera said he would like to remove the amenities regarding decorative fencing and enhanced lighting. He said he would rather have no fencing and does not want to encourage more lighting. Zimmerman suggested the language be amended to address the quality of light fixtures. Blum asked if the amenity regarding bike and pedestrian connections was taken out. Goellner said yes because that is already a requirement elsewhere in the Code. Blum noted that the amenity regarding community gardens has a lot of points, but public open space seems more valuable because it serves more people. Kluchka agreed that the points for a community garden should be lowered. Segelbaum questioned what would qualify as open space. Zimmerman stated that partial points could be awarded. Kluchka suggested adding an amenity regarding mixed use. Cera stated that a mixed use that is available to the public should get five points. Kluchka suggested adding an amenity regarding wind power. Cera suggested saying alternative renewable energy rather than just wind. Kluchka referred to the amenity regarding LEED certification and asked if it has to be LEED "certified" or "qualified." Goellner said she would like the language to say certified. Segelbaum questioned who would determine between "certified" and "qualified." Cera said there are 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 9 Baker said he doesn't like the word unique. Kluchka suggested the words architecturally significant instead of unique. 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 point is to encourage affordable housing units. Blum suggested adding an amenity that would give points for offering underground parking, and also adding an amenity regarding covered walkways. Cera referred to the amenity regarding rooftop solar panels and suggested that the language be changed to require the system to cover a minimum of 50% of energy needs, rather than to cover 50% of the total roof area. Segelbaum said the suggested additional amenities seem worth studying further and that he would like to see some other amenities that would be worth one point. Cera referred to the items required to be submitted during the Final PUD process and stated that he would like a recycling plan added to the list. Baker referred to the proposed language regarding riparian buffer requirements (Subd. 6(A)(3)(a)) and reiterated that he wants the buffer requirement language in the PUD ordinance to be 50 feet which is consistent with the State requirements. Zimmerman stated that staff would like that language removed from the PUD section of City Code in order to reduce the number of conflicts and to be consistent with what the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission and the State require. Waldhauser suggested language be added to the City Code stating that the buffer requirements will be consistent with State requirements. Segelbaum agreed that the requirements should be consistent code-wide. Blum asked if language regarding snow removal requirements should be added. Zimmerman stated that there already are snow removal requirements listed in the PUD section of the Code. Blum questioned if the height of snow banks should be addressed. Zimmerman said that could be included as part of a snow storage plan. Kluchka asked 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 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 2015 Page 10 plan is not required as part of a PUD submittal. Waldhauser noted that some PUDs don't need to have a communication plan. 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 th Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning ppeals and other Meetings Zimme an gave an update on th: 3.9.4, the Xenia, Liberty Crossing, an ornerstone Creek ap:., ment projects. He stat:.• that the Comprehensive Plan S ms Statements have arrive, ,so the amendment process will be starting soon. 000* ' 5. Other Be;.iness • Council L'-ison Report No report wad iven. Cera stated that due to h' Ith con•itions •j- would like to resign as Chair. MOVED by Waldhauser, seco cde•ley Baker and motion carried unanimously to elect Segelbaum as Chair, and Cera t ice Chair. 6. Adjournment ,1 The meeting was a•.'•urned at 10:92 11 ‘\\S\ a } I I Joh luchka, Secretary Lisa Wittma , Administrative Assistant city of golden11 MEMORANDUM Vc�. �'� Department Physical Development 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: October 26, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goeliner, 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 bicycles 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 October 26, 2015 Page 10 5. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending PUD Requirements —Z000-102 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider modifications to PUD requirements when considering major, minor, or administrative amendments Goellner reminded the Commission that this item was discussed at their previous meetings on August 24 and September 28. She discussed the differences between the proposed new language regarding administrative PUD amendments and minor FUD amendments. Administrative amendments will be administrative in�natureand will ! generally have no underlying zoning requirements to refer to, they will nave no , significant impact to surrounding land uses, and they will be consistent with the:vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the POD asitwas originally approved. Minor amendments will also have to meet the underlying zoning requirements, have no