Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-03-16 CC Agenda Packet (entire)
AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber May 3, 2016 6:30 pm 1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES A.Pledge of Allegiance B.Roll Call C.Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment 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 so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A.Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting April 19, 2016 3-6 B.Approval of City Check Register 7 C.Licenses: 1. Approve On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Sodexo America, LLC at General Mills 8 2. Gambling Premises License Application - Hopkins Youth Hockey Association 16-26 9-10 D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - April 11, 2016 11-20 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - March 22, 2016 21-26 3. Environmental Commission - January 25, 2016 27-28 4. Joint Water Commission - January 6, 2016 29-32 E.Letters, Emails and/or Petitions: 1. Email from Anne Saffert Regarding Resignation from Open Space and Recreation Commission 33 F.Accept Environmental Commission 2015 Annual Report and Approve 2016 Proposed Work Plan 34-36 G.Board/Commission Reappointments 37-38 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Public Hearing - Amendments to General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map - 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North - Lawrence Johanns and Van Tran, Applicants - Item postponed from April 5 City Council Meeting 39-70 B.Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 597 - Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map - Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Boulevard) - City of Golden Valley, Applicant 16-27 71-89 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Call for Public Hearing for the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka 16-28 90-93 B.Authorize Issuance and Sale of:94-98 1. $1,290,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A 16-29 2. $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates Of Indebtedness, Series 2016B 16-30 3. $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016C 16-31 C.METRO Blue Line Extension Update 99-102 D.Second Consideration - Ordinance #594 - Amending Section 8.11: Special Events, Approve Special Event Policy and Summary of Ordinance for Publication 16-22 - Item postponed from April 5 City Council Meeting 103-136 E.Announcements of Meetings 137-140 1. Future Draft Meeting Agendas: Council/Manager May 10, 2016, Special Council/Manager May 17, City Council May 17 and City Council June 7, 2016 F.Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT c1ty 0 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES golden, CITY COUNCIL MEETING all GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA April 19, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:38 pm. 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1 B. Roll Call Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Steve Schmidgall and Andy Snope. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Garry and City Clerk Luedke. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of April 19, 2016, as submitted and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the consent agenda of April 19, 2016, as revised: removal of 3171-Resignation from Roxanne Sienko from the Civil Service Commission and 3F2-Resignation from Nabil Pruscini from the Human Rights Commission and the motion carried. 3A. Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April 5, 2016. 3131. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 3132. Approve Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 3C1. Receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota Foundation. 3C2. Receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for School of Engineering and Arts PTA. 3C3. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for the Golden Valley Animal Humane Society for Saturday, May 7, 2016. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - March 14, 2016 2. Environmental Commission - December 14, 2015 3. Human Service Fund - February 8, 2016 4. Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission - February 29, 2016 3E1. Award contract with Fahrner Asphalt Sealers, LLC in the amount of$50,200.00 for the 2016 Crack Sealing Project No. 16-15. 3E2. Award contract for 2016 Fire Suppression Project (Golf Maintenance Building) to the lowest responsible contractor, LifeSaver Fire Protection, for the amount of $23,840.00. 3E3. Approve purchase of an Aerial Bucket Truck from Northside Ford Truck Sales Inc. for $83,690.00 and an Aerial Bucket, truck body, and installation from ABM Equipment, Inc. for a purchase price of $109,961, less NJPA discount and trade in for a total remittance price of $158,809.47. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- April 19, 2016 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3€ . 3F2L. AGGept resignation from Nabil PFUSGini from the Human Rights Go . . 3G. Adopt Resolution 16-23 adopting a new Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support Policy. 3H. Approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. 31. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the First Amendment to the Funding Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the Toward Zero Deaths Grant Program. 3J. Approve the following Board/Commission appointments: Civil Service Commission Andrew Wold 1 year term - expires May 1, 2017 Ralph Schwartz 2 year term - expires May 1, 2018 Open Space and Recreation Commission Kim Sandberg 2 year term - expires May 1, 2018 Human Services Fund Carolyn Kaehr 3 year term - expires May 1, 2018 3K. Proclamation for National Volunteer Recognition Day. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3F1. Accept Resignation from Roxanne Sienko from the Civil Service Commission Council thanked Ms. Sienko for her service to the City of Golden Valley. MOTION made Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to accept the resignation from Roxanne Sienko from the Civil Service Commission and the motion carried. 3F2. Accept Resignation from Nabil Pruscini from the Human Rights Commission Council thanked Mr. Pruscini for his service to the City of Golden Valley. MOTION made Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to accept the resignation from Nabil Pruscini from the Human Rights Commission and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4A. Public Hearing - Adopt a Street Reconstruction Plan and Authorize the Issuance and Sale of Street Reconstruction Bonds (Douglas Drive) Engineer Seaburg and Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the proposed street reconstruction plans and the sale of the street reconstruction bonds. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- April 19, 2016 4A. Public Hearing - Adopt a Street Reconstruction Plan - continued MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Resolution16-24, adopting a Street Reconstruction Plan and authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the Street Reconstruction Bonds upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Schmidgall, Snope, Fonnest and Clausen and the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Authorize City to Participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program Physical Development Director Nevinski presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Resolution 16-25, authorizing the City of Golden Valley to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen, Snope, Schmidgall and Fonnest and the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6B. Announcements of Meetings A Coffee With A Cop event will be held on April 21, 2016, from 9 to 10:30 am at the McDonald's located at 720 Winnetka Avenue. Some Council Members may attend the Metro Cities Annual meeting on April 21, 2016, at 5:30 pm at the University Club located at 420 Summit Avenue in St. Paul. The Spring Neighborhood Watch Meeting will be held on April 21, 2016, at 6:30 pm at the Golden Valley Police Department. Week one of the 2016 Brush Pickup Program will begin on April 25, 2016, in the area north of Highway 55 and west of Douglas Drive. The 2016 Open Book Meeting will be held on April 26, 2016, from 4 to 6 pm in the Council Chambers. The Robbinsdale State of the District Address will be held on April 26, 2016, at 6:30 pm at FAIR School located at 3915 Adair Avenue North. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Business Council meeting on April 28, 2016, from 7:30 to 9 am at the Second Harvest Heartland. The 2016 Step To It Challenge will run from May 1 through May 28, 2016. Week two of the 2016 Brush Pickup Program will begin on May 2, 2016, in the area north of Highway 55 and east of Douglas Drive. The next City Council meeting will be held on May 3, 2016, at 6:30 pm. The 2016 Bike Rodeo will be held on May 4, 2016, from 6 to 8 pm at Sonnesyn Elementary School located at 3421 Boone Avenue in New Hope. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- April 19, 2016 6B. Announcements of Meetings - continued Week three of the 2016 Brush Pickup Program will begin on May 9, 2016, in the area south of Highway 55. 6C. Mayor and Council Communication Mayor Harris updated Council on continued discussions that he and Council Member Snope have had with state legislators regarding the issues on the City of Golden Valley legislative priorities list. 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:13 pm. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk c ao e ' va r f �" �., ..F N U fl1jy,1i6i <!> v e y Administrative Services De artment 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. City of valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Sodexo America, LLC at General Mills Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary Sodexo America, LLC has applied for an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. Currently, Sodexo America has been supplying the food service within two locations at the General Mills complex located at One General Mills Boulevard. General Mills requested Sodexo America apply for an on- sale intoxicating liquor license for their location. The City Attorney has reviewed the application, and has found the application documents are in order and complete. The Golden Valley Police Department was completed the background investigation and has found no reason to deny the license. Recommended Action Motion to approve the issuance of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Sodexo America LLC located at One General Mills Blvd through June 30, 2016. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Gambling Premises License Application - Hopkins Youth Hockey Association Prepared By Chief Jason Sturgis Sergeant Christine Sloat Summary Hopkins Youth Hockey Association submitted an application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling License. Hopkins Youth Hockey Association would operate the pull-tab booth and bingo at JJ’s Clubhouse located at 6400 Wayzata Boulevard. Documents received from the applicant show that the Minnesota Gambling Control Board currently licenses the organization. There gambling manager has changed to Angela Quale. An investigation was conducted by the Police Department reference this application. This investigation included checks with the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. At this time, no negative information was uncovered by the investigation. The applicant has met statutory and City Code requirements for a lawful gambling license. Attachments •Resolution Approving Issuance of a Premises Permit for the Conduct of Lawful Gambling - Hopkins Youth Hockey Association (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Approving Issuance of a Premises Permit for the Conduct of Lawful Gambling - Hopkins Youth Hockey Association. Resolution 16-26 May 3, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR THE CONDUCT OF LAWFUL GAMBLING (HOPKINS YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 provide for the licensing of lawful gambling by the State Gambling Control Board ("Board"); and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premises permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; said resolution shall have been adopted within 60 days of the date of the application was received by the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Golden Valley that the applicant listed below does meet the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit and the application is hereby approved: (Name and Address of Organization) Hopkins Youth Hockey Association, 25 Ninth Avenue North, P. O. Box 458, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 (Name and Address of Site where Premises Permit Sought) JJ's Clubhouse, 6400 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55426 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. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 11, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 29, 2016, Joint Planning, Environmental and Open Space and Recreation Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 29, 2016, minutes as submitted. March 14, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Blum referred to the 7th paragraph on page 8 and noted that the word "now" should be changed to the word "not." Johnson referred to the 6th paragraph on page 15 and stated that the word "natural" should be removed from the first sentence. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 14, 2016, minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) — CPAM-58 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Residential—Low Density. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) — ZO09-03 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 2 Purpose: To rezone the property from Right-of-Way to Single Family Zoning District (R-1). The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 2 and 3 were combined. Goellner referred to a location map of the subject property and explained that it was originally platted to allow for a single-family home, and that there was a single family home on the property until it was demolished in 1970. She stated that MnDOT purchased the property in the 1960s for the Highway 12 project and recently sold it in an auction to the highest bidder. She added that MnDOT sold the property "as is" assuming that the land will be used for a single-family home as it had been in the past. Goellner explained that the lot is buildable for a single-family home because it is over 80 feet in width and more than 10,000 square feet in size. She added that it would not be eligible for a lot split because there is not enough width for two lots and MnDOT has no intention of selling any of the adjacent right-of-way in order to obtain the necessary lot width. Goellner stated that staff is recommending that the property be rezoned and re-guided to Single Family, Low Density Residential, but there are other options. These options include guiding and zoning it as park/open space or leaving the property as right-of-way. The City's Director of Parks and Recreation has stated that this property is not part of the city-wide comprehensive parks plan, and there are concerns about maintenance costs. The Public Works Department has stated that the City would be open to pursuing a trail or access easement for the existing trail located south of the subject property, but not a path through the subject property. She added that the risk of leaving the property as right-of- way according to the City Attorney is that the new owner could build a home without being subject to R-1 zoning restrictions such as: setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Waldhauser asked Goellner to point out the location of the existing trail south of the subject property. Goellner referred to an aerial photo of the area and noted where an access easement could be located. Baker questioned why an easement would be needed. Goellner stated that putting an easement in place would maintain the access into Theodore Wirth Park. Baker stated that there is a new trail that crosses the back corner of this property and questioned if the Minneapolis Park Board knows that this property has been sold, or that it is proposed to be rezoned and re-guided. Goellner stated that Minneapolis will review the proposed Land Use Map amendment as part of the Metropolitan Council review process. Blum asked staff if they know the maintenance costs if this parcel were to be a park or open space. Zimmerman said he didn't know the exact costs, but if the City owns the property it would have to be brought up to code with ADA requirements, trash cans, benches, etc. He added that the City would like to have additional parkland further west toward the Good Day cafe, but not in this location. Segelbaum questioned if making this property parkland could be considered a taking. Goellner said that staff did not consider that, but thinks what is being proposed is the best use for the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 3 Johnson asked how someone could build a house without having to follow any of the zoning requirements if the City were to do nothing with this property. Zimmerman stated that this is a unique case because there is no zoning designation on this property. He said the new owner could take possession of the property and there could either be a freeze to allow for no development until the process is figured out, or the new owners could potentially build whatever they want because there is no zoning in place. The question is if the old zoning designation would carry over. The City Attorney feels there is some risk in not doing anything with the property. Blum asked if the environmental impacts or the effects on the existing habitat have been considered and added that this vacant parcel does provide a barrier for the neighborhood. Zimmerman said he spoke with the staff liaison to the Environmental Commission and he said there are a couple of areas where the City could expand open space in order to preserve environmental features, but the City has been operating under the assumption that this property would go back to being a single-family parcel at some point. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Chuck Malkerson, 1109 Tyrol Trail, said he has lived in Golden Valley for 15 years, he loves Golden Valley, and it has been a wonderful place to raise a family. He stated that Mr. Zimmerman has been very helpful and has spent a lot of time answering his questions, and he has been pleased with the process. He said in his career he's had opportunities to deal with Comprehensive Plans, and land use and environmental issues but that this is a peculiar case. He said the end user has not shown up or discussed anything with the neighborhood and he doesn't know what is going on. He said he can't get any owner information until a deed is filed and this lack of information leads to suspicion and fear because they just don't know anything. They don't know if the buyer knows what he is getting into because this property is a blank slate with no zoning on it. He said he thinks it's fabulous that Golden Valley has been recognized as a "tree city" for 29 years and discussed the various pocket parks and small areas of open space and nature space in the City. He noted that one of the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to pursue and acquire land for open space and trails and said it would be possible to make a decision about this property as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update. He referred to past Planning Commission meetings where the Commission discussed easements and other ways to protect trees, but none of those things have been considered for this property. He asked if a house is built on this lot if there is any way the neighbors can be involved in requiring things above and beyond what is required in the Zoning Code. He stated that past proposals have also required applicants to hold a neighborhood meeting, which has not happened in this case and asked that there be a neighborhood meeting because the City and the neighborhood don't have enough information or details. He stated that this property has been a park for 50 years and that there has been a friendly trail through this lot that has provided everybody access to Theodore Wirth Park. He stated that the owner of the house at 1101 Tyrol Trail, Dr. Leo De Souza passed away and his wife Dolly is now in an assisted living facility and that their family would be interested in hearing and participating in what is going on with this property. He said he had an encounter with the buyer who was amazed that MnDOT had a wooded lot for sale, but that is all the information he got so it is not clear what is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 4 happening. He said Dr. De Souza's family would like this property to be a park and he would contribute $5,000 to help defray the City's costs. He said he would like any decisions regarding this property postponed in order to have a neighborhood meeting to get a handle on who bought this property and what they want to do with it. Tom Lockhart, 909 Parkview Terrace, said this neighborhood has taken their lumps with developers going beyond what they're supposed to do. Those properties are already built so there is nothing they can do about it now, but he is suspicious about what will go on this property. He said he wants there to be a restriction in place that allows only one residential property. Mike Docter, 1122 Tyrol Trail, questioned if something could really be built on this property without permits. He said he can see why the City would want to zone this R-1, but it has been a nice buffer for the neighborhood. He asked if someone owns the property if they have to clean it up or if it can be left as is. He said he would also contribute $5,000 for a park. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked if the City has the option to wait until the Comprehensive Plan update in 2018 to address this property. Goellner said the City could wait, but there might be litigation from the new property owner. Segelbaum agreed that waiting could create a dispute. Waldhauser referred to the question about tree conservation easements and said her recollection of past discussions is that the City is not in a position to put in place or enforce those types of easements or agreements. Zimmerman agreed and stated that the City typically requires an easement only if there are high quality trees or habitat to protect. Waldhauser asked why a neighborhood meeting wasn't held. Zimmerman stated that hearing notices were sent to properties within 500 for this public hearing. He explained that this proposal didn't trigger the need for a neighborhood meeting according to the recently amended neighborhood meeting policy. He added that this proposal is also unique because there isn't really an applicant to organize a neighborhood meeting. Goellner added that the neighbors were interested in having a neighborhood meeting in order to talk to the new property owner, but the owner of the property won't be known until mid-May when the deed is recorded. Waldhauser stated that a question was asked about opportunities neighbors would have to influence what the new property owner does with the property. She said she doesn't think the neighbors would have any influence because they aren't the property owner. Segelbaum added that there are a number of requirements in the R-1 Zoning District that the new owner would have to follow. He asked Zimmerman about the requirements regarding tree removal. Zimmerman stated that a certain percentage of significant trees can be removed before mitigation is required. Goellner added that it is likely the new Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 5 owner would have to do mitigation, but that would be reviewed during the building permit process. Segelbaum asked about Zoning Code changes since the Parkview Terrace subdivisions were approved. Zimmerman explained that in 2008 many changes were made to the Code including larger setbacks, articulation and height requirements. Waldhauser referred to the concern about splitting the property. Zimmerman stated that another 60 feet of width would be required to divide the property into two lots and he doesn't think MnDOT, the Park Board, or the City would be interested in selling property to allow for a subdivision of the land. Waldhauser asked if the new owner will be required to clean up the property even if they don't build on it. Zimmerman said until the new owner builds a house the property can be left as is unless there is a safety issue. Segelbaum asked if the easement area located to the south of this property, used for access to the park, is relevant to this discussion. Zimmerman stated that the property would remain right-of-way and that there could be an opportunity to work with MnDot and the Park Board to pursue a more permanent trail or access point. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that an easement be placed on the property to the south. Baker stated that they should find out if there is a relationship with the Park Board and MnDOT because there is an existing access area. He added that if a relationship exists, the City wouldn't have to do anything. Goellner stated that if the Commission wants to recommend that the property to the south be used for access she suggests that it be addressed separately and not as a condition of approval or denial for the rezoning/re-guiding of the subject property. Baker said he is sympathetic with the residents who want to have a neighborhood meeting. He suggested that a neighborhood meeting be held to give them an opportunity to voice their concerns, or this proposal should wait until the City knows who the owner is. Zimmerman reiterated that not all planning proposals require a neighborhood meeting. Blum said he thinks there is a legal and statutorily compliant use being proposed. The proposed use is a mirror image of its past use as low density residential and is really a restoration of the lot to its previous use, not a new or different use. He said the existing trail access to the south of the subject property does not seem to be changing as a result of this proposal. He said he does have concerns about keeping the access to the park because it is used by the neighborhood and is a very nice trail head, so he does not want to see that access closed off. He said he is also concerned about the environmental impact on the property and he would like more details about the maintenance costs if the property were to become a park or open space. Baker agreed and said he wants to guarantee that there is a more permanent access to the park and not just currently an access that MnDOT could close. Kluchka agreed and said that access is a real jewel and wants to focus on keeping it. Johnson stated that if the access is kept informal it could be kept as is. If it is formalized there may be more liability. He said it amazes him that the State can thrust an un-zoned property on the City to make the City deal with it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 6 Kluchka asked if the City could have rezoned the property prior to its sale. Zimmerman said there was a small amount of time that the City knew the property was for sale. He explained that the property hasn't been on the Zoning Map or Land Use Map for many years. It has just been designated as right-of-way. Baker asked if the original zoning on the property was ever formally removed. Goellner stated that there is no evidence that it was ever removed. Baker asked about the risks if the property is not rezoned. Zimmerman stated that if there is no zoning on the property, technically there are no rules or requirements. He added that the City would like to avoid any potential issues by zoning it R-1. Waldhauser said she is inclined to zone the property R-1. It seems to fit in nicely with the neighborhood and meets all of the dimensional requirements. There would also be some certainty as far as what can be built on this property. She said as far as natural habitat the neighborhood still has all of Theodore Wirth Park on the back side of this property. She added that she is also interested in keeping the existing park access/connection located to the south. Baker asked if the excess right-of-way with the existing park access could be incorporated into the subject property. Zimmerman said MnDOT would have to be open to allowing someone else to own and maintain it, so he thinks it makes sense to work with MnDOT and the Park Board on keeping that access. Goellner added that with a noise wall located to the south, it is unlikely MnDOT would sell any of the right-of-way. Segelbaum said the public is concerned about the unknowns in this situation and that he thinks the best route is to rezone the property to R-1 to prevent the unknowns from happening. He said he would also like to let the City Council know that the Planning Commission would like to maintain the trail/park access. Waldhauser added that if the remaining MnDOT right-of-way property were offered for sale, and this property hadn't been developed yet, there is a possibility the two could be put together and then subdivided so rezoning this property now would end that. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Residential-Low Density for Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd). MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to rezone Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) from Right-of-Way to Single Family Residential (R-1). --Short Recess-- 4. Discussion Item —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District—ZO00-104 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 7 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To discuss modifying the language regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot width and adding other missing regulations to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. Goellner stated that staff is proposing amendments to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District because the dimensional standards were not addressed in 2008 when major amendments were made to all Residential Zoning Districts. Demographics and housing demands are changing, and duplexes are not a common product in this market. Goellner stated that the suggested modifications can clarify the purpose for the R-2 Zoning District, they can accommodate new construction that meets market demand and a variety of housing needs, and they can provide regulations that are currently only in the R-1 Zoning District. She explained that small-lot, single-family residential development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of housing options and discussed several other cities' requirements for this type of housing. Goellner summarized the staff recommendations including: requiring a lot size of 6,000 square feet for single-family homes, a minimum lot width of 50 feet for single-family homes, the same height requirements, side yard setbacks, side wall articulation, structure width, paved area coverage and setbacks, outdoor storage, deck requirements, and home occupation requirements as lots in the R-1 Zoning District, and also the consideration of a maximum garage width. She noted that there are 27 properties in the City affected by this proposal and all of them would meet the lot width and size recommendations being proposed. Goellner referred to the densities allowed in each residential zoning district and explained that the stated purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to allow for up to 5 units per acre, however due to the lot size requirements it really only allows 2-4 units per acres. The stated purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to allow for up to 8 units per acre, but the lot size requirements for two-family dwellings really allows 6 units per acre and 3 units per acre for single-family dwellings. The stated purpose of the R-3 Zoning District is to allow up to 10-12 units per acre, and the stated purpose of the R-4 Zoning District is to allow for over 12 units per acre. She stated that staff is recommending 10,000 square feet for a minimum lot size for two-family dwellings to provide up to 8 units per acre, and 6,000 square feet for a minimum lot size for single-family dwellings which provides up to 7 units per acre. Staff is also recommending that the lot width be 100 feet minimum for two-family dwellings, and 50 feet minimum for single-family dwellings. Goellner discussed the idea of a maximum garage width and noted that there are currently no regulations in any residential zoning district regarding garage width. She stated there are anticipated issues if lots are allowed to be narrower and said staff is proposing that garages be limited to a maximum of 22 feet in width for single-family dwellings in the R-2 Zoning District. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 8 Goellner summarized the proposed modifications and stated that they could position the R-2 Zoning District more appropriately with the regulations of all residential zoning districts, they could provide opportunity to build single-family homes at the same density as two-family homes, and they would add regulations that are missing, but assumed to be applicable to the R-2 Zoning District. Segelbaum asked if the City is required to have a certain amount of R-2 zoned properties. Goellner stated that 5 units per acre is what the Metropolitan Council requires, but the current Zoning Code only allows 2 to 3 units per acre. Zimmerman added that the Metropolitan Council will review the City's Comprehensive Plan in order to determine if Golden Valley can meet its population growth. Baker asked if the City adopts the proposed R-2 amendments if it will then cause pressure to create more R-2 properties, or if the City is covered with the use of the R-4 Zoning District. Zimmerman explained that the proposed amendments are less about density and more about housing demand and offering a variety in housing styles. Baker noted that the only block of R-2 zoned properties is on Harold Avenue and he knows how hard it has been to develop those properties. Goellner stated that she noticed the requirements in the R-2 Zoning District need to be aligned with the density allowed in that district. Zimmerman added that the City Council wants to accommodate some more density in the appropriate places but the tools the City has don't really work so the R-2 Zoning District needs some updating and clarifying. Waldhauser stated that the proposed changes would allow more single-family, small lot developments without requiring a PUD. Segelbaum agreed. Baker asked about the cons with the proposed changes. Goellner stated that it will need to be clear in the Comprehensive Plan where the City wants R-2 zoned properties and where it doesn't, which will make it easier to deny inappropriate proposals. Segelbaum questioned if someone with a 100-foot wide lot could rezone it to R-2 and then split it into two lots. Goellner stated that the land would also need to be guided in the Comprehensive Plan for higher density. If the City wants to reduce the number of rezoning applications it could also increase the rezoning application fee. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners if they are in favor of making the R-2 Zoning District more consistent with the R-1 Zoning District and to allow the same density with smaller homes instead of duplexes similar to what has been done in some recent PUDs like Laurel Ponds. Zimmerman stated that currently, a PUD was the only way to get a product like Laurel Ponds. Baker asked if it is likely that instead of applying for a PUD developers would just rezone a property to R-2 instead. Zimmerman said that could potentially happen, but it is up to the City Council to approve a rezoning, whereas with a PUD if a developer meets certain standards it is harder to deny their proposal. Blum stated that changing the side yard setback requirements, articulation requirements, height requirements, etc. in the R-2 Zoning District to match what is in the R-1 Zoning District makes sense and will make it easier and more consistent with the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 9 other residential districts. He stated that limiting the width of garages is also a smart suggestion, but he has some concerns about the proposed lot width and lot size and how it might change the R-1 Zoning District to look more like Minneapolis neighborhoods with blocks and alleys which he isn't sure will be attractive and Golden Valley could lose a competitive advantage. He said he thinks that R-2 properties will likely appear in existing R-1 neighborhoods. He said it also seems that the City's use of R-3 and R-4 have been good in maintaining R-1 areas and help justify mass transit and other uses. Johnson questioned what would stop someone from buying an R-1 property and splitting it into two lots using the proposed R-2 requirements. Zimmerman stated that the property would need to be rezoned in order to do that. He added that with a typical subdivision if the proposal meets the City's requirements, the City has to approve it, however the decision to rezone a property is almost entirely at the Council's discretion. Baker said he is concerned that rezoning properties to R-2 could be a back door way to subdivide R-1 properties. Waldhauser said that wouldn't happen if the proposed rezoning were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zimmerman agreed and noted that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map have to match. Segelbaum said he would like the R-2 Zoning District to be consistent with the R-1 Zoning District, but there was opposition to similar changes just months ago with PUDs, so it seems strange to him to recommend approval of the proposed changes now. He stated that an aggregation of more R-2 properties, or a PUD concept seems better to him than a mix of different zoning districts in one area. Kluchka suggested a policy regarding spot zoning be created which would require a grouping together of R-2 properties. Goellner stated that when the City is determining where to put R-2 Zoning Districts, staff can look at a conglomeration of areas. Baker said he likes the idea of accommodating other types of housing, but these changes have got to be about more than just the properties on Harold Avenue. He asked staff if they can think of any areas where people would be amenable to rezoning their neighborhood to R-2. Goellner referred to areas of R-1 zoned properties that already conform to the proposed R-2 regulations. She stated that the City can continue to not have a lot of properties in the R-2 Zoning District. She added that she would do more research and show more examples of a variety of housing types within the same area. Zimmerman suggested some properties along Douglas Drive might be appropriate for R-2 zoning. Segelbaum stated that the Planning Commission has heard from residents in the past that they don't want lot sizes shrunk, and in fact, want them to be larger. Zimmerman stated that there might be areas in the City where this zoning district works. He said staff will look at the bigger picture and where it might be able to be used. Blum said he is concerned about making it too easy to do this anywhere people want to do it. Johnson said if the R-2 Zoning Districts are in the Comprehensive Plan then it's easy to control. Segelbaum agreed, but said he thinks the City will see more rezoning applications. Waldhauser said one benefit would be to allow more re-development in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 10 modest housing and not just high end housing. Baker said he would like to see some examples of where this would work. Goellner said this item will be brought back to a future Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing. 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that a PUD Amendment for the Central Park Office Tower is expected to be submitted soon. Waldhauser discussed an article that was in the SunPost regarding the neighborhood meeting policy. 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 pm. John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell (arrived at 7:10), Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Baker. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes— October 27, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 27, 2015, minutes as submitted. Baker abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1319 Tyrol Trail Dan & Sheila Broughton, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new house. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new house. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (northwest) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 2 Goellner explained the applicants' request to tear down the existing house and rebuild a new one. The proposed new house would be located 30 ft. from the front yard property line, rather than the required 35 ft. and 12 ft. from both side yard property lines, rather than the required 15 ft. She reminded the Board that this property previously received variances for various proposals, however the variances being requested now are smaller than the ones previously granted. She noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include: a challenging topography that limits the buildable area, the fact that it is a corner, triangular- shaped lot which also limits the buildable area, and that similar variances have been granted in the past for proposed additions. She added that staff is recommending approval of the requested variances. Baker asked if any of the previously granted variances were acted upon. Goellner said no, none of the previously proposed additions were built. Baker asked if the recently approved ordinance changes regarding the height of a structure affected these applicants. Goellner stated that this project is limited by the new requirements. Jennifer Christiaansen, U+B Architects, representing the applicant, said she's been working with the property owners for about a year. At first they were interested in remodeling the existing home but due to the costs and location of the existing home it wasn't suitable and was too much of an investment to make the house livable. She referred to the proposed new house and said they have been careful with the design so it will not affect the essential character of the neighborhood, and will hopefully not cause any tree removal. She referred to the practical difficulties with this property and stated that they feel their proposal is reasonable, they are respecting what's there now, and will be blending in with the housing stock of the existing neighborhood. She added that the shape of this lot is difficult and that the need for variances is not caused by the landowner. Nelson stated that she is understanding of the topography and unique shape of this lot and is pleased that the current variance requests are smaller than what has been granted for this property in the past. She added the request is reasonable and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's ordinances. Baker asked if the current owners added a new bay window. Christiaansen stated that the previous owners installed a bay window. Baker asked if the new house will have a two-stall garage. Christiaansen said yes and showed on the site plan how they will pull the house forward and change the grade a little bit in order to make the garage work with the new house and the existing curb cut. Maxwell asked why a front yard variance is needed. Christiaansen said they are working around the trees and the shape of the lot. Baker noted that the existing ash tree on the property will be gone a couple of years because of Emerald Ash Borer. Christiaansen stated that their goal is to build the house within the buildable area and to save as many Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 3 trees as possible. Maxwell stated that trying to preserve trees does constitute a unique feature with the property. Perich opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests to allow for the construction of a new house: • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. • 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (northwest) property line. 221 Sunnyridge Lane Sally Jacquemin, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 7.7 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. Goellner referred to a drawing of the property and noted that this lot was created through a subdivision done in 2014. She explained that at the time of the subdivision there was a deck located in the same area as the proposed new deck, however the City required that the deck be removed in order to proceed with the subdivision of the property so that the property would be in conformance with all of the setback requirements. The applicant is now asking for a variance to build a new deck 7.3 ft. away from the side yard property line rather than the required 15 ft. Goellner noted the applicant's stated unique circumstances in this case have to do with the recently re-drawn property line, the small size of the back yard, the small size of a deck without a variance, and the existing retaining walls and stairs in the back yard. Goellner stated that given that the lot was recently split and the former deck in the same location was required to be removed, and also given the size of the variance request, staff is recommending denial of the requested variance. She added that there are other options within the buildable area in which to build a deck that would not compromise the essential character of the neighborhood. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 4 Nelson asked about the dimensions of the proposed new deck. Goellner said the width of the proposed deck varies from approximately 12 ft. to 17 ft. and the length is 32 ft. making the deck approximately 450 square feet in size. Maxwell asked what steps were taken when the lot was subdivided to put future landowners on notice regarding the size and location of a deck. Goellner said there were no conditions placed on the subdivision regarding future construction, but the City does expect property owners to be aware of limitations and setback requirements. Maxwell asked if approval of the subdivision was subject to the removal of the previous deck. Goellner said yes, and added that the City can't tell all new homeowners about limitations regarding the property they are buying. Nelson agreed and added that as a real estate agent she always tells buyers to consider setback requirements when they are thinking about additions and decks. Sally Jacquemin, Applicant, said she bought this house in October and she is very excited to be a part of this community. She said she realizes staff is recommending denial of her request, but she truly feels that her proposal meets the state statute regarding practical difficulties. First, the property will be used in a reasonable manner. The proposed deck will be enclosed by trees and will not be visible from the street. Second, the shape of the lot is unique given the subdivision that occurred and the topography of the property. She stated that she is designing the deck to mimic the parallel aspect of the property line and to be the least intrusive as possible. Third, the problems with the property were not caused by her, the current landowner. She said from her perspective it doesn't matter, and should not impact the Board's decision whether she is a new homeowner or if she has owned the home for 20 years. Fourth, her proposal is not altering the essential character of the locality. She said Golden Valley is all about enjoying nature and her proposal supports the nature of the community, preserves the character of the City, and the neighboring property owner supports her proposal. She said she realizes her variance request is large, but only one corner of the deck needs a variance, the other corner meets the setback requirement. Maxwell asked the applicant if she considered other options to build a compliant deck. Jacquemin said yes. She showed the Board a drawing of a compliant deck and stated that it resulted in only 100 square feet of usable space and would be very limited for use as a deck. Maxwell noted that a conforming deck could be built further to the east. Jacquemin stated that there are concrete stairs and retaining walls that would have to be removed if she built a deck further east. Maxwell noted that a deck could be built over the stairs and retaining walls. Jacquemin stated that would block light to the downstairs windows. She showed the Board photos from the street view and stated that she wants to do more landscaping which would help screen the deck as well. Nelson asked Jacquemin if she purchased this home from the neighboring property owner. Jacquemin said yes and added that there are a lot of questions she didn't think to ask. She stated that she was raised in Michigan and they don't have rules like this there. Maxwell stated that the variance request is large and asked Jacquemin if she would consider a lesser amount than what she has requested. Jacquemin said what she is Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 5 currently proposing would be ideal, but she would be willing to consider a lesser variance. She suggested a 5-foot variance with the promise to plant additional trees. Perich opened the public hearing. David Knaeble, 227 Sunnyridge Lane, said he is in support of the requested variance. He said it won't be very impactful like a house or garage addition could be. He said he won't be able to see the proposed deck from his house and that this is a very minor request that should be supported. Baker asked Knaeble, in the interest of full disclosure, if he subdivided and sold the property to the applicant. Knaeble said yes. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, stated that the Board approved the previous proposal on the agenda and that was to tear down a house and build a new one with three variances and that this proposal is just for an at-grade deck. He said it seems disingenuous to say that this proposal is altering the essential character of the neighborhood. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that there were many reasons to grant the previous variance requests. That property was a corner lot with a small buildable area and a lot of topography issues. Orenstein stated that there are other options in this case. One is to build the deck further to the east. He said he would be interested in seeing how a deck constructed where the stairs and retaining walls are currently located would interfere with the amount of light in the basement. Baker stated that this was a very contentious subdivision and was not an easy decision for the Planning Commission to make. He said it is interesting that the seller is the only person in attendance supporting this variance request, yet he didn't disclose the constraints to the buyer. He said he disagrees that the primary driver in this case is the essential character. He thinks it is primarily the fault of the homeowner. Orenstein questioned if there was a legal obligation for the seller to disclose the information about the former deck to the buyer. Nelson said probably not. Maxwell stated that maybe a covenant regarding the deck should have been added at the time of sale. He said the applicant bought the house and didn't know she couldn't build a bigger deck so he finds it hard to blame her and the City shouldn't hold her responsible for prior circumstances. Baker said he thinks the desire to reverse a condition of a subdivision as soon as a house is sold is a different issue. Maxwell said there is no connection between the buyer and seller. He said his bigger concern is the size of the requested variance. Baker questioned if granting this variance is fair to future landowners. Orenstein suggested tabling the request and allowing the applicant to come back with alternate design plans that might require a smaller variance. Perich noted that he is not convinced a variance would be granted even if it is smaller. Maxwell agreed that he Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 6 doesn't think a 7.7 ft. variance request would be approved. Jacquemin said she would be happy to come back with alternate design plans. Nelson reiterated that there are other buildable areas on this property and stated that the Board really tries to be consistent with the variances they grant. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to table this request to the April 26, 2016, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Baker voted no. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting, Minutes January 25, 2016 Commissioners Present: Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Tracy Anderson, Debra Yahle, Tonia Galonska, Staff Present: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant Absent: Commissioners Larry Johnson and Jim Stremel Call to Order Lynn Gitelis called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Approval of Regular Commission Meeting Minutes MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Yahle, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the December 14, 2015 regular meeting. Blue Line LRT Municipal Consent Discussion Planning Manager, Jason Zimmerman gave a brief presentation on the progress of the Blue Line LRT. He presented a map which showed the layout of the tracks through Golden Valley and provided information on the next phase of the project. Golden Valley's Open House and Public Hearing for Municipal Consent is set for the Feb. 2,d City Council meeting. Action on the plans is anticipated at the regular City Council meeting of Feb. 16, 2016. It was noted that Metro Transit will maintain and police the line and stations. Blue Line LRT Recommendation to the Council The Environmental Commission discussed the Blue Line LRT project, and formulated its position and recommendation to the Council regarding the municipal consent plans. The Commission reviewed the plans, but due to a lack of environmental data the Commission felt it was not in a position to recommend a Yes vote on the project at this time, and looks forward to reviewing the data when the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is complete. The full recommendation can be found in the Council agenda packet for the February 2, 2016 meeting, located at: htt ://weblink-int/weblink/0/doc/521990/Pa e1.g§ x 2016 Work Plan Chair Gitelis and Eckman discussed with the Commission the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program. This voluntary program includes 29 best practices, a database for completing a comprehensive inventory of the city's current environmental initiatives, provides benchmarks and performance metrics to measure success, and a forum for sharing information with peer cities. The program's 29 best practices and various levels of recognition provide a framework for the Commission to identify and prioritize future projects and activities. There are four steps of recognition in the Program. Step One is for cities that have passed a city resolution, posted information on the GreenStep website, indicated which best practices they initially plan to implement, and described best practices already implemented. Benefits of the program to the city include: helping cities achieve their sustainability and quality of life goals; saving city staff time in researching cost-effective actions for cutting energy use; saving cities money and offering environmental, social and Minutes of the Environmental Commission January 25, 2016 Page 2 of 2 financial benefits; providing leadership and action roles for community members and institutions; etc. The Commission decided to include the GreenStep Cities Program in its 2016 work plan and recommended that staff draft a resolution of participation for the City Council to consider at a future meeting. The draft resolution will be reviewed by the Commission at its March 2016 meeting before forwarding to Council. Home Energy Squad Enhanced The City had participated in this home energy program in the past, but not the last few years. The Commission felt that the City's financial support of this program would not only help residents make energy improvements and preserve home values, but would also tie in well with the GreenStep Cities Program. MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Galonska to recommend that staff include the Home Energy Squad Enhanced Program in the 2017 budget at the contribution level of$50 per home visit (approximately $3,200-$4,800 annually) and to further explore the possibility of offering this service to small businesses and multi-family homes in the future. Program/Proiect Updates The complete program/project summary is on file. Eckman provided additional verbal updates on the Long-Term Flood Damage Reduction study for Medicine Lake Road & Winnetka Avenue Area which includes the DeCola Ponds neighborhood. Staff from the three cities and Hennepin County will be meeting to discuss the study and cost scenarios. Commission members requested that these meetings be open to the public and/or to have an opportunity for residents to meet and discuss the project before the final report is presented to the Council. Commission members also stressed the importance of communication between the City and residents in the Decola Ponds neighborhood. Eckman discussed the tentative schedule leading up to the final report and the opportunity for neighborhood input. It is anticipated that a draft report will be taken to Council in April with a neighborhood meeting scheduled around that same time. Staff also reported that there have been ongoing conversations with a number of residents who have called or emailed staff with questions during the past month. Adjourn MOVED by Anderson, SECONDED by Hill, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. Claire Huisman Administrative Assistant JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Meeting of January 6, 2016 The Golden Valley — Crystal — New Hope Joint Water Commission (JWC) meeting was called to order at 1:30 pm in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room. Commissioners Present Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope Tim Cruikshank, Golden Valley Staff Present Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley Bernie Weber, Operations Manager, New Hope Randy Kloepper, Water Superintendent, Crystal Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager, Golden Valley Dave Lemke, Utilities Supervisor, New Hope Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Department, Golden Valley R.J. Kakach, Utility Engineer, Golden Valley Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer, Golden Valley Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works, New Hope Mark Ray, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Crystal Approval of Minutes — December 2, 2015 Moved by McDonald seconded by Cruikshank to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2015 Joint Water Commission Meeting. Motion carried. Resolution #16-01 Designating Depositories for Joint Water Funds Moved by McDonald second by Cruikshank to approve Resolution #16-01 Designating Depositories for the Joint Water Funds. Motion Carried. Approve Contract with MMRK Certified Public Accountants to Perform December 31, 2015 Audit Moved by Cruikshank seconded by McDonald to approve the contract with MMRK Certified Public Accountants to perform the December 31, 2015 audit. Motion carried Approve Joint Water Commission Emergency Wells Project Change Order No. 1 with Burschville Construction, Inc. Burschville Construction, Inc. has requested additional compensation for work near the Crystal reservoir. The use of a vactor truck was determined to be necessary as crews prepared to bore the new well water line beneath the existing JWC PCCP. The JWC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommended splitting this cost with the contractor to protect the asset during the vulnerable period earlier this summer. The cost to the JWC for the vactor truck services was $3,000. The Minnesota Department of Health called for plan modifications after the project had been let, which required a different manhole casting than the original plan showed. The total to purchase and install this new cover was $921.34. Joint Water Commission January 6, 2016 Page 2 of 4 These additional costs were not included in the original estimate and therefore warrant a change order. The additional work adds $3,921.34 to the original contract amount. The TAC has reviewed and agreed that these additional costs are valid and recommend approving this change order with Burschville Construction, Inc. Moved by McDonald seconded by Norris to approve change order No. 1 with Burschville Construction, Inc. for the Emergency Wells Water Supply Line project to increase the total contract amount by $3,921.34 for a new total contract amount of $452,448.34. Motion carried. Approve Joint Water Commission Emergency Wells_ project Change Order No. 2 with Municipal Builders, Inc. Municipal Builders, Inc. has requested additional compensation for work at the New Hope pumphouse. Specifically, epoxy filling cracks in the floor inside the building and caulking along the perimeter of the building where the slab meets the wall. These original costs were not included in the original estimate and therefore warrant a change order. The additional work adds $870 to the original contract amount. The Tac has reviewed and agreed that these additional costs are valid and recommend approving this change order with Municipal Builders, Inc. Motion by Cruikshank seconded by McDonald to approve change order No.2 with Municipal Builders, Inc. for the Emergency Wells PPEC contract to increase the total contract amount by $870 for a new total contract amount of $1,188.905.05. Motion Carried. Approve Joint Water Commission High Service Pump Project Change Order No. 2 with Keys Well Drilling Change Order 2 includes eliminating the existing Pump 1 and pipe modifications to allow the reservoir to be back fed with the distribution system. The additional parts and labor to complete the Pump 1 back feed system add $3,100 to the current contract amount. TAC has reviewed and agreed that these additional costs are valid and recommend approving this change order with Keys Well Drilling Motion by McDonald seconded by Cruikshank to approve change order No. 2 with Keys Well Drilling, Inc. for the High Service Pump project to increase the total contract amount by $3,100 for a new total contract amount of $120,500. Approve Contract Amendment with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for Emergency Wells Project The additional costs include pipe changes at the high service pump stations and coordination with the 36-inch PCCP Rehabilitation project which were not anticipated at the time of the original agreement. The approved agreement amount in June 2015 with Bolton & Menk, Inc., (BMI) for professional services on the Emergency Wells Project and amended amount are as follows: Original Approved Amount: $252,525.00 Proposed Amendment: $ 13,927.00 Proposed Agreement Total: $266,462.00 Joint Water Commission January 6, 2016 Page 3 of 4 The Joint Water Commission TAC has reviewed and approved this agreement amendment with BMI for the Emergency Supply Wells Project. Motion by Norris seconded by Cruikshank to amend the agreement for professional services with Bolton and Menk, Inc. on the Joint Water Commission Emergency Wells Project not to exceed $13,927 for a new total contract amount of$266,457. Motion Carried. Approve Contract Amendment with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for 36-Inch PCCP Project This project required additional professional services for work at the Golden Valley pump station that was not part of the original contract. The project also had specific time constraints and coordination/public engagement challenges, including those associated with the grout release into Lower Twin Lake in August 2015. This additional work as well as work that has yet to be completed warrants an amendment to the original agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. The original agreement amount and amendments are show as follows: Original Approved Amount $512,975.00 Robbinsdale Extra (approved May 2015) $ 32,000.00 GV Pump Station Extra $ 7,000.00 Public Engagement/Coordination Extra $ 95,455.00 Proposed Agreement Total: $647,430.00 The JWC TAC has reviewed and approved of these agreement amendments with BMI for the Emergency Wells and 36-Inch PCCP projects. Motion by McDonald seconded by Cruikshank to amend the agreement for professional services with Bolton and Menk, Inc. on the JWC 36-Inch PCCP Rehabilitation Project for a new total contract amount of$647,430. Motion carried. Authorization to allow staff to continue project development and feasibility for the Golden Valley Reservoir— Solar Project Concept The City of Golden Valley staff has been working with Sundial Solar over the last several years to implement solar projects in the City. In 2015, two solar arrays were installed on municipal buildings. For 2016, the City has been awarded Minnesota Department of Commerce grants to install two additional solar arrays on City buildings. Like the 2015 project, the 2016 project will require a third party investor to purchase, own, and maintain the systems long-term. In order to assemble a project that is large enough to attract a third-party investor, the City needs to identify another large solar project that can be "packaged" with the two rooftop systems that the City has received grant funding for. City staff has identified the Golden Valley reservoir site as an optimal site for a ground-mount solar array. It is estimated that an array approximately 750 kW in size could be installed on the Golden Valley reservoir. Currently, the reservoir pumps use around 1,100,000 kWh of power annually. The proposed solar array would produce around 900,000 kWh of power Joint Water Commission January 6, 2016 Page 4 of 4 annually. Through an agreement with the third party investor, the JWC could reduce its electricity operating costs by $20,000 annually. Project development of a ground-mount system on the Golden Valley reservoir would need to address a number of concerns, including but not limited to the following: Reservoir integrity — the reservoir will need to undergo a structural and operational review. Land rights — array would rest on reservoir easement over MPRB property. Aesthetics —there are 7 homes adjacent to the site and aesthetics and glare would need to be reviewed. Staff has been directed by the Joint Water Commission to continue project development and determine the feasibility of the project. TAC Update The Joint Water Commission Technical Advisory Committee last met on December 22, 2015. Items reviewed, discussed and approved were the Emergency Wells closeout change orders with Bolton and Menk, Inc., Burschville, and Keys Well Drilling. Also, discussed was updating the 36" PCCP project stating there is one change order remaining which will be brought to the JWC at the next meeting. The Water Supply Plan has been tabled for discussion in 2016. Other Business None Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for February 3, 2016 at 1:30 pm in the Golden Valley Council Chamber. The room change is due to construction at City Hall. Adjournment Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 2:00 pm. Chair Anne Norris ATTEST: Sue Schwalbe, Recording Secretary From: Anne Saffert Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 7:04 AM To: Birno, Rick <RBirno@goidenvalleymn.