significant impact to the surrounding land uses, and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and original`PUD, but will be required when there is a significant change to architectural plans or landscape plans in a way that alters the original intended function of the plans. Major PUD PUCiamendments would be required when the plans do not meet the underlying zoning requirements, have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, andare inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the original PUD;. Waldhauser referred to the proposed new Code,language regarding Minor PUD amendments and stated thatsequirement number 12 is subjective and it tells her that the original intent of a PUD when it is first created really needs to be spelled out so staff isn't guessing at what the original intent was. Goellner agreed that is a good idea. Johnson stated that the proposed new language has a section for Planning Commission approval during the Preliminary and Final review processes, but the proposed PUD amendment process states that there is only one Planning Commission review. Zimmerman stated that the creation of new PUDs will go before the Planning Commission twice, but.a PUD amendment application would only go to the Planning Commission one time. Goellner stated that she would clarify the language in the section Johnson referred to make sure it refers to amendments. Kluchka referred to the section in the staff report regarding major PUD amendments regardingsite°planning and building materials and questioned if the intent of what design is should be better clarified. Goellner stated that she doesn't have the background to know what other words to use to be more specific about design besides using the word significant. Kluchka said he has some ideas. Blum suggested Subdivision 10(A) and (B) not start with negatives because negatives are hard to substantiate and interpret. He suggested that Subdivision 10(A)(7) and 10(B)(12) be reworded as follows: "Any other change determined by the City Manager or his/her designee not to 1) to not have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 11 2) to be consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, and 3) is determined to be administrative in nature." Goellner referred to the proposed amenity points system and stated that it would be used only for new PUDs. Applicants would need five points from the designated list of amenities. Applicants may be awarded a portion of points for each amenity and may propose an amenity not on the list, but only for a maximum of two points. She showed a list of recent developments and how many points they would have earned,if the amenity points system was in place when they were approved. Kluchka referred,to giving points in the future for PUD amendments and asked if points would be given!for previoUsly constructed items, or if the points would only apply to the amendment occurring atthe time. Zimmerman said he thinks that as long as the PUD has enough points awhole that would be consistent with the intent. Johnson referred to the amenity regarding utilization of a renewable energy source and said the language uses both energy costs and the quantity.of energy. He asked about the differences between the two and what it is trying'to,measure 'Goellner stated that staff would look at the quantity of energy that is Onerated;quantii‘j cost it out. Kluchka asked if the annual energy expenditure Would be Measured through the cost. Goellner said yes because the cost of energy isl kn9wn. Cera questioned why therms or megahertz wouldn't be used. Waldhauser agreed that the cost would be variable. Goellner said she would change the word ".cert°*.to;`consumption" and talk to the City of Minneapolis to find out how they do their; measurement. Johnson referred to the amenity regarding community gardens and said he doesn't think it is practical to require a shed because there will be issues about who maintains it, who unlocks it, etc. He also questioned the language stating that the food produced shall be provided to those living or working in Golden Valley and wondered who would take responsibility and liability for that. Waldhauser said she thinks community gardens means a place where people can go to do some gardening, not so much as a food source. Segelbaurn.asked!ifthe Commission could vote separately on different sections of the proposed4angi.age. cibellner said no, it is one text amendment. Johnson said he would like to vote 'separately on the amenity section. Goellner said the Commission could vote to recommend approval of the entire ordinance, but strike Section J regarding amenity points. Blum referred to the affordable housing units amenity and asked if Area Median Income is defined. Goellner said yes, it is defined state wide and the income varies by area. Goellner noted that other changes have been made to the proposed ordinance including listing administrative amendments before minor and major amendments, requiring that wetland and pond riparian buffers comply with City, Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and State regulations, requiring a solid waste management Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 12 and recycling plan instead of a garbage and refuse plan, and including a communication plan as part of the development agreement when applicable. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he would like to see consistency between public art and creation and preservation of significant or historical architecture and would like them both to have 3 points on the amenity point table. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka suggested striking the last sentence in the community garden'amenity Which reads that the food produced shall be provided to those living or workingin Golden Valley. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka said he would like Subdivision 10(C)(2) to be amended as follows};Eliminate, diminish or compromise the original intent of and/or high quality of_site panning, architectural design, landscape+eg design, landscape Materials, 'or building materials. The Commissioners agreed. Waldhauser questioned why points would be given for decorative fencing. She said if there is fencing needed it should be required to be high quality. Segelbaum said he thinks there is a difference between highqualitianddecorative. Waldhauser said she would like the language regarding fencing rerhbvedl,Cera and Kluchka agreed. Segelbaum said he doesn't mind givingEone,point for an attractive fence. Waldhauser referred to the amenity paints regarding enhanced lighting and said she also wants the language totinclude energy efficient lighting and dark sky compliant lighting. Goellner said there are other parts of the Zoning Code that require all lighting to be dark sky compliant. f °'` Waldhauser referred to the amenity regarding enhanced landscaping and asked if the City requires plans to be signed by a landscape architect. Goellner said landscape plans for single family homes don't need to be signed by a landscape architect, but other types of properties do. Blum referred to the amenity regarding LEED certification and said he doesn't want applicants to get all of their points just by being LEED certified. He would like to encourage things that benefit more people. Goellner noted that sometimes other amenities just won't work. For example there might not be room for a plaza. Kluchka said the,Planning Commission needs to be clear about its intent. Johnson said he doesn't think the point system makes sense. He said he is concerned about cause and effect and that the City is going to get the least amount of amenities as possible and some developers might walk away. Blum referred to the amenity regarding electric car charging stations and questioned if more points should be given for stations that are just for Golden Valley residents, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 13 employees or customers or less points if they are for use by the general public. Goellner said adding the word "customers" and "general public" to the electric car charging category makes sense. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners if they were in favor of the amenity point system. Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waidhauser said yes. Johnson said no. Kluchka questioned what would happen if the Planning Commission really liked a PUD proposal that didn't have enough points. Goellner said that a PUD proposal would have to have five points to be approved. j: MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waidhauser and motion carried unanimously co recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code text amendment arriending PUD requirements. --S ort Recess-- •. Reports on Meetings of the ousing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning A •eals and other Meetings Zim -rman updated the Commissi• on the Bottineau LRT project and d that the CMC review the scope and cost estimate in the upcoming week . 7. Oth Business -' • Co lcil Liaison Report • No report was give` 7, • Tree & Lan.` ape R-virbments Zimmerman stated that he f;,, •ed in the agenda packet the proposed new tree and landscape requirements f-' th Commissioners to review. Goellner stated that if the Commissioners had c• 'Ment' or ,the proposed language they should get them to her soon. • Comp. hensive 'Ian Pros Overview Zimmerman =erred to the 'aff report in thsgenda packet and asked the Commissi• ers to look at t - websites listed i ;she staff report. He stated that at the next Plannin• =mission mee ,' g they will set priori -„s and begin to discuss the comp. ents of the Comprz ensive Plan and the ti ''''-table for the Comprehensive Plan Upd- -. 8. Adjournment Current Major PUD Amendment Process Estimated Time 6 Months (10 steps) • Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment Step One • Submit application and preliminary plans Step Two • Applicant holds a neighborhood meeting Step Three • All property owners within 500 ft of development are notified • Application is reviewed by Physical Development and Fire Departments Step Four • Staff reports are prepared • Planning Commission reviews preliminary plans at an informal public Step Five hearing • City Council reviews preliminary plans at public hearing Step Six • Applicant meets with City staff to review submission of final plans Step Seven • Submit application and final plans • Planning Commission reviews final plans at an informal public hearing Step Eight I • City Council reviews final plans at a public hearing Step Nine • • City Council approves Final Plat, PUD Permit, and Development Agreement Step Ten Proposed Major PUD Amendment Process Estimated Timeline 3 Months (7 steps) Step • Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment One Step • Submit application and final plans Two • Applicant holds a neighborhood meeting Step • All property owners within 500 ft of development are notified Three • Application is reviewed by Physical Development and