�ov> Subject: Open Space and Recreation Commission Hello, I am resigning from the OSRC effective immediately. I have thoroughly enjoyed the time spent serving the City of Golden Valley on this commission, and appreciate having the chance to be a part of my community is this way. Thank you. Anne Saffert city of golden711le'y MEMORANDUM Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 3. F. Accept Environmental Commission 2015 Annual Report and Approve 2016 Proposed Work Plan Prepared By Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary At the April 12, 2016, Council/Manager meeting, Environmental Commission Chair Lynn Gitelis presented the Commission's Annual Report and 2016 Work Plan. Attachments • Environmental Commission Annual Report and 2016 Work Plan (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to accept the Environmental Commission 2015 Annual Report and approve the 2016 proposed Work Plan. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT & 2016 WORK PLAN April 12, 2016 In accordance with Section 2.50, Subd. 4 of the Golden Valley City Code, and the bylaws of the Environmental Commission, the Golden Valley Environmental Commission submits the following summary of its 2015 activities and accomplishments, and the proposed work plan priorities for 2016. Major accomplishments in 2015 include: Composting/Organics Recycling Providing information to the City Manager on existing and potential composting/organics recycling options in Golden Valley, and setting the stage for future discussion. Natural Resources Management Plan Prioritizing the City's most critical natural resource topics and identifying education and communication strategies to help facilitate awareness in 2016. Topics include Buckthorn Management, Emerald Ash Borer, Pollinators, Wetlands, and Urban Wildlife. Pollinator Habitat Facilitating information sharing on pollinators and pollinator habitat. Work items include helping to draft a CityNews article, hosting a presentation by General Mills, initiating the inclusion of a pollinator/native landscape booth at the 2016 home remodelers fair, and receiving information and commenting on numerous projects and developments containing pollinator habitat. Tree and Landscape Code Update Reviewing and commenting on updates to the tree and landscape code, including the support of a new provision encouraging and incentivizing the establishment of native plant environments in new developments. GreenStep Cities Program Discussing and exploring the City's participation in GreenStep Cities to provide a framework for prioritizing future environmental work and achieving sustainability goals.The Commission recommended that Council adopt a resolution supporting the City's participation in the program. Home Energy Squad Enhanced Program Reviewing information and testimony about this home energy program sponsored by the Center for Energy and Environment, Centerpoint Energy, and Xcel Energy. Enhanced visits include diagnostic tests and installations by experts, energy fitness plans and more. The City participated in this program in the past, but not in recent years.The Commission recommended that the City include this program in its 2017-2018 budget at the contribution level of$50 per home visit (approximately $3,200-$4,800 annually) and to further explore the possibility of offering this service to small businesses and multi-family homes in the future. This program fits in well with GreenStep Cities. Blue Line LRT Discussing the Blue Line LRT project and formulating its position and recommendation to the Council regarding the municipal consent plans.The Commission looks forward to reviewing the environmental data in more detail when the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is completed. Two members of the Commission also participated on the Station Area Planning Advisory Committee. Program/Project Updates In addition to the items above, at the monthly Commission meetings, program and project updates are routinely received from staff.These updates provide the Commission with an opportunity to review and provide comment on the City's current environmental projects and programs and to identify topics that the Commission may want to explore in the future. 2016 Work Plan The Commission proposes the following work plan priorities for 2016: 1. Comprehensive Plan Update a. Work on the new Resilience Plan Element i. Infrastructure and Environment ii. Energy Infrastructure and Resources iii. Healthy Communities iv. Economy and Society b. Provide input and assist with other plan elements i. Water Resources ii. Park and Open Space (Natural Resources components) 2. Green Steps Cities a. Complete inventory and determine City's step level b. Begin work on the GreenStep best practices, including#29 Climate Adaptation & Community Resilience, then Water, Energy, or others to be determined c. Evaluate and report on progress each year 3. Blue Line LRT- Review and comment on Final EIS 4. Natural Resources Management Plan implementation a. Assist in the prioritization of natural resource based projects and initiatives. b. Help develop the nature area sign and amenity design guidelines. c. Oversee completion of a detailed inventory of all City-owned open space parcels. d. Continue to explore the expansion of natural resource based citizen participation, volunteer opportunities and grant opportunities and prioritize these efforts within the nature areas and open spaces. e. Continue to provide guidance on the selection of natural resource based educational topics delivered through a variety of media platforms. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 3. G. Board/Commission Reappointments Prepared By Shep Harris, Mayor Summary Each year staff contacts board and/or commission members whose term is expiring to find out if they are interested in being reappointed. Listed below are those who would like to be reappointed. Recommended Action Motion to make the following reappointments: Board of Zoning Appeals David Perich 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2017 George Maxwell 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2017 Nancy Nelson 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2017 Civil Service Commission Gloria Kumagai 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Environmental Commission Tonia Galonska 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Human Rights Commission Jonathan Burris 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Andrew Ramlet (student)1 year term term expires - May 1, 2017 Human Services Fund Aaron Black 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Denise La Mere-Anderson 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Open Space and Recreation Commission Roger Bergman 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 John Cornelius 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Gillian Rosenquist 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Planning Commission Rich Baker 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 John Kluchka 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 city of golden MEMORANDU a �� Physical Development Department 763-593-80951763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 60 day deadline: March 28, 2016 60 day extension: May 27, 2016 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing- Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map - 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North - Lawrence Johanns and Van Tran, Applicants Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary This item was tabled from the April 5, 2016, City Council meeting. The applicants, Lawrence Johanns and Van Tran, own the properties at 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North, respectively, and are requesting amendments to both the City's General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map in order to prepare the properties for potential commercial redevelopment once they are sold and combined in the future. Background and Existing Conditions The property at 2415 Winnetka Avenue North is 0.59 acres in size and is currently occupied by a single family home with a detached garage. The lot is wooded and the home is mostly screened from view by vegetation. The property at 2445 Winnetka Avenue North is 0.84 acres in size and currently houses the Veritec, Inc. office building. The property was rezoned from Residential to Business and Professional Office in 1974. Over time, the building has housed medical and dental offices as well as a treatment center for teens. The current tenant, Veritec, produces ID cards and other software products. Parking for the building is located both to the north and to the south in separate lots with separate access points off of Winnetka Avenue. The two properties are bounded to the north by the Golden Valley Cemetery, to the west and south by single family homes, and to the east - across Winnetka Avenue - by Walgreens, a vacant restaurant, and a portion of a vacant light industrial building. The restaurant and light industrial building, along with other properties to the east, are planned for residential redevelopment into townhomes and an apartment building as part of the Liberty Crossing project. A significant change in grade occurs along the west side of the property at 2445 Winnetka, with the adjacent single family homes sitting approximately 20 feet above the base elevation of the Veritec building. The change is grade is less pronounced for the property at 2415 Winnetka. General Land Use Plan Map Amendment Both properties are currently designated Low Density Residential, which accommodates densities of less than five units per acre. Under the current proposal, the General Land Use Plan Map would be amended so that both properties would be redesignated as Commercial Retail/Service, which accommodates all types of retail. Zoning Map Amendment The property at 2415 Winnetka Avenue North is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which provides for single family dwellings. The property at 2445 Winnetka Avenue North is currently zoned for Business and Professional Office (BPO) use, which allows office uses and some additional uses - including financial institutions, limited retail services when located within a professional office building, and child care facilities, among others -through a Conditional Use Permit. Under the current proposal, the Zoning Map would be amended so that both of the properties would be zoned Commercial, which would allow for a range of retail and service activities by right and a number of additional activities through a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Deliberations At the March 14, 2016, Planning Commission meeting the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend denial of both the land use redesignation and the rezoning. Specifically, the Commission was concerned about impacts to the single family neighborhood to the west and the reduced ability of the City to provide for mitigation of impacts under a Commercial zoning. Five residents spoke in opposition to the proposal; one spoke in favor. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated March 14, 2016 (6 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission, dated March 14, 2016 (5 pages) • Memo from Fire Chief John Crelly dated March 7, 2016 (1 page) • Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) • Comprehensive Plan Table of Land Use Definitions (1 page) • Commercial Zoning District Section of the City Code (7 pages) • Business and Professional Office Zoning District Section of the City Code (5 pages) • General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) • Official Zoning Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to deny the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, redesignating 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North from Low Density Residential to Commercial Retail/Service. Motion to deny the Zoning Map amendments, rezoning 2415 Winnetka Avenue North from a Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District to a Commercial Zoning District and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North from a Business and Professional (BPO) Zoning District to a Commercial Zoning District. 1 NEW HOPE j ..•.a....o.•q� a.•uo.�usu•m MedlCine Lahe •o•n•.re.•n•u•..•p�.w•..•w...•..•r•..•..•n•n•u•..•..•u.:.....•e.•w•..•..•..•.1 7751 2550 81818179 8139 8101 2550 7825 8025 2575 505 2500 8140 8100 • 2485 8159 8101 2480 2480 2485 2500 2445 1445 �2 2400 2405 6 2440 2445 Z 2450 ; 2405 Subject Properties 12 4 m m 2440 1485 a 24th Ave N 2380 2385 8020 2425 u Q 400 2375 O 8040 > 2400 2480 i0 c Y 2360 2365 t41` c 0 Jonellen In 2355 c 8045 8015 8005 0: 2340 2345 7979 2409 2335 Z • 2320 8100 8040 8020 8000 > to 2430 350 2315 7980 2337 ` e Wynnwood Rd t 8155 8135 8105 8045 8015 Z 2320 2325 330 2315 Q i 2300 8250 8200 8180 8140 8100 8040 8020 8000 z 2300 23rd Ave N s Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 14, 2016 Page 11 all regulations regarding fencing, s Bening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the Golden Valley City ode. 10. her Impacts to the City and Re dents: Staff does not anticipate any other ne tive effects of the proposed us Conditions: 1. The plans submitted by Pope A hitects on January 12 16, shall become a part of this a oval. 2. Retail space is ited to 5,164 sq re feet of the s floor area of the building. If more retail space i esired in the ture, the Co itional Use Permit must be amended to reflect th increased e. 3. Hours of Operation for PRISM ood s and the thrift shop are limited to 9 am — 7 pm on Monday throug ridgy nd am — 2 pm on Saturdays. Any extension to these hours requires an a nd . to the Conditional Use Permit. 4. All parking regulations found in ion 11.70 of City Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) shall be for to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. 5. Food shelf and thrift shop stom s sh a directed by PRISM to enter the property from Zane Av ue. Direc onal sig shall be provided. 6. In the event complai to the City egarding p ing are deemed by the City /h Manager or hise esignee to b ignificant, the 'ty reserves the right to require signage be inst d to highlight th parking near the trance to the PRISM food shelf and thri hop. The City res es the right to requi that these parking spaces be erved for customer e. Other modifications the days or hours of operatio ay be required to ade ately address parking con ms. 7. All sig ge must meet the require ents of the City's Sign Code ction 4.20). 8. The plicant shall explore option to provide pavement markings he property th support the safety of pedestri ns accessing the retail space. 9. is approval is subject to all oth state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority ver this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. — CPAM-57 Applicant: Van Tran and Lawrence Johanns Addresses: 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Commercial Retail/Service. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. —Z01 9-07 Applicant: Van Tran and Lawrence Johanns Address: 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 14, 2016 Page 12 Purpose: To rezone 2415 Winnetka Ave. N. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Commercial and to rezone 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. from Business and Professional Offices to Commercial. The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 3 and 4 were combined. Zimmerman explained the applicants' request to re-designate and rezone the properties located at 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. to prepare them for future commercial redevelopment. He stated that the applicants held a neighborhood meeting on March 7 which five residents attended. Concerns at the meeting were related to the impacts of Commercial uses on the single family homes to the west including: hours of operation, noise, privacy, and loss of mature trees. Zimmerman discussed many of the permitted and conditional uses that would be allowed if the properties were re-designated and rezoned to Commercial. He also discussed the traffic impacts and stated that business and offices uses typically have the greatest amount of traffic in the AM and PM peak periods and commercial, depending on the specific use, usually sees the trips spread throughout the day and are more likely to involve evening and weekend activities. Zimmerman stated that staff supports the concept of re-designating and rezoning both properties to allow Business and Professional Office uses, but is recommending denial of re-designating and rezoning the properties to Commercial based on the likely impacts to the adjacent single family neighborhood. Kluchka asked if this proposal would be considered "spot zoning." He also asked if the center turn lane on Winnetka Ave. would affect commercial uses on,these properties. Zimmerman stated that the City's concern with changing these properties to Commercial is that many uses in the Commercial zoning district would be allowed by right and the City would lose some control over the impacts to the neighboring properties. He reiterated that the City supports redevelopment for these two properties but feels that Business and Professional Offices zoning would be more appropriate. Segelbaum asked if the Liberty Crossing development across the street from these properties had to align their driveway access. Zimmerman said yes and added that in that case it had to do with the crest of the hill on Winnetka Ave. Segelbaum asked if it would be appropriate to consider re-designating and rezoning the properties to Business and Professional Offices even if the applicant is asking that the properties be Commercial. Zimmerman stated that the City has to respond to the request that is being made, but the Planning Commission can pass on comments to the City Council, or consider this area during the Comprehensive Plan update process. Nick Naboka, The Caspian Group (formerly NAI Everest), representing the applicants, stated that they would like to re-designate and rezone the properties to accommodate future development. He stated that both properties are aged and outdated and are no longer capable of attracting new tenants. He stated that redeveloping this site will bring in much needed investment of a modern, more viable asset that will serve the neighborhood. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 14, 2016 Page 13 said current plans could include a child care facility, an ATM station or a hair salon. He stated that this is a narrow site that is cut off from the neighborhood to the west and traffic volume will not increase because it will be just a small service location. He added that these properties won't work for office tenants because they want a bigger space with more amenities. He said it is also important to note that the recently approved Liberty Crossing project across the street will provide opportunity for a better product on this site. Redeveloping this site will be a benefit to this neighborhood and will generate income for the City and will provide a new look to this gateway location. He referred to the neighbors' concerns about noise and traffic and said that in looking at the history of the area it is highly unlikely that a business that has failed repeatedly will be put in at this location and because of the small size of the site it will be a small service type of business tailored to the neighborhood. He added that they have explored office use at this site but it would not be supported by investors. He reiterated that the site is not fit for any viable use unless it is rezoned to Commercial. Segelbaum asked Naboka if he is only interested in rezoning the properties to Commercial and nothing else. Naboka said yes, that is the market reality. Segelbaum asked if the proposed uses Naboka has in mind would be allowed in the Business and Professional Offices with a Conditional Use Permit. Naboka said some are, but given the size of the site it would not be viable or competitive. Lawrence Johanns, Applicant, 2415 Winnetka Avenue North, stated that he no longer has much use for the office building and if both properties are rezoned together they can do a better development. Van Tran, Applicant, 2445 Winnetka Avenue North, said she hopes the development across the street will bring opportunity for this site. She said wants the timing of the redevelopment of this site tied to the timing of the Liberty Crossing project. She added that the trees on the site are getting old and new construction would improve the area. Waldhauser asked Johanns if it has been difficult to lease space in the office building. Johanns said the building needs a lot of upgrading. Tran added that the taxes on the property are also quite high so she can't compete with other office space in the area. Waldhauser asked the applicants if they had considered higher density housing on this site. Naboka said their intent is to have the least intrusive use as possible and that higher density housing would be more impactful to the residents. Segelbaum asked if the cemetery has impacted the marketability of the office space. Johanns said no and added that the interest they've had would be in both properties being rezoned together. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Jerry Lefever, 7979 Jonellen Lane, urged the City not to rezone these properties to Commercial. He said the best thing would be residential and that commercial would be difficult with the intersection. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 14, 2016 Page 14 Chuck Griffith, 7979 Jonellen Lane, discussed the grade and the buffer of trees on the properties to the south and stated that a commercial use would be noisier and will impact the property values in the area. He added that there are two houses in the area that are not owner occupied and they could be pressured to rezone those properties to Commercial too. Waldhauser asked Lefever how he would feel about a 3-story apartment building. Lefever said twin homes would be more appropriate because an apartment building would not fit. Kirsten Hoffstedt Keefe, said she is speaking for her mother, Diane Hoffstedt, 2450 Valders Avenue North. She stated that the loss of the trees has increased the visibility to Walgreen's and the lighting from Walgreen's. She noted that if the site is used for a daycare that would be allowed if the property is zoned Business and Professional Offices. She said it is difficult to debate all of the different options without knowing a specific proposal. She said there are concerns about noise, height, lighting, and lack of control by the City and recommended that the property stay zoned Business and Professional Offices. Victoria Hopponen, 2400 Valders Avenue North, read a statement from her mother Lilliane Hopponen. She said they bought the property at 2415 Winnetka Ave. in 1959 because they were impressed with all the trees and the topography. Now the property is referred to as aged and outdated. She has no idea of its condition, but she does know of five different groups who have lived there. She questioned why the properties would have to change from residential to commercial use to accommodate redevelopment and she sees no comfort and convenience of local residents except for the two people involved and possibly the City. She stated that they built their house to the west so they could have a walk-out basement and they left as many of the natural contours as possible. She asked that the Planning Commissioners be conservationists and have some concern for the living things that will be exterminated if all of the trees and plants between Valders and Winnetka are removed and asked why everything has to be flat and grassy. (Ms. Hopponen submitted a list of "inhabitants and visitors" she has seen in the area.) She asked who would like to have a child care facility or restaurant plus the parking 42 feet from their back door. She said she doesn't believe for a moment that the true reason for wanting to change these properties to commercial is only to give a beautifying facelift by replacing the aged, outdated and worn buildings to benefit the local residents. She implored the City to strongly consider keeping the properties zoned Residential because trees are one of the biggest assets of the area acting as a buffer from the noise and pollution from Winnetka Ave. Ms. Hopponen said she was speaking for herself at this point. She stated that their house has floor to ceiling windows and they are always looking down at these properties. They get all the noise from Winnetka and she doesn't want to live without being able to open windows. She said there are other amenities all around the area and the applicants want to rezone the properties so they can get a higher price for them. Chris Gunn, 8000 Wynnwood Road, said he drives by the building on Winnetka and it is an eyesore. He said he would much rather see a retail use on these properties and something aesthetically pleasing rather than a vacant building. He questioned who would want to live there if the properties were rezoned to residential and said no one would buy the properties if they are residential. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 14, 2016 Page 15 Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked if all the trees could be removed. Zimmerman stated that a certain amount would have to be retained, but a number of them could be removed. Segelbaum noted that the height is limited to three stories in the Business and Professional Offices and Commercial zoning districts and asked about the height requirements in the higher density residential zoning districts. Zimmerman stated that the height requirement varies depending on the district. Blum stated that Winnetka Ave. is one of the only non-highway roads that completely bisects Golden Valley and it strikes him as an important thoroughfare in the City. Also, the Winnetka Ave. and Medicine Lake Rd. intersection is a major intersection. He said there is a large development going in across the street and he thinks the kinds of decisions made in the past point in the direction of higher density development in this location. Kluchka said he is not sure the applicants are aware of the soil conditions in this area and anything built here would take a significant investment and would need to be high density residential, but it doesn't need to copy what is located to the north. He said he would like to see the all the properties from Medicine Lake Rd. to 2325 Winnetka to the south, including the cemetery, bundled together and be redeveloped because this is a gateway location. He added that he is not in favor of changing the properties to Commercial. He would be interested in the Business and Professional Offices designation but only with a bigger group of properties. Johnson said it is a slippery slope when there is no barrier between two distinct types of zoning. He said the uses co-exist now, but changing that would dramatically change the area for no real reason so he would support the lowest density residential zoning district. Baker asked how the discrepancy occurred between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map for the property at 2445 Winnetka Ave. Zimmerman explained that the property was rezoned to Business and Professional Offices, but the Comprehensive Plan Map was not amended. Baker said he would want the area to be residential, not commercial because it is a large area of residential and he questions why this one site should be commercial. Waldhauser stated that there is a lot of commercial uses in the area that haven't been successful and questioned what would make it successful on these properties. She said she is open to considering Business and Professional Offices, but she would like to study the options more in order to decide what these properties should be. Segelbaum stated that usually there is a specific design or use proposed so it is easier to review the impacts. He said he doesn't want to detract from the value of the surrounding properties and that he would be open to considering Business and Professional Offices. He said he thinks these properties do need to be redeveloped and encouraged the applicants to come back with a specific plan to help residents visualize what sort of development could occur and how it would fit in. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 14, 2016 Page 16 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the request to change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Commercial Retail/Service for the properties at 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. Zimmerman stated that an application will come back in the future, or as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, to bring the properties into compliance with the Land Use Map. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the request to rezone 2415 Winnetka Ave. N. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Commercial and to rezone 2445 Winnetka Ave. N. from Business and Professional Offices to Commercial. --Short Recess-- Reports on Meetings of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchk reported on the March 8 ouncil/ Manager meeting where they discussed the new Bro view Community Cent and the METRO Blue Line Golden Valley Road station design. He id he sent an email the City Council regarding developing these two items together with design language i cluding sidewalks, fonts, etc. that ties the two together. Baker asked KI ka if the goal i to have a Golden Valley look. Kluchka said the goal is to have a Golden Iley identity. .mmerman stated that Vas images of the latest park and ride designs tha a would se d to the Commissio 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Re No report was given. 