Fire Departments Step . Staff reports are prepared Four Step • Planning Commission reviews final plan at an informal public hearing Five • City Council reviews final plans at a public hearing Step Six • City Council approves Final Plat, PUD Permit, and Development Agreement if Step applicable Seven Current and Proposed Minor PUD Amendment Process Estimated Timeline 2 Months (5 steps) • Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment Step One • Submit application and final plans Step Two • Application is reviewed by Physical Development and Fire Departments Step Three • Staff reports are prepared • City Council reviews final plans Step Four Proposed Administrative PUD Amendment Process Estimated Timeline 2 Weeks (3 steps) • Applicant meets with City staff to discuss PUD amendment Step One • Submit application and final plans Step Two Step • Staff reviews plans and updates PUD Permit Three C6 C < _ _ / / 5 $ CC) 5 2 7 J LL _ ro } \ 0 = ro _ / c c ± $ , o / V ( \ / \ { E u ƒ / \ V) % e E < E E E / t \ k 2 on taL)c \ W / co / / _ « -0 { ® e ° b - D k 2 < c < CL CL C ± 2 3 \ % » / 5 / .c 0 G > - CIO 2 .- - u 5 g - = 2 e u ._CO N » C \ \ % / / s- \ ƒ . o E / / % ,-- : $ k I- cc < 7 2 3 0_ z m z 0_ u 3 < ./ / / 2 / ° 6 2 2 8 ¥ - S / » 6 £ 6 » \ / / \ \ / C / 0 / / / 7 / / / / 13 c @ x / Q - N / 0 a cu @ ± - / \ / \ 2 @ 2 E E 0_ [ u / - \ O = 2 \ c , - v E 2 / 2 / = C / o > / o 4 2 E \ \ \ j \ C D • u - o s E a S E ƒ e ƒ o CU $ y / E / 2 / _ \ / \ E C § e « ° c / In 2 -0 6 _ _ C - / - - 2 = E o - \ U- 1- _ / y 2 = $ a o { \ ' ro c co e LU / c - -o ro o_ 13 CO' / \ ( � i ° / 0 / / � Z m ± ra S % \ o \ 0 \ \ \ E _ £ $ —1 t - _ } < o o \ ? 2 c = e o = 2 0 c ca t 2 H u a % u = 0 \ ' ' . 3 a_ o 0 0 u / 2 o 2 = D m \ s e m C tr) # - a .47.• m « c n3 0 \ / / ± c 9 E • k 2 < § a C o i < % \ / / Q rj w t 2 $ [ \ ° \ f 5 a = cC / u ' • — 5@ _ = c w y 4 ._ _ ' = E e = o E 2 V 2 = 0 k 2 / Z E \ R R J u- $ 0- - / / 13 u z / < = e s 2 2 < e 2 CC ct 2 ƒ / / 6 . d 6 2 $ / < a d - $ < a 3 . 2 13 / / 4 a d = 2 = _ . _ 2 U / / / 7 0 / 4.1 / � C • CU c E a) a) aiE v Q o- c a, 0) a, ,rn = E • a v (i; O CC a a) N 0 a) Lu a) D 0 2 E a -o ,.., 0 `-- -a c C 0) �^ c 0 co E C " v + C '+0 ;,i t-' a`.) c`o a) E C c cu cu ,O ttoo E Cl. a E Q E E v, a, -o a, 'c CCll 000 a c > 'O -c aJ C 0 7 4 E '4= v v C E E E `° - o a m . V, < < U Q U O C L L N N 00 Q) .-i O O rl -1 QC C c C — ra C C < OO 0 0 Q 2 2 0 0 N N N N .1 N � � Q .'O ra 'O Q CO U la 'O -0 _0 _0 _0 _0 _0 O = O O = M (i) V) V7 V) (A V) U) C a) E {J a_ C Le) 7 a1 v C awl E L to cc Q Q a C Q c 0 O ro v E a ro > o N cE i a 0 — U a) -' ro a C c }' v -c o c W E co °- C C NO C N -� 2J aa 3 ? 0 ,---6 a L7 3 w c v v a E E IQ a > C cu 2 o v a.) c I a) I LU +- v, ra �- LI) U a) cc a C a c Z C C -0 0 u_ v L14Lu N O O O /— +-, v - a •> v 0) a) C c C a O a O O) u @ u EL v Q c v " v u O >: > U a - c •- V1 -,-' Q ;� C N v N (n in Q ra E 0 (° r° o n Q Q N �° °° MD u aJ v c v) < a um .S 2 .E n D Q o Q Clir�i m c c +� ro +� +� v v E t E a a c ra ro o •- •- — - — Ln `-' LU r-I C C C 2 aJ ,,, .> > - .a . ro 0A '- t° ro Q V) 0 O O C C • — LO a) i i ro = 7 C o `J aJ tJ C C C Q C O c •- .- •� ii in U. v) a a I a a .9 U a Z a i% 'uLi) . .O Q - sr)0 U -0 'a < m U 0 w ti CJ 2 - < co U 0 w Li Lo Q CC .0 .0 .0 d cn v) v) in 0 0 0 § 11.55 r‘t 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 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: 3-26-15 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 required 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: 05-29-09 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 Golden 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. ). 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 11 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 P(oeobed 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 (or PUDs). 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. 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 (1) 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 PUD applications submitted after December 1, 2015, shall provide at least one (1) amenity or combination of amenities that total at least five (5) points from the Public Amenity Option table. An applicant may petition for credit for an amenity not included in the Public Amenity Option table that is not otherwise required in the underlying Zoning District; however, if the petition is granted, the amenity may only be allotted up to two (2) points. 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 proposed for the development. 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 Zoning District requirements. The space shall preserve the natural landscape while providing the opportunity for members of the public to interact with the natural habitat using walkways, benches, or other mechanisms. 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 least fifty percent (50%) of the annual energy demand 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 Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 6 of 19 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards building energy simulation. Renewable Energy Sources shall be in accordance with the underlying Zoning District and any other applicable requirements of the City Code. 4 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve Environmental Design LEED Platinum certification approved by a (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 requirements. 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 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. 