7. Adjournment The meeting wa djourned at 1 34 pm. John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city of olden valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: March 14, 2016 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map—2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North —Lawrence Johanns and Van Tran, Applicants Summary The applicants, Lawrence Johanns and Van Tran, own the properties at 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North, respectively, and are requesting amendments to both the City's General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map in order to prepare the properties for potential commercial redevelopment. Both properties are designated Low Density Residential on the City's General Land Use Plan Map. The property at 2415 Winnetka Avenue North is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1). The property at 2445 Winnetka Avenue North is zoned Business and Professional Office (BPO). The applicants hope to sell the two properties and envision a retail use occupying both parcels once they are combined in the future. Regardless of the City's eventual decision on the requested amendments, there is currently an inconsistency between the zoning designation and the guided land use at 2445 Winnetka that has existed since the 1970s and that should be resolved. Background and Existing Conditions The property at 2415 Winnetka Avenue North is 0.59 acres in size and is currently occupied by a single family home with a detached garage. The lot is wooded and the home is mostly screened from view by vegetation. The property at 2445 Winnetka Avenue North is 0.84 acres in size and currently houses the Veritec, Inc. office building. The property was rezoned from Residential to Business and Professional Office in 1974 after a similar request was denied in 1967. In 1975 the current building was constructed which required a variance from the required front yard setback in order to build closer to Winnetka Avenue. In 1982, a variance was requested to expand the building but was denied. Over time, the building has housed medical and dental offices as well as a treatment center for teens. The current tenant, Veritec, produces ID cards and other software products. Parking for the building is located both to the north and to the south in separate lots with separate access point off of Winnetka Avenue. The two properties are bounded to the north by the Golden Valley Cemetery, to the west and south by single family homes, and to the east—across Winnetka Avenue—by Walgreen's, a vacant restaurant, and a portion of a vacant light industrial building. The restaurant and light industrial building, along with other properties to the east, are planned for residential redevelopment into townhomes and an apartment building as part of the Liberty Crossing project. A significant change in grade occurs along the west side of the property at 2445 Winnetka, with the adjacent single family homes sitting approximately 20 feet above the base elevation of the Veritec building. The change is grade is less pronounced for the property at 2415 Winnetka. t o LO _ '4 _ t General Land Use Plan Map Amendment Both properties are currently designated Low Density Residential, which accommodates densities of less than 5 units per acres. Under the current proposal, the General Land Use Plan Map would be amended so that both properties would be redesignated as Commercial Retail/Service, which accommodates all types of retail including restaurants. When 2445 Winnetka Avenue was rezoned in 1974, the associated change was not made to the General Land Use Plan Map. As such, there is an inconsistency that currently exists between the Zoning Map and the Comprehensive Plan. If approval of this proposal is not granted, the City should still move to amend the General land Use Plan Map and should redesignate 2445 Winnetka Avenue for Commercial Office use to resolve the issue. Recent amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map have resulted in commercial areas to the east, across Winnetka, being redesignated as High Density Residential. The applicants point to the loss of commercial space as one reason to support this proposal. They are hopeful that the properties could be redeveloped for a child daycare and/or restaurant use, but ultimately this decision would be left to a new property owner. Once rezoned the City has little, if any, say in what type of permitted commercial use could locate there. Any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment must be sent to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. No final approval may be given by the City Council until the City has heard from the Metropolitan Council regarding the amendment. Zoning Map Amendment The property at 2415 Winnetka Avenue North is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which provides for single family dwellings. The property at 2445 Winnetka Avenue North is currently zoned for Business and Professional Office use, which allows office uses and some additional uses—including financial institutions, limited retail services when located within a professional office building, and child care facilities, among others—through a Conditional Use Permit. Under the current proposal, the Zoning Map would be amended so that both of the properties would be zoned Commercial, which would allow for a range of retail and service activities by right and a number of additional activities through a Conditional Use Permit. The difference in setbacks and other zoning regulations between BPO and Commercial zoning districts is minimal. Both require the same setbacks in the front, rear, and side yards. Commercial zoning allows for slightly more building coverage on a lot. Both restrict building height to three stories unless a Conditional Use Permit is granted to allow for additional height. In the BPO district, this additional height also requires additional depth of the front yard setback. Individually, neither of the two lots meet the BPO lot area restrictions, which were adopted in 1981, that would allow a new building to be constructed. However, combined the two lots would meet both the lot area and the lot width requirements and could therefore facilitate redevelopment. Traffic generated by an office use versus a commercial use would likely exhibit different general tendencies, with the specific commercial use having the greatest influence on the potential patterns. Office uses tend to have the highest traffic counts during the AM and PM peak periods. Commercial operations, depending on the specific use, have trips spread throughout the hours of operation, which could extend to evenings and weekends. As Winnetka Avenue is already a busy commuter route, a commercial use might pull a large number of trips from those already driving by, rather than attracting new trips to the area. Additional Information A neighborhood meeting was held on Monday, March 7. Five residents attended and discussion centered on the potential impacts to neighboring single family homes of a commercial use at the properties and the ability (or lack thereof) of the City to regulate a future use if the properties were rezoned to Commercial. There was general agreement that any future use should aim to serve the new residents of the Liberty Crossing development rather than the existing single family neighborhood to the west. Recommendations Given the size of the lot at 2445 Winnetka Avenue, standalone redevelopment appears to be challenging without the addition of the property at 2415 Winnetka Avenue. Rezoning this property would create the opportunity to combine the two parcels and would make redevelopment more feasible. Staff supports this approach. As to the zoning designation, staff is somewhat ambivalent between BPO and Commercial zoning at this location. The list of permitted uses in a Commercial zoning district is quite lengthy and includes any number of uses which could be established by right. This expands the universe of possible types of businesses that could locate there, but leaves the City without the ability to require mitigation for potential impacts of noise, lights, etc. Alternatively, in the BPO zoning district any use besides office requires a Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the City to evaluate the proposal for any impacts and create conditions to mitigate them accordingly. In light of this, and respecting the interests and concerns of the single family neighborhood to the west, staff recommends denial of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, redesignating 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue North from Low Density Residential to Commercial Retail/Service. Further, staff recommends denial of the Zoning Map amendment, rezoning 2415 Winnetka Avenue North from a Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District to a Commercial Zoning District. Staff would be supportive of a request to redesignate both properties as Commercial Office and to rezone 2415 Winnetka Avenue to Business and Professional Office. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from Fire Chief John Crelly dated March 7, 2016 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) Comprehensive Plan Table of Land Use Definitions (1 page) Commercial Zoning District Section of the City Code (7 pages) Business and Professional Office Zoning District Section of the City Code (5 pages) General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) Official Zoning Map (1 page) AI go valleyFire Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098 (fax) Date: March 7, 2016 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: 2415 & 2445 Winnetka Avenue North—Land Use Map Change The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the proposed land use change for 2415 & 2445 Winnetka Avenue North. The proposal to change from Low Density Residential to Commercial will not impact the fire department. The fire department does not have any concerns with the proposed land use change. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, icrelly@goldenvalleymn.gov Nick Naboka NAI Everest 4150 Olson Memorial Hwy, Suite 110 Minneapolis, MN 55403 On behalf of: Van Tran and Lawrence Johanns 2445 Winnetka Avenue N. Golden Valley, MN 55427 January 27, 2016 Planning Commission City Council City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, We would like to rezone the 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue parcels for Commercial Use to accommodate a new retail development on the site. Due to recent changes, the neighborhood recently lost several retail properties across Winnetka Avenue, located at 7825 and 7775 Medicine Lake Road, and at 2480 Winnetka Avenue, following the rezoning of multiple parcels for a multifamily development. This resulted in the loss of numerous retail and restaurant venues, including a Dairy Queen and Rasa Sayang restaurants. The nearest alternatives are situated across Medicine Lake Road, which is a busy thoroughfare, and outside of Golden Valley city boundary. Currently, 2415-2445 Winnetka Avenue is occupied by a single-family home, built in 1959, and a two story office building, built in 1974. Both are aged and outdated structures, nearing the end of their useful lives and are effectively obsolete. Redevelopment of the site will bring in much needed investment for the construction of a modern structure on a very visible stretch of Winnetka Avenue, a gateway to Golden Valley. A new development would greatly increase its utility and give a beautifying facelift to the west side of Winnetka Avenue. Redevelopment of the 2415 and 2445 Winnetka Avenue site into a new retail, restaurant, or a small service provider location would also add a convenient community amenity which would benefit the residents of the City of Golden Valley. The site could be developed into a child daycare facility, an amenity that would satisfy a very current need of many in the surrounding area. The site also possesses great potential for a restaurant or light refreshments venue such as the Dairy Queen restaurant that has been lost across the street. NAI Everest 14150 Olson Memorial Highway,Suite 110 1 Minneapolis,MN 55422 1 tel 612.424.7542 j fax 612.333.1744 1 naieverest.com The site size prohibits a large development, which could cause a disturbance and inconvenience to the neighbors. However, it is a perfect location for a small restaurant or retail property, which would be within easy access for the local residents and customers already traveling on Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. This would not attract additional traffic, which would cause an increased burden on the local community due to potential increase in noise levels and traffic flow. Redevelopment of this site will benefit the surrounding neighborhood with the addition of convenience retail amenity, which will add to the comfort and convenience of local residents. It will bring additional investment and deliver a new building to the area, which will positively contribute to the economic life of the neighborhood. Finally, replacing the currently outdated and worn buildings with new structures will be a great aesthetic improvement along the west side of Winnetka Avenue as it enters the City of Golden Valley. Very Respectfully, Nick Naboka Associate, NAI Everest NAI Everest 14150 Olson Memorial Highway,Suite 110 1 Minneapolis,MN 55422 1 tel 612.424.75421 fax 612.333.1744 1 naieverest.com 3-8 Chapter Tabte 3.2: ;Definition Of Land Use Categories Residential, Low-Density Single-family detached homes are the predominant low-density residential use, with small clusters of (0.1 to 5 homes per gross two-family attached homes mixed in at scattered locations as appropriate. Other types of residential acre of land area) structures in planned unit developments (PUDs)may also be appropriate as long as the overall density of development falls within the acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is "single family." Residential, Medium- Medium-density residential uses include two-family attached homes in clusters of more than 10 units, or Density (from 5 to 11.99 townhomes, or other types of housing in PUDs where the average density of development falls within the homes per gross acre of land acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." area) Residential, Medium- Townhomes, apartment buildings, and condominiums are the permitted medium-high-density residential High-Density (12 to 19.9 uses. Other types of housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet homes per gross acre of land the minimum density threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." area) Residential, High- Apartment buildings and condominiums are the predominant high-density residential uses. Other types of Density (20 to 30 homes housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet the minimum density per gross acre of land area) threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." This limited use category features general office buildings. Medical or laboratory facilities where work is Commercial Office performed in a predominantly office setting are also acceptable uses. Office areas may include mixed-use office/residential PUDs. Metro Council equivalent is part of"commercial." Commercial uses include retail sales/services, restaurants, hotels/motels, and for-profit entertainment/ Commercial Retail/ recreation facilities, as well as anything allowed in an office area. Mixed-use commercial/residential Service PUDs are also a possibility. Metro Council equivalent is "commercial,"except that does NOT classify any residential care facilities as commercial uses. This category includes warehousing and storage, assembly and light manufacturing, truck/van terminals, Light Industrial utility installations, offices, and large-scale specialty retail operations such as lumber yards, greenhous- es, and vehicle sales/rental lots. Metro Council equivalent is part of"industrial." Industrial This category includes anything that could go into a light industrial area, as well as railroad uses, animal care facilities, and heavy manufacturing. Metro Council equivalent is part of"industrial." This category includes a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and business-oriented land uses. Mixed Use This area was established to encourage a compact urban area that will serve as a gateway to the city. Transit-oriented development is expected to spur high-density development that is encouraged to include a mix of uses.Approximatley 25 percent of this area is expected to include residential development. Open Space(public and These uses include golf courses, ball fields, playgrounds, parks, nature areas, and storm water ponding private) areas. Metro Council equivalent is "parks and recreation,"except the Metro Council does not specify ponding areas or nature areas. Schools and Religious These include education facilities at all levels, the cemetery, places of worship for all denominations, Facilities and miscellaneous religious installations. Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public." Public Facilities, Administrative or service installations(except those otherwise classified)at alt levels of government fall Miscellaneous into this category.Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public." Semi-Public Facilities, Residential treatment or care facilities, hospitals and surgical centers, private clubs, and other not-for- Miscellaneous profit facilities(except those otherwise classified)fall into this category. Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public,"except for residential treatment or care. Wetland Properties in this category are generally those listed in the National Wetland Inventory. By definition,all wet- land areas are considered to be"in use."Metro Council equivalent is"wetland development constraint." Floodplain This category includes all areas with a land elevation below the 100-year flood level. By definition, all flood- way areas are considered to be"in use."Metro Council equivalent is"floodplain development constraint." Sweeney/Twin Lake, Wirth Lake, DNR unnamed basin#27-36 (in Wirth Park, along the creek north of Open Water Highway 55), and Bassett Creek are classified as open water areas. By definition, alt open water is consid- ered to be "in use."Metro Council equivalent is"open water." This category includes all land reserved for street or highway uses and for certain transit facilities, Right-of-Way, Road whether by easement or by fee title. By definition, all such right-of-way is considered to be "in use." Metro Council equivalent is "roadways, option 2." Right-of-Way, Railroad This category includes all land reserved for railroad uses, whether by easement or by fee title. By defini- tion, all such right-of-way is considered to be"in use."There is no Metro Council equivalent. City of • •-n Va[ley '*e' Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 § 11.30 Section 11.30: Commercial Zoning District Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the Commercial Zoning District is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the community and are located in areas which are well served by collector and arterial street facilities. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Commercial Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.30, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.30 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Commercial Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Commercial Zoning District: A. Bakeries B. Barber shop and/or beauty parlor C. Catering establishments D. Comfort stations E. Delicatessen F. Dressmaking and tailoring establishments, including retail sales of clothing G. Clothing, shoes and/or accessories sales (retail) H. Electric repair shops I. Electronic equipment sales J. Financial institutions K. Floral shops (not to include nurseries) L. Furniture sales and repair Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 7 § 11.30 M. Hardware, paint, and decorating stores N. Hotels and motels O. Lodge halls P. Messenger and telegraph services Q. Offices, including medical and dental R. Pharmacies S. Photograph supplies and/or galleries T. Plumbing shops U. Post office V. Printing shops W. Public garage X. Recreation buildings and structures (public and private), including gymnasium, racquetball, etc Y. Class I restaurants Z. Shoe repair shops AA. Skating rinks (ice or roller) privately owned and operated for profit BB. Shopping centers (general retail - convenience shopping) CC. Theaters DD. Trade or industrial training schools, both public and private EE. General retail services and/or sales not otherwise listed as a Conditional Use in Subdivision 4, below Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7-16-82 FF. Massage parlors, saunas, rap parlors, conversation parlors, escort services, model services, dancing services, hostess services, adult encounter group services, adult sensitivity group services and other similar adult oriented services that require City licensing pursuant to other provisions of the City Code Source: Ordinance No. 603 Effective Date: 8-26-83 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 7 § 11.30 GG. Tanning parlors Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 HH. Essential Services - Class I Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 II. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales Source: Ordinance No. 127, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-27-95 Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses A. Animal hospitals, veterinary clinics, and/or pet grooming facilities B. Auto repair shops, including tire and auto accessory repair and installation C. Car wash D. Convenience food stores E. Drive-in retail establishments, such as banks, cleaning, photo shops, etc F. Gasoline service stations G. Mortuaries H. Off-street parking for adjacent commercial or industrial uses I. Outdoor sales, including car lots, auto and equipment rentals J. Outside storage and/or sales of horticultural nursery sites, temporary farmers market, and itinerant sales K. Pool halls Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 L. Class III restaurants, bars, night clubs, etc. M. Sales, or show rooms (auto, machinery, boats, etc.) N. Unattended business operations, such as vending machines, coin or token operated machines and equipment, and other similar uses O. Video game arcades Source: Ordinance No. 615 Effective Date: 5-25-84 Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 7 § 11.30 P. Heliports, as herein defined Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 Q. Child Care Facilities, as defined in this Chapter Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6-23-88 R. Marine Engine Repair Source: Ordinance No. 4, 2nd Series Effective Date: 8-25-88 S. Adult Day Care Center Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-13-01 T. Essential Services - Class III, except for peaking stations and substations Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 U. Brewpubs Source: Ordinance No. 540, 2nd Series Effective Date: 1-30-15 Subdivision 5. Restricted Uses No premises shall be used wholly or in part for the storage of any material whatsoever except where such materials are stored in a building and where the character of such building conforms with the general development of a Commercial District and no building or premises in the Commercial District shall be used for any kind of manufacture, repairing, alteration, converting or finishing which uses mechanical power aggregating more than five (5) horsepower per two thousand (2,000) feet of ground area. Ground area means the total area of the lot or parcel of land on which a building using mechanical power is located and not just the area of the part of the lot or parcel of land actually covered by the building. Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7-16-82 Deleted Loading & Parking Requirements Source: Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-1-06 *Subdivision 6. Yard Requirements Front yard, side and rear yards shall be provided for all buildings within the Commercial Zoning District as follows: A. In the case of premises abutting a public street, front yard setbacks shall be at least thirty-five (35) feet from the right-of-way line of said street. All front yard setbacks shall be maintained as landscaped green areas. All portions of a lot, or parcel, abutting a public street shall be deemed to be front yards. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 7 § 11.30 B. Side and rear yard setbacks shall be provided as follows: Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7-16-82 1. In the case of premises adjoining a Residential or R-2 Residential Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than fifty (50) in depth and width. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 2. In the case of premises adjoining a Multiple Dwelling, Business and Professional Office, or Institutional Zoning District, required side and rear yards shall not be less than thirty (30) feet in width and depth. Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7-16-82 3. In the case of premises adjoining a Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial, or Railroad Zoning District, required side and rear yards shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth or width. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 4. One-half (1/2) of the required side and rear yards, as measured from the lot line, shall be landscaped, planted and maintained as a buffer zone. Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7-16-82 *Subdivision 7. Lot Coverage No building or structure, or group thereof, shall occupy more than fifty percent (50%) of the total land area of any lot or parcel in a Commercial Zoning District. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 *Subdivision 8. Height Restrictions No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures as provided for in Section 11.71 of this Code, shall be erected to exceed a height of three (3) stories in the Commercial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. The City Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit for a taller building. Source: Ordinance No. 365, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-23-07 Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 7 § 11.30 *Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses A. Essential Services - Class I. B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this Zoning District: 1. Location. A Detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from an alley. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. 8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 7 § 11.30 accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1,000) square feet or less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling, except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building code. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series Effective Date: 05-25-06 *Renumbering Source (Subd. 6-9): Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-1-06 Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 7 § 11.45 Section 11.45: Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District is to provide areas wherein there may be erected, maintained and used, offices for persons engaged in business pursuits not involving the sale of or handling of goods, wares, merchandise or commodities, as for example, accountants, insurance brokers, realtors, fiscal agents and the like; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit in such districts the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or commodities by sample, as for example, by manufacturer's representatives. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.45, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.45 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Business and Professional Offices Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 *Subdivision 3. Building Height No building in this zoning district shall exceed three (3) stories in height at the front or street grade level, unless a Conditional Use Permit has been granted allowing such building or structure to exceed three (3) stories in height. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 *Subdivision 4. Yard Restrictions A. Front Yard Setbacks. Front yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: 1. No building or other structure in the Business and Professional Offices District shall be located closer than thirty-five (35) feet from the property line along any abutting street. The thirty-five (35) foot front setback as described above shall all be landscaped. 2. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the front setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 5 § 11.45 B. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. Side yards and rear yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 1. In the case of premises abutting a Residential or R-2 Residential Zoning District, side and rear yards of such premises shall be not less than fifty (50) feet in depth or width, of which at least twenty-five (25) feet adjacent to the lot line or property line shall be planted, landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 2. In the case of premises abutting on a Multiple Dwelling Zoning District or an Institutional Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than thirty (30) feet in depth or width, of which at least the fifteen (15) feet adjacent to the lot line shall be planted, landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. 3. In the case of premises abutting on another Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in depth or width for each building, tract, lot or premises of which at least one-half (1/2) the setback as measured from the lot line shall be landscaped and planted. 4. In the case of premises abutting on a Commercial or Industrial Zoning District, side yards and rear yards shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in depth and width of which at least one-half (1/2) the setback as measured from the lot line shall be landscaped and planted. 5. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the side and rear setbacks shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. *Subdivision 5. Area Restrictions No building or other structure in this zoning district shall occupy more than forty percent (40%) of the tract of land on which it is located. An additional twenty percent (20%) of the tract of land shall be allowed for the construction of a parking structure. *Subdivision 6. Lot Area No building or other structure located in this zoning district shall be located on a parcel of land that is less than one (1) acre in area or less than one hundred (100) feet in width. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 5 § 11.45 *Subdivision 7. Conditional Uses A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business and Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or the service they provide to the public. These conditional uses require particular considerations as to their proper location in relation to adjacent established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the City. The conditions controlling the location and operation of such conditional uses are established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 396, 2nd Effective Date: 3-28-08 B. Authority. The Council shall have the authority, after having received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, to permit the following types of the conditional uses of land or structures, or both, within a Business and Professional Offices District, if the Council finds that the proposed location and establishment of any such use will be desirable or necessary to the public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compatible with other uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the selected site. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 1. Buildings exceeding three (3) stories in height, subject to the provisions of Subdivision 5, Subparagraph A, Item 2, and Subparagraph B. above, and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 2. Recreational facilities such as ball fields, swimming pools and playgrounds. 3. Daytime activity centers and/or other facilities providing school and/or training for retarded or handicapped people. 4. Financial institutions, including drive-in facilities. 5. Limited retail services within a professional office building. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 6. Heliports, as herein defined. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 5 § 11.45 7. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with the uses specifically described above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 8. Adult Day Care Center. Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-13-02 9. Child Care Facilities. Source: Ordinance No. 396, 2nd Effective Date: 3-28-08 *Subdivision S. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: A. Offices B. Essential Services - Class I Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 *Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class I B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 5 § 11.45 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from an alley. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. 8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1000) square feet or less than one hundred-twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling, except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building code. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series Effective Date: 05-25-06 *Renumbering Source (Subd. 3-9): Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-1-06 Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 5 °c LL 2 < 5 rn $ d oo 0 w N J £e Q 3 ai Q' N •L a c� I o •�' 0 Of ' U .�+ U 'O U N z' "D (113 N N C C ooe E E o R N C Z D h U- a 0 � > > V CD In v c p •U = c O g g s \ 0 �—C �v - W = o m o] a> 'C c> a x a 0 � aa) CL a i v Z a � = E y _ o o I m spa oN Z� SIIOdtldNNIW 30 X1IJI70dtlHNNlw d0 7.11D It r,w. y • s a a Sq i oq SI10dtl3NNIIH 30 A.LIJ I (..;..•�. `.axi.a f.., .. _ �.. -a2 I �\ `.+�. 1 —.-.,-- ._lunuea.+au_. — " ': it 711YQSNIaBOU A10 Law.•,`;p� T!a{► :, \ }!<' �xlr I ::. } �. u I r 11. 7 gb I TT, ti 11 } Sr .•mow III x � F : I. I'}•gJr.I, '. .,.