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 Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 7 of 19 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards visible to the public. If located indoors, such space shall be clearly visible and easily accessible from adjacent sidewalks or streets. 3 Creation or Preservation of Creation, preservation, rehabilitation, or Significant/Historic restoration of designed historic landmarks Architecture or significant architectural features as a part of the development. 2 Enhanced Bicycle and Eligible facilities may include a 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 bikeways beyond what is otherwise required in the underlying Zoning District. 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 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 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 public. 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 eligible. 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 for the development. 1 Informational/Interpretive Permanent signs that inform the public of Displays unique aspects 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 Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 8 of 19 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards pollinators and 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 Station accessible to residents, employees, and/or the public. Subdivision 4. Procedures A. Qualifications. Application for a PUD or PUD amendment 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 an applicant 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 or major PUD amendment application process, 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 proposal, 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 City services. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 9 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. Informal 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. Recommendation. The findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council and may include recommended conditions and modifications to the Preliminary PUD Plan. 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. Action. 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, with or without conditions, 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: Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 10 of 19 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. c. Report. Prepare a report and refer it to the Planning Commission for review at the informal public hearing. 2. Planning Commission. a. Informal 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 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. c. Recommendation. The findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council and 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 findings and action of the Council may include plan amendments, approval, denial, or other action based on findings and deemed appropriate by the City Council such as referral back to the Planning Commission. 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 Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 11 of 19 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 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 this Section. 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. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 12 of 19 10. Other. An applicant may submit any additional information which may explain the proposed PUD. 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. A narrative statement explaining how the proposed PUD will meet the purpose and other provisions of this Section. 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 Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 13 of 19 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. 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 Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 14 of 19 7) A plan for maintenance of the facilities 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 Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 15 of 19 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 Development Agreement shall be signed by the applicant or property owner 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 this Section. 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 an approved final 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 in writing. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment (i) shall not qualify as a minor amendment or a major amendment, (ii) shall not have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, (iii) shall be consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, (iv) shall be administrative in nature, and (v) may only include changes to the PUD that: 1. Change a Utility Plan; 2. Change a Landscaping Plan; 3. Change an Interior Building Plan; 4. Change an Outdoor Lighting Plan; 5. Change a Grading/Erosion Control Plan; 6. Change an Architectural Elevation; and/or Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 16 of 19 7. Make other changes determined by the City Manager or his/her designee to be only administrative in nature. 