°. '� S..u.,.r•., .wyY.n I i IIL ,may I. i i.; BOJ _ �/�,yl w.. •.,,,,.w. - '�@'. ! ,rt �. •x...wx l „ v»Fl1 ..I ' � _'f' _ R p I 5 'roM.wwi f� � !. r i Yx•leWwnrwaM ` ', ' �\\� ' � 2 1rI'�s3• I I. coup _. , s .. d ' low I. 1..V I1 X,WD I 1.j :' 1 VbNiblIwN CW.l.I .L _ _ I! 1 i II I d ��� o•'". r.i w_ 'I 'gip I .s r ; I: -' � 1_ S",, v - .; ;. ;...i x.,q' .._.'.f�... ._ i x«.rfd.,.'._'.. I I, � «i ' I I w � �\ _, .... 1Y,"• °w*w tix�"i li 1 (( o I :I�' ul«. w'�-� 11 la ,_� .L`•�t-• � t-': .,ylwrn �"1'�',3� I�.�M r' � Y � 1 �...I It � I I - � � ',a w � ig�w I j a I IIS I I J _'4e {.., \+,I � � � I aP s �-. -. I� I --a��ja ��� .,,��� 1rr+` .,•.'" ', � ��o,...F I FF 177IFli_ I i -Y . e g � « gyp, - .- �' I � •r.r , .. t „.� / '� R � � I r I I j x q �� I'v [ �l ® « wo� .__ _____..___..��„�_<.—...�—._", ^r' M xW xa n w. x o > a .. ,o ,•..tea __ ik, _. 1d1SUO 10.l,LIJ ..�o,• I x.a«.n �.. i q I'! 'x \ 5 � >esuv OR \\ .. „i :ivrrY �.:nY( 6. ;...: � ..._ 13 �L:. +f �,", - _ ¢k• '\� t J 7 l m 1 ' tm RON d /: ,�•,Nr k.'.�.'-� 3 � I':_,', 1.�� � ,,, � +r" -�.✓-� ! 1 I .•� .vu x6MY.1 - x 112\N ;�. i' 1 .f.' xD.vltyr• y�''.'�•'� '�. .�I. .::ark" � t, d' r +. r -'•{y< 'r.al..� r ;:.I s -, .,..,�;,1, MI �) ':.. .tl Ilxtl_.___. p Auc> 1 _. ._. x•, n '. I.., `� 1 I {I�'`'•.' I) r y I {..}'Y!^''^•°1� `9•NP°ar,eol � I y y g '�Mwvxl p _� �I '.II 4 1 � '� xjtlt 1 r 1 '•y+p I.. ,1 ' 4 Imo, � \ I! r J 1 I zM ,.r I O �� f,1. x.}r, •' ' •I I, I�• I 1' I'�. r� I k J w„'uru�1 �[.:„N \\\ k„'• I I, ( '{ i �',. I I �♦ fA, r f V� ( d C.�wgx,w+e \ 1 I � I ' 0 ,x I , o � .1,�r• I y�y I '. In y M r I �� ? nr <.,<M "-�e�'° r � ,x,...^.�•'� , r : EE d �_•`� �-: - ... 1 � •yam I I 11. �: � 3 _ f �q VJ I I 1 I.;xl.�,� � x Ya�wD r� M•xNw,x.e y� �P t 9.: r II .a xv x �I - �-�� �g�$ � x r���*91 �► n [ p# �► x �� IIx w w xTKw v o w ._.___.._'_-_..�_..__.._. • wrx u,wx nx<xw H1fIONAIJ 30 I,11DHnI `Ym o 1O W717 I1I � tld SICICI 3 0.l1 i 3 I 30 71113gm N a 1 d 'y`au r/18m W 5 t'1'V� c g s.a i • QI _ " " by v x VI H ysZ� N m _� .C�{�. 1 r, C r/� "'C� S e u �`g$�< _ 1V N c sv a& e 2 go2�e c m ; mmn •L^J Ci lYv, R� ^ s •y &x .�" b b ,i:3 b N Q t: oag«,n .�/ Q to U .-y /`�� [� P4 U $u 41+ m I-+ Q 01) ,a p`o�n6°�•gr wv si.rQo g SE § E U'?- ouF �'. N-e ov Na 0 • W E y a c ZOdo 1)z1O n 4 4 7a Cn Ul C'7 X rri VJUd ko Cn Cn Cn `i' O x-� N M to "CS d •�LL$ g .b y; Q �'a E N „o 0 0 of b4 'C ":7 b�A Og .G 23 d o CU ° g w a 1 a O - a w m H o O �C! M p b0 L� v' m a s' 3 OG x °�€p CL z v rU x a g OU i-7 PO �x w .: W , o A Cn s` o`N f u Q m s Z u N v 0 N 001 IDD I o � e� O a a e � S170dd9NNI1N 30.LZIJ [J I70dtlH NNITN 30 U Q ,,. N 9 Nip� �' •'" ,_n-.+�n_�rv.,, J �s' -•r'�.� 0 y» x a xea��a G lti On SI70dVHNNI1`1 30 AM �- _.._.__ _..__'__.._._.�{=iwh o ._ --- _.__._. e , , � a 'N c}i o. w.„.,xM. � w.xa"` ; a � hN.,•.„,, a-Xw iso, \ Tp1 •�' '� q�'� 9 _ _ I ' I v,.•,., 5 Y«YWx>q � PY 4N mq a°wwaw \\ �\ t .m _ a 1 .. �. `s � .y � 4 d � ., x .;.. � _�. � 9.�'aN«YM,:x F �v,`�''� �•` li /0 �'� �,3�'g�' �,��� �•-��� !xww>,wx,. a h`'auw,Y Y. YM 7 }•4F� M.MY b",Y #I� o y 5., ��///r: # a • �t\\II :I , nva�' S 'a xw•+ft ` .as ,t .� � <�.„ � ' --a's� 11: /�/ $ �'g - gg f� P .�' .�tp t �S � I •- w a 7tlZS.iHJ HO 40. w,p>PM , t , �a x„v>sWb y�'.•-�� � � •, �.� � � III f ' - � Gk e t`tu wN a f 5 e ,r°'' .•m„,.' ..+ '.;,,.Yxe.�,..y _ } �.. «'"+mow. . � ', w,�a.w,.. # w,•e,w '�:� �-�% :^w is <.awea )1l + �` ".t, mow^ \\�` O yI' S � «r•,PPI r � `' NxnY•MP�� � a 9 I ce et � �x {; p { ® V .w: � irY"� � �. „.,r,.,m•:; ' � g x Y zl� ��e� �6,� ._ ; � a � �' d �pool, P;a ,I a w:nCo j h� x»Y R y.rwaN. '� r t 8a 46 it !B O C> a ♦P 5 + �� ? I � 13 Y Z5 ca Aw kjmL •Av a ; h �.., ':i ,ty � ..r h .� I' ISI• q `, m .. a — - ” _I xnolvz7d ao z.T.IJ w,. Iiinowz ' l Tia sino7'Zs ' 'S a m' d aotZTo city of goldeniov .'ArMEMORANDUM � Y Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing-Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map - Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Boulevard) - City of Golden Valley, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary An application to amend the General Land Use Plan Map and a Rezoning Petition were filed by the City of Golden Valley for the property formerly addressed as 3900 Wayzata Boulevard. The property was originally platted for residential use and a home was located there until the late 1960s. At that time, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) purchased the property for highway development. The property was removed from the General Land Use Plan Map and Official Zoning Map and the home was demolished. MnDOT has recently sold the land and City staff has determined that this lot is appropriate for single-family residential use once again. However, to be subject to all official controls associated with the City's zoning regulations, the property must be officially designated and zoned for Low Density Residential use by the City Council. The following recommendations are contingent upon approval by the Metropolitan Council. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated April 11, 2016 (6 pages) • Memo to Planning Commission dated April 11, 2016 (1 page) • MnDOT Land Sale Notification & Description (5 pages) • General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) • Official Zoning Map (1 page) • Resolution Amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map Designating Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills to Low Density Residential (1 page) • Ordinance No. 597, Rezoning Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills to Single Family Residential (R-1) (1 page) Recommended Actions Motion to adopt Resolution for Amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map Designating Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Boulevard)to Low Density Residential. Motion to adopt Ordinance #597, Rezoning Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Boulevard) to Single-Family Residential (R-1), City of Golden Valley, Applicant. 640 641 loo L616 6�s15 708 709 709 708 700 700 70.1 717 800 801 800 817 a09 716 817 $00 721 {= 825, y 890, 909 817 ►t`^ 808 804 /N04p 803, k 816 "Its 816 831 808 816 824 or, 901 824 sol :^ `�• _ 820 $32 909 MINNEAPOLIS 5 1001 1015 103,1 1045 4400 ac r' 1001 •;i�•'�c.._'� 900 1401 _~ y op T` Subject Property �uyrol Park 1000 1009 920 1901 '{y = 1020 1,030 1100 409 S4's 1017 4112 1109 6r 4102 1122 4030 4022 4012 r'1 - i t: 4410 13.07 1304 1300 4121 4117 4111��` LVD 4101401l5 S 4007 6 4400 4330 4310 9309 1300 ��WAYZAto 13.24. 1308 1"yr01 Cr•81 1315 1340 1320 1312 1307 1310 ; 4413 4335 4325 4315 1323 1370 1316 Q X 1309 1407 1401 1345 si 9 319 -,9 415 Z 1400' �?,.- ��J 5 i �' � A\ '� 4324 ,a1317 \ y 1416 9407-�• YYYSSS 1421 4330 1�4 1 1319 14391445 .n 4340 �p X1410 `1415 W1406 1435 4350, g@+/432; 1408 mss:" 1410 94111429 —1423— • �s4335� 1430- 1410' 1521 9500 149$ 1504 4345 ��_ 91.E —1439 ® Q 1507 , Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 A regular meeting of the Planning Comission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley oad, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 11, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called he meeting to order at 7 pm. Tho esent were Planning Commis oners Baker, Blum, Johnson, K ka, Segelbau d Waldhauser. Also pr ent was Planning Manager , on Zimmerman, Associate Plann rant Writer Emily oellner, and Administr Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissio Cera was ab nt. <# 1. Approval of Minutes February 29, 2016, Joint Pla g, ironmental and Open Space and Recreation Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, secondby lum an otion carried unanimously to approve the February 29, 2016, minut as su itted. March 14, 2016 egular Plann g Commission Meeti Blum referred to t 7th paragraph on age 8 and noted that the w "now" should be changed to the ord "not." Johnson r erred to the 6th paragrap on page 15 and stated that the word "n ural" should removed from the first sent nce. M ED by Baker, seconded by Jo son and motion carried unanimously to approve the arch 14, 2016, minutes with the a ve noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) — CPAM-58 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Residential—Low Density. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) — ZO09-03 Applicant- City of Golden Valley Addresses: Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 2 Purpose: To rezone the property from Right-of-Way to Single Family Zoning District (R-1). The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 2 and 3 were combined. Goellner referred to a location map of the subject property and explained that it was originally platted to allow for a single-family home, and that there was a single family home on the property until it was demolished in 1970. She stated that MnDOT purchased the property in the 1960s for the Highway 12 project and recently sold it in an auction to the highest bidder. She added that MnDOT sold the property "as is" assuming that the land will be used for a single-family home as it had been in the past. Goellner explained that the lot is buildable for a single-family home because it is over 80 feet in width and more than 10,000 square feet in size. She added that it would not be eligible for a lot split because there is not enough width for two lots and MnDOT has no intention of selling any of the adjacent right-of-way in order to obtain the necessary lot width. Goellner stated that staff is recommending that the property be rezoned and re-guided to Single Family, Low Density Residential, but there are other options. These options include guiding and zoning it as park/open space or leaving the property as right-of-way. The City's Director of Parks and Recreation has stated that this property is not part of the city-wide comprehensive parks plan, and there are concerns about maintenance costs. The Public Works Department has stated that the City would be open to pursuing a trail or access easement for the existing trail located south of the subject property, but not a path through the subject property. She added that the risk of leaving the property as right-of- way according to the City Attorney is that the new owner could build a home without being subject to R-1 zoning restrictions such as: setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Waldhauser asked Goellner to point out the location of the existing trail south of the subject property. Goellner referred to an aerial photo of the area and noted where an access easement could be located. Baker questioned why an easement would be needed. Goellner stated that putting an easement in place would maintain the access into Theodore Wirth Park. Baker stated that there is a new trail that crosses the back corner of this property and questioned if the Minneapolis Park Board knows that this property has been sold, or that it is proposed to be rezoned and re-guided. Goellner stated that Minneapolis will review the proposed Land Use Map amendment as part of the Metropolitan Council review process. Blum asked staff if they know the maintenance costs if this parcel were to be a park or open space. Zimmerman said he didn't know the exact costs, but if the City owns the property it would have to be brought up to code with ADA requirements, trash cans, benches, etc. He added that the City would like to have additional parkland further west toward the Good Day cafe, but not in this location. Segelbaum questioned if making this property parkland could be considered a taking. Goellner said that staff did not consider that, but thinks what is being proposed is the best use for the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 3 Johnson asked how someone could build a house without having to follow any of the zoning requirements if the City were to do nothing with this property. Zimmerman stated that this is a unique case because there is no zoning designation on this property. He said the new owner could take possession of the property and there could either be a freeze to allow for no development until the process is figured out, or the new owners could potentially build whatever they want because there is no zoning in place. The question is if the old zoning designation would carry over. The City Attorney feels there is some risk in not doing anything with the property. Blum asked if the environmental impacts or the effects on the existing habitat have been considered and added that this vacant parcel does provide a barrier for the neighborhood. Zimmerman said he spoke with the staff liaison to the Environmental Commission and he said there are a couple of areas where the City could expand open space in order to preserve environmental features, but the City has been operating under the assumption that this property would go back to being a single-family parcel at some point. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Chuck Malkerson, 1109 Tyrol Trail, said he has lived in Golden Valley for 15 years, he loves Golden Valley, and it has been a wonderful place to raise a family. He stated that Mr. Zimmerman has been very helpful and has spent a lot of time answering his questions, and he has been pleased with the process. He said in his career he's had opportunities to deal with Comprehensive Plans, and land use and environmental issues but that this is a peculiar case. He said the end user has not shown up or discussed anything with the neighborhood and he doesn't know what is going on. He said he can't get any owner information until a deed is filed and this lack of information leads to suspicion and fear because they just don't know anything. They don't know if the buyer knows what he is getting into because this property is a blank slate with no zoning on it. He said he thinks it's fabulous that Golden Valley has been recognized as a "tree city" for 29 years and discussed the various pocket parks and small areas of open space and nature space in the City. He noted that one of the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to pursue and acquire land for open space and trails and said it would be possible to make a decision about this property as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update. He referred to past Planning Commission meetings where the Commission discussed easements and other ways to protect trees, but none of those things have been considered for this property. He asked if a house is built on this lot if there is any way the neighbors can be involved in requiring things above and beyond what is required in the Zoning Code. He stated that past proposals have also required applicants to hold a neighborhood meeting, which has not happened in this case and asked that there be a neighborhood meeting because the City and the neighborhood don't have enough information or details. He stated that this property has been a park for 50 years and that there has been a friendly trail through this lot that has provided everybody access to Theodore Wirth Park. He stated that the owner of the house at 1101 Tyrol Trail, Dr. Leo De Souza passed away and his wife Dolly is now in an assisted living facility and that their family would be interested in hearing and participating in what is going on with this property. He said he had an encounter with the buyer who was amazed that MnDOT had a wooded lot for sale, but that is all the information he got so it is not clear what is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 4 happening. He said Dr. De Souza's family would like this property to be a park and he would contribute $5,000 to help defray the City's costs. He said he would like any decisions regarding this property postponed in order to have a neighborhood meeting to get a handle on who bought this property and what they want to do with it. Tom Lockhart, 909 Parkview Terrace, said this neighborhood has taken their lumps with developers going beyond what they're supposed to do. Those properties are already built so there is nothing they can do about it now, but he is suspicious about what will go on this property. He said he wants there to be a restriction in place that allows only one residential property. Mike Docter, 1122 Tyrol Trail, questioned if something could really be built on this property without permits. He said he can see why the City would want to zone this R-1, but it has been a nice buffer for the neighborhood. He asked if someone owns the property if they have to clean it up or if it can be left as is. He said he would also contribute $5,000 for a park. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked if the City has the option to wait until the Comprehensive Plan update in 2018 to address this property. Goellner said the City could wait, but there might be litigation from the new property owner. Segelbaum agreed that waiting could create a dispute. Waldhauser referred to the question about tree conservation easements and said her recollection of past discussions is that the City is not in a position to put in place or enforce those types of easements or agreements. Zimmerman agreed and stated that the City typically requires an easement only if there are high quality trees or habitat to protect. Waldhauser asked why a neighborhood meeting wasn't held. Zimmerman stated that hearing notices were sent to properties within 500 for this public hearing. He explained that this proposal didn't trigger the need for a neighborhood meeting according to the recently amended neighborhood meeting policy. He added that this proposal is also unique because there isn't really an applicant to organize a neighborhood meeting. Goellner added that the neighbors were interested in having a neighborhood meeting in order to talk to the new property owner, but the owner of the property won't be known until mid-May when the deed is recorded. Waldhauser stated that a question was asked about opportunities neighbors would have to influence what the new property owner does with the property. She said she doesn't think the neighbors would have any influence because they aren't the property owner. Segelbaum added that there are a number of requirements in the R-1 Zoning District that the new owner would have to follow. He asked Zimmerman about the requirements regarding tree removal. Zimmerman stated that a certain percentage of significant trees can be removed before mitigation is required. Goellner added that it is likely the new Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 5 owner would have to do mitigation, but that would be reviewed during the building permit process. Segelbaum asked about Zoning Code changes since the Parkview Terrace subdivisions were approved. Zimmerman explained that in 2008 many changes were made to the Code including larger setbacks, articulation and height requirements. Waldhauser referred to the concern about splitting the property. Zimmerman stated that another 60 feet of width would be required to divide the property into two lots and he doesn't think MnDOT, the Park Board, or the City would be interested in selling property to allow for a subdivision of the land. Waldhauser asked if the new owner will be required to clean up the property even if they don't build on it. Zimmerman said until the new owner builds a house the property can be left as is unless there is a safety issue. Segelbaum asked if the easement area located to the south of this property, used for access to the park, is relevant to this discussion. Zimmerman stated that the property would remain right-of-way and that there could be an opportunity to work with MnDot and the Park Board to pursue a more permanent trail or access point. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that an easement be placed on the property to the south. Baker stated that they should find out if there is a relationship with the Park Board and MnDOT because there is an existing access area. He added that if a relationship exists, the City wouldn't have to do anything. Goellner stated that if the Commission wants to recommend that the property to the south be used for access she suggests that it be addressed separately and not as a condition of approval or denial for the rezoning/re-guiding of the subject property. Baker said he is sympathetic with the residents who want to have a neighborhood meeting. He suggested that a neighborhood meeting be held to give them an opportunity to voice their concerns, or this proposal should wait until the City knows who the owner is. Zimmerman reiterated that not all planning proposals require a neighborhood meeting. Blum said he thinks there is a legal and statutorily compliant use being proposed. The proposed use is a mirror image of its past use as low density residential and is really a restoration of the lot to its previous use, not a new or different use. He said the existing trail access to the south of the subject property does not seem to be changing as a result of this proposal. He said he does have concerns about keeping the access to the park because it is used by the neighborhood and is a very nice trail head, so he does not want to see that access closed off. He said he is also concerned about the environmental impact on the property and he would like more details about the maintenance costs if the property were to become a park or open space. Baker agreed and said he wants to guarantee that there is a more permanent access to the park and not just currently an access that MnDOT could close. Kluchka agreed and said that access is a real jewel and wants to focus on keeping it. Johnson stated that if the access is kept informal it could be kept as is. If it is formalized there may be more liability. He said it amazes him that the State can thrust an un-zoned property on the City to make the City deal with it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 6 Kluchka asked if the City could have rezoned the property prior to its sale. Zimmerman said there was a small amount of time that the City knew the property was for sale. He explained that the property hasn't been on the Zoning Map or Land Use Map for many years. It has just been designated as right-of-way. Baker asked if the original zoning on the property was ever formally removed. Goellner stated that there is no evidence that it was ever removed. Baker asked about the risks if the property is not rezoned. Zimmerman stated that if there is no zoning on the property, technically there are no rules or requirements. He added that the City would like to avoid any potential issues by zoning it R-1. Waldhauser said she is inclined to zone the property R-1. It seems to fit in nicely with the neighborhood and meets all of the dimensional requirements. There would also be some certainty as far as what can be built on this property. She said as far as natural habitat the neighborhood still has all of Theodore Wirth Park on the back side of this property. She added that she is also interested in keeping the existing park access/connection located to the south. Baker asked if the excess right-of-way with the existing park access could be incorporated into the subject property. Zimmerman said MnDOT would have to be open to allowing someone else to own and maintain it, so he thinks it makes sense to work with MnDOT and the Park Board on keeping that access. Goellner added that with a noise wall located to the south, it is unlikely MnDOT would sell any of the right-of-way. Segelbaum said the public is concerned about the unknowns in this situation and that he thinks the best route is to rezone the property to R-1 to prevent the unknowns from happening. He said he would also like to let the City Council know that the Planning Commission would like to maintain the trail/park access. Waldhauser added that if the remaining MnDOT right-of-way property were offered for sale, and this property hadn't been developed yet, there is a possibility the two could be put together and then subdivided so rezoning this property now would end that. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Residential-Low Density for Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd). MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to rezone Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) from Right-of-Way to Single Family Residential (R-1). --Short Recess-- 4. Discussio t ing Code Text Amendment—Amending Moderate Density Re ntial (R-2) Zoning District—ZO00-104 City q iy'awaf M EMOR AND UM golde, valley- Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: April 11, 2016 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map— Lot 11, Block 8 West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900) Wayzata Boulevard Background An application to amend the Comprehensive Plan was filed by the City of Golden Valley to guide the property formerly addressed as 3900 Wayzata Boulevard for Low Density Residential use. The property was originally platted for residential use and a home was located there until the 1960s. At that time, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) purchased the property for highway development. The property was un-guided and un-zoned from residential to right-of-way and the home was demolished. MnDOT is now selling the land (with a bid opening on March 29) and City staff has determined that this lot is appropriate for Low Density Residential use once again. However, a home cannot be built on this property until it is officially guided and zoned for Residential use by the City Council. The City has not received a building permit application for a home on this property, but the City would like to guide the property for residential use so that the future owner can build a home if they choose to do so. Any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment must be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment. The City may review the proposal as long as final action is not taken prior to Metropolitan Council review of the proposed amendment. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of amending the General Land Use Plan Map to designate Lot 11, Block 8 West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Boulevard)from un-zoned right-of-way to Low Density Residential land use. Attachments Location Map (1 page) MnDOT Land Sale Notification & Description (5 pages) Comprehensive Plan Table of Land Use Definitions (1 page) General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WOODED RESIDENTIAL LOT FOR SALE 0.51 Acres q f a. E LOCATED: At Wayzata Blvd & Tyrol Trail, Golden Valley, MN *Abuts Theodore Wirth Park* Sale Number 139410 Conveyance 1996-0046 C.S.: 2714 (12=10) 902 Parcel: 1 Bid Opening March 29, 2016, 2:00 P.M. at Mn/DOT METRO DISTRICT Right of Way Office 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 For further information contact LandSales.MN.DOTLa),state.mn.us Web Site: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/row/propsales.html Site Photos ,a 4 WIVp Vt Nk NIS ��y 3 ri vaY ,. a,�� Site Photos 1'' 1+ 4� -► r tYr:I': f I Site Sketch p.:Elt, E yap— 4- 0, E IAN _0,eE`&L E EDNIfI -:t 'AF�EL , .'Lc >i. F'. x 3 e RM—MR, w Y s�° f� NOTE: This map is not part of the bid form. This map is enclosed for the convenience of the bidder,to aid in identifying the general location of the land being offered for sale. Outlines of buildings and other items of construction,which are shown on the map,may not represent current conditions. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS This parcel is a .51 acre piece of vacant residential land. It was purchased around 1960 for a TH 12 project. Later TH 394 was built and this land was no longer needed for highway purposes. This is a fairly flat, wooded residential lot located in the North Tyrol neighborhood of Golden Valley. This property abuts Theodore Wirth Park/Eloise Butler Wildflower Garden. It has close proximity to walking and ski trails, Interstate 394 and downtown Minneapolis. While remnants remain from the original building(concrete stairs and foundation blocks), this property is being sold "As Is". MnDOT is not aware of any wells on the property, but the sale is subject to the existing utilities on the parcel. A w rn oo o m o z. q m N m e c.; W� o o 0 0CU S IM ° Ea eLL 8 LL N ® 0 If, y rn U m o= t n r L d W 1 OC N LL opI U .�. N O o z m OC a E 2 _ p 0 75 0 W m e .0 w o $ IU .44 x CL WCL ........ SI1Od V3NNIW d0 AL1) , NI N L() r pg7 3 ll 0 ka co rA h s fi �I � ice, I ,.«° •'.. r ,�;. ?ryp•, � -�, S170dtl3NNIW 30 A.LI r \ TIr rl k ! T r I :fit do AZIJ •.M. 6., --`-i¢w�mq ', , I ', SE rs rar �rq 'r- —� '.: �i 7!\ i7. " µ 7q I + '' '.r9, �1 r .,L++ �'. �J ..5.I x}•n����%...�_ - Ol,� \ay'h(. � °S.\,�i Nr-��;r l� - I i t J:N°.��-�-��� � I �,'. �,q'�Nt ��.:• j'I a'.•.rzk rtirxi..,.I .._.M N :;,:.. t i 8• ` _ ( a r -}-d.�_�. 1 i °� .�-� � °`"�j ��• I r-I .: � �. w.q.� ._. p.,r r '' t { b�„ v ',.. t_',r -.r ..q.w.,,.w, •x 1 r lap:..,r.,;:7". 4i°� _ 1� i _ �.�.f.4„� ,. ;�.. i�.�l�.l��� I •iv _.� w �.,y '.�., ,lj. I� �t�"I�+� 'T"111' •TT' r— 'h. �,1-L � �, �"A, �'�� � '"r�'" F1 �-r,1 _�• 3 T , [ 1 `g._ ;xrv. a � ,_: € �.�:-�-. ti+rw z:Y�... `.�L M•ret'Mr F-�1 ���'�.f'-1.r�"_��i� � � •� ,.-„xot�.xa,:' J ..,.,,,,�� s+•< ,. Nita:� t �..._�•«°"°'i E 1_��\,�-- ,r ztnm:���.•` � r.v ena..odq��„�-"'!-.?' �r�L- I I I r"�'..i �` � � F 0.,....-.o. vf'/�?-. �`•.-``: I� �-,.. I"wng x.�� ,,I',�� r:1 �"1 '\�e 1 �°!►a_'_, L;.-V_n-r•"r -rte-,-/ T:r::T. 5D.1 7�-' .s Ig,�;.�1� h - I.`_,' i. u:�•,I !✓1'a �'I :.. i - , 3 n-ri •.Ty '\..-,`~ I `_ -1 l t .,�z_M .N ,✓ rt ,.1� r \. �� '"� f 7-�{IT�rI-`�S � 7r __a j-t -L/'1. �NI°•X�_. rr }Irk+ s' W„�b 1. f"t� •�: \ F r .C.,t� � '+h , +�r ,$ a6J+,r"� 8ay.'°;n�(1 r - „�, i7 }!l r.*1, i �T 1 Ir--.-\ �A' // �•--e M"Wx ON �~ s T...TWL -/�1 z1� '} �' ¢ � � �• -) nMNmn �� �\ nAA.,w `C✓ X �,. 1 L wY \ .. �It � i..: ,y^R �L% Mp...' �,.lpiiv°e+•p3. I �a� y "u J lam) z s rT `X: J n,a+ '6 ,..,,• I O w �, _ 77, rl l.1 ��� �.w ��I , r,� ' . I-+-�-= f�t +r^._�1 t t-.� .1,;7r wr _t"-.t.�.4 T u �— 1. T ipA,.•. } _4G if r�.!C �-sd'!w.,wxa,z-i {} • , ._ 1 �' '-�` � �,��.. � �• r.-. 'V �� � � I T'r'y-+, 4 N x ww - e'nhn`°IkM. 4,7 r'-� r mla 'w- I r wvw^•"" , W. .nA°•,• ,r 1., i r�.V` N�v.ie•s ra V �u��l�rr J i f J' p W r A 1 •' A 1,0 17 if , 7 JU Q 0 if 1 erk• ------------- •' 1 F F� ry { r p m I ----mow».•.. �^ate� HILIOWA1d JO A113 — }IyflOW i7tl I?IHtld SI110'1'ys `T„� a'$ �a 30 A•I.IJ I 30 Ay1J tri 37 � UmC7�� • '.!'" c o A A o g 3 a o -'.'tea F'b Eli Al t cu ro CU '(U O ^O > > Q Yg u o f SIU v ry�g� O m Y Y N (' S WE! N c� 1.'10 •rmq N M 013 4o 5 e �• �w CIr RW u a c no n M •�(f{/�;]� jE a /h� ^� /S�� /�+ /b� w Cc v !g� gyp' $ O E o I,}�� g Fd Y•-! F_I Y•_I F.•Y G a S -?S Aye Gf W V - LL1 p o N 1' t^_J.i■�/I, i�•l i'.I •�+ 1 ,t1 .1�+ •U LL 3 Q Lip] CA g W t�.l 9= E cn cf) c1) cn c1i Sd $ n r g`o r p 0 8 I tC ^ u Z V d y O •r-I �" ,�» A cn cn 1n « E y G C t17- G 'C v f` Q F ^ s z A� o g5 g S Z� kit.. lilt I „ N z Oc n n Y� O t! ¢ 0 CL S11Odtl3NNIW 30.11IJ30 i11J ;PSWIOdVHNNIW m � �'S^ � '� � ��. •�r VIII C� u E V m dtlH O N N I SI1 w d0.11I N Y - op 22 1 gFIN! v.M,wra d1 W EE F ' O P••� i •� •I.- ut••Mvey 1 x I xx1!PP� �• [$:EEyy w 31VOSNIHI1 H0fBF -!.;_. y...w` v*9 r. . `'"� p.' h T __,' ■ s. T...- - �I EE xwbt S r , x.Mr' Pw - j5 :10 A11D FLMYMx. "NerV+er -:._ :. I-. .._`'�.. 5 __� '%•YI -a,`,,.. tlf. S �Re:evVp �p♦ 1 ry ..r nMY anx .� -.;.. -,,... _.. x•,rMx.. .. .,.d. .- ,, �-}a. - '�. a' � .H __ gglm - �` ! Y1. �J ... 'i T., r • iR • L fi__. Y n 9 -� 1f x vnxxan... �_ ,. .� r.y �• s b. ": +n...... '°W All --oft p �rb x ty� T Nu aa 4 .D I a � 3ke.�•W. � _.. s Y w ..7 a +_ Prot �� ._ "Y149 11\ �! - 3� � �.«Y.e_ I ' �YIwO .. «.rest... -. - 'i.x�Yxpy.'._: -a � :`; w.r...l s ! '?" .,". _ i✓ :!Y ca _... 0'�O �I r t} t J, � n a o' A I � iu s :.. � _. ,_.''. ., - 'r.4xE._' �' ` _-�_',T ;,.� .;- ml'xNrl _' 1x:.r•wn .._. I _ , � -;/ I _. \ i fr- . I 1tl1S.tIIJ d0 x.i:1J 3. .wm rnya `I -•--., '---- , 14 y 8 "w�� � �-.; � �•�..eA - r mvep.xpx' � � $� ;�E;� �, I E .-'.f � •• ,o �4�� �"'� ' .�- '�• xw v.yr " 1rr1 wh![��y'�. III M x , .•[•eNa•'"ff I � � xM.MY 9 ,,. 5 ,�„�__ � -:� 4 on ��¢ ,. I • g v Pr.w 3 .pyx r !i�. L&�1; 'e•wr'o ia �J .I ?. - sxa:xx • - - �x�y •,.: � r .^, �. �-�-. � _ + p yr� y s �r Yvw."'r... \ ' I� N �•. .�nx.P P �g,� x w.ma� n:wrww rewx ay w«qw C ..: .wsx .-- x r.xw wN i1�; .Nr .x..•r xwnw ..3 y F71 xM� .-. ... � _ ,QA- - o } L e � p 1 --i f � •IMw1..� .. �$, ul �f. «wV r 6wYeue ynv, � a wu r I - u z /y µ�� 1•"r^r. 1-. t' -.-q+Mx ( =xAeyyv °w•o r . -r r Zi ^fx•q i bb•q I I °ta -- .. _. - lcr+wa' � ;� n ��� I ..•'J y reer..x.,y.. OI w 5' M M �� ,VMI+•rl _ N Y NnYN,..:g a , - '-1 `}' ypFemlxMll ^� w�C./{t/ a � x.. N.. ® r .�d ♦ - � x:xY°•YeN ._L.1 y/�._ I= ���m.r:avc.__.�_ ` _ e 3 $I I cI t ca ..«'..4 �... eawe"' § � 'e ,«da ..x.. "`••,ar�r.. I W�`+ r��lr., �e«, t �`w �J ..PA`vV-P E „�r..s ro•rrf.W" �� S F _ u gg . LgJ , . N:vAmpwY}. 'I' ... - ••r maixm ',� Nu I i-I1n0 w,17d d0.111J^ �'. "'� H1110WA %x 11va slnol'1s �1.