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 (i) shall not qualify as an administrative amendment or a major amendment, (ii) shall be consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, and (iii) may only include changes to a PUD that: 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 or exceeds 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; and/or 12. Make other changes that do not cause the amendment to be considered a major amendment, as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 17 of 19 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 not qualify as an administrative amendment or a minor amendment, and may include changes to a PUD that: 1. Eliminate, diminish or be disruptive to the preservation and protection of sensitive site features; 2. Eliminate, diminish or compromise the original intent and/or the high quality of site planning, architectural design, landscape design, landscape materials, 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; and/or Golden Valley City Code (Proposed) Page 18 of 19 15. Make other changes that do not cause the amendment to be considered an administrative amendment or a minor amendment, as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. 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. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 584, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development, Regarding Amendments and Public Amenities The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 11.55 Planned Unit Development is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 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. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 (or PUDs). 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. 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. 3. Efficient - Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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. 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 Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 (1) 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: 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. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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. J. Public Amenities. All PUD applications submitted after December 1, 2015, shall provide at least one (1) amenity or combination of amenities that total at least five (5) points from the Public Amenity Option table. An applicant may petition for credit for an amenity not included in the Public Amenity Option table that is not otherwise required in the underlying Zoning District; however, if the petition is granted, the amenity may only be allotted up to two (2) points. 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 proposed for the development. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards 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 Zoning District requirements. The space shall preserve the natural landscape while providing the opportunity for members of the public to interact with the natural habitat using walkways, benches, or other mechanisms. 4 Utilization of a Renewable Use of a photovoltaic or wind electrical system, Energy Source solar thermal system and/or a geothermal heating and cooling system for at least fifty percent (50%) of the annual energy demand 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. Renewable Energy Sources shall be in accordance with the underlying Zoning District and any other applicable requirements of the City Code. 4 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve LEED Environmental Design Platinum certification approved by a LEED (LEED) Platinum Accredited Professional (LEED-AP) by a date Certification 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 requirements. 3 Leadership in Energy and The proposed development shall achieve LEED Environmental Design Gold certification approved by a LEED Accredited (LEED) Gold Certification 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 Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards 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. 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. 3 Creation or Preservation of Creation, preservation, rehabilitation, or Significant/Historic restoration of designed historic landmarks or Architecture significant architectural features as a part of the development. 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 beyond what is otherwise required in the underlying Zoning District. 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 Public reflecting pond, a children's play feature, or a fountain shall be located where it is highly visible and useable by the public. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 PUD Amenity Options Points Amenity Standards 1 Shared Bicycle and Vehicle Accommodation for shared vehicles or shared Facilities bicycles on site. The shared service provider must be committed in writing to the use of the space in order to be eligible. 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 for the development. 1 Informational/Interpretive Permanent signs that inform the public of unique Displays aspects 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 pollinators and 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, employees, and/or the public. Subdivision 4. Procedures A. Qualifications. Application for a PUD or PUD amendment 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 an applicant 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 or major PUD amendment application process, 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 proposal, discuss the concepts and basis for the plan being developed and to obtain information and suggestions from the neighborhood. D. Preliminary PUD Review. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 City services. 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. Informal 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. Recommendation. The findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council and may include recommended conditions and modifications to the Preliminary PUD Plan. 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. Action. 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, with or without conditions, 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. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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. c. Report. Prepare a report and refer it to the Planning Commission for review at the informal public hearing. 2. Planning Commission. a. Informal 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 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. c. Recommendation. The findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council and 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 findings and action of the Council may include plan amendments, approval, denial, or other action based on findings and deemed appropriate by the City Council such as referral back to the Planning Commission. 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 Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 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 this Section. 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. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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. A narrative statement explaining how the proposed PUD will meet the purpose and other provisions of this Section. 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. 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 Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 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. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 Development Agreement shall be signed by the applicant or property owner 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. Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 this Section. 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 an approved final 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 in writing. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment (i) shall not qualify as a minor amendment or a major amendment, (ii) shall not have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, (iii) shall be consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, (iv) shall be administrative in nature, and (v) may only include changes to the PUD that: 1. Change a Utility Plan; 2. Change a Landscaping Plan; 3. Change an Interior Building Plan; 4. Change an Outdoor Lighting Plan; 5. Change a Grading/Erosion Control Plan; 6. Change an Architectural Elevation; and/or 7. Make other changes determined by the City Manager or his/her designee to be only administrative in nature. 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 (i) shall not qualify as an administrative amendment or a major amendment, (ii) shall be consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, and (iii) may only include changes to a PUD that: 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; Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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 or exceeds 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; and/or 12. Make other changes that do not cause the amendment to be considered a major amendment, as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. 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 not qualify as an administrative amendment or a minor amendment, and may include changes to a PUD that: 1. Eliminate, diminish or be disruptive to the preservation and protection of sensitive site features; 2. Eliminate, diminish or compromise the original intent and/or the high quality of site planning, architectural design, landscape design, landscape materials, 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; Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 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; and/or 15. Make other changes that do not cause the amendment to be considered an administrative amendment or a minor amendment, as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. 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. 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 Ordinance 584 - continued November 17, 2015 (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. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of November, 2015. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city of golden MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 17, 2015 Agenda Item 6. A. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Project Summary At the November 12 Corridor Management Committee meeting, the Committee voted to include the Golden Valley Road station park and ride, trails and trailhead, and intersection improvements in the revised scope at an estimated cost of$8 million. The revised scope and cost estimate (now at $1.496 billion) was approved and will be sent to the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Committee for consideration on November 23. The full Met Council is expected to take action on this item on December 9. The calendar of meetings remaining in the Project Development phase of work is listed below: Nov 23 Met Council Transportation Committee recommendation on revised project scope/cost estimate Dec 9 Met Council Action on revised project scope/cost estimate; authorize Municipal Consent process The Project Office has indicated that Issue Resolution Teams will continue to meet regularly going forward to begin to address issues of design - especially around the stations and the station platforms. Attachments • Sochacki Park Response to BPO Construction Staging (2 pages) Recommended Action Receive and file METRO Blue Line Extension Update. November 3, 2015 Kathryn O'Brien Assistant Director - Environmental & Agreements Blue Line Extension Project Office 5514 West Broadway Avenue, Suite 200 Crystal, MN 55428 Dear Ms. O'Brien, Ahead of our next Blue Line Extension (LRT) IRT meeting on November 5, 2015, staff from Robbinsdale, Golden Valley and Three Rivers Park District have discussed preliminary conditions regarding Sochacki Park's use for construction staging. Please review at your convenience - the collective group will be available to discuss this Thursday. 1. As required under 4(f) rules, all non-park construction staging alternatives must be explored and proven to not be feasible. 2. Prior to seeking municipal approval of the use of Sochacki, the Bottineau Project Office (BPO) must develop and implement a public engagement process focused on Sochacki Park that outlines the potential impacts of the LRT use of Sochacki Park, and how those impacts could be mitigated. At a minimum this engagement process must include: a. At least two public meetings on this subject, to be led by BPO staff. b. Notification of the meetings sent to all property owners living within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of Sochacki Park/Mary Hills/Rice Lake parks complex, with additional notifications posted in the local newspapers. c. Clear understanding that the use of Sochacki Park is proposed solely by the BPO, and is being proposed only due to a lack of feasible alternatives. 3. The Sochacki Park Concept Plan/Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) has a strong purpose statement that must be adhered to for all BPO planning and use of Sochacki Park. The statement is as follows: Purpose. The Parties [Robbinsdale, Golden Valley and Three Rivers Park District] seek to provide a recreational setting and opportunity for visitors to experience wilderness in the city - a nature-based, parkland-themed on how nature restores balance, with an emphasis on enhancing existing facilities, water quality improvements, environmental education and outdoor recreation programming. 4. The staging area as currently proposed is too impactful on the park and the park users, and is not acceptable. The preferred alternative is to focus the staging area in the northern triangle of Sochacki Park, bounded on the south by the current interior parking lot, and to the west and east by the park boundaries. 5. Sochacki Park cannot be closed to public use by pedestrians and bicyclists. This will potentially require development of an interim trail adjacent to the western boundary of the staging area. 6. If the BPO uncovers any environmental contamination in its use of Sochacki, the BPO is responsible for all required environmental remediation. 7. There must be an approved environmental mitigation and remediation plan prior to start of work. Approval will be sought from the Sochacki Park JPA Partnership, The Bassett Creek WMO, the Cities of Robbinsdale and Golden Valley, and any other agencies involved in environmental regulations in this area. Components of the plan must include: a. Mitigation/remediation of stormwater impacts. b. Mitigation/remediation of watershed & wetland impacts. c. Revegetation of the entire eastern boundary of Sochacki Park, done such that it will provide a sufficient visual and sound buffer between the park and the LRT corridor. 8. In return for the anticipated two years of significant disruption to the public use and enjoyment of Sochacki Park, the BPO agrees to incorporate into its base plans the following items: a. A grade-separated trail connection from the existing paved trail in Sochacki to the existing paved trail in Theodore Wirth Regional Park, with a tie-in to the Bassett Creek Regional Trail along Golden Valley Road, and to the LRT Station if one is developed in that area. b. Redevelopment of the staging area to include: i. Off-leash dog area, ii. Paved parking area, iii. Paved road to the parking lot sufficient for two way travel, and iv. Separate paved trail extending from the current northern terminus of the paved trail to the northern entrance to the park. c. Revegetation of the staging area using a revegetation plan approved by the Sochacki Park JPA Partnership. d. If feasible: i. Removal of the berm that currently separates North Rice Lake and Grimes Pond. ii. Development of an 8-foot wide paved trail that goes around the newly rejoined water bodies, which includes the necessary grade-separated underpasses beneath the railroad and LRT, and a public access to the trail from the eastern neighborhood around Grimes Pond. Respectfully submitted, Sochacki Park Joint Powers Partnership Partners city 11 1� golderr1 va 11 e�T ThreeRivers Itubi111111lal1' PARK DISI RIC Tom Marshall Rick Birno Jonathan Vlaming City of Robbinsdale City of Golden Valley Three Rivers Park District Director of Administrative Director of Parks & Associate Superintendent of & Recreation Services Recreation Planning, Design and Technology