-,..f .i ao o•,i• e 10 J :10 A 11 J Resolution 16-27 May 3, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT LOT 11, BLOCK 8 WEST TYROL HILLS (FORMERLY 3900 WAYZATA BOULEVARD) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the City Council has met at the time and place specified in a notice duly published with respect to the subject matter hereof and has heard all interested persons, and it appearing in the interest of the public that the General Land Use Plan Map as heretofore adopted and enacted by the City of Golden Valley be amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, that pursuant to the provision of Chapter 11.90, Subd. 7 of the City Code for the City of Golden Valley, and subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council for conformity with regional systems plan as provided in state law, the General Land Use Plan Map for the City of Golden Valley is hereby amended by changing the property at Lot 11, Block 8 West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Boulevard) to Low Density Residential. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 597, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Rezoning Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Boulevard) to Single Family Residential (R-1) City of Golden Valley, Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land to Single Family Residential (R-1). Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as: Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills Section 3. 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 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 3rd day of May, 2016. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city 0f0 golden MEMORANDUM1 � �a Administrative ServicesDepartment 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 6. A. Call for Public Hearing for the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary The City of Minnetonka on behalf of CHC Minnetonka Affordable Housing LLC has requested that the City of Golden Valley hold a public hearing on June 7, 2016, to approve a Resolution for the purpose of providing host approval for the issuance of revenue obligations by the City of Minnetonka. A public hearing is required in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Section 147(f) of the IRS and approve the issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka to finance in part the rehabilitation of the Golden Valley Project. The City of Golden Valley has no liability in this transaction. The borrower intends to apply a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to finance the substantial rehabilitation of eight (8) existing affordable townhome units on scattered sites located at 2100 Douglas and 3354 Lilac Drive North. The public hearing notice will appear in the SunPost on May 12, 2016. The client will pay for all costs of the notice and the City will receive $500 for holding the hearing for the host city approval. A representative will be available that evening to describe the overall project. Attachments • Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing for the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution calling for a Public Hearing for the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka. Resolution 16-28 May 3, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING HOST APPROVAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF MINNETONKA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), a municipality is authorized to issue revenue bonds to finance multifamily housing developments. 1.02. Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, authorizes a municipality to issue obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property located outside of the corporate boundaries of such municipality if the obligations are issued under a joint powers agreement between the municipality issuing the obligations and the municipality in which the property to be acquired or improved is located. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, by the terms of a joint powers agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, two municipalities may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they may be exercised and the joint powers agreement may provide for the exercise of such powers by one or more of the participating governmental units on behalf of the other participating units. 1.03. CHC Minnetonka Affordable Housing LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or any of its affiliates (collectively, the "Borrower"), has proposed that the City approve the issuance by the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota ("Minnetonka") of one or more series of revenue obligations (the "Bonds") in the approximate aggregate principal amount of$11,500,000. The Borrower intends to apply a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to finance the substantial rehabilitation of eight (8) existing affordable townhome units on scattered sites located at 2100 Douglas Drive North and 3354 Lilac Drive North in the City (the "Golden Valley Project"), which constitute a multifamily housing development authorized under the terms of the Act. 1.04. Prior to the issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka, the City Council of the City is required to: (i) conduct a public hearing in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") with respect to the proposal to issue the Bonds; and (ii) approve the issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka to finance, in part, the rehabilitation of the Golden Valley Project. Section 2. Required Actions. 2.01. The City Council will meet at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, to conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.59 and 471.656, as amended, to finance, in part, the Golden Valley Project. Resolution No. 16-28 -2- May 3, 2016 2.02. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of the public hearing, in substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A in the Sun-Post, the official newspaper of and a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The notice shall be published at least once at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing. 2.03. The Borrower shall pay to the City any and all costs paid or incurred by the City in connection with the Bonds or the financing of the Golden Valley Project, whether or not the financing is carried to completion, and whether or not the Bonds or operative instruments are executed and delivered. 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. Resolution No. 16-28 -3- May 3, 2016 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF MINNETONKA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "City"), will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, at or after 6:30 pm at City Hall, located at 7800 Golden Valley Road in the City, to consider a proposal that the City grant host city approval to the issuance of one or more series of revenue obligations (the "Bonds"), in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $11,500,000, by the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota ("Minnetonka") under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.59 and 471.656, as amended, for the benefit of CHC Minnetonka Affordable Housing LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or any of its affiliates (collectively, the "Borrower"). The Borrower intends to apply a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to finance the substantial rehabilitation of eight (8) existing affordable townhome units on scattered sites located at 2100 Douglas Drive North and 3354 Lilac Drive North in the City (the "Golden Valley Project"), which constitute a multifamily housing development authorized under the terms of the Act. The Bonds will be special, limited obligations of Minnetonka, and the Bonds and interest thereon will be payable solely from the revenues and assets pledged to the payment thereof. No holder of any Bonds will ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City. The Bonds are to be payable solely from revenues and security provided by the Borrower to Minnetonka and pledged to the payment of the Bonds. Before issuing the Bonds, Minnetonka will enter into an agreement with the Borrower, whereby the Borrower will be obligated to make payments at least sufficient at all times to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council will give all persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. In addition, interested persons may direct any questions or file written comments respecting the proposal with the City Clerk, at or prior to said public hearing. Dated: [Date of Publication] BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA /s/ Kristine A. Luedke City Clerk City of Golden Valley, Minnesota city , W golden MEMORANDUM Va �� Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 6. B. Authorize Issuance and Sale of: 1. $1,290,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A 2. $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B 3. $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016C Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary The proceeds of the $1,290,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A will finance the non-MSA street and driveway projects included in the 2016 Pavement Management Program. This project was approved by the City Council in January 5, 2015. The special assessment hearing for this project was March 17, 2015. The debt service on these bonds will be paid from tax levies and special assessments levied against benefitted properties. The proceeds of the $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B will finance the equipment included in the 2016-2020 CIP. The debt service on the certificates will be paid from annual tax levies. The proceeds of the $5,630,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016C will finance the 2016 Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project which includes the reconstruction of Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) from Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70) to Trunk Highway 55. It is a joint project between the City and Hennepin County. The debt service on these bonds will be paid with franchise fees collected from Xcel and CenterPoint. If approved, the bids will be received on June 7, 2016, and awarded after the Council consideration. Attachments • Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of: $1,290,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A (1 page) • Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of$800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness Bonds, Series 2016B (1 page) • Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of$5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016C (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of$1,290,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A. Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of$800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness Bonds, Series 2016B. Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of$5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016C. Resolution 16-29 May 3, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,290,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2016A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the City), as follows: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to issue its General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A, in the principal amount of $1,290,000 (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, to finance various street improvement projects in the City. SECTION 2. TERMS OF PROPOSAL. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the City, has presented to this Council a form of Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which is attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Clerk. Each and all of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9), to solicit proposals for the Bonds on behalf of the City on a competitive basis without requirement of published notice. SECTION 3. SALE MEETING. This Council shall meet on June 7, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering proposals for the purchase of the Bonds and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City. 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. Resolution 16-30 May 3, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $800,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 2016B BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the City), as follows: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to issue its General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B, in the principal amount of$800,000 (the Certificates), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301 and Chapter 475, to finance various items of capital equipment. SECTION 2. TERMS OF PROPOSAL. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the City, has presented to this Council a form of Terms of Proposal for the Certificates which is attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Clerk. Each and all of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions of the Certificates and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9), to solicit proposals for the Certificates on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis. SECTION 3. SALE MEETING. This Council shall meet on June 7, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering proposals for the purchase of the Certificates and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City. 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. Resolution 16-31 May 3, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $5,630,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION BONDS, SERIES 2016C BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the City), as follows: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to issue its General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016C (the Bonds), in the principal amount not to exceed $5,630,000, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and Section 475.58, to finance the cost of certain street reconstruction projects in the City. SECTION 2. TERMS OF PROPOSAL. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the City, has presented to this Council a form of Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which is attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Clerk. Each and all of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9), to solicit proposals for the Bonds on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis. SECTION 3. SALE MEETING. This Council shall meet on June 7, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering proposals for the purchase of the Bonds and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City. 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 0 '' go1den1 ,v4v ^ MEMORANDUM v+C ey Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 6. C. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary Over the past two months, staff has continued to work with the Project Office, Hennepin County, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to refine and advance the 15% design plans that were approved as part of the Municipal Consent process. The following topics have been discussed: • Park and Ride - Refinements to the Golden Valley Road park and ride design have resulted in a better connection to the station platform via Theodore Wirth Parkway and an increased width to the vegetative buffer along the southeast edge of the parking lot. The plans now call for full bus shelters at the Golden Valley Road station along Golden Valley road. • New trail connection -The engineering of the new westerly trail connection between the Theodore Wirth Parkway trail and the trail through Sochacki Park has been advanced and details of the design have been shared with City staff and representatives of the Parks group. • Intersection design -Two designs have been examined for the Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway intersection. Based on a number of factors (see attached table), the Project Office is advancing the signalized intersection design for consideration by the Corridor Management Committee (CMC). The preferred design will be made available for review and comment by the Community Advisory Committee and Business Advisory Committee. • Bridge design - Staff from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have been advising on the design of the reconstructed bridges associated with the project • Schedule - Publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is expected in June, followed by a presentation of the final project scope and budget to the CMC. If approved, the project will submit an application for New Starts and Entry into Engineering in August. Attachments • Intersection Evaluation (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file METRO Blue Line Extension Update. N vi y y O U. a a O L L C s Q C. O ,} j p LL. C C C Q-v E C N u d N O 41 � Q00 p V)r ` OO O ^ x 0 0)a O vo (o ; !2 N D m n7 (D v do 4-- O .!2 N M r t c a > /V 0 N Od sC c ._ NC 0C N L u .O W a G) N p N N > p C O L a Q NO C C .d. C N d •O 'C N } v •� O a c -!2a a v' co F 'W N W �.O a Q. > ( p N j C N N O O £ u ~ Q M r_ m u � yo 3 N NLM a O 0 C Y 0 Z U.. N a m a a } a H t N LU soon > cc T rT O 0 � 0 �a0 u _0ooNo� N c E EO N ao1 � 0) - pO O 0 uNO 3 i o a 'N N a p } L u N s Y � 0- O Q o _ p t } C L L - N C p C N O 14- a N 6 O Ou O -0 o Ou c p O N O N w a N L N c J = a O o p ate . O V -0 o .a N a a� a� o > V) > CL O E Q Q �N to Y W 0) 'o O ppp oZ O 0 � N u L N N a O a W t r- O N p LL. \ a N O p y N U- Z O O H OG O i N N c p N O o CN 'o po 00 Ca, N V) v Oo � } O ,om uu m O V C; N N } N N OL u -C O O c o. -p � Q `� O N o ° c u O a o m N } N 3 N p O N 0 0 O O Q co Y u F0 N T! V -O d O � v �N510N ) a u �` L° u c ` L a a s L � 0- N a N � z A: a, Q N £ O p = > Z W L 0 N O C 0 O 0 O Vcu W ~ > _ � a cin . a \ L/) E a u O oJ13 W a L m V ° = ° Y .L H •L N a -0 U O N •o CieO p Q T } j i y X u p N > } _0 > Q U o_ W m Vne Ce0 = Q a O 1--I N M . Ln lD ke ( U 0 & \ % ; a o E - c 7 $ 3 0 /ƒ * U ƒ \ O g e .0 § u 2 0 0 k e .. 0 6 2 _ = o c o U ■ \ c § t x e " § 2 E k e ° $ f ■ e § { 2 ! \ f \ \ S ƒ _&\ – b o -0 2 2 / 4-- � I � / % E / / o % § / % § } 0 / ■ & 0u u § c G CL o » \ e m c \ ® / I0 � � e 0 LU > 2 7 I £ 0 § 0 o \ § / \ -0 \ E u , 2 o z \ G £ ' » 3 CD ° $ 0 5 a$ &$ 0) u \ 0 ƒ E � 4) \ > 0 \ ° E \ 2 * 2 2 , o % m � , ¢ r { \ § I » 0 \ » \ E \ 0 J q Ix 2 0 & \ 3 \ E 04 EL e � - ( .2 / ƒ kce 0 { Z?§ 0 � E� U. 0 :CL : \ \ 77 � # 4 $ § ƒ § } N $ z z N ° 0 © 0 / / Cie 0) C3 \ \ \ a f 75 u 0— 0 0 ƒ U - - E a ��N kLU LU 0 Cie o U § » * ® o (4, \ o u \ / k y ��]w § 5 $ 2 \ d u CL CL & _2 0- _2 \ I \ I / I \ / C » 00 2 e e e city 0� golden MEMORANDUM 11y Va. ' City Administration/Council 763-593-3989/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 Agenda Item 6. D. Second Consideration - Ordinance #594 -Amending Section 8.11: Special Events, Special Event Policy and Summary of Ordinance for Publication Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary At the March 8, 2016 Council/Manager meeting, proposed City Code amendments regarding Special Events were discussed. Council requested that staff proceed with amendment changes. Currently, Section 8:11 of the City Code refers to Parades only. In adopting this Ordinance, the Section would be expanded to include all details of Special Events being held in the City. Staff has developed a policy for Special Events which includes the various types of Special Events bases on the level of City's participation and sets forth regulations and procedures required to hold or sponsor an event in the City. The second consideration of this ordinance was presented at the April 5, 2016, Council meeting. At which time, the item was postponed to the May 3, 2016, City Council meeting. Responding to direction from the Council at the April 5 meeting, staff has met with individuals and/or organizations that have previously held special events in the City to discuss the proposed Special Event Ordinance and Special Event policy and to collect additional community feedback. Staff is recommending the attached language changes to the Special Event Ordinance and Special Event Policy. If Council adopts the ordinance on its second consideration, it will be effective upon publication. Attachments • Draft City Code Section 8.11: Special Events with underline/overstrike (6 pages) • Ordinance 594, Amending Chapter 8.11: Special Events (6 pages) • Summary of Ordinance 594 for Publication (1 page) • Draft Special Event Policy with underline/overstrike (7 pages) • Resolution Adopting a New Special Event Policy (8 page) • Draft Special Event Permit Application (4 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt second consideration Ordinance#594, Amending Section 8.11: Special Events. Motion to approve Summary of Ordinance#594 for publication. Motion to adopt Resolution for a New Special Event Policy. § 8.11 Section 8.11 Special Events Subdivision 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Section is to promote the orderly, compatible, and safe use of property for temporary special events and to assure adequate provision of parking, sanitary facilities, utilities, and safety services. Special events are further defined and regulated in the Golden Valley Special Events policy. Subdivision 2. Definitions A. Applicant means any individual or organization who seeks a Special Events Permit from the City to conduct or sponsor a Special Event. B. Special Event Permit means a permit issued by the City after the Applicant has met all applicable requirements and reviews set forth in this Section. C. Outdoors means activity conducted outside of a permanent, enclosed structure or building. D. Special Event means any temporary event, sponsored by or organized by one or more organizations, entities, or individuals, with the event held or to be held in full or in part: 1. outdoors on City-owned land, or a public right-of-way intended for the gathering or movement of people or vehicles, and the event is open to the general public 2. outdoors on City-owned land, a public right-of-way intended for the gathering or movement of people or vehicles, or privately-owned land, and the event is likely to impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public right-of-way by increasing its hourly flow by at least fifty percent (50%) or otherwise impede the orderly, unobstructed, or free flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any such right-of-way E. This Special Event Section shall not apply to the following: 1. any permanent place of worship, stadium, athletic field, arena, theatre, auditorium, school-sanctioned events on school property, or fairs conducted pursuant to Minn. Stats. Chapter 38; 2. Special Events or activities permitted or licensed by state law or ordinances of the City, other than this Section, including publicly-sponsored activities in the local or regional park system; 3. events in the nature of a family gatherings;, ' , 4. non-city wide garage sales; 5. non-recurring auctions or estate sales; 6. National Night to Unite Events established through the Golden Valley Police Department; 7. funeral processions; 8. activities conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority; and 9. residential neighborhood block parties Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 6 § 8.11 Subdivision 3. Permit Required No person shall conduct or allow to be conducted any Special Event as defined in this Section without first obtaining a Special Events Permit. Subdivision 4. Requirements for Issuance of a Permit A. The following standards shall apply to all Special Events: 1. Maximum Number of People. The Applicant shall not sell tickets to neF afleW attendanee at the peFn9it leeatien e more than the maximum number of people stated in the Special Event Permit. 2. Sound Equipment. Sound producing equipment, including but not limited to public address systems, radios, phonographs, musical instruments, and other recording devices, shall not be operated at the permit location so as to be unreasonably loud or be a nuisance or disturbance to the peace and tranquility of city residents. 3. Sanitary Facilities. In accordance with Minnesota Department State Beai=a of Health regulations and standards and local specifications, adequate sanitary facilities must be provided that are sufficient to accommodate the projected number of persons expected to attend the event. nungbeFef-peeple allowed at the pecial Event, shall be . 4. Security. The Applicant shall employ at their own expense such security personnel as are necessary and sufficient to provide for the adequate security and protection of the maximum number of persons in attendance at the Special Event and for the preservation of order and protection of property in and around the event site. No permit shall be issued unless the City Chief of Police is satisfied that such necessary and sufficient security personnel will be provided by the Applicant for the duration of the event. 5. Solid Waste Disposal. A sanitary method of disposing of solid wastes, in compliance with state and local laws and regulations, shall be provided and shall be sufficient to dispose of the solid waste production anticipated for the maximum number of people allowed by the permit. Plans shall include a provision for holding and collecting all such waste at least once each day, sufficient trash containers, and sufficient personnel to perform such tasks. 6. Parking and Traffic Control. A parking and traffic control plan for the number of persons projected to attend the event must be submitted. Such plan must be sufficient to ensure a free flow of traffic and make available rapid access for emergency vehicles. Further, the Applicant shall provide adequate off-street parking facilities on the site or within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet thereof to accommodate the projected number of persons expected to attend the event. When adequate off-street parking facilities are not available within on thousand five hundred (1,500) feet, an alternate plan to bus attendees from a remote location may be considered. 7. Mobile Food Vending. Health feed lieense and the applicable perngit required under GhapteF 1.1. ef the Gity Cede, and The Applicant shall provide the City evidence (or cause the food vendor to provide evidence) that all food vending operations at the Event have all required food licenses from the Minnesota Department of Health or Hennepin County, as applicable as well as any applicable mobile food vending permit required under Chapter 11 of the City Code. The Applicant shall comply at all times with the applicable health codes and regulations. Proof of license and permit shall be provided to the City Clerk at least seven (7) days before the event and kept on site for immediate inspection. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 6 § 8.11 8. Fire protection. The Applicant shall, at his own expense, take adequate steps to insure fire protection as determined by the Golden Valley Fire Department. 9. Duration of Special Event. The Applicant shall operate the Special Event only on those days and during the hours specified on the permit, which shall not be for more than seven (7) days, subject to any other limits imposed by other sections of the Code or state law. 10. Cleanup Plan. The Applicant shall, at no cost to the City, immediately clean up, remove, and dispose of all litter or materials of any kind that is placed or left on the premise because of the event. If the Applicant neglects or fails to proceed with cleanup within a two-hour period immediately following the end of the event, or if the cleanup is done in an inadequate manner, the City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to clean up and charge the applicant for cleanup. 11. Insurance. Before the issuance of a permit, the Applicant shall provide the City with a Certificate of Liability Insurance showing proof of general liability insurance and liquor liability insurance acceptable to the City. a. Applicant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the event commercial general liability insurance or equal special event coverages protecting it from claims for damages for bodily injury and property damage that may arise from or in connection with the event's operation and use of the City's property as required by State Statute. b. If alcohol will be sold or served, the Applicant must have liquor (dram shop) insurance as requested per in the minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence, along with the applicable license(s) required under the Code and state law. c. The City shall be endorsed as an additional insured on all liability policies. Applicant's insurance shall be primary. d. The City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements depending on the nature and scope of the event. 12. Claims. The Applicant shall agree to defend and hold the City harmless from claims, demands, actions or causes of actions, of any nature of character, arising out of, or by reason of conduct of an event authorized by a Special Event Permit, including attorney fees and all expenses. 13. Damages: The Applicant will indemnify the City for damages that may result to City property as a result of a Special Event. 14. Waiver. The City Manager or his/her designee may grant a waiver from the requirements of this Section in any particular case where the Applicant can show that strict compliance with this Section would cause exceptional and undue hardship by reason of the nature of the Special Event or by reason of the fact that the circumstances make the requirement of this Section unnecessary. Such waiver must be granted without detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare and without impairing the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Section. 15. Additional Requirement. The City Manager or his/her designee may place any other conditions reasonably calculated to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons attending the event or City residents. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 6 § 8.11 Subdivision S. Application Procedures. A written application for a Special Event Permit shall be filed with the City Clerk not less than forty-five (45) days before the first date of the proposed Special Event. The application shall be signed by the person, persons, or parties conducting the event and shall be accompanied by the fee payable hereunder. A. The submitted application shall include the following: 1. the names, addresses, and other contact information for the person or persons responsible for conducting the event; 2. date(s) of proposed Special Event; 3. type and description of the Special Event and a list of all activities to take place at the Special Even; 4. address of proposed Special Event; 5. name of property owner at the permit location, if different from Applicant; 6. a statement of the locations where the Applicant has promoted, operated, or conducted similar events within the last five (5) years; 7. duration of the Special Event, total number of days and/or hours during which the Special Event is to be held; 8. estimated number of persons to attend; 9. any public health plans, including supplying water to the site, solid waste collection, and provision of sanitary facilities, if applicable; 10. any fire prevention and emergency medical services plans, if applicable; 11. any security plans, if applicable; 12. whether food or alcohol will be served at the event; 13. a detailed description of all public rights-of-way and private streets for which the Applicant requests the City to restrict or alter normal parking, vehicular traffic, or pedestrian traffic patterns, the nature of restrictions or alterations, and the basis; 14. a description of any services, city personnel, city equipment, and city property the Applicant requests the City to provide, including the Applicant's estimated number and type needed, and the basis on which the estimate is made; 15. whether any sound amplification or public address system will be used or if there will be any playing of any music or musical instruments; 16. aappplicant signature and property owner's signature, if different from Applicant; 17. any other information requested by the City, acting through its City Manager or his/her designee, deemed reasonably necessary in order to determine the nature of the Special Event and the extent of any services necessitated by the event. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 6 § 8.11 Subdivision 6. Fees, Charges and Promotion A. The fee for a Special Events Permit shall be established by the City Council. B. The City shall also require the payment to the City of other charges for the recovery of City costs related to the Special Event, which may include the hourly cost for any employees working on a Special Event as established by the City Council and equipment charges for the use of City equipment, at usage rates as established by the City Council. C. In accordance with a written policy applying to Special Events, the City may sponsor, participate in, or otherwise support a Special Event, including through the waiving of fees and/or waiving the recovery of City costs, provided the City Manager or his/her designee determines all of the following conditions are satisfied with respect to the Special Event. The Special Event must: 1. be an activity that will serve as a benefit to the community as a whole and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government, 2. be a community-wide event; 3. be free and open to the public; 4. be nen pel not be an event that contains political activity; 5. have a secular purpose; 6. either: a. not be a for-profit event and deer not be an event that pays for event staff time, or b. be considered an event that would otherwise be provided by the Cir fee for service 7. enhance community pride and positive image, as determined by the City; 8. generate a positive economic impact for the City, as determined by the City; and 9. generate positive media exposure and visibility for the City, as determined by the City. of d se Fv l ee) In connection with any request for City sponsorship of, participation in, or support of a Special Event, the Applicant shall provide the City financial information regarding the Applicant and the Special Event, as the City may request. D. Any promotion of a Special Event by the City, including through the City reader board, City web page, City publications, or by Proclamation, shall be in accordance with the City's policies regarding those matters. Subdivision 7. Granting a Permit The City Manager or his/her designee will review and determine whether or not a request for a Special Event and/or street closing satisfies all the conditions of this Section and other applicable sections of the Code. In the event the City determines the Special Event does not meet these criteria, the application shall be denied. Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 6 § 8.11 Subdivision S. Denial of Permit Without limiting any of the other provisions in this Section, the City shall have the right to deny the permit if, in the judgment of the City Manager or his/her designee, granting of a permit would adversely affect the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of Golden Valley. Such denial may also be based upon the following circumstances: A. The event would unreasonably inconvenience the general public. B. The event would unreasonably infringe upon the rights of abutting properties. C. The event would conflict with another proximate event or interfere with construction or maintenance work. D. There are not sufficient safety personnel or other necessary staff to accommodate the event. E. The event affects other issues in the public interest as identified by the City. Subdivision 9. Enforcement and Penak4es A. The Police Department and other such officers, employees, or agents as the City Manager or his/her designee, shall enforce the provisions of this Section. deemed a publie nuisance and may be abated a� �uefiT Statutes. Subdivision 10. Revocation of Permit The permit for a Special Event may be revoked by the City at any time if any of the conditions necessary for the issuing of or contained in the Special Event Permit are not complied with or if any of the provisions of this Section are violated. Subdivision 11. Termination of Permit An Applicant granted a permit under this Section may elect to terminate the permit at will by giving written notice to the City Clerk at least seven (7) days prior to the first day of the event. If less than seven 7 days written notice is given to terminate a permitted event that involved the City undertaking contracted work in connection with the event, the Applicant shall pay the City for a two-hour minimum charge for the relevant staff time, and the Applicant shall compensate the City for any contractual expenses incurred and losses suffered by the City as a result of the termination, subject to Subdivision 6(D) above regarding the City's support of a Special Event. The City Manager or his/her designee has the authority to cancel or stop an event if it is deemed that the public health, safety, or welfare would be better served with additional restrictions. No Special Event Permit may be transferred to another person or location without the prior written consent of the City Manager or his/her designee. Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 594, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Chapter 8: Traffic Regulations regarding Special Events The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 8.11: Parades is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 8.11 Special Events Subdivision 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Section is to promote the orderly, compatible, and safe use of property for temporary special events and to assure adequate provision of parking, sanitary facilities, utilities, and safety services. Special events are further defined and regulated in the Golden Valley Special Events policy. Subdivision 2. Definitions A. Applicant means any individual or organization who seeks a Special Events Permit from the City to conduct or sponsor a Special Event. B. Special Event Permit means a permit issued by the City after the Applicant has met all applicable requirements and reviews set forth in this Section. C. Outdoors means activity conducted outside of a permanent, enclosed structure or building. D. Special Event means any temporary event, sponsored by or organized by one or more organizations, entities, or individuals, with the event held or to be held in full or in part: 1. outdoors on City-owned land, or a public right-of-way intended for the gathering or movement of people or vehicles, and the event is open to the general public 2. outdoors on City-owned land, a public right-of-way intended for the gathering or movement of people or vehicles, or privately-owned land, and the event is likely to impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public right-of-way by increasing its hourly flow by at least fifty percent (50%) or otherwise impede the orderly, unobstructed, or free flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any such right-of- way E. This Special Event Section shall not apply to the following: 1. any permanent place of worship, stadium, athletic field, arena, theatre, auditorium, school-sanctioned events on school property, or fairs conducted pursuant to Minn. Stats. Chapter 38; 2. Special Events or activities permitted or licensed by state law or ordinances of the City, other than this Section, including publicly-sponsored activities in the local or regional park system; 3. events in the nature of a family gatherings; 4. non-City wide garage sales; 5. non-recurring auctions or estate sales; Ordinance No. 594 -2- May 3, 2016 6. National Night to Unite Events established through the Golden Valley Police Department; 7. funeral processions; 8. activities conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority; and 9. residential neighborhood block parties. Subdivision 3. Permit Required No person shall conduct or allow to be conducted any Special Event as defined in this Section without first obtaining a Special Events Permit. Subdivision 4. Requirements for Issuance of a Permit A. The following standards shall apply to all Special Events: 1. Maximum Number of People. The Applicant shall not sell tickets to more than the maximum number of people stated in the Special Event Permit. 2. Sound Equipment. Sound producing equipment, including but not limited to public address systems, radios, phonographs, musical instruments, and other recording devices, shall not be operated at the permit location so as to be unreasonably loud or be a nuisance or disturbance to the peace and tranquility of city residents. 3. Sanitary Facilities. In accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations and standards and local specifications, adequate sanitary facilities must be provided that are sufficient to accommodate the projected number of persons expected to attend the event. 4. Security. The Applicant shall employ at their own expense such security personnel as are necessary and sufficient to provide for the adequate security and protection of the maximum number of persons in attendance at the Special Event and for the preservation of order and protection of property in and around the event site. No permit shall be issued unless the City Chief of Police is satisfied that such necessary and sufficient security personnel will be provided by the Applicant for the duration of the event. 5. Solid Waste Disposal. A sanitary method of disposing of solid wastes, in compliance with state and local laws and regulations, shall be provided and shall be sufficient to dispose of the solid waste production anticipated for the maximum number of people allowed by the permit. Plans shall include a provision for holding and collecting all such waste at least once each day, sufficient trash containers, and sufficient personnel to perform such tasks. 6. Parking and Traffic Control. A parking and traffic control plan for the number of persons projected to attend the event must be submitted. Such plan must be sufficient to ensure a free flow of traffic and make available rapid access for emergency vehicles. Further, the Applicant shall provide adequate off-street parking facilities on the site or within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet thereof to accommodate the projected number of persons expected to attend the event. When adequate off-street parking facilities are not available within on thousand five hundred (1,500) feet, an alternate plan to bus attendees from a remote location may be considered. 7. Mobile Food Vending. The Applicant shall provide the City evidence (or cause the food vendor to provide evidence) that all food vending operations at the Event have all required food licenses from the Minnesota Department of Health Ordinance No. 594 -3- May 3, 2016 or Hennepin County, as applicable, as well as any applicable mobile food vending permit required under Chapter 11 of the City Code. The Applicant shall comply at all times with the applicable health codes and regulations. Proof of license and permit shall be provided to the City Clerk at least seven (7) days before the event and kept on site for immediate inspection. 8. Fire protection. The Applicant shall, at his own expense, take adequate steps to insure fire protection as determined by the Golden Valley Fire Department. 9. Duration of Special Event. The Applicant shall operate the Special Event only on those days and during the hours specified on the permit, which shall not be for more than seven (7) consecutive days, subject to any other limits imposed by other sections of the Code or state law. 10. Cleanup Plan. The Applicant shall, at no cost to the City, immediately clean up, remove, and dispose of all litter or materials of any kind that is placed or left on the premise because of the event. If the Applicant neglects or fails to proceed with cleanup within a two-hour period immediately following the end of the event, or if the cleanup is done in an inadequate manner, the City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to clean-up and charge the applicant for cleanup. 11. Insurance. Before the issuance of a permit, the Applicant shall provide the City with a Certificate of Liability Insurance showing proof of general liability insurance and liquor liability insurance acceptable to the City. a. Applicant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the event commercial general liability insurance or equal special event coverages protecting it from claims for damages for bodily injury and property damage that may arise from or in connection with the event's operation and use of the City's property with a minimum combined single-limit coverage of $2,000,000 for any single occurrence. b. If alcohol will be sold or served, the Applicant must have liquor (dram shop) insurance as requested per in the minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence, along with the applicable license(s) required under the Code and state law. c. The City shall be endorsed as an additional insured on all liability policies. Applicant's insurance shall be primary. d. The City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements depending on the nature and scope of the event. 12. Claims. The Applicant shall agree to defend and hold the City harmless from claims, demands, actions or causes of actions, of any nature of character, arising out of, or by reason of conduct of an event authorized by a Special Event Permit, including attorney fees and all expenses. 13. Damages: The Applicant will indemnify the City for damages that may result to City property as a result of a Special Event. 14. Waiver. The City Manager or his/her designee., may grant a waiver from the requirements of this Section in any particular case where the Applicant can show that strict compliance with this Section would cause exceptional and undue hardship by reason of the nature of the Special Event or by reason of the fact that the circumstances make the requirement of this Section unnecessary. Such waiver must be granted without detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare and without impairing the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Section. Ordinance No. 594 -4- May 3, 2016 15. Additional Requirement. The City Manager or his/her designee may place any other conditions reasonably calculated to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons attending the event or City residents. Subdivision 5. Application Procedures. A written application for a Special Event Permit shall be filed with the City Clerk not less than forty-five (45) days before the first date of the proposed Special Event. The application shall be signed by the person, persons, or parties conducting the event and shall be accompanied by the fee payable hereunder. A. The submitted application shall include the following: 1. the names, addresses, and other contact information for the person or persons responsible for conducting the event; 2. date(s) of proposed Special Event; 3. type and description of the Special Event and a list of all activities to take place at the Special Event; 4. address of proposed Special Event; 5. name of property owner at the permit location, if different from Applicant; 6. a statement of the locations where the Applicant has promoted, operated, or conducted similar events within the last five (5) years; 7. duration of the Special Event, total number of days and/or hours during which the Special Event is to be held; 8. estimated number of persons to attend; 9. any public health plans, including supplying water to the site, solid waste collection, and provision of sanitary facilities, if applicable; 10. any fire prevention and emergency medical services plans, if applicable; 11. any security plans, if applicable; 12. whether food or alcohol will be served at the event; 13. a detailed description of all public rights-of-way and private streets for which the Applicant requests the City to restrict or alter normal parking, vehicular traffic, or pedestrian traffic patterns, the nature of restrictions or alterations, and the basis; 14. a description of any services, City personnel, City equipment, and City property the Applicant requests the City to provide, including the Applicant's estimated number and type needed, and the basis on which the estimate is made; 15. whether any sound amplification or public address system will be used or if there will be any playing of any music or musical instruments; 16. aappplicant signature and property owner's signature, if different from Applicant; 17. any other information requested by the City, acting through its City Manager or his/her designee, deemed reasonably necessary in order to determine the nature of the Special Event and the extent of any services necessitated by the event. Ordinance No. 594 -5- May 3, 2016 Subdivision 6. Fees, Charges and Promotion A. The fee for a Special Events Permit shall be established by the City Council. B. The City shall also require the payment to the City of other charges for the recovery of City costs related to the Special Event, which may include the hourly cost for any employees working on a Special Event as established by the City Council and equipment charges for the use of City equipment, at usage rates as established by the City Council. C. In accordance with a written policy applying to Special Events, the City may sponsor, participate in, or otherwise support a Special Event, including through the waiving of fees and/or waiving the recovery of City costs, provided the City Manager or his/her designee determines all of the following conditions are satisfied with respect to the Special Event. The Special Event must: 1. be an activity that will serve as a benefit to the community as a whole and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government; 2. be a community-wide event; 3. be free and open to the public; 4. not be an event that contains political activity; 5. have a secular purpose; 6. either: a. not be a for-profit event and not be an event that pays for event staff time, or b. be considered an event that would otherwise be provided by the City (fee for service); 7. enhance community pride and positive image, as determined by the City; 8. generate a positive economic impact for the City, as determined by the City; and 9. generate positive media exposure and visibility for the City, as determined by the City. In connection with any request for City sponsorship of, participation in, or support of a Special Event, the Applicant shall provide the City financial information regarding the Applicant and the Special Event, as the City may request. D. Any promotion of a Special Event by the City, including through the City reader board, City web page, City publications, or by Proclamation, shall be in accordance with the City's policies regarding those matters. Subdivision 7. Granting a Permit The City Manager or his/her designee, will review and determine whether or not a request for a Special Event and/or street closing satisfies all the conditions of this Section and other applicable sections of the Code. In the event the City determines the Special Event does not meet these criteria, the application shall be denied. Subdivision 8. Denial of Permit Without limiting any of the other provisions in this Section, the City shall have the right to deny the permit if, in the judgment of the City Manager or his/her designee, granting of a Ordinance No. 594 -6- May 3, 2016 permit would adversely affect the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of Golden Valley. Such denial may also be based upon the following circumstances: A. The event would unreasonably inconvenience the general public. B. The event would unreasonably infringe upon the rights of abutting properties. C. The event would conflict with another proximate event or interfere with construction or maintenance work. D. There are not sufficient safety personnel or other necessary staff to accommodate the event. E. The event affects other issues in the public interest as identified by the City. Subdivision 9. Enforcement A. The Police Department and other such officers, employees, or agents as the City Manager or his/her designee, shall enforce the provisions of this Section. Subdivision 10. Revocation of Permit The permit for a Special Event may be revoked by the City at any time if any of the conditions necessary for the issuing of or contained in the Special Event Permit are not complied with or if any of the provisions of this Section are violated. Subdivision 11. Termination of Permit An Applicant granted a permit under this Section may elect to terminate the permit at will by giving written notice to the City Clerk at least seven (7) days prior to the first day of the event. If less than seven (7) days written notice is given to terminate a permitted event that involved the City undertaking contracted work in connection with the event, the Applicant shall pay the City for a two-hour minimum charge for the relevant staff time, and the Applicant shall compensate the City for any contractual expenses incurred and losses suffered by the City as a result of the termination, subject to Subdivision 6(D) above regarding the City's support of a Special Event. The City Manager or his/her designee, has the authority to cancel or stop an event if it is deemed that the public health, safety, or welfare would be better served with additional restrictions. No Special Event Permit may be transferred to another person or location without the prior written consent of the City Manager or his/her designee. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 8.99 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 3rd day of May, 2016. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 594, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Chapter 8: Traffic Regulations regarding Special Events This is a summary of the provisions of the above ordinance which has been approved for publication by the City Council. This ordinance amends Chapter 8 Section 8.11: Parades by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with Section 8.11 Special Events. This Section provides for the orderly, compatible, and safe use of property for temporary special events and to assure adequate provision of parking, sanitary facilities, utilities, and safety services. Special Events are further defined and regulated in the Golden Valley Special Events Policy. The ordinance shall take effect upon publication. NOTICE: the foregoing is only a summary of the ordinance. A printed copy of the full text of the ordinance is available for inspection during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk. Adopted by the City Council this 3rd day of May, 2016. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY I. General Policy Statement& Objective The purpose of this policy is to set forth procedures to be followed by organizers of a Special Event who wish to use City property and/or require City services. Any organization wishing to sponsor or hold a Special Event in Golden Valley will be required to complete the Special Event Permit Application. The City will conduct a complete review of any Special Event Permit Application and inform the Applicant if the event is allowed. What constitutes a Special Event is defined in City Code Section 8.11 and is generally any temporary event open to the public and held on public property, or a temporary event held on private property that has an impact on the regular flow of traffic. Spec' 1 Events may include any parade,race, carnival, community picnic,celebration, fundraiser, dance, ert,or lar e assembly. II. Types of Special Events The purpose of this section is to categorize the various types of Special Events based on the level of the City's participation in the event and rovide a guideline for justly determining the City's participation level with a Special Event. �'���" 1. City-Hosted:A Special Event organized and conducted by the City and largely funded by the City. : s 2. City-Cooperative: A Special Event organized and conducted by a tax exempt non-profit organization under Section 501(c) (3) through (10) of the Internal Revenue Code that the City has elected to support through appropriation of funds within the City's budget.This is typically an annual recurring event. This is an event that the City has determined is of general interest to the public and advances the City's public image. The City provides in-kind and/or financial support to this event as determined in the annual budget appropriation,which may take the form of cash contributions for services or contributed City services to facilitate the event activities.This event must meet the other requirements of the Special Event Policy/Ordinance and must reimburse the City for any City costs in excess of the support level authorized by the budget appropriation. 3. City-Supported:A Special Event organized and conducted by a tax exempt non-profit organization under Section 501 (c) (3) through (10) of the Internal Revenue Code that is approved for full or partial waiver of cost recovery due to identifiable community benefits.The City may provide financial support to this event by waiving cost recovery. In effect, such an event is assisted by contributed City services to facilitate the event activities. This event must meet the other requirements of the Special Event Policy/Ordinance and must reimburse the City for any City costs in excess of the support authorized by the waiver. *For the City-Hosted, City-Cooperative,and City-Supported events, there will be no charge to the City to participate,including Boards and Commissions. Page 1 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy 4. Any Other Event: A Special Event organized and conducted by a tax-exempt non-profit organization, a for-profit organization, or individuals must meet the requirements of the Special Event Policy/Ordinance and must reimburse the City for any City costs. Under the City Code the following types of events are exempt from this Polio 1. any permanent place of worship, stadium, athletic field,arena, theatre, auditorium, school- sanctioned events on school property, or fairs conducted pursuant to state law-, 2. Special Events or activities permitted or licensed by state law or ordinances of the City, other than this Section,including publicly-sponsored activities in the local or regional park system,• 3. Events in the nature of a family gatherings; 4. non-City wide garage sales; 5. non-recurring auctions or estate sales; 6. National Night to Unite Events established through the Golden Valley Police Department; 7. funeral processions; 8. activities conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority, and 9. residential neighborhood block parties. III. City Participation in Special Events The City Manager has the authority to determine,with Council consultation,which events the City may provide financial, material,labor, or other support. to.Afty ehftnge in the euiztent level of supper Any support given to any event by the City is subject to change by the City at any time. Page 2 of 7 05/16 Special Event List City- Hosted Special Events City special events are those planned,hosted, and financed by the City of Golden Valley, some of which are: • Winter Family Festival • Run the Valley Race and Walk • Police and Fire in the Park • Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street Dance • Ice Cream Social • Golden Valley Golf Classic • Minnesota Night To Unite • Public Safety Open House for Families with Special Needs City Cooperative Special Events Cooperative special events are those planned, hosted, and financed by the City of Golden Valley in cooperation with other public organizations, some of which are: • West Metro Home Remodeling Fair • Caring Youth Recognition • Bike Rodeo • Lilac Project Planting Day City-Supported Special Events City-supported special events planned, hosted, and financed by organizations or groups that receive in-kind City services in exchange for acknowledgement of City support by the event holders are: • Market In the Valley • Golden Valley Arts &Music Festival • Recognized State and Regional Youth Athletic Events Sponsored by the Golden Valley Youth Athletic Associations Other Special Events Other Special Events, some of which are: • Golden Valley Animal Humane Society Annual"Walk for Animals" • American Diabetes Association "Step Out: Walk to Stop Diabetes" Page 3 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy IV. Fees 1. The non-refundable Special Event Permit fee is $25. 2. Hourly Rate shall be the hourly cost for any employee working on a Special Event as established by the City Council. These rates are reviewed/adjusted annually (see Exhibit A). The Hourly Rate shall include expenses related to the employee,including fringe benefits. 3. Equipment Charges shall be the current equipment usage rates as established by the City Council. 4. A Replacement Cost will be billed for missing and/or damaged equipment and supplies. V. Billings for Special Events 1. Special Event billing by the City shall be itemized by employee time (ie, Physical Development, Police and Fire), equipment charges, and any replacement costs for missing or damaged equipment/supplies. 2. If approved, event sponsors who have previously hosted the same event in the year prior AND paid their bill in a timely manner will be extended the courtesy of paying all City fees after their event is completed and billed for the current year. 3. If approved,new events or events that are repeating annually and did NOT pay their bill in a timely manner must submit either a cash deposit or a check with payment of 75% of estimated expenses to be used as a deposit to be credited against final payment. Deposit fees must be paid not less than 30 days before the newly scheduled event. VI. Regulations and Procedures 1. Any person or organization wishing to sponsor a Special Event must obtain a Special Event Permit not less than 45 days before the event. 2. Applications for a Special Event Permit will be available on the City's website or in the City clerk's office, and if approved, shall become a part of the permit. Incomplete applications will be returned. 3. The non-refundable permit fee shall accompany the application. 4. When applicable, an event map outlining the event may be required. 5. The cash deposit will be calculated based on the anticipated and potential cost to the City of Golden Valley and shall be submitted no less than 30 days before the Special Event Permit. 6. The Special Event shall operate only on those days and during the hours specified in the permit and shall not exceed 7 consecutive days. 7. Issuance of a Special Event Permit does not constitute a waiver of any Federal, State or City ordinances. Applicants are responsible for complying with all applicable Federal, State, and City ordinances. 8. Issuance of a Special Event Permit does not,in any way,imply City sponsorship of the Special Event. An Applicant may not use,l2rint or duplicate any of the trademarks, trade names, service marks,logos identifications or other proprietary rights and privileges of the City (collectivel, ty Marks") for any purpose in connection with a Special Event. In the case of a City-Cooperative or City-Supported Special Event, the City mawpermit an Applicant to use City Marks in connection with the advertising and promotion of the Special Event,provided in each instance of such use the Applicant has obtained the City's prior written consent. Any such consent by the City shall not be deemed to be an impairment in anyway of the City's exclusive rights in the City marks Page 4 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy 9. Maximum Number of People:Applicant shall not sell tickets to tendftnee o more than the maximum number of people stated in permit. 10. Parking and Traffic Plan:Applicant shall submit a parking and traffic plan for the number of person projected to attend the event,which must include adequate off-street parking facilities on site or within 1,500 feet of the site.Applicant is required to pay all costs for traffic control measure and traffic control personnel. When adequate off-street parking facilities are not available, an alternate plan to bus attendees from a remote location may be considered. This plan should contain details on remote parking location(s),parking approvals,bus routes and schedules, traffic control measures,and remote site security details. 11. Traffic Barricades:Applicant shall through a bona fide contractor provide,install, and remove all the equipment as stipulated by the City Manager or his/her designee. The installation and removal of barricades by the Physical Development Department is subject to the Hourly Rates listed in Exhibit A. 12. Insurance:Applicant shall provide the City with a Certificate of Liability Insurance showing proof of general liability insurance and liquor liability insurance (if applicable) meeting the following minimum requirements: • Applicant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Special Event commercial general liability insurance or equal special event coverages protecting it from claims for damages for bodily injury and property damage which may arise from or in connection with the event's operation and use of the City's property with a minimum combined single-limit coverage of $2,000,000 for any single occurrence. • If alcohol will be sold or served,Applicant must have liquor liability (dram shop) insurance in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence, along with the applicable state and City licenses. • The City shall be endorsed as an additional insured onbility policies.Applicant's insurance shall be primary. ,. • The City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements depending on the nature and scope of the event. 13. Security:Applicant shall employ at their own expense such security personnel necessary to protect maximum number of persons in attendance and to preserve order in and around event site. No permit shall be issued unless the City police chief is satisfied with the security plan. Security provided by the City will be billed at the Hourly Rate outlined in Exhibit A. 14. Sanitary Facilities ftnd Potable Water Supply:Applicant shall provide adequate sanitary facilities and potable watet supp as in accordance with all federal and state requirements. 15. Solid Waste Deposal: Applicant shall provide a method of disposing of solid wastes in compliance with state and local laws and regulations. Applicants are encouraged to engage in recycling whenever possible. 16. Mobile Food Vending: Food vendorLApplieftnt s must obtain any required Minnesota Department of Health or Hennepin County Food License and gny the applicable mobile food vending permit required under the City Code,and the Special Event shall comply at all times with the applicable health codes and regulations. Proof of license and permit shall be provided to the City clerk at least 7 days before the event and kept on site for immediate inspection. 17. Cleanup:Applicant shall,at no cost to the City,immediately clean up,remove, and dispose of all Etter or materials of any kind that is placed or left on the premise because of the event. If the Applicant neglects or fails to proceed with cleanup within a two-hour period immediately following the end of the event, or if the cleanup is done in an inadequate manner, the City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to clean up and charge Applicant for cleanup at the Hourly Rate shown in Exhibit A. Page 5 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy 18. Notice to Property Owners:Applicant may be required to provide a 30-day notice to surrounding property owners about an upcoming Special Event. 19. Claims:Applicant agrees to defend and hold the City harmless from claims, demands,actions, or causes of actions,of any nature of character,arising out of, or by reason of conducting an event authorized by a Special Event Permit. 20. Damages:Applicant will indemnify the City for all damages that may result to City property as a result of a Special Event. 21. Additional Requirements: The City Manager or his/her designee may place any additional conditions reasonably calculated to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons attending the event or City residents. These requirements may include specific staff levels for Police,Fire, Physical Development, or other personnel. Expense will be billed to the Applicant under the terms of this policy. 22. Termination:An Applicant may elect to terminate a Special Event permit by giving written notice to the City Clerk at least 7 44 days before the first day of the event. If less than 7 44 days written notice is given to terminate a permitted event that involved the City undertaking contracted work, the Applicant shall pay the City for a 2-hour minimum charge for the relevant staff time,and the Applicant shall compensate the City for any contractual expenses incurred and losses suffered by the City as a result of the termination.The City Manager or his/her designee has the authority to cancel or stop an event if it is deemed that the public health, safety, or welfare would be better served with additional restrictions. No Special Event Permit may be transferred to another person or location without the prior written consent of the City Manager or his/her designee. AW .. . �x k Page 6 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy EXHIBIT A SPECIAL EVENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES (The fee schedule may be reviewed and updated annually by the City) Public Works Personnel Cost per Hour (Minimum 2.5 hours per employee call-in • General Laborer $ 60 Police Department personnel Cost per Hour (Minimum 2 hours per employee call-in) Non-Refundable Application Fee: $ 25 • Police Officer $ 75 with car $100 • Community Service Officer $ 35 with car $ 50 • Reserve Officer with car $ 25 Fire Department Personnel Cost per hour • Firefighter $ 35 Vehicles Cost per hour • Pick-Up Truck $ 45 • Utility Truck $100 • Garbage Truck $125 • Dump Truck $125 • Bucket Truck $125 • Fire Truck $250 • Aerial Truck $350 Page 7 of 7 05/16 Resolution 16-16 May 3, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEW SPECIAL EVENT POLICY WHEREAS, the City Council established a policy for Special Events; and WHEREAS, the Special Event Policy will categorize the various types of Special Events based on the level of City's participation; and WHEREAS, the Special Event Policy will set forth regulations and procedures required to hold or sponsor a Special Event in the City of Golden Valley that follow City Code 8.31; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council for the City of Golden Valley adopts new Special Event Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A. 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. SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY I. General Policy Statement& Objective The purpose of this policy is to set forth procedures to be followed by organizers of a Special Event who wish to use City property and/or require City services. Any organization wishing to sponsor or hold a Special Event in Golden Valley will be required to complete the Special Event Permit Application. The City will conduct a complete review of any Special Event Permit Application and inform the Applicant if the event is allowed. What constitutes a Special Event is defined in City Code Section 8.11 and is generally any temporary event open to the public and held on public property, or a temporary event held on private property that has an impact on the regular flow of traffic. Special Events may include any parade,race, carnival, community picnic, celebration, fundraiser, dance,concert, or large assembly. II. Types of Special Events The purpose of this section is to categorize the various types of Special Events based on the level of the City's participation in the event and to provide a guideline for justly determining the City's participation level with a Special Event. 1. City-Hosted:A Special Event organized and conducted by the City and largely funded by the City. 2. City-Cooperative:A Special Event organized and conducted by a tax exempt non-profit organization under Section 501(c) (3) through (10) of the Internal Revenue Code that the City has elected to support through appropriation of funds within the City's budget.This is typically an annual recurring event. This is an event that the City has determined is of general interest to the public and advances the City's public image.The City provides in-kind and/or financial support to this event as determined in the annual budget appropriation,which may take the form of cash contributions for services or contributed City services to facilitate the event activities.This event must meet the other requirements of the Special Event Policy/Ordinance and must reimburse the City for any City costs in excess of the support level authorized by the budget appropriation. 3. City-Supported:A Special Event organized and conducted by a tax exempt non-profit organization under Section 501 (c) (3) through (10) of the Internal Revenue Code that is approved for full or partial waiver of cost recovery due to identifiable community benefits.The City may provide financial support to this event by waiving cost recovery. In effect, such an event is assisted by contributed City services to facilitate the event activities.This event must meet the other requirements of the Special Event Policy/Ordinance and must reimburse the City for any City costs in excess of the support authorized by the waiver. *For the City-Hosted, City-Cooperative,and City-Supported events,there will be no charge to the City to participate,including Boards and Commissions. Page 1 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy 4. Any Other Event: A Special Event organized and conducted by a tax-exempt non-profit organization, a for-profit organization, or individuals must meet the requirements of the Special Event Policy/Ordinance and must reimburse the City for any City costs. Under the City Code, the following types of events are exempt from this Policy: 1. any permanent place of worship, stadium, athletic field, arena, theatre, auditorium, school- sanctioned events on school property, or fairs conducted pursuant to state law; 2. Special Events or activities permitted or licensed by state law or ordinances of the City, other than this Section,including publicly-sponsored activities in the local or regional park system; 3. Events in the nature of a family gatherings; 4. non-City wide garage sales; 5. non-recurring auctions or estate sales; 6. National Night to Unite Events established through the Golden Valley Police Department; 7. funeral processions; 8. activities conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority; and 9. residential neighborhood block parties. III. City Participation in Special Events The City Manager has the authority to determine,with Council consultation,which events the City may provide financial,material,labor, or other support. Any support given to any event by the City is subject to change by the City at any time. Page 2 of 7 05/16 Special Event List City- Hosted Special Events City special events are those planned,hosted,and financed by the City of Golden Valley, some of which are: • Winter Family Festival • Run the Valley Race and Walk • Police and Fire in the Park • Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street Dance • Ice Cream Social • Golden Valley Golf Classic • Minnesota Night To Unite • Public Safety Open House for Families with Special Needs City Cooperative Special Events Cooperative special events are those planned,hosted,and financed by the City of Golden Valley in cooperation with other public organizations, some of which are: • West Metro Home Remodeling Fair • Caring Youth Recognition • Bike Rodeo • Lilac Project Planting Day City-Supported Special Events City-supported special events planned,hosted, and financed by organizations or groups that receive in-kind City services in exchange for acknowledgement of City support by the event holders are: • Market In the Valley • Golden Valley Arts &Music Festival • Recognized State and Regional Youth Athletic Events Sponsored by the Golden Valley Youth Athletic Associations Other Special Events Other Special Events, some of which are: • Golden Valley Animal Humane Society Annual"Walk for Animals" • American Diabetes Association "Step Out: Walk to Stop Diabetes" Page 3 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy IV. Fees 1. The non-refundable Special Event Permit fee is $25. 2. Hourly Rate shall be the hourly cost for any employee working on a Special Event as established by the City Council. These rates are reviewed/adjusted annually (see Exhibit A). The Hourly Rate shall include expenses related to the employee,including fringe benefits. 3. Equipment Charges shall be the current equipment usage rates as established by the City Council. 4. A Replacement Cost will be billed for missing and/or damaged equipment and supplies. V. Billings for Special Events 1. Special Event billing by the City shall be itemized by employee time (ie,Physical Development, Police and Fire), equipment charges,and any replacement costs for missing or damaged equipment/supplies. 2. If approved, event sponsors who have previously hosted the same event in the year prior AND paid their bill in a timely manner will be extended the courtesy of paying all City fees after their event is completed and billed for the current year. 3. If approved,new events or events that are repeating annually and did NOT pay their bill in a timely manner must submit either a cash deposit or a check with payment of 75%of estimated expenses to be used as a deposit to be credited against final payment. Deposit fees must be paid not less than 30 days before the newly scheduled event. VI. Regulations and Procedures 1. Any person or organization wishing to sponsor a Special Event must obtain a Special Event Permit not less than 45 days before the event. 2. Applications for a Special Event Permit will be available on the City's website or in the City clerk's office, and if approved, shall become a part of the permit. Incomplete applications will be returned. 3. The non-refundable permit fee shall accompany the application. 4. When applicable,an event map outlining the event may be required. 5. The cash deposit will be calculated based on the anticipated and potential cost to the City of Golden Valley and shall be submitted no less than 30 days before the Special Event Permit. 6. The Special Event shall operate only on those days and during the hours specified in the permit and shall not exceed 7 consecutive days. 7. Issuance of a Special Event Permit does not constitute a waiver of any Federal, State or City ordinances.Applicants are responsible for complying with all applicable Federal,State,and City ordinances. 8. Issuance of a Special Event Permit does not,in any way,imply City sponsorship of the Special Event.An Applicant may not use,print or duplicate any of the trademarks, trade names, service marks,logos,identifications or other proprietary rights and privileges of the City (collectively"City Marks") for any purpose in connection with a Special Event. In the case of a City-Cooperative or City-Supported Special Event,the City may permit an Applicant to use City Marks in connection with the advertising and promotion of the Special Event,provided in each instance of such use the Applicant has obtained the City's prior written consent.Any such consent by the City shall not be deemed to be an impairment in anyway of the City's exclusive rights in the City marks Page 4 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy 9. Maximum Number of People: Applicant shall not sell tickets to more than the maximum number of people stated in permit. 10. Parking and Traffic Plan:Applicant shall submit a parking and traffic plan for the number of person projected to attend the event,which must include adequate off-street parking facilities on site or within 1,500 feet of the site.Applicant is required to pay all costs for traffic control measure and traffic control personnel. When adequate off-street parking facilities are not available,an alternate plan to bus attendees from a remote location may be considered. This plan should contain details on remote parking location(s),parking approvals,bus routes and schedules, traffic control measures,and remote site security details. 11. Traffic Barricades: Applicant shall through a bona fide contractor provide,install,and remove all the equipment as stipulated by the City Manager or his/her designee. The installation and removal of barricades by the Physical Development Department is subject to the Hourly Rates listed in Exhibit A. 12. Insurance:Applicant shall provide the City with a Certificate of Liability Insurance showing proof of general liability insurance and liquor liability insurance (if applicable) meeting the following minimum requirements: • Applicant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Special Event commercial general liability insurance or equal special event coverages protecting it from claims for damages for bodily injury and property damage which may arise from or in connection with the event's operation and use of the City's property with a minimum combined single-limit coverage of $2,000,000 for any single occurrence. • If alcohol will be sold or served,Applicant must have liquor liability (dram shop) insurance in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence,along with the applicable state and City licenses. • The City shall be endorsed as an additional insured on all liability policies. Applicant's insurance shall be primary. • The City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements depending on the nature and scope of the event. 13. Security:Applicant shall employ at their own expense such security personnel necessary to protect maximum number of persons in attendance and to preserve order in and around event site. No permit shall be issued unless the City police chief is satisfied with the security plan. Security provided by the City will be billed at the Hourly Rate outlined in Exhibit A. 14. Sanitary Facilities:Applicant shall provide adequate sanitary facilities as in accordance with all federal and state requirements. 15. Solid Waste Deposal:Applicant shall provide a method of disposing of solid wastes in compliance with state and local laws and regulations.Applicants are encouraged to engage in recycling whenever possible. 16. Mobile Food Vending: Food vendors must obtain any required Minnesota Department of Health or Hennepin County Food License and any applicable mobile food vending permit required under the City Code,and the Special Event shall comply at all times with the applicable health codes and regulations. Proof of license and permit shall be provided to the City clerk at least 7 days before the event and kept on site for immediate inspection. 17. Cleanup:Applicant shall,at no cost to the City,immediately clean up,remove, and dispose of all litter or materials of any kind that is placed or left on the premise because of the event. If the Applicant neglects or fails to proceed with cleanup within a two-hour period immediately following the end of the event,or if the cleanup is done in an inadequate manner,the City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to clean up and charge Applicant for cleanup at the Hourly Rate shown in Exhibit A. Page 5 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy 18. Notice to Property Owners:Applicant may be required to provide a 30-day notice to surrounding property owners about an upcoming Special Event. 19. Claims:Applicant agrees to defend and hold the City harmless from claims, demands,actions, or causes of actions,of any nature of character,arising out of,or by reason of conducting an event authorized by a Special Event Permit. 20. Damages:Applicant will indemnify the City for all damages that may result to City property as a result of a Special Event. 21. Additional Requirements: The City Manager or his/her designee may place any additional conditions reasonably calculated to protect the health, safety,and welfare of persons attending the event or City residents. These requirements may include specific staff levels for Police,Fire, Physical Development, or other personnel. Expense will be billed to the Applicant under the terms of this policy. 22. Termination:An Applicant may elect to terminate a Special Event permit by giving written notice to the City Clerk at least 7 days before the first day of the event. If less than 7 days written notice is given to terminate a permitted event that involved the City undertaking contracted work,the Applicant shall pay the City for a 2-hour minimum charge for the relevant staff time,and the Applicant shall compensate the City for any contractual expenses incurred and losses suffered by . the City as a result of the termination. The City Manager or his/her designee has the authority to cancel or stop an event if it is deemed that the public health, safety, or welfare would be better served with additional restrictions. No Special Event Permit may be transferred to another person or location without the prior written consent of the City Manager or his/her designee. Page 6 of 7 05/16 Golden Valley Special Event Policy EXHIBIT A SPECIAL EVENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES (Ae fee schedule may be reviewed and updated annually by the City) Public Works Personnel Cost per Hour (Minimum 2.5 hours per employee call-in • General Laborer $ 60 Police Department personnel Cost per Hour (Minimum 2 hours per employee call-in) Non-Refundable Application Fee: $ 25 • Police Officer $ 75 with car $100 • Community Service Officer $ 35 with car $ 50 • Reserve Officer with car $ 25 Fire Department Personnel Cost per hour • Firefighter $ 35 Vehicles Cost per hour • Pick-Up Truck $ 45 • Utility Truck $100 • Garbage Truck $125 • Dump Truck $125 • Bucket Truck $125 • Fire Truck $250 • Aerial Truck $350 Page 7 of 7 05/16 City Clerk 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city uf 763-593-8012 TTY:763-593-3968 ( www.golderivalleymri.gov I kluedke@goldenvalleymn.gov �7oldc C+ valley SpecialApplication Complete this application in accordance with the City of Golden Valley Special Event Policy and return it to the City Clerk's office at least 45 days before the starting date of the event. Please be aware there is a$25 non-refundable application fee,and additional fees may be charged based on the type of event and City services required. By submitting a Special Event Permit Application,you and your organization agree to the terms outlined in the Special Events Policy and all other ordinances,laws,and City requirements that may apply to this special event. Name of special event Name of organization Event purpose Main Contact For Event Name Daytime phone Address City State Zip Email address Contact person during event Cell phone number during event Property owner at permit location,if different than applicant Printed name Signature Date Event Information Event type: O Parade 0 Run O Walk Event date(s) 0 Street dance 0 Other Event start time Event end time Location of event Location where applicant has conducted similar event in past five years Description of event,activates,or route Number of people participating Event length(miles,if applicable) Number of spectators(if applicable) _ Number of vehicles involved(if applicable) Number of units in parade(if applicable) Number of animals participating(if applicable) Impacted,properties: 0 Private property 0 City park 0 State highway 0 City sidewalk/trail 0 City street 0 County highway 0 Interstate highway 0 Public waterway 0 Another City's street/sidewalk/trail 0 Minneapolis Park&Rec Board parkway Description of services requested(City personnel,equipment,or property) Public safety provisions(traffic control,signage,safety personnel,etc) Parking provisions 1 City Clerk 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 City of 763 593-8012 I TTY:763-593-3968 1 www.goldenvalleymn.gov ( kluedke@goldenvalleymn.gov �7(}���('J'� CY valley SpecialPermit Application Event Information (cont.) Is the event in coordination with another event: ❑ No 71 Yes Event name: Amplified sound? ❑ No ❑ Yes Provide a description of any recording and sound amplification equipment to be used at your event and the times. Pestrooms provided? ❑ No ❑ Yes How many? Company contracted for restrooms Trash disposal? ❑ No ❑ Yes Company contracted for trash disposal Event Security Plans Applicant will maintain adult supervision of the event at all times.Additional security may be stipulated by the police chief.Security will be billed per the Special Event Policy.If you have questions about the amount of security to provide,contact the Police Depart- ment at 763-593-8079. If event security will be provided by the applicant,explain arrangements: If the applicant is requesting the Police Department to provide security,please explain your request: Date: Time: to Number of officers: Date: Time: to Number of officers: ParkUse If your event requires the use of a City park,you must complete this section. Name of park Location of park Shelter(s)to be used Number of people attending Required Permit ❑ Certificate of liability insurance ❑ An event map is required if event will use streets and/or sidewalks(for a parade, run,etc)or will use multiple locations.Attach a complete map showing assembly and dispersal locations,route plan,and any streets or parking lots you are requesting be blocked. ❑ If organization is a non-profit please attach a copy of the 5O1(03 statement. ❑ Tent permit application is required for any tent that exceeds 200 square feet. ❑ Temporary liquor license application is required for the sale of alcoholic beverages. ❑ Mobile Food Vending application is required for operation of a food truck. ❑ Fireworks display applications are available upon request. 2 Im Ir City Clerk 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 Citi'of 763-593-8012 1 TTY:763-593-3968 ' www.goidenvalleyrnn.gov I kluedke@goldenvalleymn.gov (l d '11 ' valley 0'40"" Special Event Permit Application Special Event Estimated Fees For Services Not all fees listed. Thank you for your interest in hosting a special event in Golden Valley.To help you achieve the most successful event possible for your organization,we are providing a list of standard services/items and the associated fees you may incur as part of planning your event. Not all events will require all services/items,nor is this list intended to represent all services and items that may be necessary for the operation of your event. City Personnel(cost per hour) Vehicles(cost per hour) Minimum 2.5 hours per employee call-in Pick-Up Truck --------------$45 Public Works General Laborer----------$6o Utility Truck-----------------$loo Police Officer -------- ---------------------$75 Garbage Truck-------------$125 with car----------------------------------$100 Dump Truck --- ---------$125 Community Service Officer --------------$35 Boom Truck ---------------- $125 with car--------------$50 Fire Truck -------------------$250 Reserve Officer with car-------------------$25 Aerial Truck-----------------$350 Firefighter --------------------------------------$35 Permits&Licenses Tent/Canopy Inspections-required for tent exceeding 200 sq ft and canopies exceeding 400 sq ft(per site)-----------------------------------$50 Each additional tent and/or canopy(per site Mobile Food Vending Non-residential zoning districts Up to three days(City park-limit three days)°------------------------------------$40 per day Upto 120 days --------------------------------------------------------------------------------$150 Temporary Liquor License -------------------------------------------------------------------------$too FireworksDisplay--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$100 3 City Clerk 1 7800 Golders Valley Road,Golden Valley,tUIN 55427-4588 city c3� = 763-:593-8012 1 TTY:763-59:3-3968 j www,golcienvalleyrnri.<gov I klue(Jke@gol(lenvalleyn)r).gov golden valley SpecialPermit Application Idemnification Agreement and Insurance Information The applicant hereby agrees to save,defend,hold harmless,and indemnify the City of Golden Valley and all of its officers,departments,agencies, agents,and employees(collectively the"City")from and against any and all claims,losses,damages,injuries,fines,penalties,and costs,including attor- ney's fees,charges,liability,or other exposures,however caused,resulting from,arising out of,or in any way related to the applicant's event as herein described and applicant's use of City property and/or right-of-way.Nothing herein shall have any effect on the City's right to assert any liability defense in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. The City,in its sole discretion,may require the Applicant to obtain liability insurance coverage(s)for any event.If the City notifies the Applicant in writing that liability insurance is required,the Applicant must provide proof of the appropriate liability insurance(s)in the amount(s)provided herein. The Applicant must provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance showing proof of the required liability insurance(s).The City must be listed as an additional insured on all liability policies.Applicant's insurance shall act as the primary insurance coverage for any claims of loss covered by the insur- ance policy. The Applicant must obtain commercial general liability insurance or equivalent special event coverage protecting Applicant and City from claims for damages or bodily injury and property damage which may arise out of or in connection with the event's operation and use of the City's property or right-of-way.This general liability insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than$2 million per occurance. If alcohol will be served or included in Applicant's event,Applicant must obtain liquor liability(also known as dram shop)insurance in an amount not less than$1 million per occurrence. The City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements at its sole discretion based on the nature and scope of Applicant's proposed event. Signature of Event Applicant I understand that I may be required to obtain insurance coverage as outlined herein before the City will approve my use of City property or right-of way. I hereby agree to obtain such coverage as the City may deem necessary and to provide City all necessary documentation Of such insurance coverage. I further certify under the penalty of perjury that 1 am authorized to execute contracts and other instruments and legally bind the Applicant. Signature of event applicant Date submitted to City Printed name and title of event applicant For Official Use Only Please return this page with your signature and comments io the City Clerk as soon as possible. Special Event Routing Signature Of Approval Date Staff Comments Streets Maintenance Supervisor Physical Development Director Police Chief Fire Chief Parks and Recreation Director City Manager _ City Clerk __-- -- — This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call 763-593-8006(TTY:763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print,electronic,Braille,audiocassette,etc.1q__ I I "I'll", 4 AGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room May 10, 2016 6:30 pm Pages 1. Open Space and Recreation Commission Annual Report (15 minutes) 2. St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau (15 minutes) 3. Brookview Community Center Replacement Design Development Plan Review (45 minutes) 4. City Survey Questions (15 minutes) Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. AGENDA Special Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room May 17, 2016 5 pm Pages 1. Debt Discussion/Infrastructure Strategy (45 minutes) 2. Budget Strategy (15 minutes) 3. Positive Fund Performance Balance (5 minutes) Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a r=Examples of alternate formats mayinclude large print, electronic, Braille, audte, etc. AGENDA fliRegular Meeting of the City Council VgMev Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber May 17, 2016 6:30 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek 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 so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting May 3, 2016 B. Approval of City Check Register C. Licenses: D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Award Lakeview Park Shelter Roof Replacement Project 2. Award 2016 Pavement Marking Contract 3. Approve Bunker Improvements at Brookview F. Accept Open Space and Recreation Commission Annual Report G. Positive Fund Performance Balance H. HCA Amendment - Brookview Community Center 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Verizon Telecommunications Tower- 6100 Olson Memorial Highway 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Design Development Plan for Brookview Community Center Replacement B. Douglas Drive - Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement, Approve Purchase of Fire Hydrants and Approve 2016 Construction Services C. Announcements of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: City Council June 7, 2016, Council/Manager June 14, 2016 and City Council June 21, 2016 D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT (Ity 4 AGENDA Regular Meeting of the goldeni'dCity Council vala Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber June 7, 2016 6:30 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Dr. Carlton Jenkins, Robbinsdale School District Superintendent (confirmed) 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 so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting May 17, 2016 B. Approval of City Check Register C. Licenses: 1. Approve 2016-2017 Liquor License Renewals D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Award 2016 Asphalt Overlay 2. Award 1-394 1&1 Phase 1 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing for the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds proposed to be issued by the City of Minnetonka B. Public Hearing - Major PUD Amendment - Mortenson PUD 33, Amendment #3 C. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Ballet Studio at 1000 Boone Ave N D. Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Remove Temporary Events from Section 11.04 E. Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Amending R-2 Moderate Density Residential 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration and Sale of Bonds and Certificates B. First Consideration - Subdivision Code Text Amendment - Frontage Requirement C. Announcements of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: Council/Manager June 14, 2016, City Council June 21 and City Council July 5, 2016 D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT