The URL can be used to link to this page

06-07-16 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council 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 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: 1. Council/Manager Meeting - March 8, 2016 3-5 2. Council/Manager Meeting - April 12, 2016 6-7 3. Special Council/Manager Meeting - May 17, 2016 8-9 4. City Council Meeting - May 17, 2016 10-14 B.Approval of City Check Register 15 C.Licenses: 1. Approve 2016-2017 Liquor License Renewals 16-17 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 18-20 3. General Business License 21 D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - May 9, 2016 22-34 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - April 26, 2016 35-38 3. Human Rights Commission - March 31, 2016 39-41 E.Bids and Quotes: 1. Award Contract for 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project, Project No. 16-02 42-44 2. Award Contract for the I-394 Inflow and Infiltration Phase 1, Project No. 15-24 45-46 3. Award Contract for 2016 Pavement Marking, Project No. 16-12 47 4. Award Contract for Zealand Avenue Emergency Sanitary Sewer Repair, Project No. 16-13 48 5. Authorize Purchase of Fire Hydrants for 2016 Douglas Drive Project 49 F.Approve Extension of Hours for Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street Dance 50 G.Acceptance of Donation from Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club 16-34 51-52 H.Modifying 2016 General Wages and Salary to include Full-Time Battalion Chief Position 16-35 53-54 I.Receipt of April 2016 Financial Reports 55-63 J.Approve Administrative Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District within Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Project Area (Liberty Crossing) 16-36 64-67 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Continued K.Approve Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park 68-69 L.Reset August Council/Manager Meeting 70 M.Support of Application for Technical Assistance to Support Mixed Income Housing Policy Development 16-37 71-72 N.Approve Amendments related to Community Development Block Grant for Pesch Place (Accessible Space, Inc.) Renovation Project, 2000 Mary Hills Drive 73-79 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Public Hearing for Providing Host Approval for Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka 16-38 80-83 B.Public Hearing - Ordinance #599 -North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3 700 Meadow Lane North - North Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant 84-154 C.Public Hearing - Ordinance #600 - Approve Conditional Use Permit 148 -1000 Boone Avenue North - Ashley Arts Academy LLC, Applicant 155-171 D.Public Hearing - Ordinance #601- Zoning Code Text Amendment - Remove Temporary Events from Section 11.04 172-179 E.Public Hearing - Ordinance #602 - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Amending R-2 Moderate Density Residential 180-225 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Authorize Issuance, Awarding Sale, and Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing Payment for: 226-290 1. $1,290,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A 16-39 2. $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B 16-40 3. $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016C 16-41 B.First Consideration - Ordinance #603 - Amending Sections 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards and 12.50: Minor Subdivision and Consolidations Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width 291-293 C.Announcements of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: Council/Manager June 14, 2016, City Council June 21 and City Council July 5, 2016 294-296 D. Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT Council/Manager Meeting Minutes March 8, 2016 Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope, City Manager Tim Cruikshank, Assistant City Manager Chantell Knauss, Finance Director Sue Virnig, Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, Director of Parks and Recreation Rick Birno, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Golf Manager Ben Disch and Administrative Assistant Judy Nally. Human Rights Commission 2015 Annual Report and 2016 Work Plan Carla Johnson, Human Rights Commission (HRC) Chair, reviewed the 2015 Annual Report, highlighting events during the year including: HRC Conversations, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Blank Slate Theatre's "bottom," Human Sex Trafficking Awareness, Genocide Awareness and Prevention Quad Cities Joint Event, and September 11 Day of Service and Remembrance. Johnson and Jonathan Burris, Vice Chair, reviewed the 2016 Work Plan highlighting proposed events including: Conversations Series on demographics of Golden Valley which will be a three issue series published in the CityNews, including a forum with a speaker or panel regarding demographics; September 11 Day of Service and Remembrance; and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Event, and community outreach events such as Golden Valley Music & Arts Festival and Farmer's Market. METRO Blue Line Extension - Golden Valley Road Station Design Update Jason Zimmerman presented an overview of the project. Nick Landwer, Chad Ellis, Alicia Vap and David Davies from the Metro Blue Line Project Office presented the most recent revisions to the designs of the Golden Valley Road station park and ride, improvements to the intersection at Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway, and trail connections between Theodore Wirth and Sochacki Park. The Council discussion included the Environmental Impact Statement, the trail from Bonnie Lane to the station, trail maintenance, snow removal, bike lanes, traffic increases, how Courage Kenney participants will get to the station, the elevator tower, car charging stops, pedestrian traffic, bus routes, traffic signals, roundabout, traffic turn lanes, buffer areas for pedestrians and bikers, traffic backups, Minneapolis Park Board input, process for Glenwood Parkway cul-de-sac changes, and the advantages and disadvantages of signal intersections and roundabouts. Some Council Members expressed support for the roundabout option. The Project office was asked to reach out to the neighborhood for comments once a preferred option was selected. Council/Manager Meeting Minutes March 8, 2016 — Page 2 Brookview Community Center Replacement - Project Update and Lease Purchase Schedule Rick Birno reviewed comments from the open house held on February 23 and distributed a copy of a letter received from the property owners adjacent to the community center. The Council discussed the comments received, the process for collecting feedback from residents, holding a neighborhood meeting, design of the entryways, the hiring of a construction maintenance company, and collecting input for a children's play area, parking, and landscaping. Staff will be meeting with the construction management firm to review the comments and prepare a communications plan. The consensus of the Council was to conduct a meeting with the neighborhood adjacent to the park. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority will take public input at the meeting on April 12 when the HRA discusses the approval of the issuance of Lease Revenue Obligation Bonds. Sue Virnig discussed the process and timeline for consideration of the bonds at the HRA meeting. The Brookview Community Center Replacement Open House (final design phase) will be held on June 14, 2016, from 6-7:30 pm at the Brookview Community Center. The Council will consider approval of the project at the June 21 Council meeting, construction bids will be considered at the September 1 Council meeting, and the bonds will be awarded at the September 20 Council meeting. Parkinson Friendly Communities Tim Cruikshank and Julie Steen, National Parkinson's Foundation Minnesota (NPFM) reviewed the request for the City to participate in a two minute vignette to air on KARE 11 to help communities understand Parkinson's disease. Some Police, Fire and Park and Recreation staff will receive a Parkinson awareness overview and training. KARE 11 will shoot, edit and produce a video which will be shown on KARE 11 and will be available on the NPFM website and YouTube. The Council consensus was to support participation and proceed with the vignette. City Code Amendment - Section 8.11: Special Events and Special Proclamation Policy Tim Cruikshank reviewed the proposed amendments to the City Code, Section 8:11 Special Events along with the Special Event Policy. Cruikshank stated the current Section only pertains to parades. The proposed City Code amendments, policy, and a permit Council/Manager Meeting Minutes March 8, 2016 — Page 3 application were sent to organizations and/or groups who have held events in the past to receive their feedback. The Council discussion included the types of special events such as city -hosted, city - cooperative and city -supported. Discussion also included political events, making sure each event was dealt with in a fair and consistent manner, types of information that will be allowed on the electronic reader sign, police and fire requirements, and what role if any the city will participate in special events. The Council direction was to consider the City Code amendments at the next Council Meeting. The Council also requested that the Special Event Policy be amended to state that the City Manager has the authority to determine, without further approval, with Council consultation as needed, the City's participation in Special Events. Tim Cruikshank also reviewed the current Special Proclamations Policy along with the list of Proclamations that have been adopted by previous City Councils in the past. The Council discussed the variety of proclamations adopted in previous years stating that some of the current proclamations would not be considered as they do not fall within the policy. Discussion also included how to consider acknowledging private companies, political issues, privately run events, Certificates of Recognition, resolutions, and letters of support. The Council consensus was that Certificates of Recognition would no longer be presented at City Council Meetings and the directed staff to prepare a draft policy to consider Proclamations, Resolutions and Letters of Support at a future Council/Manager meeting for discussion, Boards/Commission Vacancies The Council discussed the vacancies on the Civil Service Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission. Staff was requested to provide the Council with a list of candidates who were interviewed in the past. The Council members will contact persons in the community who may be interested in applying for the vacancies and have them apply. The Council will then determine a date when a meeting can be held to review the applicant list. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. Judy Nally Administrative Assistant Council/Manager Meeting Minutes April 12, 2016 Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope, City Manager Tim Cruikshank, Finance Director Sue Virnig, Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Judy Nally. Environmental Commission Annual Report, Environmental State of the City Report and GreenStep Cities Presentation Environmental Commission Chair Lynn Gitelis was in attendance to review the Commission's 2015 Annual Report and to get the Council's feedback on their 2016 work plan. Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program representative Diana McKeown presented a PowerPoint presentation on the program. The program is an action -oriented voluntary program offering cities a cost effective, step -wise path to implement sustainable development best practices. The Environmental Commission would like to focus on climate adaption and resilience and water energy. The Council supported the GreenStep Cities Program and directed staff to place the item on the next Council meeting for consideration. Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Process and University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs Capstone Presentation Emily Goellner introduced University of Minnesota students Britt Berner, Emily Jorgensen and Dustin Kleingartner. They are in the process of completing their Master of Urban and Regional Planning Capstone on Bicycle Planning in Golden Valley and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation. Goellner reviewed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force planning process and timeline. Staff will conduct an open application process for the 10 member Task Force with participation from Council Member Fonnest. Council Member Schmidgall will serve as a Task Force member. The Council will appoint the Task Force at a June City Council meeting. The Council supports approval of the Task Force and requested staff to contact NiceRide to request their participation if interested and suggested possible participation from the Bike Alliance of Minnesota or Minneapolis Bike Coalition. Medicine Lake Road and DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Study Update Jeff Oliver introduced Karen Chandler, PE and Jen Koehler, PE from Barr Engineering Company who presented a PowerPoint presentation on the Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan for Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The report outline included the layout of the project, the history/background, outline of steps in the long term flood mitigation plan development, discussion of project goals, a summary of the recommended plan and the next steps. Council/Manager Meeting Minutes April 12, 2016 — Page 2 The Council discussed of the costs for the project, funding opportunities, use of special assessments, how the project will be phased, timing of the project, the cost participation from the other cities, use of special assessments as a last resort, how the options will be presented to the residents, and the length of time for special assessments. The Council supports proceeding with the project with the financial assessment concept and a Joint Powers Agreement but noted there are details that still need to be determined. Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support Policy Tim Cruikshank reviewed the Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support Policy. The Council supports the amended policy and requested the item be placed on the next City Council meeting for consideration. The Council also discussed the process for Visi award nominations and decided to keep the process that is already in place. 130th Golden Valley Anniversary Proclamation Tim Cruikshank stated 2016 is the 130th anniversary of the founding of the City of Golden Valley. The Council consensus was to adopt a proclamation at a December Council meeting. Staff was directed to place an article in the CityNews acknowledging the anniversary and invite the Golden Valley Historical Society to attend the meeting to receive the proclamation and request Don Anderson provide a brief oral history of the City. The meeting adjourned at 9:52 pm. Judy Nally Administrative Assistant Special Council/Manager Meeting Minutes May 17, 2016 Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope, City Manager Tim Cruikshank, Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, Finance Director Sue Virnig, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Staff Engineer Eric Seaburg and City Clerk Kris Luedke. The meeting began at 5 pm in the Council Conference Room. Debt Discussion/Infrastructure Strategy City Manager Cruikshank presented an overview of the City of Golden Valley's current debt and future infrastructure needs. Staff provided a PowerPoint presentation to Council regarding the Debt Analysis Infrastructure Forecast. Finance Director Virnig outlined the outstanding debt and yearly debt payments by program including by revenue source and answered questions from Council. City Engineer Oliver provided a summary of the City's infrastructure needs. He reviewed the history of the civil infrastructure by construction year, the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP) schedule and answered questions from Council. Engineer Seaburg discussed the concept that was developed for the rehabilitation and maintenance of the City's streets and utility system and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank discussed the post PMP reconstruction annual funding needs and how the civil infrastructure could be funded. Physical Development Director Nevinski discussed the maintenance of existing City buildings, park shelters and other amenities. He provided information on additional funding sources that could be used to maintain them and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank provided information on the proposed 2017 levy. He also presented detailed information on proposed new funding resources that may be implemented to fund some of the City's needs, possible 2017 property taxes, and the next steps for the continued budget discussions and answered questions from Council. The Council discussion included the proposed tax increases, the infrastructure plans and the proposed additional funding resources that were presented. 2017-18 Budget Kick-off City Manager Cruikshank stated that staff would like to get Council recommendations regarding the 2017-2018 budget process. The Council discussed the upcoming budget process and asked staff to include additional revenue sources including grants in future discussions. Special Council/Manager Meeting Minutes May 17, 2016 - Page 2 2015 Positive Performance General Fund Transfer and Assignment of Fund Balance Finance Director Virnig reviewed the executive summary. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions regarding the assignment of the fund balances. The Council discussion included the positive performance fund transfer, the assignment of fund balance and proposed changes to the recommended general fund transfers. The positive performance general fund transfer will be placed on a future Council/Manager meeting for further discussion. The meeting adjourned at 6:26 pm. Kris Luedke City Clerk city E)t Ile 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1 B. Roll Call UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA May 17, 2016 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. 1 C. Presentation - Proclamation recognizing Tom Zellmer, Principal of Good Shepherd School Mayor Harris read the proclamation and thanked Mr. Zellmer for his service. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to accept the proclamation recognizing Mr. Tom Zellmer for his years of service and the motion carried. 1 D. Presentation - Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek Sheriff Stanek gave an overview of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department including services provided to the City of Golden Valley and answered questions from Council. The Council thanked Sheriff Stanek and his staff for their service. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the agenda of May 17, 2016, as submitted and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the consent agenda of May 17, 2016, as revised: removal of 3G-2015 Positive Performance General Fund Transfer and 3L -Accept Human Rights Commission resignations and the motion carried. 3A. Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 17, 2016. 31131. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 31132. Approve Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 3C1. Approve a Temporary On -Sale Liquor License for the Chester Bird American Legion for the 2016 Golden Valley Fire Relief Street Dance on Saturday, June 18, 2016. 3C2. Authorize issuance of Multi -family Rental Licenses as recommended by Staff. 3C3. Approve the issuance of a Therapeutic Massage Facility License for Denise Frazier d/b/a D -Way E. T. M., located at 1710 Douglas Drive, Suite 209D. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - April 25, 2016 2. Joint Water Commission - February 3, 2016 Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- May 17, 2016 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3E1. Accept bids and award a contract for the 2016 Lakeview Park Shelter Roof Replacement to Central Roofing Company in the amount of $98,344. 3E2. Authorize the reconstruction of ten sand bunkers at Brookview Golf Course from the lowest responsible bidder, Hartman Companies, Inc. for $49,825.25. 3F. Adopt Proclamation for Arbor Day - May 12, 2016, and Arbor Month - May 2016 in the City of Golden Valley. 3&: 2015 Positive PerfermaRGe General Fund TraRSfeF and AssigRment of FuRd BalaRGe. 3H. Accept Open Space and Recreation Commission 2015 Annual Report. 31. Approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. 3J. Authorize Cooperative Agreements with Hennepin County for Construction of Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) from Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70) to North Trunk Highway 55 Frontage Road and from North Trunk Highway 55 Frontage Road to Trunk Highway 55, Adopt Resolution 16-33, authorizing the Cooperative Agreements with Hennepin County for Reconstruction of Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) from CSAH 70 to Trunk Highway 55 and authorize Agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for Construction Administration Services in connection with the Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project in the amount not to exceed $232,945. 3K. Approve amendment addition of $21,500 for design fees for the proposed Brookview Community Center project. 3L. OGGeptanno of Hurnun Rights Commission ResigRatioR- 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3G. 2015 Positive Performance General Fund Transfer and Assignment of Fund Balance Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to amend Resolution 16-32, authorizing the Transfer of $1,575,000 from the General Fund to the Tax Abatement Debt Service of $250,000, Building Funding Fund of $500,000, Capital Improvement Fund of $200,000, Park Improvement Fund of $200,000 and Equipment Replacement Fund of $425,000 to authorizing the Transfer of $1,575,000 from the General Fund to the Tax Abatement Debt Service of $250,000 and the Capital Improvement Fund of $1,325,000 and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Resolution 16-32, as amended authorizing the Transfer of $1,575,000 from the General Fund to the Tax Abatement Debt Service Fund of $250,000 and the Capital Improvement Fund of $1,325,000 upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Snope, Harris, Clausen, Fonnest and Schmidgall and the following voted against: none and the motion carried. X. Acceptance of Human Rights Commission Resignations Council thanked Susan Phelps and Nabil Pruscini for their years of service to the City of Golden Valley. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to accept Susan Phelps resignation effective immediately and Nabil Pruscini's resignation from the Human Rights Commission effective June 1, 2016, and the motion carried. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- May 17, 2016 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4A. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 147 - 6100 Olson Memorial Highway - Verizon Wireless, Applicant Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mr. Rob Viera, Buell Consulting on behalf of Verizon Wireless, answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Ordinance #598, approval of Conditional Use Permit 147 at 6100 Olson Memorial Highway for Verizon Wireless, Applicant upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Approve Design Development Plans for the Brookview Community Center Replacement Project Director of Parks and Recreation Birno presented the staff report. Ms. Nancy of Blankford, Hammel, Green and Abrahamson (HGA) gave a brief overview of the design processes and time schedule for the replacement. Mr. Justin Wang, Intern Architect with HGA, presented the design drawings for the new Community Center. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve Design Development Plans and authorize staff to proceed with the development of construction documents for the replacement of Brookview Community Center and the motion carried. 6B. Authorize Project Labor Agreement for the Brookview Community Center Replacement Construction Project Director of Parks and Recreation Birno presented the staff report. Council Members Snope recused himself from the discussion and vote. He stated even though the City Attorney found no legal conflict, according to the Golden Valley Guiding Principles there may be a perceived conflict of interest. Council Member Clausen recused herself from the discussion and vote because unions support her business and her company banks at a union bank. There was additional Council discussion regarding the Project Labor Agreement. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- May 17, 2016 6B. Project Labor Agreement for the Brookview Community Center - continued MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to authorize the City Manager to sign Project Labor Agreement, contingent on City Attorney review, with the Minneapolis Building and Construction Trade Council for the Brookview Community Center Construction project upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Fonnest and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the following abstained: Snope and Clausen and the motion carried. 6C. Authorize Marketing Services Agreement with St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau Director of Parks and Recreation Birno presented the staff report. There was Council discussion regarding the Marketing Service Agreement. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to authorize City Manager to sign Marketing Services Agreement, contingent on City Attorney review, with the St. Louis Park Conventions and Visitors Bureau for the City of Golden Valley and the motion carried. 6D. Approval of Elected Official Out -of -State Travel City Manager Cruikshank presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City There was Council discussion regarding the out-of-state travel requests. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the reimbursement of the requested out-of-state travel for Mayor Harris and Council Member Fonnest and the motion carried. 6E. Announcements of Meetings Some Council Members may attend the Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project Open House on May 19, 2016, from 6 to 8 pm at Sandburg Learning Center at 2400 Sandburg Lane. Some Council Members may attend PRISM's 3rd Annual Taste of the Burbs Gala on May 19, 2016, from 5:30 to 8:30 pm at the Sheraton Minneapolis West at 12201 Ridgedale Drive in Minnetonka. Some Council Members may attend the Senate District 46 Post -Session Town Hall meeting on May 25, 2016, at 6 pm at the St. Louis Park City Hall at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Business Council on May 26, 2016, from 7:30 to 9 am at Second Harvest Heartland at 6325 Sandburg Road. The City offices will be closed on Monday, May 30, 2016, in observance of Memorial Day. A Tri -City Joint City Council Workshop will be held on May 31, 2016, at 6:30 pm in the Golden Valley Council Chambers. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- May 17, 2016 6E. Announcements of Meetings - continued The Robbinsdale School District's Adult Program Graduation will be held on June 2, 2016, at 7 pm at the Sandburg Learning Center at 2400 Sandburg Lane. The Police Bike -Along will be held on June 4, 2016, from 9 am to noon starting at the Golden Valley Police Department. A Concert in the Park featuring the Golden Valley Orchestra will be held on June 6, 2016, at 7 pm in Brookview Park. The next City Council meeting will be June 7, 2016. 6F. Mayor and Council Communication Mayor Harris thanked City staff who organized the 2016 Golden Valley Reads program with the Golden Valley Library. He stated that 155 people attended the event. Council Member Snope stated Council will soon begin the 2017-2018 budget process and that residents are welcome to attend the Council/Manager meetings. City Manager Cruikshank stated the budget calendar is part of the agenda packet and will also be listed on the City's website. Mayor Harris stated he received an invitation from the Golden Valley Lutheran Church for the installation of their new pastor, Kurt Weber, on June 12. Mayor Harris stated he received a button and that the City received a letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency congratulating Golden Valley for becoming a GreenStep City. 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 pm. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city I volden 11�� valley, MEMORANDUM Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 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. citofeoldy-en!k*#v"'s�MEMORANDUM IAdministrative Services Department 763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Approve 2016-2017 Liquor License Renewals Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary The following establishments have applied for renewal of their liquor license for the 2016-2017 license term. The applicants have met City Code and State requirements for the renewal of their licenses. Club On -Sale and Sunday Sale American Legion Chester Bird Post #523 On -Sale Intoxicating Sodexo America LLC On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale Benihana Brookview Golf Course and Community Center Chipotle Mexican Grill #774 Doolittle's Woodfire Grill Golden Valley Country Club Good Day Cafe J.J.'s Clubhouse Metropolitan Ballroom and Clubroom Envision Catering & Hospitality (formerly Prom Catering) Sushi X Teresa's Mexican Restaurant Off -Sale 3.2 Holiday Inn Express Golden Valley Super America #4443 Super America #4497 Off-Sale/On-Sale and Sunday Sale Schuller's Tavern Off -Sale Intoxicating Golden Valley Liquor Barrel Lakeridge Wine & Spirits Lunds & Byerly's Wine & Spirits MGM Liquor Warehouse Wine On -Sale (including strong beer) D'Amico and Sons Davanni's Pizza & Hoagies New Bohemia Golden Valley Noodles & Company The Early Bird Cafe - Mort's Deli Recommended Action Motion to approve the renewal of the respective liquor licenses for the applicants listed above for the license period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. 3 � r y J, e �/i rr� All u City Administration/ Council 763-593-3991 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30 -day waiting period. Attachments • Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 5/15 Page 1 of 2 An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit Application Fee (non-refundable) organization that: Applications are processed in the order received. If the application conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. yea r. If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite your county by calling 651-539-1900. service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization Previous Gambling Name: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Permit Number: 03657 Minnesota Tax ID Federal Employer ID Number, if any: Number (FEIN), if any: 81-0421425 Mailing Address: 6444 Westchester Circle City: Golden Valley State: MN Zip: 55427 County: Hennepin Name of Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Harold Olstad Daytime Phone: 612-242-4606 Email: harold.a.olstad@ampf.com NONPROFIT STATUS Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): ® Fraternal © Religious Veterans EZI Other Nonprofit Organization Attach a copy of one of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767 aIRS income tax exemption (501(c)) letter in your organization's name Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500, IRS - Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: 1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and 2, the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): Chester Bird American Legion Address (do not use P.O. box): 200 N. Lilac Drive City or Township: Golden Valley Zip: 55422 County: Hennepin Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): June 21, 2016 Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: Bingo* ❑ Paddlewheels* ❑ Pull -Tabs* ❑Tipboards* Raffle (total value of raffle prizes awarded for the calendar year: $6,500.00 ) * Gambling equipment for bingo paper, paddlewheels, pull -tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under List of Licensees, or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 5/15 Page 2of2 LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before submitting application to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board)' CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30 -day waiting The application is acknowledged with a 30 -day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after (60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days. The application is denied. Print City Name: &0(cfe n )0_ Re� The application is denied. Print County Name: Signature of City Personne . Signature of County Personnel: Title: Date: 5_(5_40 Title: information provided remains private, with the Date: information, the Board may not be able to TOWNSHIP (if required by the county) which law or legal order authorizes a new use or On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization address which will remain public. Private data is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or The city or county must sign before submitting application to the deny an application, per Minn. Statutes, section 349.213.) Gambling Control Board. Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer: access to the information; Minnesota's Depart - Title: Date: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE (required) p a d accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial The information provided in this applicatiAther report will be completed and returned to of the event date. Chief Executive Officer's Signature: Dater IS'gnature mut be CEO's signature; designee may not sign) &a ©fQ Print Name:/ REQUIREMENTS MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENTS Complete a separate application for: Mail application with: • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days, or a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and • all gambling conducted on one day. Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are application fee (non-refundable). If the application is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, conducted on the same day. the application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. Financial report to be completed within 30 days after the Make check payable to State of Minnesota. gambling activity is done: A financial report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 Board. Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for Questions? Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 3-1/2 years (Minn, Statutes, section 349.166, subd. 2(f)). 651-539-1900. Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety; Attorney General; on this form (and any attachments) will be used address will be public information when received Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to by the Board. All other information provided will Management & Budget, and Revenue; Legislative determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization, until the Auditor, national and International gambling be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board issues the permit. When the Board issues regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court Minnesota, Your organization has the right to the permit, all information provided will become order; other individuals and agencies specifically refuse to supply the information; however, if public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all authorized by state or federal law to have access your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private, with the to the information; individuals and agencies for information, the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of information after this notice was as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given; and anyone with your written consent, If your organization supplies the information members, Board staff whose work requires requested, the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart - This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. An Equal Opportunity Employer C i ty-of goldc n,!i'-1e'valley 0 - Fire Department 763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. C. 3. General Business Licenses Prepared By Jill Lund, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, some retail sales are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an application for approval. Renaissance Fireworks Fireworks Sales $350.00 8000 Olson Memorial Highway Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of the license as recommended by staff. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 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, May 9, 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 April 25, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Johnson referred to the fourth paragraph on page two and clarified that his question about electromagnetic spectrum standards was about standards for assessments or certifications. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 25, 2016, minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment — North Wirth Associates, LLP — 700 Meadow Lane North — PU-33, Amendment #3 Applicant: North Wirth Associates, LLP Address: 700 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To replace the existing two-level parking structure with a four -level parking structure and to plan for a future office building. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and stated that this proposal is being driven by the anticipated growth of Mortenson Company. He explained that the applicant is proposing to replace the existing two-level parking structure with a four -level parking structure in essentially the same location and to add a fourth office building in the northeast corner of the site in the future. He noted that the current PUD was established in 1982 and it allows for a three level parking ramp and an additional two stories on the southeast office building. He also noted that the PUD was amended in 2008 and 2010. Segelbaum asked if the future office building would be a Major PUD Amendment. Zimmerman said it most likely will be a Major PUD Amendment and would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Zimmerman discussed the entrance and exit locations for the site and for the parking ramp and explained that one of the site entrances along the west side of the property will be removed. The City's traffic engineer is recommending that the entrance located to the north of the frontage road be an entrance only. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 2 Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements for this use and explained that currently, there are 494 ramp parking spaces and 288 surface parking spaces and they are proposing to have 1,096 parking spaces in the ramp and 210 surface parking spaces. There are also 44 basement parking spaces. He noted that the proposed parking stalls will be 9' x 18' in size rather than the required 9' x 18.5' and there will be four electric car charging stations on the first floor of the ramp. He referred to bicycle parking for the site and stated that there are 28 existing bicycle spaces and the applicant is proposing 60 bicycle spaces. The Code requires 77 bicycle spaces so staff is recommending that the plans show 17 additional "proof of parking" spaces for bicycles. He discussed the applicant's temporary parking plan during construction which includes bus service for employees between 6-9 am and 3-6 pm to an off-site location in Brooklyn Center. Zimmerman referred to the proposed landscaping plans and stated that there will be native plant landscaping along the west side of the property, new trees along the north side of the property, and "living green walls" on three sides of the parking ramp. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment with the additional conditions that there will be enhanced pedestrian connections in the parking lot from the northeast and southwest ramp stair towers and there will be limited openings along the "living green wall." Kluchka asked how "proof of parking" is done with bicycle parking. Zimmerman stated that they will have to show on their plans that they have space reserved for an additional 17 bicycle spaces. Johnson referred to the parking ratios and asked about the significance of 3.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space. Zimmerman explained that the parking ratio will change because the applicant is changing the amount of office space, therefore the required amount of parking changes as well. Baker questioned why the proposal for the fourth office building is being discussed as part of this PUD amendment for the parking ramp when the applicant will have to come back for another PUD amendment when they want to build the fourth office building. Zimmerman explained that the proposal for the parking ramp is ultimately based on the construction of the fourth office building so they are planning the parking based on the complete built -out of the site. Baker said he is concerned about the Planning Commission's vote implying that they will approve the future PUD amendment proposal. Zimmerman said it is common for the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve a concept plan for the location of future buildings and then have the applicant come back with more detailed plans. Waldhauser noted that there have been similar issues in the past related to internal traffic issues and question why it is the City's concern. Zimmerman stated that staff's main concern is the traffic on Meadow Lane. Waldhauser asked if Meadow Lane serves other businesses. Zimmerman said yes. Johnson referred to the finding regarding quality site planning. He asked what is meant by saying that the proposed fourth office building would take the place of surface parking lot, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 3 limiting its impact on the site. Zimmerman stated that the proposed fourth building would be built on an existing surface parking area so it would not be taking away any more green space. Blum asked if the stormwater on site would be an overall improvement over what is there now. Zimmerman stated that there will be a minor change in the overall amount of impervious surface on the site. Baker asked about the current parking demand. Zimmerman said he wasn't sure, be he knows that not all of the existing parking spaces are currently being utilized. He added that there may also be transit options which would help with parking demand if needed. Waldhauser asked if the City should be concerned about employees bypassing the shuttle service being offered during construction and parking on local streets or parking lots instead. Zimmerman stated that the City will need to see a more detailed temporary parking plan. Segelbaum referred to the staff report regarding future landscaping, grading, drainage, replatting, etc. and asked if those items will be reviewed as part of the future PUD amendment for the fourth office building. Zimmerman said yes and noted that the landscaping plans for this proposal will be finalized before building permits are issued. Segelbaum asked if there is any precedent for allowing parking stalls to be 18 feet deep instead of the required 18.5 feet. Zimmerman said he is not familiar with any precedent but the applicant would like to reduce the depth of the parking stalls to allow for better circulation and aisle width. Segelbaum referred to the recommendation that the entrance on the southwest corner of the site be an entrance only and asked if there is an existing traffic queuing issue on Meadow Lane. Zimmerman said there are occasional issues currently, but there is some concern that with additional traffic there will be more issues and that there will not be enough room for cars to stack between Olson Memorial Highway and that southwest entrance. Kluchka referred to the traffic study memo regarding the frontage road and asked who owns it. Zimmerman said the frontage road is located in the City's right-of-way and there have been discussions about moving the frontage road out of the right-of-way and potentially re-routing it if possible with future plans. Kluchka stated that there isn't much boulevard area or sidewalks or trails so the City may want to re-evaluate if there is a need for these items because this is a gateway location. Zimmerman noted that there is a sidewalk on the north side of the frontage road. He said staff's preference would be to re- route the frontage road internally, but the question is if it is feasible with the access to the loading docks. Johnson asked if it is important to address the frontage road issue why it is not being addressed now with this current proposal. Zimmerman stated that the property will have to be re -platted when the fourth building is proposed so it would make sense to address the frontage road at that time and not re -plat the property twice. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 4 Blum asked if the electric car charging stations would be accessible to the public. Zimmerman said the stations would be internal to the site for the employees' use. Baker asked about the past PUD amendments for this property. Zimmerman stated that one amendment was to consolidate two of the parcels and the other was to do several improvements to the site. Baker asked if the proposed parking stall size will be the same throughout the site. Zimmerman stated that the shorter parking stalls will only be in the ramp. The size of the parking stalls in the surface lot won't change. Dan Johnson, President of Mortenson Construction, said Mortenson is growing and building the proposed parking structure is really in anticipation of building the fourth office building in the future. He said they wouldn't need to change the existing ramp at all if they weren't planning for the fourth office building. He explained that they don't own the building on the southwest corner of the site so reconfiguring the frontage road would not be within their control and it serves as access to both properties. Derek McCallum, Principal, RSP Architects, referred to the size of the proposed parking stalls and stated that 18 feet in depth is a typical dimension for structured parking and 18.5 feet is more typical for surface parking stalls. Blum asked if the building not owned by Mortenson is a part of the PUD. Mr. Johnson said yes. Blum asked if Mortenson is growing locally or in the aggregate. Mr. Johnson said both. Blum asked how many jobs will come to Golden Valley as a result of the proposed expansion. Mr. Johnson said approximately 50-100 jobs annually over time. Baker asked how the temporary parking plan will work. Mr. Johnson said it is their goal to find closer parking for their employees once they know the timing of their construction. He added that they commonly do this during their construction projects. Kluchka said he is supportive of the proposed expansion. He said the existing use of Cor - Ten steel is nice and asked if that style will be used in the new construction to help make the site cohesive. McCallum said yes, there will be a similar treatment. Waldhauser noted that the south building has solar panels on the roof and asked if the new building will as well. Mr. Johnson said their existing building also has solar panels and the new parking ramp and building will too. Waldhauser asked if they would consider a green roof. Mr. Johnson said possibly, but their business includes installing solar panels so that may be their preference. Segelbaum asked Mr. Johnson if he has any concerns with staff's recommendations. Mr. Johnson said he is concerned about staff's recommendation regarding the entrance only on Meadow Lane. They agree it is an area that requires careful study, but they don't want to push the traffic where pedestrians walk. He said they would like more time to review this recommendation before this proposal goes before the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 5 Baker asked if the purpose of the "living green wall" is only aesthetic. McCallum said no. The green wall is aesthetic and will provide screening and an oxygenating renewable surface. He added that Mortenson has a strong sustainability stance and the green wall helps show how important the message is to them. Also, by removing trees and replacing them with natural grasses and green surfaces they are being environmentally sensitive. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Baker reiterated his concern about the Planning Commission discussing the future PUD amendment now because it may imply future approval. Segelbaum said the Planning Commission's decisions are recommendations only so he feels it is worthwhile to acknowledge the future proposal during this discussion. Baker agreed and said that acknowledging the future proposal won't necessarily mean they are endorsing it. Segelbaum said it seems like the staff reports have mixed recommendations and conditions. For example the City Engineer's memo states that the pedestrian connections "should be improved." He proposed that the wording be changed to state that the pedestrian connections "must be improved." Baker said he assumes the Planning staff memo pulled recommendations from the other staff memos when considering the conditions. Zimmerman explained that the recommendations in the Engineering and Fire staff reports are attached as conditions of approval in the Planning staff report. Segelbaum referred to recommendation number eight in the Engineering staff report regarding the entrance only on Meadow Lane and questioned if they want it to be that strongly worded since the applicant has said they would like an opportunity to study it further. Zimmerman stated that staff is willing to have a conversation with the applicant to try to resolve the traffic concerns before the proposal goes to the City Council. Segelbaum said he is interested in softening the recommendation. Kluchka suggested the recommendation be rewritten to say "the southwest entrance to the site must be modified to the City's satisfaction to encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances." Waldhauser suggested that every time the memos say "should" it should really say "will" or "must" instead. The Commissioners agreed. Segelbaum referred to recommendation number seven in the City Engineer's staff report regarding a discussion about removing the frontage road in the future. Kluchka asked how that will work if the applicant doesn't own the building in the southwest corner of the PUD. He asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that the frontage road be removed in order to get more green space and less impervious coverage. Zimmerman said he is not sure what type of easements or impediments exist. Baker said this issue can be re -visited when the replatting is proposed, but he agrees that the frontage road should be removed and replaced with a bike path. Kluchka agreed that he would like the frontage road removed. Johnson noted that all the applicant is proposing at this point is a bigger parking ramp and not the addition of more people. Baker agreed that they are discussing issues that won't happen until the next proposed PUD amendment. Waldhauser said she is sympathetic with the approvals getting too far ahead, but the parking ramp has to precede the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 6 construction of the proposed fourth building and she doesn't want to say "got you" to the applicant later. Kluchka agrees that since the Planning Commission will only see this proposal once he thinks it would be best to state the Planning Commission's intent. He said he want the applicant to work with the City to get the best option. Johnson asked if the PUD amenity point system applies to this proposal. Zimmerman said no, the point system does not apply to PUD amendments. Waldhauser said she is concerned that the "living green wall" is being proposed as a replacement for trees when the wall doesn't serve the same function as trees. She said she would like the applicant to look for opportunities to provide some more filtration and shade. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed PUD Amendment with the following findings and conditions including the recommended modifications to the City Engineer's staff report. Findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD amendment is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site in that the new ramp would be built in the footprint of the existing ramp and new landscaping would be used to "green" three of its faces. The proposed fourth office building would take the place of a surface parking lot, limiting its impact on the site. 2. Preservation. The PUD amendment would not impact any desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features. 3. Efficient — Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating new construction on an already developed site and building "up" rather than "out" with both the rebuilt ramp and the new office building. 4. Compatibility. The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and have shown over the past 30 years to be compatible with the surrounding properties. There is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. General Health. The PUD amendment is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a better site layout and coordination between the buildings on the site and meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by RSP Architects, submitted March 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated May 2, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 60 bicycles shall be provided with proof of parking for an additional 17 bicycles, based on a calculation of 5% of the 1,350 parking spaces required for the site. The applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 7 5. A finalized Temporary Parking Plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the parking ramp. 6. A snow storage/removal plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff. 7. An additional PUD amendment shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the construction of the fourth office building. 8. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit — 1000 Boone Avenue North — Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, LLC — CU -148 Applicant: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, LLC Address: 1000 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To allow for a dance studio in the Industrial zoning district. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and discussed the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a health, fitness and/or exercise facility (dance studio) in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. He stated that the property is a 124,000 square foot multi -tenant building with a mix of office and warehouse uses. The building has eight existing tenants and 60,000+ square feet of vacant space with 456 on- site parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing to lease 7,555 square feet of space to provide dance lessons. From September to May there will be classes offered between 4 pm and 9 pm on weekdays and 8:30 am to 12:30 pm on Saturdays. In the summer there would be intermittent classes offered. He added that there would be up to 40 students and 1 to 2 employees in the space at any one time. Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that the proposed use calls for 19 parking spaces. He noted that the proposed dance studio's lease includes 17 parking spaces and with the off-peak and weekend use, along with the abundance of parking spaces on site, any potential parking impacts would be limited. Baker questioned if the City has put parking restrictions on properties in the past. Zimmerman said yes and stated that one of the conditions of approval is that the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. Ashley Burkland, Applicant, said she is excited to come to Golden Valley because the larger space will provide an opportunity for her students to dance bigger and take more classes and it will also allow for Golden Valley residents to take dance classes. Kyle Gikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, said the 10th Street side of the building has been largely vacant for the last two years so they are excited to get new tenants. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 8 Blum asked the applicant how many jobs they will be bringing to Golden Valley. Burkland said she currently has six, part time employees. Segelbaum asked the applicant if they had considered following the City's requirements for parking. Gikling stated that they typically base their parking on 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office and 1 space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse. He said the proposed dance studio is largely off business hours so they don't foresee a problem. He added that the property owner is conscious of parking and will not usually allow parking problems to occur. Baker asked if the interior parking spaces are for a particular use. Gikling said no. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said the proposal looks like a great addition and a nice amenity. She said she doesn't see any conflicts with other uses or negative impacts. Blum agreed. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following findings and conditions.- Findings: onditions: Findings: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy is an existing business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of demand there will be for their operations. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A dance studio is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the neighborhood extremely unlikely. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and largely concentrated in the evenings. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently underutilized. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 9 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi -tenant industrial property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses. Conditions. - 1 . onditions:1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on April 12, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment — Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District — ZO00-104 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To modify the language regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot width and adding other missing regulations to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. Goellner reminded the Commission of their discussion on this proposed amendment held on April 11. The consensus at that time was to add the following R-1 Single Family Residential regulations to the R-2 Moderate Density Residential section of the City Code: side wall articulation requirements, minimum structure width, paved area coverage, setbacks, garage provisions, outdoor storage regulations, deck and platform language, and home occupation requirements. The Commission also requested further discussion on the function and location of future R-2 zoned properties. Goellner discussed the densities allowed in the residential zoning districts and explained that the goal is to position R-2 more appropriately with the regulations of all the residential zoning districts. She noted that the stated purpose of the R-1 zoning district allows up to 5 units per acre and currently allows 2-4 units per acres due to minimum lot sizes. The stated purpose of the R-2 zoning district allows up to 8 units per acre and currently allows 6 units per acre if all two-family dwellings, 3 units per acre if single-family dwellings. The stated purpose of the R-3 zoning district allows up to 10-12 units per acre and the stated purpose of the R-4 zoning district allows over 12 units per acre. Goellner referred to various photos of residential properties and noted that small -lot single-family residential development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of housing options. It also provides an opportunity to build single family homes at the same density as two-family dwellings. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 10 Goellner discussed staff's recommendations including: a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for single-family homes, a minimum lot width of 50 feet for single-family homes, the same side yard setbacks and height regulations as the R-1 Single Family zoning district, and a maximum garage width of 65% of the home's width. She added that the maximum garage width regulation is being proposed because currently there are no garage width regulations in any residential zoning district, and there are anticipated issues with wide garages on narrower lots. Goellner stated that there are currently 27 properties that would be affected by the proposed amendments. Fifteen of those are single-family homes, 10 of those are two- family homes, and two are vacant. All of the 27 existing properties would meet the proposed lot width and lot size recommendations. Goellner noted that traditional single family homes on large lots will still dominate Golden Valley as it is the community's vision to keep most residential lots larger in size. She referred to a map of the City and discussed various areas where the R-2 zoning district might be appropriate. Waldhauser said it seems logical to split 100 -foot wide lots into two 50 -foot wide lots if the City wants to allow smaller single-family properties. She questioned if something narrower than 100 feet would be logical for a twin home. Segelbaum referred to the garage requirements and questioned if the proposed language would require each unit to have two garage stalls. Goellner stated that each unit would be required to have one garage stall. Segelbaum questioned if the side yard setback requirements would be different if an R- 2 zoned property borders an R-1 zoned property. Zimmerman stated that the side yard setbacks are based on the width of the lot and would be the same for R-1 and R-2 zoned properties. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, said he wholeheartedly supports the proposed amendments, knowing that the variance process is available if a need is thought to exist. Peter Knaeble, 6100 Glenwood, said he agrees with Mr. Gross that the proposed amendments are a good idea. He stated that there may be issues in regard to side wall articulation requirements and increased side yard setbacks with the height of a house. He would not recommend those two regulations be included in the R-2 zoning district because they won't be as big of an issue on narrower lots like they are on R-1 zoned properties. Goellner noted that the homes recently built on Rhode Island Avenue have 20.5 ft. wide garages and would meet the proposed garage width regulation. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 11 Blum said he is concerned that the purpose of these proposed changes is to maximize density which is contrary to the desire of the community. Segelbaum questioned if the minimum lot size should be larger than 6,000 square feet. Blum questioned if the changes made to the Zoning Code as a result of the recent subdivision moratorium study would be applied to the R-2 zoning district. Goellner said no. Blum reiterated that during the moratorium, residents said they didn't want density maximized. Waldhauser stated that another goal of the City is to offer different types of housing options. These proposed changes give the City an opportunity for more variety which is broader than just maximizing density. She stated that smaller homes on smaller lots work and that the City did add protections to the areas with large homes on larger lots. Segelbaum questioned if the proposed changes would create a desire for homeowners to rezone their properties to R-2. Baker said he shares the same concern, but when he looks at the Zoning Map the properties zoned R-2 are not in the areas where concern has been expressed in the past so he is at ease with the proposed amendments keeping in mind that if there were a push to rezone properties to R-2 they would hear about it. Segelbaum said he is concerned about going from the required 11,000 square foot minimum lot size for R-2 properties to 10,000 square feet because he doesn't want to get inundated with rezoning requests. Blum questioned the desire for these proposed changes if there have been legal problems and no demand for twin homes in the past. Zimmerman stated that the City is trying to shift the focus from twin homes to small -lot single-family homes that would not increase the density. Waldhauser referred to the aesthetics of a twin home and said she thinks twin homes are great and she would rather see twin homes and townhomes than individual homes with alleys between them. Blum asked if twin homes could be removed from the recommendation entirely. Zimmerman stated that removing twin homes from the recommendation would cause existing twin homes to be non -conforming. Segelbaum referred to the language requiring only one garage stall per unit and stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals sees a lot of requests to add second garage stalls. He questioned if only requiring one garage stall is setting the City up for more variance requests. He said he would like to require two garage stalls for each dwelling. Baker said he would not support requiring two garage stalls because he would like to encourage fewer cars. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners how they felt about the setback requirements and the requirement regarding increased setbacks as the height of the house increases. Blum said he was okay with the recommended language. Waldhauser agreed although it makes homes more expensive to build, larger setbacks will protect neighboring properties. She stated that she doesn't think the City will see smaller or more affordable homes as a result of these proposed changes. There will just be big homes on smaller lots. Blum suggested that the proposed lot width be 60 feet to match the ratio in the Single Family zoning district. Zimmerman stated that they tried a number of different lot sizes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 12 and the 6,000 square foot lot size and 50 foot width requirements fit. Waldhauser noted that if the minimum lot width were 60 feet then an existing 100 -foot wide lot couldn't be split into two lots. Kluchka said he does not want to require 60 -foot wide lots in the R-2 zoning district. Baker agreed that if the City is trying to create an additional option than requiring 60 feet of lot width wouldn't work. Blum said he hesitates to think that they are meeting the City's goal of keeping single-family large lot residential neighborhoods with this proposed change. He said he is concerned about Golden Valley losing a real competitive advantage and questioned what future generations are going to want. He said he supports higher density development in certain areas like around transportation hubs and light rail stations, but he is against these proposed R-2 zoning amendments in single family areas. Segelbaum agreed but said this seems to be a reasonable compromise for existing R-2 properties. Baker agreed and said he also doesn't think the City will see a lot more R-2 zoned properties as a result of the proposed changes. Kluchka agreed and said the proposed changes make the existing R-2 zoning district more usable. Waldhauser agreed with Blum that there are more dramatic ways to meet the City's density goals with R-3 and R-4 zoned properties and she thinks that would be a good discussion for the community to have. Blum said he is okay with the majority of the proposed changes, but he is concerned about the purpose and the proposed lot width. Zimmerman stated that the purpose statement could be better defined in each district to address increasing housing options, diversity in housing, etc. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed R-2 Zoning Code text amendments. 5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Amending Temporary Uses and Events – ZO00-105 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider removing redundant language in the Zoning Code regarding Temporary Events. Zimmerman stated that at the last City Council meeting the Council adopted a separate special events section of City Code so the existing language in the Zoning Code regarding temporary events is now redundant and should be removed. Segelbaum asked if the new Code section was similar to the existing language in the Zoning Code. Zimmerman said yes and added that all of the Planning related issues with special events have been addressed in the new Special Events language. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Zoning Code text amendment removing language regarding temporary events. --Short Recess— Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 13 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that the Liberty Crossing project is moving forward. Baker asked about the City standards regarding a trench that was dug for a home on Glenwood. He said it has failed and has had to be redone a couple of times and questioned whose responsibility it is and if there are penalties involved. Zimmerman said he would talk to the Engineering staff about the issue. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. • Election of Officers Baker nominated Segelbaum to continue as Chair. Segelbaum accepted. Baker said he would like to be Vice Chair. Kluchka said he would be happy to continue being Secretary. The Commissioners agreed unanimously to Segelbaum being Chair, Baker being Vice Chair and Kluchka being Secretary. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 pm. John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Blum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — March 22, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Perich and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the March 22, 2016, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Blum abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 4127 Beverly Avenue Paul and Anna Lakin, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 1.9 ft. off of the required 8 ft. to a distance of 6.1 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new solarium/porch addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(5) Building Envelope Requirements • 1 ft. outside of the building envelope, which is restricted to 15 ft. in height, for an addition that is 16 ft. in height. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new solarium/porch addition. Goellner referred to a location map and explained the applicants' proposal to construct a 175 square foot solarium addition on top of an existing patio/retaining wall. Goellner explained that the proposed solarium would need a variance of 1.9 ft. off of the required 8 ft. to a distance of 6.1 ft. from the side yard (east) property line and a variance from the building envelope requirements to allow the proposed solarium to be 16 ft. in height which is 1 foot outside of the allowed building envelope. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 Page 2 Goellner noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include the fact that this is a 40 -foot wide lot with a relatively small buildable area, the proposed solarium will be transparent and therefore less impactful than a typical building addition, and the proposed solarium would be built on top of the existing patio/stair landing and retaining wall which is already located 6.1 ft. from the east property line. Nelson asked about variances granted in the past for this property when this house was originally constructed. Goellner explained that in 2007 a different homeowner demolished the original house and asked for three variances to construct this house. The Board of Zoning Appeals at the time approved a rear yard variance, but denied variances for both side yards. Perich asked if the Board were to approve the current variance requests if the homeowner can only construct a solarium, or if they could build something different. Goellner stated that if the requested variances are approved the applicant is only allowed to build what they've proposed in their application. Maxwell referred to the patio area and questioned if it was originally determined to be a landing and landings are allowed to be in a setback area, if that is why the house is shaped the way it is. Goellner said that is correct. The retaining wall and patio area was interpreted at the time to be a landing. She clarified that landings are considered to be 25 square feet or less in size and that stairs and landings are allowed to be located within a setback area. Maxwell asked if the requested height of the proposed solarium is 16 feet because that is the height of the house. Goellner referred to a photo of the house and showed how tall the proposed solarium would be. Martha Abbot, designer representing the applicant, stated that there is a door leading out onto the deck area so they are proposing to build the solarium 16 ft. tall in order to get the structure above that door. Orenstein asked how tall the door is. Abbot stated that it would be possible to take out the existing door and put in a shorter door, but they thought it would be greener to use the existing door. Nelson asked when the applicants purchased the property. Abbot said they purchased the home three years ago. She explained that they would like to have some space on the first floor that they can close off because the home is very open. She stated that it is a narrow lot so there is limited space to add on to the house. She reiterated that the proposed solarium will be transparent and will have minimal impact and added that it would be set back almost 76 ft. from the street. She stated that the addition would be on top of the retaining wall which already marks the edge of the house and that it won't go any further into the setback area. Orenstein asked if the solarium would cantilever over the retaining wall. Abbot said no, it will go no further into the setback area than the retaining wall already does. Nelson asked Abbot if she has any drawings of the proposed solarium. Abbot said she does not because she wanted to try to get the variance first before she charged her Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 Page 3 clients for drawings. She stated that she would be willing to table her variance requests and bring schematic drawings back to the Board for consideration. Nelson asked about the square footage of the house. Abbot said she thinks the house is approximately 2,000 square feet in size. Blum asked if the proposed solarium could be built with a rounded or angled roof to avoid the height variance. Abbot stated that a flat roof would be in keeping with the style of the existing house. Perich asked Abbot if they had considered any other options or locations for the solarium. Abbot stated that if the solarium were built within the setback requirements would be too small. She said they considered building a solarium on the roof top, and they considered building in the front yard, but those options would be more impactful. Maxwell questioned if a variance would be needed to build the solarium on the roof. Abbot said yes, and explained that the access to the solarium would be through a bedroom if they built it on the roof. Goellner noted that a variance from the rear yard setback requirement would be needed as well. Nelson asked if the solarium could be built on the west side of the property. Abbot stated that they would only have 3 ft. to work with on the west side and that the east side already has the space carved out for the proposed addition. Perich opened the public hearing. Neal Kielar, 4121 Beverly Avenue, said the setback requirements were different when his house was built so the distance between their houses is very small. He stated that the proposed addition would be very disruptive to him because it would be bringing the applicants' everyday life closer to his house which would be very impactful. He stated that when this house was built he spent a lot of money on window coverings and new privacy windows because the applicants' house is taller and closer than the previous house was. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is sympathetic with the neighbor's comments and she agrees that the houses are very close together. Blum stated that the landing/retaining wall area seems like a deck and is already pushing the limits so he is not in favor of this proposal. Nelson agreed and stated that the applicants bought the home in 2013 and should know there are big limitations given the size of the lot. Perich said he is also struggling with how close the proposed solarium would be to the side property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 Page 4 Maxwell said he has similar concerns and thinks there are other options to build a solarium on a different part of the house. He said he is not in favor of the proposed location because it will be so impactful to the neighboring property. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to deny both of the requested variances. III. Other Business Maxwell asked about the variance request on Sunnyridge Lane that was tabled at their meeting last month. Goellner stated that the applicant for that proposal has withdrawn her request. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant MINUTES city 0 Human Rights Commission (HRC) � Golden Valley City Hall 9 lden. 7800 Golden Valley Road 0Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 vaManager's Conference Room March 31, 2016 Commissioners present: Carla Johnson, Chair Jonathan Burris, Vice Chair Adam Buttress Teresa Martin Susan Phelps Michael Pristash Andrew Ramlet Commissioners absent: Nabil Pruscini Staff: Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager The meeting was convened at 6:33 pm by Chair Johnson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Martin made a request to add Sweet Potato Pie event under New Business. Motion by Commissioner Burris, second by Commissioner Pristash to approve the agenda with the following addition under New Business: Sweet Potato Pie Event. Motion carried 7-0. APPROVAL OF February 23, 2016 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Pristash, second by Commissioner Martin to approve the February 23, 2016 minutes with one correction: Motion by Commissioner Buttress to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. COUNCIL UPDATES 2015 Annual Report and 2016 Work Plan — March 8, 2016 Chair Johnson provided the HRC with an update of her presentation to the City Council at their March 8, 2016 worksession. Vice Chair Burris was also in attendance. The City Council was very complimentary about the activities and programs the HRC has undertaken and supportive of the HRC's 2016 Work Plan. The 2015 Annual Report and 2016 Work Plan will be on the City Council agenda April 5, 2016 for approval. OLD BUSINESS Golden Valley Pride Festival (GVPF) Update Commissioner Burris reported the official name of the event is "Golden Valley Pride Festival: Celebrating Community, Family and Friends." The event will be held Sunday, June 12 from Noon — 4pm. The Committee continues to work on coordinating an event for Saturday evening, June 11. There is a Festival planning meeting being held at Byerly's at the same time as this HRC meeting. The Festival planning committee is planning for an attendance of 500 people. Their thought is that for an inaugural event, that is a good number to anticipate and can plan for grow for future events. Human Rights Commission March 31, 2016 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 The Festival has submitted an application to march in the Twin Cities Pride Parade. Twin Cities Pride has committed to donating $500 toward the Golden Valley Festival. Commissioner Burris took the initiative to contact OutFront MN to inquire if they would have a representative available to speak at the GVPF. OutFront MN committed to having a representative at the GVPF. This is proposed to be the HRC's sponsored activity during the GVPF. "Hot Topics" was suggested as a potential topic, especially given the nature of the proposed bill on restroom use that has been introduced this legislative session. Commissioner Burris will talk with OutFront MN about their expectations for an honorarium and bring that information back to the HRC meeting in April. Golden Valley Guiding Principles Commissioners had questions regarding the impetus for the Guiding Principles and specific language and meaning of ordered bullets. Knauss explained the Guiding Principles are one of the action items that resulted from the City Council's Strategic Plan goal of Good Governance. The Strategic Plan was adopted by the City Council in July 2015. Knauss explained the Council had adopted the Guiding Principles and directed they be distributed to the Boards/Commissions. Board and Commission members have the option to sign to agree and abide by the Guiding Principles or there is also an option to decline. League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions Questionnaire, Item #8 (Requests or suggestions on how the League could assist your commission in 2016) Commissioners provided the following suggestions to respond to the League's questions: • The restroom bill introduced at the legislature • A speakers bureau as a resource to local HRCs for programming • Ideas for funding sources • Coordinate and facilitate local/regional meetings • Outreach to new immigrant populations and resources on how communities can connect with them 2016 Work Plan Knauss updated the HRC on her meeting with Communications staff and timeline for getting three articles, based on the State Demographer's information, in future City News newsletters. Communications staff provided a timeline of July/August, September/October, November/December issues. There was discussion on the process for getting the articles written in a timely manner. Knauss will draft the articles and email it out to the HRC for comments, then the articles will be edited by the State Demographer's Office and Communications staff. There was discussion on having a follow-up forum in early 2017, following the publication of the three articles. It was suggested that a potential panelist is the Director of Immigrant Populations at Hennepin County. There was a question of household income information for the City of Golden Valley. Knauss will contact the State Demographer's office to see if that information is available. Commissioner Martin volunteered to look into volunteer opportunities for the HRC to be involved and promote for the September 11 Day of Service and Remembrance event. Human Rights Commission March 31, 2016 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 NEW BUSINESS Discussion on International Refugees It was the consensus of the HRC that this would be addressed in the "Growing Diversity" article based on the State Demographer's Office presentation. Sweet Potato Comfort Pie Commissioner Martin stated she is interested in having the HRC host a speaker or something during the Sweet Potato Comfort Pie event in January 2017, but would address it at a future meeting, given the late time. ADJOURN Motion by Commissioner Burris, second by Commissioner Martin to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 pm. Motion carried 7-0. Follow-up Items: • Commissioner Burris will talk with OutFront MN about their expectations for an honorarium and bring that information back to the HRC meeting in April. • Commissioner Martin will look into volunteer opportunities for the HRC to be involved and promote for the September 11 Day of Service and Remembrance event. • Knauss will contact the State Demographer's office to see if Golden Valley household income information is available. • Knauss will draft City News newsletter articles for HRC review and comment. ATTEST: Chantell Knauss, Staff Liaison Carla Johnson, Chair Approved by HRC: May 23, 2016 Human Rights Commission March 31, 2016 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Award Contract for 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project, City Improvement Project No. 16-02 Prepared By Jeff Oliver, P.E. City Engineer R.J. Kakach, E.I.T., Engineer Summary Staff solicited bids for the 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project 16-02. Proposals included a base bid for the following roadways: 1. Aquila Avenue North from Boone Avenue North to Mandan Avenue North 2. Boone Avenue North from Aquila Avenue North to 400 feet south of Mandan Avenue North 3. Mandan Avenue North from Boone Avenue North to Plymouth Avenue North 4. Winsdale Street from Boone Avenue North to Zealand Avenue North 5. Zealand Avenue North from Wesley Drive to Plymouth Avenue North The bids were reviewed and staff recommends awarding a contract for the Base Bid. This recommendation is within the available budget and will provide some additional funding for indirect costs associated with the project (design, legal, construction observation, administration, testing, etc.). Bids for the 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project, City Improvement Project No. 16-02 were opened on May 26, 2016. The following bids were received: Midwest Asphalt Corporation $423,965.00 Omann Brothers Paving, Inc. $439,810.20 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $458,477.25 Hardrives, Inc. $491,242.83 C.S. McCrossan $530,935.00 Funding for the 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project is included in the 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program (S-013, page 104) in the amount of $500,000 and from Municipal State Aid Street Maintenance funding (S-019, page 106) in the amount of $125,000. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to award a contract for the 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Midwest Asphalt Corporation for the Base Bid in the amount of $423,965.00. IIIIIIIIIIIIII&A M a MMILMrIl ■ Wesley Park ■ MR1 M *e � C) Plymouth Ave N cityOf Pri7rces: t Date: 112812016 2016 Asphalt Sources -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for goldei Property Lines (2015) & Aenal Photography (2012). V -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. alle-NiT Overlay Project 0 100 200 400 Feet I .ode • i M MEMORANDUM Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Award Contract for the 1-394 Inflow and Infiltration Phase 1, Project No. 15-24 Prepared By Jeff Oliver P.E., City Engineer R.J. Kakach, Utility Engineer Summary In March of 2016, the City entered an agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH), Inc. to perform design and construction plans for Phase 1 of the 1-394 Inflow and Infiltration Project. Phase 1 of the project includes lining smaller diameter pipe in the upstream area of the sewershed as well as lining some larger 21 -inch diameter pipe along Laurel Avenue. In total, 5,000 feet of pipe, 52 service connections, and 19 manholes will be lined as part of the Phase 1 project. Bids for the 1-394 Inflow and Infiltration Phase 1 Project were opened May 17, 2016. Four bids were received and are listed below: Visu-Sewer, Inc. $450,231.65 Insituform Technologies, USA, Inc. $604,750.06 Lametti and Sons, Inc. $634,293.00 Michels Corporation $665,571.00 The bids were reviewed and determined to be accurate and in order. Funding for the project is included in the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program (W&SS-074, page 93) in the amount of $400,000 and 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program (W&SS-074, page 99) in the amount of $200,000. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to award a contract for the 1-394 Inflow and Infiltration Phase 1 Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Visu-Sewer, Inc. in the amount of $450,231.65. � � uuuuuuu �� i cifit Nook uum iopp 110 • w,� ��uuuuuu oma II kr 10 �i� lV � Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 1763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. E. 3. Award Contract for 2016 Pavement Marking Project, Project No. 16-12 Prepared By Tim Kieffer, Street Maintenance Supervisor Summary Quotes for the 2016 Pavement Marking project were taken on May 20, 2016. The following quotes were received: Traffic Marking Service, Inc. $24,307.75 Sir Lines—A-lot $24,629.50 Century Fence Company $33,096.25 AAA Striping Service $37,128.00 Staff has reviewed the quotes and found them to be accurate and in order. Funding for this project is in the Street Maintenance Division budget (2016-17 Biennial Budget Program 1440-6440, page 61). Recommended Action Motion authorizing a contract to Traffic Marking Service, Inc. in the amount of$24,307.75 for the 2016 Pavement Marking Project, City Project No. 16-12. li C i ty-of ' go 1 d e ni*. valley Physical Development Department 763-593-80301763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. E. 4. Award Contract for Zealand Avenue Emergency Sanitary Sewer Repair, Project No. 16-13 Prepared By Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Joe Hansen, Utilities Supervisor Summary The City of Golden Valley Utility Maintenance Department identified a section of sanitary sewer pipe with catastrophic defects along the entire length. The sanitary sewer runs along Zealand Avenue from 23rd Avenue to Medicine Lake Road and was televised earlier this spring. Upon review of the CCTV inspection, it was determined that this section of sanitary sewer was failing. The video showed evidence of areas with pieces of pipe missing as well as sections with severe root intrusions and root balls. To protect the streets above and prevent a collapsed pipe, staff determined that emergency rehabilitation is necessary. The solution is to line approximately 1514 LF of 9 -inch clay sanitary sewer pipe from 23rd Avenue to Medicine Lake Road along Zealand Avenue and chemically grout the 24 services along this stretch. This section of street is scheduled for reconstruction in 2019 and the sanitary sewer would be lined with the street project at that time; however due to the condition of the pipe, immediate repairs are necessary. Staff solicited quotes to line the 9 -inch sewer main and chemically grout 24 service connections along the main. The two quotes are shown below: Visu-Sewer, Inc. HydroKlean $44,136.00 $52,429.00 The bids were reviewed and determined to be accurate and in order. Staff identified potential funding for this emergency project included in the 2016-2017 Adopted Bi -Annual Budget 7122- 6320 Operating Supplies Sewer Maintenance Fund. Recommended Action Motion to award a contract to Visu-Sewer, Inc. in the amount of $44,136.00 for the Zealand Avenue Emergency Sanitary Sewer Repair Project. C i ty-of go1den,!z'Ar valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. E. 5. Authorize Purchase of Fire Hydrants for 2016 Douglas Drive Project Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Seaburg, EIT, Engineer Summary Due to the availability and specific requirements for fire hydrants used in Golden Valley, the Physical Development Department has purchased and provided hydrants for the Pavement Management Program (PMP) projects for several years. Staff intends to use similar protocol for the Douglas Drive reconstruction project and pre -purchase the hydrants for the project. The hydrants will be paid out of the 2016 Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Program Budget, Douglas Drive Water/Sewer Improvements (W&SS-069, pg 97). Two quotes were received to purchase 15 fire hydrants for the 2016 Douglas Drive Project: Dakota Supply Group, Inc. $41,985.00 Utility Equipment Company, Inc. $46,183.00 Recommended Action Motion to authorize purchase of the 2016 Douglas Drive project fire hydrants from Dakota Supply Group, Inc. Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in the amount of $41,985.00. city of gold� valley k"A Fire Department 763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. F. Approve Extension of Hours for Fire Relief Association Street Dance Prepared By John Crelly, Fire Chief Summary The Golden Valley Fire Relief Association is requesting permission to extend the street dance hours until midnight on Saturday, June 18, 2016. The street dance will be held at the Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive. Recommended Action Motion to approve the extension of hours for the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street Dance to midnight on Saturday, June 18, 2016, at the Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive. WN All M', R ''! ?iii 9 "'y`"' k Park and Recreation Department 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. G. Acceptance of Donation from Golden Valley Federated Women's Club Prepared By Carrie Anderson, Recreation Supervisor Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Summary As adopted in the Donation/Gift Policy, a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. We have prepared the following resolution detailing the specific donor and their fiscal gift for your consideration. Attachments • Resolution Accepting Donation from Golden Valley Federated Women's Club for the Summer Concert Series (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution accepting Donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women's Club for the Summer Concert Series. Resolution 16-34 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FROM GOLDEN VALLEY FEDERATED WOMEN'S CLUB FOR THE SUMMER CONCERT SERIES WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16, 2004 which established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following donation: $100 from Golden Valley Federated Women's Club for support of the summer concert series. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. city of gold� valley MEMORANDUM City Administration/ Council 763-593-3989 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. H. Modifying 2016 General Wages and Salary for full-time Battalion Chief Position Prepared By Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager Summary It has come to our attention that some re -structuring of the full-time Fire Department staff is needed in order to provide more efficient operations. The re -structuring would re-classify the full-time Fire Education Specialist position to a full-time Battalion Chief position. The new full- time Battalion Chief position is not a classification on the City's current General Wages and Salary schedule and therefore, would need to be added. Attachment • Resolution modifying 2016 General Wages and Salary to include full-time Battalion Chief Position (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Modifying 2016 General Wages and Salary for full-time Battalion Chief position. Resolution 16-35 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION MODIFYING 2016 GENERAL WAGES AND SALARY TO INCLUDE FULL-TIME BATTALION CHIEF POSITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it hereby adopts the following amendment to Resolution 15-96, modifying the general wages and salary schedule to include the new full-time personnel named herein effective May 30, 2016: PROFESSIONAL EXEMPT Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Battalion Chief $64,200 $67,258 $70,315 $73,372 $76,429 Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. city of go1den!V.-**'MEMORANDUM valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. I. Receipt of April 2016 Financial Reports Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The monthly financial report provides a progress report of the following funds: General Fund Operations Conservation/Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund) Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund) Motor Vehicle Licensing (Enterprise Fund) Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) Equipment Replacement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) General Fund Operations: As of April 2016, the City of Golden Valley is using $3,189,074 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments • April 2016 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages) • April 2016 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) • April 2016 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) • April 2016 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) • April 2016 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) • April 2016 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) • April 2016 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the April 2016 Financial Reports. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures April. 2016 (unaudited) (1) This transfer will be made in June, 2015 (2) Legal services are billed thru March. Over % 2016 April YTD (Under) Of Budget Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. ool Council $322,960 34,739 90,203 ($232,757) 27.93% 003 City Manager 798,260 55,454 208,811 (589,449) 26.16% 004 Transfers Out 725,000 0 0 (725,000) 0.00% (1) 005 Admin. Services 1,869,995 115,686 460,153 (1,409,842) 24.61% 006 Legal 150,000 4,352 34,766 (115,234) 23.18% (2) 007 Risk Management 305,000 113,412 114,808 (190,192) 37.64% oil General Gov't. Bldgs. 532,790 44,533 141,185 (391,605) 26.50% 016 Planning 353,800 21,796 87,677 (266,123) 24.78% 018 Inspections 777,690 53,851 197,182 (580,508) 25.35% 022 Police 5,671,180 403,041 1,498,682 (4,172,498) 26.43% 023 Fire 1,290,210 85,586 374,962 (915,248) 29.06% 035 Physical Dev Admin 298,755 20,697 80,824 (217,931) 27.05% 036 Engineering 783,470 56,592 185,856 (597,614) 23.72% 037 Streets 1,611,865 98,005 383,582 (1,228,283) 23.80% 065 Community Center 81,095 10,125 28,752 (52,343) 35.45% 066 Park & Rec. Admin. 705,660 38,731 193,994 (511,666) 27.49% 067 Park Maintenance 1,137,895 97,795 287,906 (849,989) 25.30% 068 Recreation Programs 374,995 9,526 70,895 (304,100) 18.91% TOTAL Expenditures $17,790,620 $1,263,921 $4,440,238 ($13,350,382) 24.96% (1) This transfer will be made in June, 2015 (2) Legal services are billed thru March. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Revenues April 2016 (unaudited) Type 2016 Budget April Actual Percentage Of Year Completed Over YTD (Under) Actual Budget 33.00% % of Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $14,278,810 8,648 8,648 ($14,270,162) 0.06% (1) Licenses 217,515 79,605 122,385 ($95,130) 56.27% Permits 840,125 97,433 526,368 ($313,757) 62.65% Federal Grants 0 2,934 4,069 $4,069 State Aid 268,380 599 1,211 ($267,169) 0.45% (2) Hennepin County Aid 0 0 0 $0 Charges For Services: General Government 19,000 1,492 9,623 ($9,377) 50.65% Public Safety 150,665 15,257 83,821 ($66,844) 55.63% Public Works 145,800 15,297 45,604 ($100,196) 31.28% Park & Rec 395,100 17,745 71,939 ($323,161) 18.21% Other Funds 791,500 54,750 219,411 ($572,089) 27.72% Fines & Forfeitures 320,425 21,614 76,181 ($244,244) 23.77% (3) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (4) Miscellaneous Revenue 233,000 17,985 71,904 ($161,096) 30.86% Transfers In 30,000 2,500 10,000 ($20,000) 33.33% (5) TOTAL Revenue $17,790,320 $335,859 $1,251,164 ($16,539,156) 7.03% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January (delinquencies). (2) Police Training will be paid in August. Safe and Sober is billed on time spent. (3) Fines/Forfeitures are thru for March 2016. (4) Investment income is allocated at year end. (5)Transfers are monthly. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund April 2016 (unaudited) 2016 Budget Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,770 Recycling Charges 373,950 Miscellaneous Revenues 6,000 Interest on Investments 4,000 Total Revenue Expenses: Recycling Total Expenses (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Republic Services are billed thru March. 440,720 Over April YTD (Under) % Actual Actual Budget Current 0 0 (56,770) 0.00% 34,031 87,898 (286,052) 23.51% 0 0 (6,000) 0 0 (4,000) 0.00% (1) 19.94% 34,031 87,898 (352,822) 451,460 23,257 74,733 (376,727) 16.55% (2) 451,460 23,257 74,733 (376,727) 16.55% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund April, 2016 (unaudited) Over 2016 April YTD (Under) Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,303,105 356,204 952,924 (3,350,181) 22.15% Emergency Water Supply 183,600 11,983 42,030 (141,570) 22.89% Sewer Charges 3,309,260 339,900 907,908 (2,401,352) 27.44% Meter Sales 8,000 949 1,952 (6,048) 24.40% MCES Grant Program 0 0 0 0 Penalties 110,000 946 44,390 (65,610) 40.35% Charges for Other Services 90,000 7,840 48,433 (41,567) 53.81% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,500 3,999 4,175 (41,325) 9.18% Sale of Assets 10,000 0 0 (10,000) 0.00% Franchise Fees (One year only) 700,000 0 0 (700,000) 0.00% Certificate of Compliance 75,000 6,900 9,800 (65,200) 13.07% Interest Earnings 15,000 0 0 (15,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 22.73% 8,849,465 728,721 2,011,612 (6,837,853) Expenses: Utility Administration 2,526,190 86,135 239,882 (2,286,308) 9.50% Sewer Maintenance 2,723,660 219,345 977,679 (1,745,981) 35.90% Water Maintenance 4,655,120 749,888 1,252,135 (3,402,985) 26.90% Total Expenses 24.93% 9,904,970 1,055,368 2,469,696 (7,435,274) City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund April, 2016 (unaudited) opened March 23 Over 2016 April YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 795,000 68,880 80,020 (714,980) 10.07% Driving Range Fees 167,000 20,588 27,636 (139,364) 16.55% Par 3 Fees 137,370 11,383 12,901 (124,469) 9.39% Lawn Bowling 42,000 0 0 (42,000) 0.00% Pro Shop Sales 80,000 10,665 13,830 (66,170) 17.29% Pro Shop Rentals 260,000 19,879 23,479 (236,521) 9.03% Concession Sales 360,000 23,783 30,130 (329,870) 8.37% Other Revenue 78,000 8,672 50,502 (27,498) 64.75% Interest Earnings 2,000 0 0 (2,000) 0.00% (1) Less: Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (36,000) 806 (484) 35,516 1.34% Total Revenue 12.62% 1,885,370 164,656 238,014 (1,647,356) Expenses: Golf Operations 637,125 53,633 172,281 (464,844) 27.04% (2) Course Maintenance 792,800 53,857 241,996 (550,804) 30.52% Pro Shop 114,620 13,100 64,640 (49,980) 56.40% Grill 251,750 19,283 29,826 (221,924) 11.85% Driving Range 50,665 5,657 13,089 (37,576) 25.83% Par 3 Course 27,295 121 707 (26,588) 2.59% Lawn Bowling 27,195 650 1,077 (26,118) 3.96% Total Expenses 1,901,450 27.54% 146,301 523,616 (1,377,834) (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund April 2016 (unaudited) Revenue Interest Earnings Charges for Services Total Revenue Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing Total Expenses (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. 2016 April Budget Actual Over YTD (Under) Actual Budget Current 2,000 0 0 (2,000) 0.00% (1) 406,830 40,037 155,652 (251,178) 38.26% 38.07% 408,830 40,037 155,652 (253,178) 408,330 30,350 116,764 (291,566) 28.60% 408,330 30,350 116,764 (291,566) 28.60% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Storm Utility Enterprise Fund April, 2016 (unaudited) Revenue Interest Earnings Storm Sewer Charges Bassett Creek Watershed Miscellaneous Receipts (Debt Proceeds) State Grant- Other Total Revenue Expenses: Over 2016 April YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current 45,000 0 0 (45,000) 0.00% (1) 2,275,000 197,708 701,248 (1,573,752) 30.82% 810,930 280,481 510,883 (300,047) 63.00% 5,692,000 18,750 18,750 (5,673,250) 0.33% 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses 8,822,930 496,939 1,230,881 (7,592,049) 13.95% Storm Utility 9,045,465 245,500 805,038 (8,240,427) 8.90% (2) Street Cleaning 126,420 11,105 37,060 (89,360) 29.31% Environmental Control 323,260 39,305 106,136 (217,124) 32.83% Debt Service Payments 170,985 0 929,076 758,091 543.37% (3) Total Expenses 9,666,130 19.42% 295,910 1,877,310 (7,788,820) (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. (3) This included the bond payment to pay off the storm bonds early 2016 Equipment Replacement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5700 (1) Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. (2) Includes a transfer from the DWI/VCTF Fund for the traffic car. 2016 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Proceeds - Certificate of Indebtedness 800,000 0 0 (800,000) Sale of Assets 35,000 19,452 36,437 1,437 Miscellaneous 0 2,985 43,110 43,110 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end) 24,535 0 0 (24,535) Total Revenues 859,535 22,437 79,547 (779,988) Expenditures: Program # Project Number Project Name 5700 Bond Expenditures 0 2,700 2,700 (2,700) 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars (Police) 80,000 17,060 55,279 24,721 (1) 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers (Finance) 80,000 10,197 11,097 68,903 V&E-016 Pickup Truck (Street) 35,000 0 0 35,000 V&E-020 Portable Computers (Police) 50,000 0 0 50,000 V&E-030 Rotary Mower (Park) 98,000 0 100,552 (2,552) V&E-052 Asphalt Cold Planer (Street) 20,000 0 0 20,000 V&E-058 Fire Hose 10,000 0 0 10,000 V&E-060 Rescue Vehicle (Fire) 100,000 0 0 100,000 V&E-072 Pickup Truck (Engineering) 30,000 28,587 28,587 1,413 V&E-078 Aerial Bucket Truck (Park) 200,000 0 0 200,000 V&E-079 Utility Tractor (Park) 80,000 0 0 80,000 V&E-090 Single Axel Dump Truck (Street) 225,000 0 0 225,000 V&E-118 Sidewalk Tractor (Street) 150,000 120,133 120,133 29,867 V&E-122 Police Vehicle 40,000 34,148 34,148 5,852 V&E-127 800 Mhz Radios (Fire) 80,000 47,798 47,798 32,202 V&E-129 800 Mhz Radios (Police) 96,650 74,152 74,152 22,498 V&E-132 Thermal Imaging Camera 70,000 0 0 70,000 V&E-134 Cartegraph Software 13,000 0 0 13,000 Total Expenditures 1,457,650 334,775 474,446 900,204 (1) Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. (2) Includes a transfer from the DWI/VCTF Fund for the traffic car. C i ty-of volden!V."""' M ll%..,y Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. J. Approve Administrative Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District within Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Project Area (Liberty Crossing) Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary On September 1, 2015, the Council approved the above referenced TIF plan. Section F of the approved plan incorrectly stated that the City elected to delay the receipt of first increment until 2017. Rather, the plan should have stated that the City was delaying receipt of first increment until 2018. Council is asked to adopt the attached resolution administratively amending the TIF plan to reflect the correct date. Because neither the TIF district boundaries nor the budget are changing, no public hearing is required. Attachments • Page 3 of Tax Increment Financing District Plan adopted on September 1, 2015 (1 page) • Resolution Approve Administrative Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF District within Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Area (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Approving an Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF District within Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Project Area - Liberty Crossing Project. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of land, removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary to develop the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the City may be included in the qualifying costs. Section F Duration of the TIF District Redevelopment districts may remain in existence 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. The City anticipates that the TIF District will remain in existence the maximum duration allowed by law (projected to be though the year 2043). Modification of this plan (see Section Z) shall not extend these limitations. All tax increments from taxes payable in the year the TIF District is decertified shall be paid to the City. Pursuant to MN Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1(b), the City elects to delay receipt of first increment until 2018. Section G Property to be Included in the TIF District The TIF District is an approximately 10.86 acre area of land located within the Project Area. A map showing the location of the TIF District within the Project Area is shown in Exhibit I. The boundaries and area encompassed by the TIF District are described below: Parcel Number* Legal Description 2911821220018 Lot 1, Block 1, Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1325613. 2911821220012 The West 374 feet of the North 205 feet of the South 860 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, except the West 33 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over the following described property: The North 30 feet of the North 655 feet of the South 860 feet of that part of the northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, lying West of the East 704 feet thereof, except the West 374 feet of the North 205 feet of the South 860 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 118, Range 21, as shown in deed Document No. 2476007; And together with an easement for private roadway as evidenced by Document No. 1287516. -Being Regi tered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1305335. 2911821220015 Lot 2, Block 1, McTac Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2911821220014 Lot 1, Block 1, McTac Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 689295. The area encompassed by the TIF District shall also include all street or utility right-of-ways located upon or adjacent to the property described above. SPRINGSTED Page 3 Resolution 16-36 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (REDEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT WITHIN WINNETKA & MEDICINE LAKE ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA LIBERTY CROSSING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "City") has heretofore established a Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District (the "TIF District") within the Winnetka & Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Project Area and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor; and there is a proposal to amend the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District (the "Tax Increment Financing Plan") under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 and Sections 469.124 to 469.134 (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Tax Increment Financing Plan as approved by the City Council on September 1, 2015, indicated in Section F the City elected to delay receipt of first increment until 2017. WHEREAS, the TIF Plan intended to indicate the City elected to delay receipt of the first increment until 2018, and the City has prepared an Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF District, to identify 2018 as the year of first receipt in Section F; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, as follows: 1. The City finds, determines and declares that with respect to the Administrative Amendment: a) The City is not modifying the boundaries of the TIF District nor increasing the budget in the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, but is, however, making an administrative amendment thereto. b) The City reaffirms the findings previously made with respect to the TIF District. c) The Administrative Amendment conforms to the general plan of the development of the City as a whole. d) The Act does not require a public hearing on the Administrative Amendment. 2. The Administrative Amendment is hereby approved. Resolution No. 16-36 -2- June 7, 2016 3. The City Manager is authorized and directed to file a copy of the Administrative Amendment with the Commissioner of Revenue, the Office of the State Auditor and the Hennepin County Auditor. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. city of golden!'-*O"MEMORANDUM valley Administrative Services Department '/ 763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. K. Approve Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. "No person shall possess, display, consume or use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the Council." As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $30 to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations who have requested that option. Attachments Beer and/or wine request list (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST CC DATE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION DATE TIME SHELTER APPROVED Fuhrma, Cheryl 06-08 5 pm -10 pm Small 06-07-16 Thomas, Billie 06-17 11 am -4 pm Small 06-07-16 Bergquist, Ana 06-23 11 am -4 pm Large 06-07-16 Cook, Kayla 06-28 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Arteag, Martha 07-02 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Cese, Mauricio 07-09 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Marthal, Justin 07-10 11 am -4 pm Small 06-07-16 Savole, Karen 07-14 11 am -4 pm Small 06-07-16 Ayala, Brenda 07-15 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Sargbe, Fortee 07-16 5 pm -10 pm Small 06-07-16 CyberOptics 07-20 11 am -4 pm Large 06-07-16 CyberOptics 07-27 11 am -4 pm Large 06-07-16 Anderson, Jason 07-28 11 pm-10pm Small 06-07-16 Tackett, Jacob 08-02 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Swanson, Jess 08-10 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Del Car, Maria 08-13 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Norton, Paul 08-16 11 am -4 pm Small 06-07-16 Towne, Charles 08-19 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Bondhu, Nancy 08-21 11 am -4 pm Small 06-07-16 Krutzig, Gail 08-25 11 am -4 pm Large 06-07-16 Anders, Valerie 08-25 5 pm -10 pm Large 06-07-16 Govrik, Erin 08-27 11 am -4 pm Small 06-07-16 Um City Administration/ Council 763-593-3991 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. L. Reset August Council/Manager Meeting Date Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary Due to a scheduling conflict the August Council/Manager meeting will be rescheduled from Wednesday, August 10 to Monday, August 8, 2016. Recommended Action Motion to reset the Council/Manager meeting from Wednesday, August 10 to Monday, August 8, 2016. C i ty-Of golden'!". valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. M. Support Application for Technical Assistance to Support Mixed Income Housing Policy Development Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Through a grant from the McKnight Foundation, the Family Housing Fund and the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors (ULI MN/RCM) will be offering free technical assistance to City governments interested in exploring policies and incentives that encourage mixed income housing. Mixed income housing developments include units for people with a range of income levels. It is an attractive option for communities, but is not typically built without a mandate, incentive, or subsidy. As part of the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan, City staff has identified the need to conduct a community -wide assessment of the supply and demand for affordable housing as well as research on potential policies and incentives that could be enacted to help the City meet its short-term and long-term housing goals. Technical assistance from an experienced consultant would be helpful in assisting staff in this research. At recent Planning Commission meetings, mixed income housing has been discussed as an important housing type for the community. A resolution of support from City Council is not required for the application process, but it will strengthen the City's application in this competitive process. If selected, up to 100 hours of technical assistance would be provided, which is valued at approximately $10,000 in grant funding. Applications are due on June 15, 2016, and the consulting services would be provided to the City between July and September of 2016. Attachments • Resolution Supporting Submittal of Application for Technical Assistance to Support Mixed Income Housing Policy Development (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Supporting Application for Technical Assistance to Support Mixed Income Housing Policy Development. Resolution 16-37 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT MIXED INCOME HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Family Housing Fund and the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors (ULI MN/RCM) have released a call for technical assistance proposals as part of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Regional Mixed Income Housing Feasibility Education and Action Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is eligible to apply for complimentary technical assistance; and WHEREAS, City staff has identified the need to conduct a community -wide assessment of affordable housing supply, demand, policies, incentives, and regulations as part of the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is interested in exploring policies and incentives that encourage mixed income housing; and WHEREAS, technical assistance from an experienced consultant to assist staff in the research and development of policies that encourage mixed income housing would be helpful in helping the City meet is short-term and long-term housing goals. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Golden Valley that the Council is supportive of staff's submittal of an application for technical assistance to support mixed income housing policy development in preparation for the City's update to the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 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. rva v.;y �w�n golden i Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 3. N. Approve Amendments related to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for Pesch Place (Accessible Space, Inc.) Renovation Project, 2000 Mary Hills Drive Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary In 2015, the City entered into an agreement with Hennepin County to facilitate CDBG funding for the renovation of Pesch Place, located at 2000 Mary Hills Drive. The City then entered into a third party agreement with Accessible Space Inc. (ASI) in order to distribute the funds for the purposes of the renovation. The original term of both agreements ran through June 30, 2016. Accessible Space, Inc. has requested an extension of the agreements to December 31, 2016, in order to allow additional time to complete the renovation work. Staff recommends Council approve both grant agreement amendments. This house was built by the Courage Center in 1980 and acquired by ASI in 1993. Pesch Place provides five shared units for adults with disabilities to residents with an income below 50% of the median area income. In 2012, they received $78,105 in CDBG funding to help in paying for the replacements of a retaining wall, an upper level kitchen, and a wrap-around deck. Under the current agreement, ASI has been allotted $60,796 to renovate three bathrooms, replace floor materials in residents' rooms and in the common area, and complete the replacement of the retaining wall. Attachments • Amendment No. 1 to Agreement A153288SR (3 pages) • Amendment No. 1 to Third Party Agreement (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement A153288SR between the City and Hennepin County, extending the term of the agreement to December 31, 2016. Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Third Party Agreement between the City and Accessible Space, Inc., extending the term of the agreement to December 31, 2016. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT A153288SR THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA ('RECIPIENT"), A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 ("SUBRECIPIENT"), said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. WHEREAS, the RECIPIENT and the SUBRECIPIENT entered into a City Subrecipient Agreement, Contract No. AI53288SR ("Agreement'), for Urban Hennepin County 2015 Community Development Block Grant Program on May, 12, 2015; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to incorporate changes to Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost, Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that Agreement Al53288SR is amended as follows: Section 2, TERM OF AGREEMENT, shall be amended to read as follows: The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 2015. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 2016, or at such time as the activity/ies constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the SUBRICIPIENT shall relinquish to the RECIPIENT all program funds unexpended and uncommitted, and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 2, as may be amended. Except as amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this amendment, and the RECIPIENT having duly approved this amendment on the day of , 2016, and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this amendment, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to form and execution Assistant County Attorney Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA I5a Chair of Its County Board Date: ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of County Board Date: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Date: And: Assistant County Administrator Public Works Date: Recommended for Approval: Department Director, Community Date: 2 SUBRECIPIENT: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY (Place city seal here) Its: And: Its: Attest: Title: Date: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 ("Amendment") made and entered into by and between the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and ACCESSIBLE SPACE, INC., 2550 University Avenue, Suite 330N, St. Paul, MN 55114, hereinafter referred to as "PROVIDER." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program by virtue of a Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 2014 and executed between the CITY and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59; and WHEREAS, the CITY executed a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County, effective July 1, 2015 (Subrecipient Agreement No. Al 53288SR), which approved the use of $60,796 of Federal Fiscal Year 2015 CDBG funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 14.218) for a project known as Pesch Place ("Project"). WHEREAS, the CITY executed Amendment No.1 to Subrecipient Agreement No. Al 53288SR on June 7, 2016, extending the term of that agreement to December 31, 2016. WHEREAS, the PROVIDER and CITY executed a Third Party Agreement, Urban Hennepin County 2015 Community Development Block Grant Program, with an effective date of July 1, 2015 (the "Provider Agreement") with respect to the Project. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree to amend the Provider Agreement as follows: Section 2 of the Provider Agreement, captioned "Term of Agreement" is amended and restated to read as follows: TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 2015. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 2016, or at such time as the Activity is satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, PROVIDER shall relinquish to the CITY all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the Activity. Except as amended hereby, the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Provider Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. CITY EXECUTION The City of GOLDEN VALLEY having duly approved this Amendment on 2016, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city officials having signed this Agreement, the City agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Amendment will be legally valid and binding. Dated: , 2016 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY (city seal) By: Its Mayor And: Its Attest: Title: PROVIDER EXECUTION PROVIDER, having signed this Amendment and the CITY having duly approved this Amendment, and pursuant to such approval and the proper officials having signed this Amendment, PROVIDER agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Amendment. By entering into this Amendment the Provider certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either the federal government or the State of Minnesota as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. PROVIDER: ACCESSIBLE SPACE, INC. Dated: , 2016 By: _ Its: And: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2016, by and , the and the of , a Minnesota on behalf of said Notary Public My Commission Expires C I ty-of g! d s n!. vall....'Y MEMORANDUM Administrative Services Department 763-593-80131763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing for 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 Resolution 16-37 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 was published in the SunPost on May 19, 2016. The client has paid for all costs of the notice and the administrative charge of $500 for holding the hearing for the host city approval. A representative will be available that evening to describe the overall project. Attachments • Resolution Consenting and Approving the Issuance, Sale and Delivery by the City of Minnetonka of its Revenue Obligations; Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minnetonka; and Taking Other Actions with Respect Thereto (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Public Hearing for the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka. Resolution 16-38 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY BY THE CITY OF MINNETONKA OF ITS REVENUE OBLIGATIONS; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNETONKA; AND TAKING OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (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 six (6) existing affordable townhome units located at 2100 Douglas Drive North and two (2) existing affordable townhome units located at 3354 Lilac Drive North in the City (together, the "Golden Valley Project"), each constituting a multifamily housing development authorized under the terms of the Act, as well as the acquisition, construction, and equipping of approximately twenty-seven (27) new affordable apartment units to be located at 5750 Shady Oak Road in Minnetonka and the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of forty-six (46) existing affordable townhome units located at 5400 Smetana Drive in Minnetonka. 1.04. The City and Minnetonka are proposing to enter into a Cooperative Agreement (the "Cooperative Agreement") pursuant to which the City will consent to the issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka to finance, in part, the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of the Golden Valley Project, and Minnetonka will agree to issue the Bonds to finance, in part, the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of the Golden Valley Project. Resolution No. 16-38 -2- June 7, 2016 1.05. On the date hereof, the City Council conducted a public hearing at which a reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing on the following: (i) consent to the issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka pursuant to the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and (ii) approval of the financing of the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of the Golden Valley Project pursuant to the requirements of the Act. 1.06. The Borrower has represented to the City that the principal of, premium (if any), and interest on the Bonds: (i) shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged therefor; (ii) shall not constitute a debt of the City or Minnetonka within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or Minnetonka or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; and (iv) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City or Minnetonka other than the interest of Minnetonka as set forth in one or more loan agreements to be entered into between Minnetonka and the Borrower (collectively, the "Loan Agreement"). Section 2. Approvals. 2.01. The City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka to finance, in part, the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of the Golden Valley Project and hereby consents to the issuance of the Bonds by Minnetonka for the purposes set forth above. 2.02. The Bonds shall be special, limited obligations of Minnetonka payable solely from the 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 the Loan 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. 2.03. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Cooperative Agreement. All of the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Cooperative Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City which is hereby approved, with such omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 2.04. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to bond counsel, the trustee, and the original purchaser of the Bonds certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the approval of the issuance of the Bonds, including a certification of this resolution. 2.05. The Borrower will, upon demand, reimburse the City for costs paid or incurred by the City in connection with this resolution and the Cooperative Agreement. Resolution No. 16-38 -3- June 7, 2016 Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Approved by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 7th day of June, 2016. 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. C i ty-of go 1 d e ni!l .144,. *1r 0 va .,Y I ki 0 1* I 0 Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 60 day deadline: May 10, 2016 60 day extension: July 9, 2016 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3 - 700 Meadow Lane North - North Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary North Wirth Associates, LLP, is seeking approval of an amendment to its existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to reconstruct and expand a parking ramp and prepare for the addition of a new office building on its campus. Under this proposal, the current parking ramp would be demolished and a taller ramp would be constructed in advance of the future construction of a fourth office building in the northeast corner of the site. Although the footprint and general massing of the proposed building is included in the current proposal, a future amendment that includes additional details regarding landscaping, grading and drainage, utilities, building materials, and replatting would be required prior to its construction, as has been done with other recent projects. The current parking ramp has spaces for 494 vehicles in two levels but prior PUD approvals grant the property owner the right to expand the ramp by one additional level to provide for 730 vehicles. Rather than using the existing layout, the applicant proposes to raze the structure and build a four story ramp that has the capacity for 1,096 vehicles. The main street entrance to the new ramp would continue to be located centrally along its north face while an existing street entrance to the west, off of Meadow Lane, would be removed. The remaining access to the surface parking lot off of Meadow Lane would be modified to be an "entrance only" in order to prevent traffic disruptions to the signal queue at Olson Memorial Highway. Two internal access points to the ramp would be maintained to allow for circulation through the surface parking areas. Three walls of the new ramp would utilize living green walls of vines which would grow up from shelf boxes at the base of the second level. The walls of the first level would remain open to enhance visibility. The north wall of the ramp, which by the nature of the site's topography would have the tallest elevation, would be screened by a series of coniferous and deciduous trees. Along the west side of the ramp, native grasses would be planted in the buffer between the sidewalk and the structure. Four electric car charging stations are proposed for the first level of the parking ramp. Due to the increase in the number of parking spaces, 77 public bicycle space would be required. The applicant is proposing to construct 60 spaces and provide proof of parking for the remaining 17 spaces. Based on the submitted timeline, demolition of the existing parking ramp would begin in late summer of 2016 and would be completed by mid -summer of 2017. Construction of the new building would be expected to immediately follow and would be anticipated to be complete by early 2019. During the demolition of the existing ramp and the construction of the new ramp, a large number of parking spaces would be unavailable. The applicant has put forward a preliminary Temporary Parking Plan which would provide parking at an off-site location and use bus transportation to move employees to and from the site in the morning and afternoon. This plan would be finalized prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on May 9 and unanimously recommended approval (6-0). The Commission recommended two of the comments from the Engineering memo be added as conditions of approval for this phase of development. The first concerns improvements to the pedestrian connections between the ramp and the office buildings. The second limits the southwest access point to the site to be an "entrance only." The applicant has agreed to these conditions and they are included below. In order approve an amendment to a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD amendment is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site in that the new ramp would be built in the footprint of the existing ramp and new landscaping would be used to "green" three of its faces. The proposed fourth office building would take the place of a surface parking lot, limiting its impact on the site. 2. Preservation. The PUD amendment would not impact any desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features. 3. Efficient - Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating new construction on an already developed site and building "up" rather than "out" with both the rebuilt ramp and the new office building. 4. Compatibility. The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and have shown over the past 30 years to be compatible with the surrounding properties. There is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. General Health. The PUD amendment is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for abetter site layout and coordination between the buildings on the site and meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Staff recommends approval of the PUD Plan for North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3, subject to the following conditions: Planning 1. The plans prepared by RSP Architects, submitted March 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated May 2, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 60 bicycles shall be provided with proof of parking for an additional 17 bicycles, based on a calculation of 5% of the 1,350 parking spaces required for the site. The applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities. 5. A finalized Temporary Parking Plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the parking ramp. 6. A snow storage/removal plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff. 7. An additional PUD amendment shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the construction of the fourth office building. Engineering 8. Pedestrian connections between the southwest and northeast stair towers of the parking ramp and the office buildings shall be improved. 9. The southwest entrance to the site must be modified to the City's satisfaction to encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances and avoid PM backups on Meadow Lane. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated May 9, 2016 (7 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 2016 (7 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department dated May 2, 2016 (2 pages) • Memo from the Engineering Division dated May 5, 2016 (22 pages) • Temporary Parking Plan (1 page) • Plans from RSP Architects submitted March 11, 2016 (24 pages) • Ordinance #599, Approval of PUD Plan, North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3, North Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #599, Approval of PUD Plan, North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3, North Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant. 4200: _ f y-',-0,- X4-2'80 4294 ` 4270 4264 72� 4282 4486— • eas', • Subject Properties 4-. �( -41 Theodaeh 700 • 4210 650 4300 100120300300 615 . 400510 116 200 L 100 i 'i 'i1 4150 •� '" ' ` 180280245 44' 600 731 au�v State Hwy No 55 IN -State Hwy No. 55 529Frontage Rd mortal Hwy Frontage Rd� 520 535 42394237 4205 3 532 541537 Z Y 501 524 529 c d 500 521 ; `520 5524 421 ` 521525--20'St9 : �: " 501 .3 p` 516 516 521517 a 1 - 'i •'^ :6 �. 420 505 512 517 512 513 g 1�0�. 1 , 1 0 a 509 101 J2J3 415 D k4136 506301 406 s16 500 4200 508 t 401 402L500501 /4317 A: 42 2 821 7 42 1 3 42 05 413 5 41 2 411 3 449` 425 428 425 11 March 2016 Mr. Jason Zimmerman Planning Manager City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE: Mortenson — City Submittal for P.U.D. Revision PUD Submittal Narrative 700 Meadow Lane North Golden Valley, MN 55422 RSP Project No.: 9508.001.17 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Care has been taken to establish a holistic approach to the site planning, landscaping and materiality in this submission. It is the intent to provide an efficient and high quality solution sensitive to environmental features and all code standards. The requested amendment is based on the demolition of the existing parking ramp and two new structures being added to the campus, an office building and a parking structure. The construction of these two structures will likely be separated into two phases: Phase I will include the proposed new parking structure and utilize essentially the same building footprint and orientation as the existing ramp. It will be a total of four levels, one below the grade at the entry and three decks above. The envelope will be a hybrid of glass, precast and metal and will feature a living wall component as a vertical landscape feature. • The ramp will accommodate approximately 1,100 vehicles, with total site parking at 1,300 vehicles parked at a factor of 3/1000sf. • The parking factor has been increased from the existing factor of 2.6, allowing for additional parking and includes the future parking required for the proposed new north building. While this is a departure from the Golden Valley requirement, it takes into account the available and increasing trend toward alternative transportation (buses, bikes, etc.), allowing the design to reflect a more relevant and efficient ramp capacity. • The typical parking plan includes a twenty-four foot wide drive lane with eighteen foot deep parking stalls. While these widths depart slightly from the Golden Valley requirements, they are typical of parking ramps constructed today and allow us to create a green buffer between the existing parking lot and proposed new ramp. RSP Architects, Ltd. 1220 Marshall Street NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 612.677.7100 main 612.677.7499 fax rsparch.com • The proposed new ramp also includes a storm water retention system installed immediately south of the ramp under the parking lot. Phase II (to be constructed in the future) includes the proposed addition of a new 98,000sf, six story building attached at grade only to the existing north building. The overall building height will not exceed the eight story requirement previously approved for the PUD dated 4/20/82, amended 8/6/08 and 8/4/10. While the number of floors will be a maximum of six, the exact height is not yet known. It will be sited within the current setback guidelines and will be of an architectural nature designed to complement the existing vernacular of precast, corten steel and glass as well as respond to the design language of the new ramp. • The proposed new office building has been conceptually designed to accommodate future growth and maximize the available site. • The new office building will site in the existing north parking lot. • Surrounding parking and landscape will be revised at a later date to reflect a design that compliments the new building and overall campus. In addition, there is a potential future Phase III which includes the two story addition on the south building that would cap the south building at eight stories. This addition was part of and approved in the original PUD dated 4/20/82, amended 8/6/08 and 8/4/10. We feel that the planning and design that is reflected in this submittal falls well within the intent of the Golden Valley P.U.D. requirements and will benefit both the City and Mortenson by allowing Mortenson to continue to expand and remain a long term resident in the City of Golden Valley. Mr. Zimmerman Mortenson — City Submittal for P.U.D. Revision 11 March 2016 Page 2 of 2 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 A regular meeting of the Planning Co mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, SQ,Vncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Vallfy Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 16. Chair Segelbaum Calle he meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present Planning Commi ioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Wa ser. Also pr sent was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Emily oellner, and Adni�rative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera 1. Approval of Minutes April 25, 2016, Regular ni Johnson referred to th urth paragr electromagnetic s rum standards certifications. MOV y Kluchka, seconded by BI AUpF25, 2016, minutes with the abo\ Comm iss ion-Ifteting i on page two and clafted that his question about s about standards for assessments or and motion carried unanimously to approve the noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment — North Wirth Associates, LLP — 700 Meadow Lane North — PU-33, Amendment #3 Applicant: North Wirth Associates, LLP Address: 700 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To replace the existing two-level parking structure with a four -level parking structure and to plan for a future office building. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and stated that this proposal is being driven by the anticipated growth of Mortenson Company. He explained that the applicant is proposing to replace the existing two-level parking structure with a four -level parking structure in essentially the same location and to add a fourth office building in the northeast corner of the site in the future. He noted that the current PUD was established in 1982 and it allows for a three level parking ramp and an additional two stories on the southeast office building. He also noted that the PUD was amended in 2008 and 2010. Segelbaum asked if the future office building would be a Major PUD Amendment. Zimmerman said it most likely will be a Major PUD Amendment and would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Zimmerman discussed the entrance and exit locations for the site and for the parking ramp and explained that one of the site entrances along the west side of the property will be removed. The City's traffic engineer is recommending that the entrance located to the north of the frontage road be an entrance only. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 2 Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements for this use and explained that currently, there are 494 ramp parking spaces and 288 surface parking spaces and they are proposing to have 1,096 parking spaces in the ramp and 210 surface parking spaces. There are also 44 basement parking spaces. He noted that the proposed parking stalls will be 9' x 18' in size rather than the required 9' x 18.5' and there will be four electric car charging stations on the first floor of the ramp. He referred to bicycle parking for the site and stated that there are 28 existing bicycle spaces and the applicant is proposirrg 60 bicycle spaces. The Code requires 77 bicycle spaces so staff is recommending that the plans show 17 additional "proof of parking" spaces for bicycles. He discussed the applicant's temporary parking plan during construction which includes bus service for employees between 6-9 am and 3-6 pm to an off-site location in Brooklyn Center. Zimmerman referred to the proposed landscaping plans and stated that there will be native plant landscaping along the west side of the property, new trees along the north side of the property, and "living green walls" on three sides of the parking ramp. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment with the additional conditions that there will be enhanced pedestrian connections in the parking lot from the northeast and southwest ramp stair towers and there will be limited openings along the "living green wall." Kluchka asked how "proof of parking" is done with bicycle parking. Zimmerman stated that they will have to show on their plans that they have space reserved for an additional 17 bicycle spaces. Johnson referred to the parking ratios and asked about the significance of 3.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space. Zimmerman explained that the parking ratio will change because the applicant is changing the amount of office space, therefore the required amount of parking changes as well. Baker questioned why the proposal for the fourth office building is being discussed as part of this PUD amendment for the parking ramp when the applicant will have to come back for another PUD amendment when they want to build the fourth office building. Zimmerman explained that the proposal for the parking ramp is ultimately based on the construction of the fourth office building so they are planning the parking based on the complete built -out of the site. Baker said he is concerned about the Planning Commission's vote implying that they will approve the future PUD amendment proposal. Zimmerman said it is common for the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve a concept plan for the location of future buildings and then have the applicant come back with more detailed plans. Waldhauser noted that there have been similar issues in the past related to internal traffic issues and question why it is the City's concern. Zimmerman stated that staff's main concern is the traffic on Meadow Lane. Waldhauser asked if Meadow Lane serves other businesses. Zimmerman said yes. Johnson referred to the finding regarding quality site planning. He asked what is meant by saying that the proposed fourth office building would take the place of surface parking lot, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 3 limiting its impact on the site. Zimmerman stated that the proposed fourth building would be built on an existing surface parking area so it would not be taking away any more green space. Blum asked if the stormwater on site would be an overall improvement over what is there now. Zimmerman stated that there will be a minor change in the overall amount of impervious surface on the site. Baker asked about the current parking demand. Zimmerman said he wasn't sure, be he knows that not all of the existing parking spaces are currently being utilized. He added that there may also be transit options which would help with parking demand if needed. Waldhauser asked if the City should be concerned about employees bypassing the shuttle service being offered during construction and parking on local streets or parking lots instead. Zimmerman stated that the City will need to see a more detailed temporary parking plan. Segelbaum referred to the staff report regarding future landscaping, grading, drainage, replatting, etc. and asked if those items will be reviewed as part of the future PUD amendment for the fourth office building. Zimmerman said yes and noted that the landscaping plans for this proposal will be finalized before building permits are issued. Segelbaum asked if there is any precedent for allowing parking stalls to be 18 feet deep instead of the required 18.5 feet. Zimmerman said he is not familiar with any precedent but the applicant would like to reduce the depth of the parking stalls to allow for better circulation and aisle width. Segelbaum referred to the recommendation that the entrance on the southwest corner of the site be an entrance only and asked if there is an existing traffic queuing issue on Meadow Lane. Zimmerman said there are occasional issues currently, but there is some concern that with additional traffic there will be more issues and that there will not be enough room for cars to stack between Olson Memorial Highway and that southwest entrance. Kluchka referred to the traffic study memo regarding the frontage road and asked who owns it. Zimmerman said the frontage road is located in the City's right-of-way and there have been discussions about moving the frontage road out of the right-of-way and potentially re-routing it if possible with future plans. Kluchka stated that there isn't much boulevard area or sidewalks or trails so the City may want to re-evaluate if there is a need for these items because this is a gateway location. Zimmerman noted that there is a sidewalk on the north side of the frontage road. He said staff's preference would be to re- route the frontage road internally, but the question is if it is feasible with the access to the loading docks. Johnson asked if it is important to address the frontage road issue why it is not being addressed now with this current proposal. Zimmerman stated that the property will have to be re -platted when the fourth building is proposed so it would make sense to address the frontage road at that time and not re -plat the property twice. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 4 Blum asked if the electric car charging stations would be accessible to the public. Zimmerman said the stations would be internal to the site for the employees' use. Baker asked about the past PUD amendments for this property. Zimmerman stated that one amendment was to consolidate two of the parcels and the other was to do several improvements to the site. Baker asked if the proposed parking stall size will be the same throughout the site. Zimmerman stated that the shorter parking stalls will only be in the ramp. The size of the parking stalls in the surface lot won't change. Dan Johnson, President of Mortenson Construction, said Mortenson is growing and building the proposed parking structure is really in anticipation of building the fourth office building in the future. He said they wouldn't need to change the existing ramp at all if they weren't planning for the fourth office building. He explained that they don't own the building on the southwest corner of the site so reconfiguring the frontage road would not be within their control and it serves as access to both properties. Derek McCallum, Principal, RSP Architects, referred to the size of the proposed parking stalls and stated that 18 feet in depth is a typical dimension for structured parking and 18.5 feet is more typical for surface parking stalls. Blum asked if the building not owned by Mortenson is a part of the PUD. Mr. Johnson said yes. Blum asked if Mortenson is growing locally or in the aggregate. Mr. Johnson said both. Blum asked how many jobs will come to Golden Valley as a result of the proposed expansion. Mr. Johnson said approximately 50-100 jobs annually over time. Baker asked how the temporary parking plan will work. Mr. Johnson said it is their goal to find closer parking for their employees once they know the timing of their construction. He added that they commonly do this during their construction projects. Kluchka said he is supportive of the proposed expansion. He said the existing use of Cor - Ten steel is nice and asked if that style will be used in the new construction to help make the site cohesive. McCallum said yes, there will be a similar treatment. Waldhauser noted that the south building has solar panels on the roof and asked if the new building will as well. Mr. Johnson said their existing building also has solar panels and the new parking ramp and building will too. Waldhauser asked if they would consider a green roof. Mr. Johnson said possibly, but their business includes installing solar panels so that may be their preference. Segelbaum asked Mr. Johnson if he has any concerns with staff's recommendations. Mr. Johnson said he is concerned about staff's recommendation regarding the entrance only on Meadow Lane. They agree it is an area that requires careful study, but they don't want to push the traffic where pedestrians walk. He said they would like more time to review this recommendation before this proposal goes before the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 5 Baker asked if the purpose of the "living green wall" is only aesthetic. McCallum said no. The green wall is aesthetic and will provide screening and an oxygenating renewable surface. He added that Mortenson has a strong sustainability stance and the green wall helps show how important the message is to them. Also, by removing trees and replacing them with natural grasses and green surfaces they are being environmentally sensitive. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Baker reiterated his concern about the Planning Commission discussing the future PUD amendment now because it may imply future approval. Segelbaum said the Planning Commission's decisions are recommendations only so he feels it is worthwhile to acknowledge the future proposal during this discussion. Baker agreed and said that acknowledging the future proposal won't necessarily mean they are endorsing it. Segelbaum said it seems like the staff reports have mixed recommendations and conditions. For example the City Engineer's memo states that the pedestrian connections "should be improved." He proposed that the wording be changed to state that the pedestrian connections "must be improved." Baker said he assumes the Planning staff memo pulled recommendations from the other staff memos when considering the conditions. Zimmerman explained that the recommendations in the Engineering and Fire staff reports are attached as conditions of approval in the Planning staff report. Segelbaum referred to recommendation number eight in the Engineering staff report regarding the entrance only on Meadow Lane and questioned if they want it to be that strongly worded since the applicant has said they would like an opportunity to study it further. Zimmerman stated that staff is willing to have a conversation with the applicant to try to resolve the traffic concerns before the proposal goes to the City Council. Segelbaum said he is interested in softening the recommendation. Kluchka suggested the recommendation be rewritten to say "the southwest entrance to the site must be modified to the City's satisfaction to encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances." Waldhauser suggested that every time the memos say "should" it should really say "will" or "must" instead. The Commissioners agreed. Segelbaum referred to recommendation number seven in the City Engineer's staff report regarding a discussion about removing the frontage road in the future. Kluchka asked how that will work if the applicant doesn't own the building in the southwest corner of the PUD. He asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that the frontage road be removed in order to get more green space and less impervious coverage. Zimmerman said he is not sure what type of easements or impediments exist. Baker said this issue can be re -visited when the replatting is proposed, but he agrees that the frontage road should be removed and replaced with a bike path. Kluchka agreed that he would like the frontage road removed. Johnson noted that all the applicant is proposing at this point is a bigger parking ramp and not the addition of more people. Baker agreed that they are discussing issues that won't happen until the next proposed PUD amendment. Waldhauser said she is sympathetic with the approvals getting too far ahead, but the parking ramp has to precede the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 6 construction of the proposed fourth building and she doesn't want to say "got you" to the applicant later. Kluchka agrees that since the Planning Commission will only see this proposal once he thinks it would be best to state the Planning Commission's intent. He said he want the applicant to work with the City to get the best option. Johnson asked if the PUD amenity point system applies to this proposal. Zimmerman said no, the point system does not apply to PUD amendments. Waldhauser said she is concerned that the "living green wall" is being proposed as a replacement for trees when the wall doesn't serve the same function as trees. She said she would like the applicant to look for opportunities to provide some more filtration and shade. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed PUD Amendment with the following findings and conditions including the recommended modifications to the City Engineer's staff report. Findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD amendment is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site in that the new ramp would be built in the footprint of the existing ramp and new landscaping would be used to "green" three of its faces. The proposed fourth office building would take the place of a surface parking lot, limiting its impact on the site. 2. Preservation. The PUD amendment would not impact any desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features. 3. Efficient — Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating new construction on an already developed site and building "up" rather than "out" with both the rebuilt ramp and the new office building. 4. Compatibility. The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and have shown over the past 30 years to be compatible with the surrounding properties. There is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. General Health. The PUD amendment is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a better site layout and coordination between the buildings on the site and meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by RSP Architects, submitted March 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated May 2, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 60 bicycles shall be provided with proof of parking for an additional 17 bicycles, based on a calculation of 5% of the 1,350 parking spaces required for the site. The applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 7 5. A finalized Temporary Parking Plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the parking ramp. 6. A snow storage/removal plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff. 7. An additional PUD amendment shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the construction of the fourth office building. 8. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Informal Public Hearing — Conditio North — Ashley Ballet Arts Academ licant: Ashley Ballet Arts Acad Addfts: 1000 Boone Avenue No Purpose:\ To allow for a dance stud Zimmerman referred\nd site plan and disci Conditional Use Perllow for a health, fi in an Industrial zonintat 1000 Boone) a 124,000 square foo- ant building wi- n building has eight exin s and 60,000site parking spaces. laine hat the aprfeet of space to provice less s. Fromoffered between 4 pm pm on w kdaysthe summer there wointermittent sseto 40 students and 1 ployees in th I Use Permit —1000 Boone Avenue LLC — CU -148 , LLC in the Industrial zoning district. sed the applicant's request for a gess and/or exercise facility (dances ) fenue North. He stated that the erty is a mix of office and ware��e uses. The square feet of vacant s with 456 on - cant is proposing to se 7,555 square eptember to Ma ere will be classes nd 8:30 am 2:30 pm on Saturdays. In offered. added that there would be up at a0V one time. Zimmerman discussed the parking requireme and stated that the proposed use calls for 19 parking spaces. He noted that the p e ance studio's lease includes 17 parking spaces and with the off-peak wee end e, along with the abundance of parking spaces on site, any potenti arking i pacts uld be limited. Baker questioned if the City put parking r trictions o roperties in the past. Zimmerman said yes and ted that one of t conditions o pproval is that the City reserves the right to re a modifications to t number of sp s leased or to the days and hours of operati in order to adequately ddress parking c erns. Ashley Burklan , Applicant, said she is excitel to come to Golden VaNy because the larger spacS,411 provide an opportunity for he students to dance bigger and take more classes aje it will also allow for Golden VallevWesidents to take dance classes. Kyleikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, said the 10th Street side of building has been largely vacant for the last two years so they are excited to get new tenants. city of olden aw MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: May 9, 2016 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing — North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3 — 700 Meadow Lane North — North Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant Summary North Wirth Associates, LLP, is seeking approval of an amendment to its existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to reconstruct and expand a parking ramp and prepare for the addition of a new office building on its campus. Under this proposal, the current parking ramp would be demolished and a taller ramp would be constructed in almost precisely the same footprint. One access point along the west side of the property would be removed. The footprint of a future, fourth, office building is shown in the northeast corner of the campus, connected a ground level to the existing building immediately to the south. Construction of the parking ramp is estimated for late 2016 and early 2017. Construction of the new building is estimated for late 2017 through 2018. A parking plan indicates temporary off-site parking would be provided for employees during construction of the proposed ramp. Buses would shuttle employees to and from the campus daily. Background and Existing Conditions PUD No. 33 was created in 1982 and amended in 2008 and 2010. It currently allows for three office buildings of a total of 286,360 square feet and one parking ramp of up to three levels accommodating 730 cars. The nine acre site is surrounded by Theodore Wirth Park to the east, Highway 55 and a multi -family residential building to the south, Meadow Lane and Wirth Corporate Center to the west, and Meadow Lane and the Animal Humane Society to the north. A regional stormwater pond, Dahlberg Pond, also lies to the north. Two of the three existing buildings are occupied by M. A. Mortenson Co. and are connected at ground level via an enclosed walkway. The existing PUD allows for a two floor expansion to the largest building, bringing it from six stories to eight stories. Currently the site can be accessed via five driveways: a frontage road entrance to the west close to Highway 55, a parking lot entrance just north of that, ramp entrances to the west and north, and a second parking lot entrance at the north end of the campus. The underlying zoning designation for the entire site is Business and Professional Offices Me 59 33 700 Meadow 10 4150 2 4050 731 Olson Memdrial-Hwy a� ..� ,;:=: , F, .�a - ,�► ... - - " � gym;... c . ,� �,: PUD 33 - Site Map Proposal The proposed PUD amendment would allow for the demolition and reconstruction of the existing parking ramp in advance of the future construction of a fourth office building on the site in the northeast corner of the property. Although the footprint and general massing of the proposed building is included in the current proposal, a future amendment that includes additional details regarding landscaping, grading and drainage, utilities, building materials, and replatting would be required prior to its construction, as has been done with other recent projects. 2 The current parking ramp has spaces for 494 vehicles in two levels but prior PUD approvals grant the property owner the right to expand the ramp by one additional level to provide for 730 vehicles. Rather than using the existing layout, the applicant proposes to raze the structure and build a four story ramp that has the capacity for 1,096 vehicles. The new ramp would occupy essentially the same footprint as the existing ramp but would extend to the east by a few additional feet. The main street entrance to the new ramp would be located centrally along its north face, in the same location as it is today with modifications to the curb cut. An existing street entrance to the west, off of Meadow Lane, would be removed. Two internal access points to the ramp would be built to allow for circulation through the surface parking areas on site. Three walls of the new ramp—the east, south, and west walls—would utilize living green walls of vines which would grow up from shelf boxes at the base of the second level. The walls of the first level would remain open to enhance visibility. The north wall of the ramp, which by the nature of the site's topography would have the tallest elevation, would be screened by a series of coniferous and deciduous trees. Along the west side of the ramp, native grasses would be planted in the buffer between the sidewalk and the structure. These same native grasses would also be planted at the base of the living green walls on the south and east faces of the ramp. A landscaped plaza located centrally on the site would be disturbed during construction but would be restored at the conclusion of the project with the same palate of plant materials that exist today. Four electric car charging stations are proposed for the first level of the parking ramp. As part of the ramp's construction, including the need for the installation of an underground stormwater system, two surface parking lots would be disrupted. At the conclusion of the project these lots would be restored and enhanced with additional islands and landscaping as required under the Zoning Code. Land Use and Zoning Considerations As a PUD, the City can offer flexibility from the regular zoning requirements in order to achieve a better development. The following table summarizes how closely the requirements of the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District are met under the current proposal (areas that depart from the typical requirements are highlighted in yellow): 3 Business & Professional Offices North Wirth Parkway PUD 33 -- Amendment #3 Use Office and parking ramp Offices and parking ramp Dimensional Standards Minimum lot area 1 acre 9.08 acres Minimum lot width 100' Over 100' Structure coverage — buildings 40% 12.9% (existing); 17.2% (proposed) 3 Structure coverage — parking 20% 22.7% (proposed) Front setback — south 35' plus 5' for each story over _ 37' 6" (existing) three stories or each 10' over thirty feet Front setback — west 35' plus 5' for each story over 34' (proposed) three stories or each 10' over thirty feet Front setback — north 35' plus 5' for each story over 46' 6" (proposed) three stories or each 10' over thirty feet Side/rear setback — east 30' with 15' landscaped 30' (proposed) Building height JThree stories or by CUPSix stories (up to eight allowed) Vehicle parking —1 space per 250 sq. ft. gross floor area Parking spaces for 285,050 1,140 826 (1,059 approved) sq. ft. Parking spaces for 285,050 1,140 1,420 (1,096 ramp spaces; sq. ft. (interim period) 272 surfaces spaces; 8 loading dock spaces; 44 underground spaces) Parking spaces for 383,050 1,532 1,350 (1,096 ramp spaces; sq. ft. 202 surfaces spaces; 8 loading dock spaces; 44 underground spaces) Parking stall dimensions 9' x 18' 6" 9' x 18' (ramp - proposed) Bicycle parking — 5% of parking required for vehicles Bicycle parking for 285,050 57 28 sq. ft. Bicycle parking for 383,050 77 60 sq. ft. Parking Current plans, including recent amendments to the PUD, allow for a total of 1,059 parking spaces on-site: Ramp Surface Loading dock 730 (only 494 constructed) 280 8 Basements (Glasrud and South buildings) 44 This translates to an approved parking ratio of 3.7 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. and an existing parking ratio of 2.9 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. 4 The interim conditions—after the construction of the new ramp but prior to the construction of the fourth building—would create 1,420 parking spaces on-site: Ramp 1,096 Surface 272 Loading dock 8 Basements (Glasrud and South buildings) 44 Upon completion of the fourth building, this number would drop to 1,350 parking spaces: Ramp 1,096 Surface 202 Loading dock 8 Basements (Glasrud and South buildings) 44 This translates to a parking ratio of 3.4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. In the interim, the number of parking spaces would exceed what would be required through the underlying Business and Professional Office zoning. However, the increase in square footage and the removal of 70 surface spaces as part of the construction of the fourth building would ultimately result in a shortfall of 182 required parking spaces. Given the fact that existing parking demand has not necessitated the construction of the third (approved) level of the parking ramp, staff is comfortable moving forward with the proposed plan that—although remaining short of what is typically required by code—would result in a greater parking ratio that what is currently being utilized. In an attempt to keep the new ramp roughly within the footprint of the existing ramp, the length of those parking stalls is proposed to be reduced from the required 18' 6" to 18'. Per the Zoning Code, bicycle racks or a similar facility must be available to employees and to the public at a rate of 5% of the required vehicle parking. Based on the 1,532 vehicle spaces required under the full build out scenario, 77 public bicycle spaces would be required. 28 bicycle spaces current exist; 60 bicycle spaces are proposed by the applicant but are not included on the site plan. As highlighted in the memorandum from the Engineering Division, dedicated pedestrian connections from the southwest and northeast stair towers across the surface parking lots to the office buildings are lacking and these facilities are recommended for addition to the site plan. Engineering and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities. A memorandum from the Engineering Division that addresses access and circulation, pedestrian facilities, sanitary sewer and water services, inflow and infiltration, stormwater management, and tree preservation is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that adequate emergency access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses building design, water supply, and hydrant location is attached. Anticipated Development Timeline Based on a timeline submitted by the applicant, demolition of the existing parking ramp would begin in late summer of 2016 and would be completed by mid -summer of 2017. Construction of the new building would be expected to immediately follow and would be anticipated to be complete by early 2019. During the demolition of the existing ramp and the construction of the new ramp, a large number of parking spaces would be unavailable. The applicant has put forward a preliminary Temporary Parking Plan which would provide parking at an off-site location and use bus transportation to move employees to and from the site in the morning and afternoon. A final plan will be required as a condition of approval. While the footprint and preliminary concepts of the proposed fourth building are included in this PUD amendment application, final approval of the new building must be granted through a future amendment once detailed plans related to landscaping, grading and drainage, utilities, building materials, and replatting are submitted, as has been done with other recent projects. Findings for Approval In order approve an amendment to a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD amendment is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site in that the new ramp would be built in the footprint of the existing ramp and new landscaping would be used to "green" three of its faces. The proposed fourth office building would take the place of a surface parking lot, limiting its impact on the site. 2. Preservation. The PUD amendment would not impact any desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features. 3. Efficient — Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating new construction on an already developed site and building "up" rather than "out" with both the rebuilt ramp and the new office building. 4. Compatibility. The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and have shown over the past 30 years to be compatible with the surrounding properties. There is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. General Health. The PUD amendment is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a better site layout and coordination between the buildings on the site and meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. 0 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Amendment #3 to North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by RSP Architects, submitted March 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated May 2, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 60 bicycles shall be provided with proof of parking for an additional 17 bicycles, based on a calculation of 5% of the 1,350 parking spaces required for the site. The applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities. 5. A finalized Temporary Parking Plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the parking ramp. 6. A snow storage/removal plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff. 7. An additional PUD amendment shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the construction of the fourth office building. 8. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Narrative (2 pages) Temporary Parking Plan (1 page) Memo from the Fire Department dated May 2, 2016 (2 pages) Memo from the Engineering Division dated May 5, 2016 (22 pages) Plans from RSP Architects submitted March 11, 2016 (24 pages) Date: May 2, 2016 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Fire Department 763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Subject: Major PUD Amendment — Mortenson — PUD #33, Amendment #3 The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the information provided for the Major PUD Amendment for Mortenson, PUD #33 Amendment #3. This PUD amendment proposes the replacement of the existing two level parking structure with a four level parking structure. The plans also shows a future office building immediately north of the present North Building (concept only, future) Based on early concept discussions, this ramp is being designed to meet the code requirements of an open parking garage as detailed in Minnesota State Building Code sections 406.5 and 202. In reviewing the plan we have concerns of how the living wall screen impacts the code requirements of an open parking garage. It appears that the lower level, 111 floor and 3rd floor are compliant. However, 2nd floor appears to only be open on one (1) side which does not meet the opening requirements of MSBC section 406.5.2. This is a code issue that need to be worked out prior to construction. The proposed four level parking structure will need to be equipped with a standpipe system that meets the requirements of MSBC section 905 Standpipe Systems. Based on preliminary discussions there will need to be a minimum of four hose connections per level. Currently there are stairways located southwest, southeast and northeast corners of the ramp. The piping system most likely will need to be a manual dry pipe system due to unheated portions of the parking structure. There will need to be additional design discussions on the proposed layout for the standpipe system. With this proposal there will be a new underground water main installed along the east and south sides of the new parking structure. Currently there are no fire hydrants shown on the plan and two of the existing fire hydrant will be impacted by the future building. There will need to be additional design discussions on where and how many fire hydrant need to be installed along the new underground water main. Page 1 of 2 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on all of the information provided and discussions at two preliminary meetings Staff recommends approval of PUD #33 amendment #3. The items detailed above are code requirements that will need to be reviewed by the project design team and will need to address prior to construction. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or e-mail icrelly@goldenvalleymn.gov Page 2 of 2 city 0 goldenlo.4.#P%� MEMORANDUM va � Physical Development Department J 763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: May 4, 2016 To: I Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: 700 Meadow Lane North - Mortenson PUD 33 Amendment #3 Preliminary PUD Review Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed PUD amendment submitted by RSP Architects on behalf of M.A. Mortenson Company (Mortenson). This memorandum discusses the issues identified during the Engineering review that must be addressed prior to final plan and permit application submittal. The comments contained in this review are based on plans submitted to the City on March 11, 2016 titled, "Mortenson Headquarters," and revised stormwater plans submitted for Bassett Creek Watershed review dated April 28, 2016. Construction Phasing The plans submitted by Mortenson show a phased approach to construction that when completed will achieve full build out of its campus. While the plans submitted show significant detail about the Phase 1 construction, the Phase 2 building and utility locations are conceptual, but important to understanding the overall impacts of development. This plan review is based upon completion of all phases and assumes the locations of planned buildings are final locations, but the main focus is on Phase 1. The construction phases generally consist of the following: Phase 1 Demolition of the existing parking ramp and construction of a new ramp in approximately the same footprint, and associated site and utility work. Phase 2 Construction of a 98,000 square feet, six -story office building in the existing north parking lot (with an at -grade link to the existing north building), and associated site and utility work. Phase 3 Potential 45,000 square feet, two-story addition atop the existing south building. GADevelopments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend #3\Memos\Plan_Review-050216.docx Site Plan and Access The demolition and site plans submitted show the removal and replacement of the existing parking ramp with a new four level ramp (one level below grade and three levels above grade). In conjunction with this work will be the permanent removal of the west parking ramp entrance on Meadow Lane and a full replacement of the north ramp entrance on Meadow Lane. This will reduce the number of access points to the site from four to three. Staff supports the removal of the west parking ramp entrance due to its proximity to both the existing southwest entrance to the site and the frontage road/loading dock access which borders the south boundary of the PUD. The southwest entrance to the site is discussed further in the traffic review section of this memorandum. All driveway entrances impacted by construction must be designed to meet City standards for commercial driveway aprons. A City Right -of -Way Management permit is required for driveway work and all excavations and obstructions within public streets and rights-of-way. This includes the replacement of public sidewalks, curb, and pavements. Sidewalks must meet City standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards. ADA pedestrian ramps must be installed at all driveway entrances impacted by construction. The site plan shows a pedestrian connection from the parking ramp's southeast stair to the buildings, but does not show connections from the southwest stair and northeast stair to the buildings. Staff recommends that pedestrian facilities are installed in these areas to facilitate more defined and safe movements. Mortenson or its contractor must obtain the appropriate City permits for demolition of the existing building, utilities, pavements and other related improvements. The site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan submitted do not show much detail in the vicinity of the proposed north building. The applicant must submit a full civil plan set for this area when it applies for a PUD amendment in the future. Future Re -plat The PUD currently consists of four parcels. The northeast parcel (Parcel A on the Existing Conditions plan sheet) is the location of the north surface parking lot. If the proposed north building is constructed in Phase 2, it will span across Parcel A and Parcel D. Therefore, the property owner must re -plat a portion of the property within the PUD. It is assumed that the re - platting of the property will coincide with a future PUD amendment for construction of Phase 2 improvements. There are existing platted easements within this PUD, including a utility easement containing a City -owned watermain located across Parcel A. The City watermain will need to be relocated before the north building in Phase 2 is constructed. The City and the property owner will need to discuss the relocation of this watermain and the details of the future public improvement project. The property owner will be required to fund the cost of the public improvement including construction observation. The details of the watermain relocation project, including costs and G:\Developments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend #3\Memos\Plan Review 050216.docx timing of the project, will need to be discussed and further outlined in a PUD Development Agreement for this PUD amendment or a future PUD amendment coinciding with the construction of the north building. In addition, the existing public easements located in the vicinity of the proposed north building will need to be vacated at the time of re -platting and relocation of the watermain. The City will initiate the vacation process, and the Owner must provide the City with legal descriptions and exhibits. New easements must be dedicated that align with the planned locations of the watermain. The final plat for Phase 2 construction must include easements along public streets, property lines, and plat boundaries consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. There is an existing frontage road (Olson Memorial Highway North Frontage Road) located north of Highway 55 and east of Meadow Lane along the south boundary of the PUD. The frontage road is not a through street and serves only the loading dock delivery functions for the south and west buildings within the PUD. The parcels containing the south and west buildings are currently under separate ownership. Since the frontage road serves only this PUD, staff recommends that this frontage road be vacated in the future as part of the re -platting effort, as a condition of approval of a future PUD Amendment, or at such time when one owner controls both parcels adjacent to the frontage road. Easements would be retained for the public sidewalk and any public utilities in the area, but all maintenance responsibilities for the roadway would be turned over to the adjacent owner. Traffic Review Due to the proposed increase in the number of employees at this site at full build out, the City conducted a traffic study to assess the safety and operations of nearby streets and intersections. The report from the City's Traffic Engineer is attached, and the conclusions of the study are summarized below. At full build, the southbound queue at Meadow Lane and Highway 55 would block the southwest entrance to the site on a continuous basis and create long delay times for vehicles exiting the Mortenson site. In addition, field observations show that drivers currently turn right out of the entrance (northbound on Meadow) and then make a U-turn in the street to go southbound on Meadow to join the end of the queue. Because of these situations, it is recommended that the southwest entrance to the site be modified to create a right turn enter only and that the site circulation be modified to encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances. The full build scenario with the restricted access at the southwest entrance discussed above will result in minimal changes in driver delay or level of service and therefore the public street intersections will operate acceptably. The traffic engineer also evaluated the frontage road/loading dock access along the south side of the PUD. For reasons of traffic safety due to the proximity to Highway 55, the recommendation is that the property owner work with the City to explore removing this access from Meadow Lane and routing it through the PUD now or at some time in the future. Additional discussion with the G:\Developments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend #3\Memos\Plan Review 050216.docx owner and City staff such as the Fire Chief would need to occur before making a final determination. Utility Plan (Water and Sanitary Sewer) The utility plan submitted shows the extension of new water mains into the site to serve the new parking ramp and future north building. The plan also shows the extension of a new sewer main to serve the parking ramp. The plans do not indicate how the proposed north building will be served by sanitary sewer. This should be considered and added to the plans before City Council review. Water The owner has proposed the construction of an 8 -inch watermain to loop through the site and connect to the City's 6 -inch cast iron main within Meadow Lane on the west and north sides of the PUD, respectively. Staff generally supports the construction of loop systems to serve large buildings with water and fire flows. However, because the proposed 8 -inch main ties into two 6 - inch cast iron mains from the early 1960s, staff authorized its consultant to perform a watermain model analysis to ensure the flows would be adequate and that there would be no negative impacts to the surrounding water system. The analysis determined that the proposed 8 -inch loop through the development would adequately serve the PUD and provide mutually beneficial flow and redundancy to the immediate area. The model analysis and a review of the City's watermain break history supports the upgrade and replacement of the City's existing 6 -inch cast iron mains in this area with 8 -inch ductile iron pipe or other approved material. Therefore, as part of this PUD amendment the City is requiring that the north loop connection to the City's main be reconfigured and that the new 8 -inch ductile iron pipe be extended west within the Meadow Lane cul-de-sac a short distance to connect to the City's existing 8 -inch main on the west side of the cul-de-sac. The owner should also consider replacing the main to the north and east at this time to begin to position the main for the future watermain relocation project discussed earlier in this memorandum. The replacement of the City's main within Meadow Lane is a public improvement that will require the posting of a financial security by the owner and the execution of an agreement between the City and the owner. An escrow for construction observation will also be required to fund the City's inspection costs. The City and owner should meet again before finalizing plans to discuss the details of the watermain construction. Mortenson will own and maintain all watermains, hydrants and valves within its site from the buildings to the service valves located in public right-of-way. In addition to the mains within its own right-of-way, the City will own and maintain and the portion of the mains from the City's watermain within Meadow Lane to the service valves, including the service valves. Before the issuance of building permits, the City will draft a maintenance agreement for the owner's signature further outlining ownership and maintenance responsibility for the water system. G:\Developments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend N3\Memos\Plan Review 050216.docx Sanitary Sewer In order to understand whether the City's sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity to accommodate flows from the proposed north building, the owner will need to show how the future building will be served by sanitary sewer (from the west or south). The City will continue to work with the owner regarding sanitary sewer service to ensure that the future building is adequately served. Any public improvements required as part of this work will be discussed with the owner and made part of this or a future PUD Development Agreement. Regarding all new private sewer mains constructed within the PUD, the Mortenson will own and maintain the sanitary sewer system within its property and the portions extending into public rights-of-way, including the connections to the City's system. Before the issuance of building permits, the City will draft a maintenance agreement for the owner's signature further outlining ownership and maintenance responsibility for the sewer system. In order to help reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration of clear water into the sanitary sewer system, the City has an Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Ordinance. All buildings within the scope of this PUD amendment must comply with the City's 1/1 Ordinance. City records show that the existing buildings on parcels 650 and 700 Meadow Lane do not have 1/1 Certificates of Compliance. However, inspections have been scheduled. Depending on the results of the inspections and the timing of any proposed repairs, an 1/1 deposit agreement may need to be executed between the City and owner. Any unused or abandoned sanitary sewer mains or services within or adjacent to the work areas must be removed all the way to the main. Upon completion of sewer work, all new and/or rehabilitated sewer mains and services must be inspected and found to be compliant with the 1/1 ordinance as outlined in the deposit agreement. In order to construct the utilities described above, the owner will need to excavate portions of Meadow Lane which was overlaid in 2013. A City Right -of -Way Management Permit is required for all excavations and obstructions within public right-of-way and easements. All pavements and subgrades must be restored according to City standards. Because the pavement is less than 5 years old, an increased level of restoration is required. The pavement restoration method and extents will be discussed and determined at the time of Right -of -Way permitting. Stormwater Management This PUD is within the Wirth Lake subwatershed of the Bassett Creek watershed. The site generally drains to the south and flows into City and MnDOT storm sewers which flow south and east to Wirth Lake. The PUD Amendment for Phase 1 construction of the parking ramp proposes to disturb approximately 4 acres. As such, the PUD is subject to the review and comments of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Revised stormwater plans have been reviewed by staff and forwarded to the BCWMC for review. According to the plans submitted, the Phase 1 project includes the construction of an underground sand filtration system under the surface parking lot to collect and treat stormwater runoff. Peak runoff rates, and phosphorus and sediment loads are being reduced as a result of the filtration system construction. The owner has acknowledged that the filtration system is appropriately sized for the future north building construction and associated site improvements. G:\Developments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend k3\Memos\P1an Review 050216.docx Infiltration and other volume reduction practices have not been included in the stormwater management plan for this site due to the soil types present; however, the owner is encouraged to continue to explore ways to retain stormwater volume on site, consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Construction Permit and the City's stormwater ordinance. The owner has acknowledged it will look into the possibility of diverting stormwater into vegetated areas on site including the vine boxes on the parking ramp. In order to construct the new parking ramp, a portion of the City's storm sewer located in the northwest corner of the site will need to be relocated to provide adequate separation from the parking ramp. Mortenson will be required to relocate the storm sewer at its own expense as part of the project and will need to post a financial security and enter into an agreement with the City for this public improvement project. An escrow for construction observation will also be required to fund the City's inspection costs. All storm sewer facilities and stormwater quality treatment facilities in this PUD will be owned and maintained by the property owner. A maintenance agreement outlining these responsibilities will be drafted by the City and must be signed by the owner prior to the issuance of permits. Mortenson or its contractor must obtain a City Stormwater Management Permit before construction. A permit fee, financial security, and stormwater management plan (erosion and sediment control plan) meeting the standards of the City of Golden Valley must be included with the permit application. Plan review and approval by the BCWMC must also be completed before a City Stormwater Management Permit can be issued. This PUD is also subject to the requirements of the MPCA Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of this permit and the corresponding Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted to the City before work can begin. Tree and Landscape Plan The PUD amendment is subject to the City's Tree and Landscape Ordinance. A Tree Removal Plan and Site Landscape Plan have been submitted for Phase 1 construction of the parking ramp. Due to the nature of the work proposed and the significant tree removals, a tree and landscape permit is required for this project. Future construction phases will also be subject to the Tree and Landscape ordinance and permit requirements and therefore detailed plans will need to be submitted to the City before construction of future phases. Engineering and Forestry staffs reviewed the plans and have the following initial comments: • A tree and landscape permit is required for this project and must be obtained before demolition or construction can begin. A financial security is required as part of this permit. • A tree mitigation form must be completed, including the total number of significant and legacy trees located on the parking ramp parcel. A landscape requirements form must be completed. (These forms have been sent to the applicant.) G:\Developments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend #3\Memos\Plan Review 050216.docx A large massing of native plantings is proposed along the west side of the PUD as well as a smaller massing along the south side, and vine shelf boxes on the parking ramp wall (living wall concept). As allowed in the tree and landscape ordinance, these plantings may be factored into the overall calculations for the required number of trees, shrubs, and perennials for this site. Make sure there are no trees and shrubs planted within corner visibility zones at driveways or that would otherwise impact sightlines in any way. The City Forester will review the plans in more detail at the time of permitting. Summary and Recommendations Engineering staff recommends approval of the Mortenson PUD Amendment subject to the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows: 1. Pedestrian connections within the site should be improved as discussed in this review. 2. All driveway entrances impacted by construction must be designed to meet City standards for commercial driveway aprons. 3. Sidewalks must meet City standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards. ADA pedestrian ramps must be installed at all driveway entrances impacted by construction. 4. The owner must re -plat the property as part of a future PUD amendment in order to construct the north building in the Phase 2 improvements. 5. An existing City watermain will need to be relocated and the public easement vacated before the north building in Phase 2 is constructed. The City and the owner will need to discuss the relocation of this watermain and the details of a future public improvement project, as discussed in this memorandum. 6. Staff recommends the frontage road/loading dock access be vacated in the future as part of the re -platting effort, as a condition of approval of a future PUD Amendment, or at such time when one owner controls both parcels adjacent to the frontage road, as discussed in this review. 7. The property owner should work with the City to explore removing the frontage road/loading dock access from Meadow Lane and routing it through the PUD now or at some time in the future. 8. The southwest entrance to the site must be modified to create a right turn enter only and the site circulation must be modified to encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances. 9. The proposed watermain loop through the PUD should be modified as discussed in this review. 10. The owner will need to show how the future building will be served by sanitary sewer (from the west or south). 11. All new, rehabilitated, and removed sewer mains and services must be inspected and found to be compliant with the City's 1/1 ordinance. 12. The pavement on Meadow Lane is less than 5 years old and an increased level of restoration is required according to City standards. The restoration method and extents will be discussed and determined at the time of Right -of -Way permitting. G:\Developments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend #3\Memos\Plan_Review_050216.docx 13. Stormwater comments contained in this review and comments from the BCWMC must be addressed before site permits are issued. 14. Comments regarding the tree and landscape plan must be addressed before site permits are issued. 15. Agreements between the City and property owner will need to be drafted and executed for certain public improvements, maintenance of private utilities and stormwater facilities, the 1/1 deposit, and other items as discussed in this review. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other governmental entities. Please feel free to call me or Eric Eckman if you have any questions regarding this review. C: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Tim Kieffer, Street Maintenance Supervisor Joe Hansen, Utilities Supervisor RJ Kakach, Engineer Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician 6:\Developments - Private\Mortenson PUD 33\Mortenson PUD 33 Amend #3\Memos\Plan Review_050216.docx i SEH Building a Better World for All of Use TO: Jeff Oliver, PE FROM: Mike Kotila, PE Graham Johnson, PE DATE: May 4, 2016 RE: Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study SEH No. 136729 MEMORANDUM This technical memorandum provides findings related to a traffic impact analysis performed to evaluate the proposed office development at the Mortenson Construction Headquarters site in the area located northeast of the intersection of TH 55 and Meadow Lane in the City of Golden Valley. Figure 1 represents the immediate project area and highlights the Mortenson site as well as the study intersections. The findings of this analysis will be useful to understand the developments initial impact at the following intersections and parking lot access locations: Public Street Intersections • TH 55 & Meadow Lane • TH 55 & Dahlberg Drive (3/4 unsignalized) • Meadow Lane & Dahlberg Drive Site Access Points • Meadow Lane at Mortenson Delivery Access • Meadow Lane at Mortenson South Lot Access • Meadow Lane at Mortenson Westside Underground Parking Garage • Meadow Lane at Mortenson Northside Underground Parking Garage • Meadow Lane at Mortenson North Lot Access Engineers I Architects I Planners I Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 SEH is 100% employee -owned I sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 888.908.8166 fax Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study May 4, 2016 Page 2 Figure 1 Project Location i k z J jjam�]] A C 3 p paWberg Or *� �u 1'0,pU4f*F eYi'R; r. )f Frontage Rd S Frontage Rd Q z e z z CL Q V ® 0 1e Full Intersection Count .," } Site Access Count Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study May 4, 2016 Page 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing turning movement counts at the three public street intersections and four parking access locations were conducted in April 2016. The attached Figure 2 shows the traffic analysis network with existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. Of the three study intersections, only the TH 55 and Meadow Lane intersection is signalized under current conditions. The signal at TH 55 and Meadow Lane is operated by MnDOT and within a coordinated system along TH 55 that has a long cycle length for better progression along the TH 55 corridor. TH 55 is a 4 -lane divided expressway with a speed limit of 50 mph in the project area. At Meadow Lane, westbound TH 55 has both left and right turn lanes, eastbound TH 55 has dual left turn lanes, northbound Meadow Lane has a shared left -through lane and a separate right turn lane, and southbound Meadow Lane has a left, shared left -through, and separate right turn lanes; northbound and southbound approaches operate under split phasing. The intersection of TH 55 and Dahlberg Drive is a three-quarter access intersection; Dahlberg Drive is only allowed to make a southbound right turn onto westbound TH 55, while TH 55 can access Dahlberg from the eastbound left turn lane or westbound right turn lane. The vast majority of eastbound TH 55 traffic destined to both Dahlberg Drive and Meadow Lane prefer to enter the area via the left turn lane at Dahlberg Drive that is not under signal control; in the AM peak hour 300 vehicles make a left at Dahlberg and only 20 vehicles use the signalized left turn lanes at Meadow Lane. The intersection of Meadow Lane and Dahlberg Drive is a minor street stop control with Meadow Lane uncontrolled. All access points from the Mortenson site to the public streets are controlled by stop signs. The existing site access on the west side of the parking garage is gated and apparently not in use. The proposed site plan does not include this access so it has not been studied further. The most southerly access to Meadow Lane serves as a delivery driveway. Traffic counts on the driveway indicated minimal use. It is located very closely to the TH 55 / Meadow Lane intersection, a condition that typically creates operational and safety issues. No operational problems were witnessed and no crashes have been reported at this location. Existing Traffic Operations Synchro/SimTraffic (Version 9) was used in the analysis to understand the existing operations and the impact that the increase in traffic volume will have on the study intersections. MnDOT timing plans for TH 55 were utilized for the analysis to ensure an accurate representation of the current conditions. Due to the long coordinated cycle lengths on TH 55, it is not uncommon for the side street approaches to TH 55 and the protected TH 55 left turn demands to experience longer than normal delay times. The AM and PM peak hours operate well considering the long coordinated cycle length along TH 55, currently a 210 second cycle in both peak periods. All left turning vehicles at the TH 55 and Meadow Lane intersection currently experience delays that result in a LOS F in both peaks; however it should be noted that all traffic is able to be served in one -cycle. In the AM peak, the eastbound left turn demands to the site are occur at both Dahlberg Drive and at Meadow Lane. The left turn movement at Dahlberg Drive operates at a LOS D, while the left turn at the signalized intersection of Meadow Lane operates at a LOS F with upwards of 3 -minutes of delay due to the long cycle length. In the PM peak hour, the southbound and northbound approaches of Meadow Lane to TH 55 operate at a LOS E, with the left and through movements at a LOS F. This is mainly due to the long cycle length as Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study May 4, 2016 Page 4 traffic is served within one cycle. The southbound queue along Meadow Lane at TH 55 does spill back and block the south lot access at the Mortenson site; this results in additional delays and queues for the departing vehicles from the south lot access. The maximum queue for this approach is approximately 240 feet back from TH 55. It should be noted in field observations some vehicles did make a right turn maneuver to head north, which was quickly followed by a U-turn movement to head back southbound to TH 55. Table 1 shows the results of the existing operations analysis; more detailed results are shown in attached Table Al. `table 1 - Existing Conditions Intersection: AM Peak Hour Approach Intersection Approach (Delay/LOS) (Delay/LOS) PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay/LOS) Intersection (Delay/LOS) TH55@ Dahlberg Drive EB 14.6/B 11.1 / B 6.8/A 5/ A WB 1.4/A 1.9/A NB 0/ A 0/ A SB 3.3/A 25.2/D TH55@ Meadow Lane (signal control) EB 9.2/A 11.1 / B 8.6/A 15/B WB 9.6 / A 10.3 / B NB 79.2 / E 55.8 / E SB 41.7/D 61.8/E Meadow Lane @ South Lot Access NB 0.4 / A 0.8 / A 0.6 /A 4.2 / A SB 1.4 / A 1.7 / A WB 4.6/A 10.3/B Meadow Lane @ Dahlberg Drive NB 0.5 / A 3.3 J A 0.6 / A 1.1 /A SB 0.1 /A 0.4 / A EB 5.7/A 3.7/A Crash History Crash history at the study intersections was analyzed from June 15', 2010 to June 1s', 2015; crash data was obtained from the MnDOT Crash Mapping Analysis Tool. A total of 13 crashes occurred within the study area during the 5 year time frame. All of the crashes occurred at the two TH 55 intersections as there were no crashes reported along Dahlberg Drive or Meadow Lane. At TH 55 and Dahlberg Drive there were two crashes during the 5 -year study period. Both crashes involved southbound vehicles making a right turn onto westbound TH 55; each vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle making the same maneuver. There were no crashes involving vehicles along TH 55 at this intersection. There were a total of 11 crashes at the TH 55 and Meadow Lane intersection during the 5 -year study period. The collision types are split up with 5 rear -end, 3 right angle, 1 left turn, 1 side -swipe, and 1 ran - off -road collision. The majority of the crashes, 8 of 11, involved eastbound through traffic that either disregarded traffic control, was distracted, or caused by weather. No crashes were reported along Meadow Lane at the site access driveways. Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study May 4, 2016 Page 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION The Mortenson Construction Company is currently proposing to expand their existing office space and parking at their current location highlighted in Figure 1. The expansion includes an additional office building, adding floors to one existing building, and reconstructing the existing parking garage for more capacity. The following list represents both the current building square footage as well as the proposed phased development plan. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT • West Building (Existing) 66,375 square feet • South Building (Existing) 146,250 square feet ® North Building (Existing) 61,425 square feet PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ® Phase I - 1100 stall parking garage; total of 1300 parking stalls • Phase 11 - New North Building 98,000 square feet • Phase III - South Building expansion of an additional 45,000 square feet (191,250 total) While the development is may occur phased over a several years, the intent of this traffic impact study is to determine the impact of the development in its fully built condition. Trip generation estimates were prepared using the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual, 911 Edition. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation estimates for daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour demands. It should be noted that while ITE code 710 for General Office was utilized for this analysis, code 714 for Corporate Headquarters Office was reviewed. The Corporate Headquarters trip generation rate is lower for the daily trip estimation, however the peak hour generations are within 5% of the General Office rates and therefore the slightly more conservative numbers were utilized. sable 2 - Development Trip Generation ITE Code Development Daily AM Peak PAA Peak Type Units Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 710 General Office (New North Building) New 98,000 1,081 135 18 153 25 121 146 710 General Office (South Building Expansion) New 45,000 496 62 8 70 11 56 67 Totals 1,577 96 F, 27 223 36 177 213 The existing trip generation was also reviewed for the current 274,050 square foot office. Based on the single day counted, the peak AM hour included 269 total trips and the peak PM hour included 287 total trips. Based upon these values, the existing AM and PM peak hour generation rates are approximately 0.98 and 1.05 per thousand square feet respectively. These values are lower than the ITE trip rates for General Office which are 1.55 and 1.49 respectively. The higher ITE values were have been used in the analysis to be conservative and to define trip generation for the office space should it ever house a different tenant. Trips were distributed based on the existing traffic patterns in the area. Approximately 60% of the traffic is from the west along TH 55, approximately 37% of the traffic is from the east along TH 55, and approximately 3% of the traffic is from the south along Meadow Lane. Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study May 4, 2016 Page 6 All traffic departing the site destined to the south or east must use the signalized intersection at Meadow Lane. However, traffic destined to the west can make a right turn maneuver at either Meadow Lane or Dahlberg Drive; this movement was split between the two intersections evenly at 50% for each as traffic can balance itself out in real-time. BUILD CONDITIONS SimTraffic/SimTraffic was used in the analysis to understand the impact of the increase in traffic volumes and shifting of traffic volumes at the study intersections. The overall change in traffic demands to and from the proposed development area is approximately 223 trips in the AM peak hour and 213 trips in the PM peak hour. Inbound trips from the west have two options to enter the study area, either at Dahlberg Drive or Meadow Lane. Due to the long signal cycle length, the majority (93%) of existing left turning traffic chooses to make the movement at Dahlberg Drive. Anticipating increased demand to the site and that the left turn lane at Dahlberg Drive will operate with a longer left turn queue it is assumed that new trips would split 85% to Dahlberg Drive and 15% to Meadow Lane. Inbound traffic from the east or south would only access the site from Meadow Lane. Outbound trips destined to the west have two options to exit the area, either at Dahlberg Drive or Meadow Lane. Traffic approaching the Meadow Lane and Dahlberg Drive intersection can access the southbound right turn queue at the signalized intersection and make a decision to continue along Meadow Lane or route along Dahlberg Drive to TH 55. For this reason the traffic was evenly split between the two options. Outbound traffic destined to the south or east would only depart the site from Meadow Lane. Due to operational delays witnessed at the south lot access and queues on southbound Meadow Lane, two scenarios were analyzed in the build analysis. Build Scenario 1 — Full site development with no access changes Build Scenario 2 - Full site development with restricted access Scenario 1 The first scenario evaluated included the existing access condition with the existing and proposed traffic demands, no changes were made to the TH 55 signal. The increased traffic in the project area has minimal impacts to the existing traffic operations. In the AM peak hour, the northbound approach of Meadow Lane to TH 55 does reach a LOS F, however this is only a few second increase and only a minor increase of 5 vehicles per hour in northbound through traffic was added. The additional traffic making the eastbound left turn movement at Dahlberg did extend the maximum queue by 75 feet, but it is still within the existing turn lane storage. The increased demand added 7 seconds of average delay to the movement. In the PM peak hour, increased demand on the southbound approach of Meadow Lane to TH 55 results in approximately 10 seconds of additional delay. Left and through movements continue to operate at a LOS F, while the overall southbound approach is at a LOS E. The southbound queue would now extend to approximately 320 feet and more frequently block the south parking access to the Mortenson site. With the additional queue blocking, the westbound approach from the south site access will see significant delays and queues of up to 400 feet; this queue would be on site and cause the parking lot to end up in gridlock if existing patterns are not changed. Table 3 below summarizes the results from the SimTraffic analysis; more detailed results are shown in attached Table A2. Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study May 4, 2016 Page 7 Table 3 -- Scenario 1, Existing plus Development - Full Access Intersection: AM Peak Hour Approach Intersection Approach (Delay/LOS) (Delay/LOS) PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay/LOS) Intersection (Delay/LOS) TH 55 Dahlberg Drive EB 17.8/C 13.5 / B 8/A 6.8 / A WB 1.6/A 2.1 /A NB 0 / A 0 / A SB 2.6/A 43.61E TH55@ Meadow Lane (signal control) EB 11.2/B 13.2 / B 10.6/B 18.9 / B WB 10.3 / B 10.7 / B NB 62.4 / F 63/E SB 39.5/D 72.1 /E Meadow Lane @ South Lot Access NB 0.5 / A 0.8 / A 0.5 / A 24.1 / C SB 1.2 /A 7.9 / A WB 5.4/A 66.1/F Meadow Lane @ Dahlberg Drive NB 0.5 /A 4.1 /A 0.7 / A 1.5 / A SB 0.1 /A 09/A EB 7.3/A 5/A Scenario 2 The second scenario evaluated modification to the existing access condition. At the south parking lot access into the Mortenson site, the access was modified to a northbound right turn entrance only, all outbound trips were rerouted to the northern access point along Meadow Lane. No changes were made to the TH 55 signal. All other site access points were not changed. This scenario results in no operational change from Scenario 1 in the AM peak hour based on the modeled intersection movements. In the PM peak hour, the southbound maximum approach queue to TH 55 on Meadow Lane is increased to approximately 375 feet. All traffic able to enter their desired southbound lane. The queue blocks all Mortenson site access points and the existing parking lot access on the west side on Meadow Lane. Table 4 below summarizes the results from the SimTraffic analysis; more detailed results are shown in attached Table A3. Table 4 - Scenario 2, Existing plus Development - Restricted Access Intersection: AM Peak Hour Approach Intersection Approach (Delay/LOS) (Delay/LOS) PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay/LOS) Intersection (Delay/LOS) TH55@ Dahlberg Drive EB 18.7/C 14.2 / B 8.1 /A 6.8 / A WB 1.6/A2.1 /A NB 0 /,q 0 / A SB 1.9/A 41.91E TH55@ Meadow Lane (signal control) EB 10.9/B 13.0/8 9.8/A 18.2/6 WB 10.5 / B 10.6 / B NB 76.11E 63.4/E SB 42.9/D 69.3/E Meadow Lane @ South Lot Access NB 0.5 / A 0.4 / A 0.6 / A 7.1 / A SB 0.1 /A 8/A WB 0/A 0/A Meadow Lane @ Dahlberg Drive NB 0.5 / A 4.2 / A 0.3 / A 1.7 / A SB 0.1 /A 1.2 / A EB 8/A 7/A Mortenson Headquarters Traffic Impact Study May 4, 2016 Page 8 Conclusions The signalized intersection of TH 55 and Meadow Lane will operate with minimal change to driver delay or LOS when comparing the existing conditions and to the development and access scenarios evaluated. The TH 55 and Dahlberg Drive intersection will also operate acceptably and the additional traffic at the eastbound left turn does not create significant delays that cause any problems. In the AM peak hour, the existing intersections can easily handle the increase in traffic demands entering the development site. In the PM peak hour, there will be additional delay and longer queues on the southbound approach of Meadow Lane to TH 55. However all waiting vehicles can be processed through the intersection in one traffic signal cycle. The southbound queue however would block the south lot parking access on a continuous basis and create long delay times for vehicles exiting the Mortenson site. Vehicles leaving the site at the south driveway that desire to travel eastbound on TH 55 or southbound on Meadow Lane will not be able to enter the queue. As was witnessed in the existing condition, some of these drivers will tum right onto northbound Meadow Lane and make an immediate u -turn to join the end of the southbound queue. For safety reasons, this behavior should be impeded. A center median on Meadow Lane could be considered, however the street width is not adequate to construct this within the existing street section. The median would restrict left turns — but would not be effective to impede the u -turn behavior. It is recommended to convert the existing south lot access to a northbound right turn "enter" only and not allow traffic to depart there. Internal site circulation should encourage vehicles to exit on the north side of the property and use Meadow Lane to enter the southbound queue of vehicles. Vehicles leaving the site from the north end can choose to join the queue on southbound Meadow Lane or use Dahlberg Drive to access westbound TH 55. It is desirable for traffic safety to eliminate the intersection of Meadow Lane and the southerly delivery driveway. Opportunities to re-route the delivery driveway through the site should be explored with planned site improvements either now, or in the future. Attachments: Tables Al through A3 Figure 2 — 2016 Traffic Demands Figure 3 — Trip Generation Demands Figure 4 — Build Traffic Demands p:\fj\g\goldv1136729\8-planning\goldv 136729 mortenson memo 050416.docx ' m O mn C� ♦ 31/(133) 4' 8/(38) g �, � n N i d .•4 iatBaflOW 0/ (0) 1MVeW 2 J 18nB a low Lane YyleR Dahberg Drive L + = 31/(6) 1 157/(25) .® 19/(18) .� 140/(10) 48 /(16) ao o^ 107/(2) J- 41/(41) ay $ w C µ $ iy 8 / 023)morternson r . South Surface Lotfz- yp N vi m m V. , E - - E � o aa7 of fl ori � n NlJ 6 / (5) N R' 164/(27) ♦ 878 / (1,581)♦ 4-836 / (1,399) _ 49/(47) LEGEND 299/(29) 19/(20) 2,131 ! (1,670) .,,D AM PEAK 2,102 / (1,637) .j► N M PM PEAK 10/(13) U' .. .. XX / (XX) LL ' Project: GOLDV 136729 ® Print Date: 4/2&2016 2016 Traffic Demands _ Mapco tostennepinc Figure Pourcti ESRI, nepn County Coords MORTENSON DEVELOPMENT D 125 250 Source: ESRI, MnDOT, SEH Few Golden Valley, MN ImTba map S reeher a IewN recoNed map mr a survey map •b b rpt aaemee b Le uses as one. Thn map u a umpiatron m remNc, Flamation, ab eab BaNerM hom vanouc sources kW on en maD ane > Ip be aced ror rekrercc ackmw etl m (G5) Dab ued to prepare tlia map an error has, and SEH eoen not rcprecerq Nat Ne GIS Data ran be aced for ruvpaporel, trec r pumocea only. SEH dcea rot warrant Nat Ne Ge pes tW SEH aM1ap rpt Ee tiabk for arty damapeawficH arae oul of Ne uceYs access or use or dab provitled. Yvg.D anY OTer purpose rcpurirg evacring mesmeemem of didance adireabnwprecivon in tM deDicton of geaerapAirfeaturea. TM iae�eait�is N CD )) ♦ N oo 0 / (0)♦7/(43) Driveway ay 2 0/(0) !MeadowLaneeadow Lane R DahbeDrive 0/(0) oE48/(848 (8)148/(29100/(19) n 0 (0) o m Matemson Surface Lot O^Ilk o 0 / (0) .o o 72/(13) ♦ 1' O 4-0/(0) LEGEND 1001(19) AM PEAK 181(4) '�° 18 / (4) "'� PM PEAK 0/0) I (0 XX (XX) O o m o f �r Project: GOLDV 136729 / Print Date: 4/28/2016 Trip Generation Figure Map by. m5teuemagei Projection:HennepnCountyCoords MORTENSON DEVELOPMENT SEE� 0 125 250 Source' ESRI, MnDOT, SEH 3 CS; @MM§NC===HNNNJr= Feet Golden Valley, MN ll r map s re— a leery raco 1 map ror a survey map 1, u rpt Me EH l map k a cempaaaon of re r — hMr I Vm iM tlata y .e rtl eom vaeous marten fetetl on aro maP and b to be d for refere pwm - oHy. SEH Joe" rot wartaM tHt Ne Deepaptik Information 5ydem t.1 SEH used to Prepare 1h., are arta Pee, and SEN tloen rot rcpreseM ., . GIS Dale untie ucetl for navipauemL. hacking, o any oNer Diapoee reaufrmg exactkg meacuremem of Jnt+nw w Jvegion w preG"ion m f/a Jepktion of aeographk /ealurea. lfe user of Mrs maD acMmyAetlpea lM SEM ahW rot Le 6abk 1w art/ Jamagea wNCM1 arae out of tM uaeYa acceu or ue of Dela prodtletl. E E J A _ 399/(48) 2,149 / (1,674) Al + 'A Ir 49/ (47) -- 4 37/(24) —$ 't 2,102 / (1,637) 10/(13) T . nap R r.ntar a repay .twee map no, a whey map ark : - adended b x used as aa. Thea map is a mrnpb— a rewrea, .roan.tion, em eats pauaree nom various soured. Wg on mia map aro n b x used br .rerence pum.ses.ry. SEH d.es na — wt me Geep.phir Irtlorrmbon Syuem (GIS) Dab used to pr<W re 1Na rmp are enor hes, aM SEH does M repeae.IM1al fh<GIS Data ran he usetl for nevi Donal b map .ohnovdeaaee iNt SEH ahap rot h Fable for am damaeea vtucM1 arise .a els.. oasts access er odor ears e..videe pa aekaq. or any other papou rehuhing eaactira meuuremem of diebnm or dircdan or precision h the eepicaon of peopraphk leenaea. The user.t Ihie SERo ® ,zs nFeet Prged:GOLDV 136729 Print Date: 4/28/2016 BuildTraffic Demands MORTENSON DEVELOPMENT Golden Valley, MN Figure Map by:lnetel Projedion:Hennepin nnepin County Coortls Source'. ESRI, MnDOT, SEH T . nap R r.ntar a repay .twee map no, a whey map ark : - adended b x used as aa. Thea map is a mrnpb— a rewrea, .roan.tion, em eats pauaree nom various soured. Wg on mia map aro n b x used br .rerence pum.ses.ry. SEH d.es na — wt me Geep.phir Irtlorrmbon Syuem (GIS) Dab used to pr<W re 1Na rmp are enor hes, aM SEH does M repeae.IM1al fh<GIS Data ran he usetl for nevi Donal b map .ohnovdeaaee iNt SEH ahap rot h Fable for am damaeea vtucM1 arise .a els.. oasts access er odor ears e..videe pa aekaq. or any other papou rehuhing eaactira meuuremem of diebnm or dircdan or precision h the eepicaon of peopraphk leenaea. The user.t Ihie Table Al Scenario: Existing Conditions Colden Vallwv NN rm rm Em El "a ME ®� 1 MLL1•0' r`2iE'3Fi1S1ilFXF.m Kb&m"�i��tE'�<.�iL£��t> 0moomio �a>tur�s��ouuisa,�r�=:�e�mto ELLA ®�0=©WLM �s�ir�a�wr�aar�m<�rerwa��+�er+�i� 0�7s�al0oiTitl�rT-�t•7� r�te�rsl /t�aii�fllm0® �mmm®m_ F mio®o_0_o imwm mt0o mmao� �iiv®o®o®IN� m©� ��arrm�mar*�im_�nmomomto m��:��ols��o ooiiv©mmomomomfo NEEM�mo��sr��e�ll�� aw�r ©o®mumrs Maom©® �0 o■c m�aao�o��asr:�®o��io�o�ii e��rar�i 0�alu�oms�aa�xair�l®ivimiii� ®�as,misa<a®sm�mo® Dom®�m�®omomto 00oo00om,� ommm®i® moi®opo ©mmoomoa�� o®© mm �m ® momt� mto�ao��0m, ii0m©�®m mora m mm ��m .z o®o _ Table Al Scenario: Build Conditions Version 1 (:nlrlan V.11— MN S-T,.ft MDEr I WEE 0oaM..nammm0 aim"amo®Iramoi0 m�i�[?eoowasrwars��v�v �mmm�®m® momo 0�00�® 07 mo©mmo EmOMMOMWEi*.3i�p�p�p p_0�:7�lIRY#i010_O UlkW o awmoo sr ��iiiamo�o �o�oo__��s�rosi�wm_� mimlRamm�®oa �It�smr�®��_¢��s�msst�r�+wtt�tsw,�rwc�w�w 0 omo� mo®omo �li.;•„a"M®ENo©oKE �goi" _ o �s�raAmorair m�0amwwmwm m®Imr *sIse wanaF NINE o_r :e=iz�sicrr> m"Knomin mm,mto®0o_� Oma©® F FAM F ®Q®' ©®oQ�Q®®�0®© � F ®' �®"0 B7 8) _ F �o��ommo___,...�. moo��omv®oer..asa-��o m.000_�rrrsrtar�im �arr��mm� a:sat►:imo�o �v®�pa©�c�raarri�r�t�_� �m=amomO�xaRa�mo�o moo�_��rw�ea�lrrartt�ls� Table A3 Scenario: Build Conditions Version 2 Golden Valley MN :4'lu fF m!r- I1 Mrs, Eummum L'�i1S� V t3�i1 lila <ti• ®�� 0_mm_o_omom��o®v ii�S a 0_a®_. _ ©om®o �o®� mom®©gmoo®' oo Mom"EMM" am �i mm _m 00000r�o�omo�o��o��ow�o�� 0mmmm�a�m��©mt© w.mm®� r�r �o aai�swsar�ww■�mmm o mom w omro meow o0mo�00�i� o0 w•�iom®m�� ®�w0mto��w�© t» 0m m+r=a•�m ®waraw�® ■moo®�� 00000momo�o�o owwow�o�w o©m=ae0momorr.*a�+a�o ©000w�waar�w�r o � �000arssr�®omo mo®� owwou�lww��ww�w w�o+sasmomort�rr,�mom,o 0m��nwwwsaraw��w� March 11, 2016 Mortenson Campus Temporary Parking Plan Mortenson construction M. A. Mortenson Company 700 Meadow Lane North Minneapolis, MN 55422 Main 763.522.2100 Fax 763.287.5457 www.mortenson.com North Wirth Associates has developed the following temporary parking plan during the construction of the proposed parking ramp on the current property at 700 Meadow Lane North, Golden Valley, MN 55422. Temporary location: There will be limited parking available to team members on the current surface lots at 700 Meadow Lane North during construction. Negotiations are under way to procure additional temporary parking spots offsite at Shingle Creek Crossing (the former Kohl's located at Hwy 100 and Bass Lake Road in Brooklyn Center, MN) as highlighted below. Final agreements are expected to be executed in the coming weeks. Temporary Transportation: The preliminary plan is to provide private bus transportation for team members between the hours of 6:00am — 9:00am & 3:00pm — 6:00pm to and from the former Kohl's parking lot in Brooklyn Center. There is a preliminary agreement in place with First Student Shuttle Service. Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - PUD Revision 700 Meadow Lane North Minneapolis, MN 55422 RSP PROJECT NUMBER: 9508.001.17 CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER: 001 �LUMN IX2 GRID LINE-IXISTING LINE-fEW D LINE rn- MATCN LINE MATCH LINE SEE %/X%X T O. FCarWG _ ELEV abNI EL =98'U' LEVEL— *EL=100- SFOT ELEVATION REvhsICN pp(( I I EFEEENCE pl {} PORTITION TAG 72 VIEW NAME duwlNG nTLE ver-ra NORTH NORTH PRROA' OWNERICONTRACTOR Icon ComlMhy ]00 ..' Lane NhxAh M nhreapdie, MN 55412 J83511-2100 F. ]632a]5370 Metall Gereral Manager, Capons. Rolle: 612/ffi9S735 Ene6. tom.—Inarossix.ncom Jon Rpnkaki, Oeclgn Rene Maregn Rene: J83950-1492 Ertel. IpnboNmak�oelRlrAlhamh &'en G B14 Prctect Manager Rena'. 1965-3128 Ema1. ce graNQlmterheamm� ARCHITECT RSP AIoNRps LW. 1220101 sx,aflStreetNE iNeanNM, MN 55413 Rare: 612AiJ]-J1m Fax: 612A3]] -J499 Matt I, Project Maregn Rxxe: 612I6]].]20s Email: metlaNQlaparchcam q M Fo 6- 7417 Prctreai Is]] -]m Email: rrolklas0ergh@Iaparchcom Derek 51-73,h IIUIn, eavo Decigrer Rwre'. 28]]-]341 Emeit. delekmaallunxgr. al 1 ev 4rger, Gagrer E-1 6126]]-]1@14 Email'. eMx.Sergm®Isparchwm CIVIL ENGINEERS Lduciceex, ]tap Hemlak Lara, SWe 300 Map. Grove, MN 553e9 Rmhe 7- Mike a SL Madin, Pdrc I Civil Elpneer Rorie: J63/496G]13 Emae. rr4NeNn�bucbnuaxn RxxreG ��Jerin The 7— ta'.,v—kaicom �, ELEvnnoNTnc- SINGLE VIEW 111101,2 ELEVATICNTAG- �� MULTIREVIEW 1 DEruLTAG A101 SW SM WALLSECTK]N Awl TAG SA 1 -IL- -GEE) JILDMlGENLARGED RAW 1 CR CE AIL ' REFERENCE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS _ m""_ oolahmn MinmaeWllaMAve�5,3Suae 900 PMre'. 612/338-0]13 .m1WrFh,PE,CE0a Ea Nor PdcipM 61 D8043900 Email: dmuryhy�rrhbjelgwm Ed Grier Phone'. 812&14460] Email: ewlkr®nger9axn ELECTRIC CONTRACTORIENGINEERS GeMan lamre EM, ad 35m Rd, Sufe 11 reFaal, MN 1 110 :65t14844900 CRIB Dddy Rena: se—s— EnnE: a e9dolb]hg9elNerwrectrio.mm MECHANICAL CONTRACTORIENGINEERS . Get{ . 909 Maneal Ce. Sar eN P4J, MN 53102 :651 A3014i500 Se eL R Rene: 651/m2b634 EmaE'. @h— LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT 212 Grlacn 212 CNmn St. SE Mimeapolq, MN 55414", Rhole:8t2523244] Erre6. bcarlaon�Myan®rlwnwm PARKING CONSULTANTS _ -it er.n.,b Grauss. 166•] 5 Highway 1m, SMM 424 kin eapdIs, MN 55418 vnpc: N5M-116 Scpt Frc.npning, evp Ropb Mare¢r Rena: 951/595A118 E -k a —neer ir9g11.1-I aMn9.mm RODM PINE f IR00x xMtEl NI p =Ees' ROOM TAG easix— ASAI KEYNOTE OWIfIDWYTAG < Ecit.-EMTAce x�O Dorn TAG IVtAU Fluh5N1 L &SHTAG VBt IBA8EFlM9H1 ALL SURFACES Br1 IfLmA RNISKI Vat FINISHTAG- cYrt WrrH E%iEM rnFMISH DRJHCPr-O? TRN usmw CODE SUMMARY PROJECTN PROJfOr NAYS P0.61ER OEscw Rppond Pv.' a'. Rlq¢ade#q euidN 3115Mn .1hs....hg— .U111n1 fioMCWdrg2Wwu3 ivmMrteMCUytr1305paukIN 8 (xice 2t15Mmsoq PnaeaEMV Enda 2tOfi lNanaaohp Fire Code MM5labhnMMhmwGapbr]510 ttPEMLONSfRUCipX: Atl NMare'v SkNiod Coe sPa SPoR �n90oW'CAeptrdJlS Tryale n1.1rNA1216CGpin 19, n amhMo side MnlegrA COAM.Taptrl316'20111Mf1A111FGgID15 MN tlN d_ . HMtr9.130 FS®all—avilaclto Io'—secRu.wI. X16E0N'3•H1r1A5Ibp inNOMMaHPdRtOe F STORIFa: MSphhad'Mhemm90 re-65Mnnadul Reo/tllhg SpacMMSac 13)3.1500 BeslwseM Raegtl DoacaeMSBCCMpr 130] 9SgtdtlgY: 0aC ShKOm YQ. loo IbxMd Slate xx,yenPeWn9Cae9e Tpeve OPEN I—neit GARAGE AREA AAID xeleeff Th15e 41fi 35 50,000eArlar. eirers =100.000aI AapAl am,cooml nqa uao.KK �a. ANr naw..=er.hnoel 44NA NMroa NTlea-d tour Area = 3M,O W r W 0, W OM INTENT AND PURPOSE Cane has been taken toestablish a holistc apposch to the site planning Iandeceping and materiality in this submisson. It is the Intent to provide an efcent and high quality solution sensitive to emranmentel features and all code standards. The requested amendnent is based on the demdition of the existing parking rarhp and tM6 structures res being added to the carpus, an office building and a parking structure. The construction of these tab structures 41 likely be separated into two press' Pose 141 Include the proposed new parking structre and Mill utilize essentially the same buildng fooQxnt and aistation as the existing ramp. It Mill be a total of4"is, one below the grade at the erhby and the decks above. The e lope vnll be a hybrid of glass, premst and metal and will feature a living Mall carponent to be considered as a vertical landscape feature. • The rarhp will acaxmrodets appraumaNy 1100 vehicles, Wth total sea parking at 1370 vehicles parked at a fad« of 3/10DW. • The paring factor has been increased tan the existing factor of 2 6, alloAtg for additional parking and includes thefuture panting required for the proposed new north belting. While this is a departure tan the Golden Valley reclunerrlent, A takes into account the avelabe am increasing tend toward atemalue transportation (buss, bias, etc) allowing the design to reflect a more relevant and efficient rarrp capacity. • The typical parking plan includes a twenty-four fontw'ide Give lane vets eighteen bot deep parking shells. While thse widths depart slightly tan the Golden Valley requirements, they are typical of parking rartps constructed bdey and allox us to create a green buffer beMreen the existing parking het and new rant. The proposed new ratty also includes a stain Mats retention system installedmhhedaely about of the rasp under the parking lot Phare II (b be constructed In the tuWrs) includes the addition of a new 98,000si, six sbry building attached at grade only to the existing north buildng. The overall bulking MITI rot exceed the eight slay requitement previouslyapproved M the PUD dated 420/82, anended &588 and 8/4/10. While the number of facts MITI be a rreximMn of six, the exact height te rat yet known. It will be sited within the current setback guidelines and veli be of an architectural hall designed W onlpurtuent the existing vernacular of precast, mitten steel and glass as well as respond to the design language of the new sari. The proposed new office building has been mit yhelty designed to acmrtarhodate future growth and inch imve the available she The new office Wilding veli site in the existing north parking het. surrounding parking and landscape A be revised at a later date to refect a design that conplenenis the newbuldng and overall raw. In addition, there is a potential fuhre Phase III which includes the two stay addition on the moth W iking tatwould cap tie soar building at eight stories This addficn ores pat of and approved in the odgnal PUD dated 42082, anended 8888 and 8/4/10. We feet that the planning and design That ne reflected In this submittal falls WI vethin the inert of the Goken Valley P.U.D. requirements and will bereft both the City and Mortenson by alavnng Mortemmn to continue to expand and relrein a long arm resident in the City M Golden Valley, ISSUED: 11 March 2016 SHEETINDEX � r PSP IMekilkm 2a Merifell Sven NE 612V 71M Nex., polis199 tax Mhnneaam SMh316ta wxw.re a caaom C4wIMM rtp wreN ort qi. penFYn.\\a11pelurm a nlrn Cn e Sh9nnure Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision MAR 1 7f f Ily #if COVER SHEET G 000 Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision I,- . 95D9.D91 17 Drew, By Author N. T Date -F- 3D 3D IMAGES G001 TY j Iv i ii ., .. „ I 3 .. 1 •' wr M.1 /Meese NL �'k- -. _ -". • S" 'h . �p�� I .j B' .. r ' I � � �.> r xi I - � », � ._..* .� ` .♦N, MMR PNIL � J ` �- w' ® '^4`0 4 ,• I. MaNA«eeK atTM l r•I <.. _ W \ I I iAv6j \ \ � a..: xHN ♦r.�iW e I � � \ � � Y ( � � m'9 � � \ SPO � \ nR @� wk ", ,.•,. ;` t\ � w' a 1 - e , wRW- •„ PL&I trovelep oo�woy) �_ I n v ®•sem 0 8 ... .tea • -• O� A; \�1i1 10 I `I eN �!� I e 11-4 c ^vl .y,'� $'.. r .:< - .n 7±7 :J: I Q �. 'F 4' � . •+-..<�� - t .• o iL�o ••Ot _ � �. f �t V 1 ku ... I $� .�- i�� Y I'm' r\;, \ Z \ i v -,fir // I •..f I ,' I ,.•. L + m \ ♦f�'•" /,�1— — J ^°e' B I/1u Iron Pipe o i w z ; Ilu�•�PJI 1 %\ ` •S' •yy. . ",> 1, s � I-5,',� •\\ I1, I $4 �,. e• x " �. (\ _A ."a lj s- 'luuvl•,�11 ;•�,s Alp• a ( I -r. •( I 19i (. Y __ k w'°'...r,. $ c R 8. ; I i ,r'a - W s•. ° ~i E"9 .+' " c ''*'^" (�i `E;• '\ E I - \ 11R I v w v,a" I C 1 �. .. y o aI '< �nx. ! „ l �._ �, S ,.„ p• �n �> �,, ( ,�- - y '* , �. �C L"° e.^' - �a I 3 I I I � � >+ �P b ( _ ♦'� ' ,,.r IAM � o+y P � � ,.+ -' •.• � ."' ♦, b f S � '^ ` Y lam'!' 4' ,\ ¢ j 8 ' e""� 0 1 I 6Yj .- r E r t'r_'' y a k `I ® s1p ... I 1 1 g¢rS �� 3„ • �� .- a W8y �'iM (Publicly tD6veled roadwrI - 47 r vayNo 55j' �' \\i 9e.IUNeeo rsnnta•uc— I I0 . SCALE IN FEET w ,• a CAP a✓+. "("'• -}-- �_....F�' / \" .Pyy i - .n ' O ®CATCH BASIN m TELEPHONE PEDESTAL —STORM SEWER 0STORM MANHOLE STORM ® UTILITY PEDESAL - SEWER - — — — — J O ELECTRIC MANHOLE 1 —WATERNAIN O WATER MANHOLE O GAS VALVE —N SANITARY SEWER SERVICE Q HYDRANT O TELEPHONE MANHOLE IN. SERVICE IN GATE VALVE O UULRY MANHOLE —UNDERGROUND CABLE TV 0 POWER POLE O ELECTRIC METER —Hu—UNDERGROUND — - - --I�I_--�-I 0 LOW POLE �'I—s -//��MAiiA w UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC 0 YARD LOW u.Wye .y/tY/1A ---UNDERGROUND •w W8y �'iM (Publicly tD6veled roadwrI - 47 r vayNo 55j' ® Gopher State One Call 11 A%1 111I WARNING: _ '= =_` ... . �C ` ��A=N' IN ..NG -1T. 1 -RP -1 C— Ill I1N1 NR RPLs, anNNaas, vNnNo - v s as omN Ruw[oN.TR=s eNNoa BSPAeeYNsts i� LOUCKS r<mlinnn LCUCKS PROTECT N0.15635 ax.or. Ne M.e arme Sgne �� Rag nreuan Number Na10 One )/11 (LO18 Prgeatfor Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision Preiea No. 9508001.77 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-1 300 00 Auk - I0 SCALE IN FEET SURVEY LEGEND O ®CATCH BASIN m TELEPHONE PEDESTAL —STORM SEWER 0STORM MANHOLE STORM ® UTILITY PEDESAL - SEWER O SANTARY MANHOLE O ELECTRIC MANHOLE 1 —WATERNAIN O WATER MANHOLE O GAS VALVE —N SANITARY SEWER SERVICE Q HYDRANT O TELEPHONE MANHOLE —•—WATER SERVICE IN GATE VALVE O UULRY MANHOLE —UNDERGROUND CABLE TV 0 POWER POLE O ELECTRIC METER —Hu—UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 0 LOW POLE O GAS METER w UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC 0 YARD LOW M HAND HOLE ---UNDERGROUND GAS N- GUY WIRE ® GENERATOR ,%—UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE a SIGN 0 POST INDICATOR VALVE —FENCE ,ons SPOT ELEVATION o GLIARDTOST STONE WALL ® A/C UNIT -FLAG POLE CL TRAJMC SIGNAL ® CABLE TV PEDESTAL 0 YARD LIGHT CDNCRETE CURB O ELECTRO TRANSFORMER •• CLEAN OUT OCONCRETE P FIRE HOOKUP HANDICAP PARKING •/L `CONTOUR CA CATULPA EL ELM OA OAK PO POPLAR CONIFEROUS TREE MA MAPLE TR TREE (GEN) ". DECIDUOUS TREE THSD THRESHOLD TO TRENCH DRAIN ® Gopher State One Call 11 A%1 111I WARNING: _ '= =_` ... . �C ` ��A=N' IN ..NG -1T. 1 -RP -1 C— Ill I1N1 NR RPLs, anNNaas, vNnNo - v s as omN Ruw[oN.TR=s eNNoa BSPAeeYNsts i� LOUCKS r<mlinnn LCUCKS PROTECT N0.15635 ax.or. Ne M.e arme Sgne �� Rag nreuan Number Na10 One )/11 (LO18 Prgeatfor Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision Preiea No. 9508001.77 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-1 oison ��femonal V (Publicly t vPJrd fnndWnv) DEMOLITION LEGEND: U 8980618 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, ISLANDS, ETC. ® REMOVE EXISTING PARKING RAMP •aa.n•aaaaa Ka REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER, RETAINING WALLS, FTC. SCALE IN FEET SURVEY LEGEND 0 ®CATCH BASIN M TELEPHONE PEDESTAL STORM SEWER C STORM MANHOLE O DrELTY PEDESTAL —>—SANITARY SEWER 0 —TAFFY MANHOLE O ELECTRIC MANHOLE — 1—WATERNAIN • WATER MANHOLE • GAS VALVE —•—SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 0 HYDRANT O TELEPHONE MANHOLE —K—WATER SERVICE N GATE VALVE 0 UTILITY MANHOLE —UNDERGROUND CABLE W 0 POWER FIXE O ELECTRIC METER —Eu—UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC a UGHT POLE O GAS METER — - —UNDERGROUND FlBER OPTIC O YARD UGW ® HAND HOLE —Ar—UNDERGROUND GAS I- GUY WIRE 0 GENERATOR —m—UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE a SIGN 0 POST INDICATOR VALVE -FENCE .•�•� SPOT ELEVATION o GUARDPOST STONE WALL ® A/C UNIT -FLAG POLE CE —TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® CABLE TV PEDESTAL 0 YARD LIGHT CONCRETE CURB O ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER W CLEAN OUT CONCRETE D FIRE HOOKUP HANDICAP PARKING "L ' CONTOUR CA CAWIPA OA CAK EL ELM PO POPLAR CONIFEROUS TREE MA MAPLE TR TREE (GEN) DECIDUOUS TREE THSD THRESHOLD TO FRENCH DRAIN DEMOLITION LEGEND: REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVING REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, ISLANDS, ETC. ® REMOVE EXISTING PARKING RAMP •aa.n•aaaaa Ka REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER, RETAINING WALLS, FTC. ®II®•® REMOVE EXISTING UTILITIES REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLES, POWER POLES, LIGHT ® POLES, BOLLARDS, PARKING METERS, SIGNS, ETC. XREMOVE EXISTING TREES NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO CODRDINATE WITH OWNER ON REMOVALS AND DISPOSAL Of MATERIALS IF— SILL 2. CONTRACTOR TO ABANDON EXISTING UTILITY SERVICES AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY. 3. CITY TO RELOCATE EXISTING PUBLIC SIGNALS, PARKING METERS, AND LIGHT POLES. COST TO BE INCLUDED IN PROJECT. 4. CONTRACTOR TO DOCUMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING PRIOR I O CONSTRUCTION. ® Gopher State One Call ��-IIRR WARNING: AT Nr To RSPAMilock :■ LOUCKS LOUCKS PROJECT NO� Di - R ,ems/ fle0 x,•oan Nunb•r LSLeO m• anlRnle Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision 9508001.17 Onwn By TTM./MOP. SITE DEMOLITION PLAN C1-2 77 Oma, °yJ 8612 CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING 3 O3 PROT[CT EX TREE DURING M CONST `Y N O MATCH EXISTING GUETER CURB a Meadow Lane N (P11`c1y_ v k91Wpdwoy) CURB & GUTTER MATCH MEETING CURB & GUTTER LIMITS OF dR 20' CONSTRUCTION 'AV REMOVE A REPLACE SIDEWALK AS NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE 8612 CURB PAVEMENT &GUTTER TVP -SEE DETAIL TYP-SEE DETNL F w DULY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT BITUMINOUS' PAVEMENT TYII MAIL J a � L o C a '` ...... _i NOTE wr o<v.ru Y -- �- SEE PAVEMENT MOONS ON SHEET CEI CB -2 FOR TYPE AND DEPTH INFORMATNJN. ( {,> h __I:� _ SITE DATA CURRENT ZONING: BUSINESS& PROFESSIONAL OFFICES PROPOSED ZONING: 8 USINE558 PROFESSIONAL OFFICES -w�r- �� .- ....._ - xT.ors PROPERTYAREA:9.08 AC 4 _ .- .- DISTINGEDARLA: 4.05 3+WAC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 3.08 AC 116%) Ij +' I - I w ��k •� PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 3.07 AC 76%) EXISTING GUM GLITTER "' - }•'AS� : � � � _- --,_ DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS BUILDING SETBAC Lu,, - KS: BUILgNG ADDITION t uomam;.m ms FRONT 35 FT MINIMUM LIMITS OF I } SIDE 20 IT MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION ca REAR 20 FT MINIMUM q fin. { r ( m I ^ff^ MINIMUM PARKING LAYOUT DI/ENSgNi (90 DEGREE PATTDLNk O �Y� I [ % PARKING SPACE WIDTH =9FT CONCRETE T€[ •. PAVEMENT-'- �/ d MATCH g EXISONG BNumINouS 3'R PAVEMENT -LIGHT DUTY - BITUMINOUS vP AWMEW F.—B —. 1: 0 90 60 Y.w � O SCALE IN FRET P 24 -_-... _za 0 a PAVEMENT TYPES MATCH EXISBNG, SIGNS ON SITE..... COORDINATE ' WITH E �x 1KY - I, GUTTRB _&UTTIR -.. - i F- -I °O1OY'� A --ITT SIDEWALK COMBO E DETA t EXISTING ON SITE 3 r 3d CONCRETE PAVEMENT - IXISTING LIGHT DUTY BIT.—OLTS PAVEMENT uor.�r Pxeoxc HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT VEMENT 24 -_-... _za V151TOR PARKING TYP SEE B^e BOLA MATCH EXISBNG, SIGNS ON SITE..... COORDINATE ' WITH E �x 1KY r I, GUTTRB _&UTTIR -.. - '}111111 ✓ rvP sEE VISITOR VG SIGN, h COMBO E DETA t EXISTING ON SITE RDINATE I OWNER , 3d MA CH- - IXISTING ]A SIGNIEOLLARD COMBO PAVEAIRFRM TY'SEEDETAIL TYJ BELGB'fi&IL R T i y IL'R / li ADAPARKING SIGFY MATCH EXISTIN f; BOLLARD COMBO BE UMINOUS JN TYP-SFE DETAIL PAVEMENT � 777777 -77T7 _ w y •)A TO.,m NRB & GUTTER 8" • ,Y - ^x--Ixomwxouun PARKINGSPACE LENGTH =18.5 FT DRIVE AISLE WIDTH =21 FT STORMWATER RUNOFF. REMOVE & REPLACE EXISTING PAVERS, TREES AND UGHT FIXTURES IN THIS AREA AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION COORDINATE WITH OWNER REFER TO LANDS( -APE PLAN & ELECTRICAL PLANS B .n v S T E3 , jIT — — — _ a — Olson Memorial Highway (State Highway No. 55) � /P,,hA,Jy Iynlol<.L fW V) OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING SURFACE PARKING = 275 STALLS EXISTING SURFACE PARKING REMOVED =-133 STALLS PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING = 131 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 273 STALLS NOTE: PARKING RAMP STALL CALCULATIONS WILL BE SHOWN ON ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. ACCESSIBLE PARKING EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 16 STALLS REMOVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: -7 STALLS PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 6 STALLS TOTAL 15 STALLS REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 7 STALLS" "REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES FOR 201 TO 300 STALLS q. SITE NOTES I. ALL PAVING, CONC RL I E CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEFUSI AND STATE/LOCAL S JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 4 3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARETOTHE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. T ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 185' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. & ALLCURBRADIISHALLBE3.0'UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED. .� 7. BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. B. SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING. SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES ' 1. CONTRACIOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2. CON TRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOCUS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARRING PAINT, P IN WIDTH. y 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC: ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE i PAINT. T ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. & ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL. I ANY/ALL 5TO SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 2P WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF R' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7. ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED IB' BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ® Gopher State One Call SIL EPEE =!0 �1•SINrot WARNING:11 ll RSLRVKF A- UR wounoNaU.B.Lm cCxaPArv¢ N RSPAIcKiNI.a C. LOUCKS 0.ml u- LOUCKS PROTECT ND 15635 P�n�na�Nn oun 54nnu��i � 2MMR aE w�rv�me. v11ao16 Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision Ropa No. 8508001 017 cae. TDDIMDC SITE PLAN C2-1 24 V151TOR PARKING TYP SEE B^e BOLA MATCH EXISBNG, SIGNS ON SITE..... COORDINATE ' WITH E �x 1KY ffi '}111111 ✓ n MATCH - EXISTING MINCIU PAVEMENT PAVEMENT Gy REMOVE & REPLACE EXISTING PAVERS, TREES AND UGHT FIXTURES IN THIS AREA AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION COORDINATE WITH OWNER REFER TO LANDS( -APE PLAN & ELECTRICAL PLANS B .n v S T E3 , jIT — — — _ a — Olson Memorial Highway (State Highway No. 55) � /P,,hA,Jy Iynlol<.L fW V) OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING SURFACE PARKING = 275 STALLS EXISTING SURFACE PARKING REMOVED =-133 STALLS PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING = 131 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 273 STALLS NOTE: PARKING RAMP STALL CALCULATIONS WILL BE SHOWN ON ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. ACCESSIBLE PARKING EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 16 STALLS REMOVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: -7 STALLS PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 6 STALLS TOTAL 15 STALLS REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 7 STALLS" "REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES FOR 201 TO 300 STALLS q. SITE NOTES I. ALL PAVING, CONC RL I E CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEFUSI AND STATE/LOCAL S JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 4 3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARETOTHE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. T ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 185' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. & ALLCURBRADIISHALLBE3.0'UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED. .� 7. BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. B. SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING. SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES ' 1. CONTRACIOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2. CON TRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOCUS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARRING PAINT, P IN WIDTH. y 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC: ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE i PAINT. T ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. & ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL. I ANY/ALL 5TO SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 2P WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF R' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7. ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED IB' BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ® Gopher State One Call SIL EPEE =!0 �1•SINrot WARNING:11 ll RSLRVKF A- UR wounoNaU.B.Lm cCxaPArv¢ N RSPAIcKiNI.a C. LOUCKS 0.ml u- LOUCKS PROTECT ND 15635 P�n�na�Nn oun 54nnu��i � 2MMR aE w�rv�me. v11ao16 Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision Ropa No. 8508001 017 cae. TDDIMDC SITE PLAN C2-1 L 0/son Memorial Highway (State /Puhlirly Fr -1,H —d—) 0 nso eo SCALE IN FEET avlL LEIZND po® OO 0M rmr ww��yu. � wwwru P.'w Y i'=. P1wa1c mwn GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHEDSURFACE GRADES, GUTTERALOW LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE Of PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 F BEEF. ALL RAINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.16 FfET. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 3. GRADINGOFTHE INFILTRATIONAREASSHALIBEACCOMPLISHED USING LOW -IMPACT EARTH -MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION Of THE UNDERLYING SOILS. SMALL TRACKED DOZERS AND BOBCATS WITH RUNNER TRACTS ARE RECOMMENDED. 4. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 5. FOR SITE RETAINING WALLS BTW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP FACE OF WALL (NOT TOP OF WALD, "" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT WALL GRADE TRANSITION, AND •BW EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT BOTTOM FACE OF WALL (NOT BOTTOM OF BURIED WALL COURSES). 6. REFER TO THE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW (REPORT NO.GI-38), DATED FEBRUARY 19,2016, AS PREPARED BY AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. FOR AN EXISTING SUBSURFACE SITE CONDITION ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS. 7, STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKINGOF SE IMENTSOCCURSANDBEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SW EFPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 8. DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLfD. 9. SEE SWPPP FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS. IO.SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR WATER, STORM AND SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION. I1.SEE SITE PUN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS. ® Gopher State One Call tt ARFEWO�RSR-pee WARNING: 11 1 RE NIIILRA 11 11 RBPAMibe4 C. LOUCKS lOUCKS PROIECf N0�15635 Gnliwuw =•+pr er mI s . e p p°n Number 211)0 3/II/mlE Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision ° 9506.801.17 D— By TDG/MDC in GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C3-1 SILT FENCE) >a� 3 W $ Ca J 3 O � a o a OC ROCK CONS ENTRANCE ENTRANCE SEE DETAIL 1 Ii /Puhlirly M-1.4 '—d n A 0 330 00 t a., AWL, u SCALE IN FEET 21 am l D w�u EZZ 1 Q �a I , q+yn tl: Tna»Ior t, uxnF C F _ I --j: BUILDING ADDITION I ,,,, I.... �� m..n•vvy� 7. PE SWPPP LEGEND sIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION ERISTINGDRAINACEPATTERN -i PROPOSED MINACE PATTERN ® Gopher State One Call T«, B RRR RPR -IIP, WARNING: CARLI, DDNINDITS, P- —1, 11— IR 0EFER BURIED -- RTDAP TD EI_ im LOUCKS uwar vRa¢r ra�sssBs .1=111 oA RAPIP mN-E., 3lll/1016 Dn. P.j-Fr Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision I.A. N. 9508.DD1.17 Dr.. By TDG/MDC STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN C3-2 SWPPP NOTES 1. THENATURE OF THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING A P -RING RAMP, SURFACE PAVEMENTS, UTILITIES AND AN UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM. 2. THE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL VEHICLE TRACKING BMP ]. NSTALL SILT f EWE AROUND SITE 3. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE 4.STRIP AND STOCKPILETOPSOIL 5. REMOVE PAVEMENTS AND UTILITIES 6. CONSTRUCT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY 7. ROUGHGRADESITE 8. IMPORT CLEAN FILL FOR REPLACEMENT AND BALANCE 9. INSTALL UTILITIES 10. INSTALL BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 11. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER 12, INSTALL PAVEMENTS AND WALKS 13. FINAL GRADE SITE 14. REMOVE AC CUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM STORMWATER SYSTEMS 15. SEED AND MULCH 16. WHEN ALL CONSTRlIC1ION ACTNITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SHE IS STABILIZED, REMOVE SILT FENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL. 3. SITE DATA: AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 4.05, AC PRECONSTRUCEION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 3.08 AC POST -CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA 3.07 AC GENERAL SOIL TYPE: SEE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE D15TURBED MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 5. ALL DISTURBED GROUND LEFT INACTIVE FOR FOURTEEN (14) OR MORE DAYS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SEEDING OR SODDING (ONLY AVAILABLE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15) OR BY MULCHING OR COVERING OR OTHER EQUIVALENT CONTROL MEASURE. 6. 004k ES 3:1 OR GREATER MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND/OR GULLIES, SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 75 FEET. DENOTES SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1. ALL 3:1 SLOPES TO BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 7. ALL STORM DRAINS AND INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED UNTIL ALL SOURCES OF POTENTIAL DISCHARGE ARE STABILIZED. 8. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL AND CAN NOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS OR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. TEMPORARY STOCRPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SILT, CLAY, OR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ARE EXEPMT EX: CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCK PILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCRPILLS, SAND STOCIO'ILES. 9. SEDIMENT LADEN WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF NOT POSSIBLE, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRLATE 8MP'S. 10. SOLIDWASTEMUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPG DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 11. EXTERNAL WASHING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA Of THE SITE RUNOFF MUST BE PROPERLY CONTAINED. 12. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 13. THE OWNER WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION 6 A PERMITTEE AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. THE OPERATOR (CONTRACTOR) WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION 15 A PERMITTEE FOR PARTS ITS., PART ILC, PART II.B-F, PART V, PART N AND APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUREMENTS FOUND IN APPENDIX A, PART C. OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND 15 JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THE OWNER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PORTIONS Of THE PERMIT. 14. TERMINATION Of COVERAGE-PERMITTEE(5) WISHING TO TERMINATE COVERAGE MUST SUBMIT MR TI TO THE MPG. ALL PERMITTEE(5) MUST SUBMIT A NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ONE OR MORE Of THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET: A FINAL STABILIZATION, PER NPDES PERMIT PART N.G. HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ON ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE FOR WHICH THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE. B. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AS DESCRIBED IN THE PERMIT. 15, INSPECTIONS A INDEMINSPECTION FOLLOWING5ILT FENCE INSTALLATION BYCITY REPRESENTATIVEIS REQUIRED. B. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS: ONCE EVERY DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A 05• OVER 24 HOUR RAIN EVENT. C. STABILIZED AREAS: ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS D. FROZENGROUND: ASSOONASRUNOFFOCCURSORPRIO-ORESUMING CONSTRUCTION. E. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR 3 YEARS AFTER FILING OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND MUST INCLUDE: DATE AND TIME OF ACTION, NAME OF PERSONS) CONDUCTING WORK, FINDING OF INSPECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION, DATE AND AMOO T OF RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 0.S INCHES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. 16. MINIMUM MAINTENANCE A. SILT FENCE TO BE REPAIRED,REPLACED, SUPPLEMENTED WHEN NONFUNCTIONAL, OR Ila FULL; WITHIN 24 HOURS B. SEDIMENT BASINS DRAINED AND SEDIMENT REMOVED WHEN REACHES I/2 STORAGE VOLUME. REMOVAL MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY. C. SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM SURFACE WATERS WITHIN (7)SEVEN DAYS D. CONSTRUCTION SITE EXITS INSPECTED, TRACKED SEDIMENT REMOVED WITH 24 HOURS. L PROVIDE COPIES OF EROSION INSPECTION RESULTS TO CITY ENGINEER FOR ALL EVENTS GREATER TFEAN)P IN 24 HOURS 17. THESWPPP,INCLUDING ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE REPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY THE PERMITTEES) WHO HAVE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SITE. 18. OWNER MUST KEEP RECORDS OF ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PRORCE, THE SWPPP, ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE, PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, AND REQUIRED CALCULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR THREE YEARS AFTER FILING WINES NOTICE OF TERMINATION. 19. SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED WHEN: A. THERE IS A CHANGE IN DESIGN,OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, WEATHER OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON DISCHARGE B. INSPECTIONS INDICATE THAT THE SWPPP IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND DISCHARGE 15 EXCEEDING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. C. THE BMP'S IN THE SWPPP ARE NOT CONTROLLING POLLUTANTS IN DISCHARGES OR IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS Of THE PERMU. 19. CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA A. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT CONTAINER WITH RAIN PROTECTION PER PUN. B. CONCRETE WAST TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNAGE STATING 'C ETE WASHOUT AREA DO NOT OVERFILL. C CONCRETE WASHOUT WATER NEEDS TO BE PUMPED WITHIN 24 HOURSOF STANDING WATER IN WASHOUT AREA 20. IN THE EVENT OF ENCOUNTERING A WELL OR SPRING DURING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR TO CEASE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND NOTIFY ENGINEER. 21. PIPE OULTETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. 22. FINAL STABILIZATION FINAL STABILIZATION REQUIRES THAT ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACVTIVITIE5 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER WITH 70'K OF THE EXPECTED FINAL DENSITY, AND THAT ALL PERMANENT PAVEMENTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. ALL TEMPORARY BMP'S SHALL BE REMOVED, DITCHES STABILIZED, AND SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PERMANENT CONVEYANCES AND SEDIMENTATION BASINS IN ORDER TO RETURN THE POND TO DFSIGN CAPACITY. 23. RESPONSIBILITIES A THEOWNER MUST IDENTIFY A PERSON WHO WILL OVERSEE THE SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: CONTACT: COMPANY: PHONE: 8. FELLOW UR MUST IDENTIFY THE A PERSON WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Of THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: CONTACT: COMPANY: PHONE 24. THE WATERSHED DISTRICT OR THE CITY MAY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS OR AS -BUILT DRAWINGS VERIFYING PROPER CONSTRUCTION Of THE BMPS. SILT FENCE EROSI AIYoOATPs PRE -ASSEMBLED OR MACHINE SLICED S. BA(BBELLTRENC11- LE No0T3Re6 IIA HFAW DUTY oERO' AmoCum SILT FENCE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES SITE VICINITY MAP DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY A R RAssEvAFv TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA 1 EE OETA FANONOTn eOavl //////// aF CUR. E_ PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT EA ) PROJECT SITE SILT FENCE (STANDARD) LF 887 \` iFR4 -R. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SV N/A INLET PROTECTION EA 20 SEEDING AC 0.8 . fLTb,Y ANDCUTrtB-.L wnN� n -1-BEE-11 2'X3' SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER IOLL UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA = rI-ILIuvpxoPn11 INE NErnrvc sPEaF unorvs pNRs rn NMumaI G Trevor Gruys Design of 000stmcWT SWPPP (May 31 2017) HNETRAnxcflBfR Loc. 21 E.� .AN-ssENefv xp. cL.ua:.mn.mm on RW s0 ROIs, Oau muxm.. mla mul sal W41r OOluovmm.xnnuruiumn. a encu uwmrvATll - AN-- s BUNEo tUNwnloVT=LnN rmT Bim, ExaOo AHCHCR WENCH RFN HE Moa B ry R N Fr sFoPF:uRfAa sHSLL RE EREE of R«� sal aUNP�. o --- 27" SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER i r• NOTE w"�hx1-1-R AN-ARaI,F-EINEs "11 ^� .A WIMCO ROAD DRAIN OR APPROVED EQUAL oA..n ra BIOROLL DITCH CHECK EROS7 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET EROS16 MME INLET PROTECTION - EROSI T ABBOOAT6 AEROaATES OLISTING STORM STRUCTURES im LOUCKS IDUCKS PR(LCCT ND� 15635 GlliaBa nanb: nrxr ax av pxn. ape S6nnure � R aem NumE.r 3111/AIA Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision P".m Np. 9588.001.17 0'.. By TDD/MDC STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN NOTES & DETAILS C3-3 RIM -838.00 INV -832.44 52'-30" RCP QOM% I 3 a I Itt r I, a t ti_ a�'e�\\ ✓ •� ^1. ass "� • x .^ a Olson Memorial Highway (State /Puhlirly i—IAd mn4—A 0 30 6610 SCALE IN FEET ONL LEGIIA sunup •wine .�x O allow ®® 4 N R.m w ■ Y' mr crap— Y vwrNn s.w —� UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFKATIONSTHE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT, AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA ICEAMI, 2013 EDITION. 2. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3. ALLCONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATEANDI-0ALIURISDICTUINS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 08 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 0. ALL STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. A MINIMUM OF I B INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND IO FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM IB• VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARYSEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICFSAS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. PROPOSED PPE MATERIALS: WATER SERVICE DIP CLASS 53 8'DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER PVC SDR 26 6' DIAMETER STORM SEWER DUAL WALL HDPE IZ•TO-DIAMETER STORM SEWER ALUMINIZED 72' DIAMETER PERFORATEDCSP STORM SEWER PERFORATED 4'TO 8'DIAMETER HDPE DRAINTILE 9. ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE INC SDR 2G IO.CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF UNDERGROUND RETENTION SYSTEM FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 11.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THEBUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART /715.2820 12.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 0715.07001. APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 13.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART /715.0540: PIPES 4 -INCH TO 10 -INCH IN SIZE MUST COM Y WITH PASHTO M252. b. PIPE512-INCH TO &MHCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d. WATER -TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. ®GYL BFfOIEaLL FRFs FeoO-SSl-ilea Gopher State One Call WARNING rn, m4enwts Iry law RSP AR hh— im LOUCKS LCUCKS PROIECI N0. 3S635 ONBaBs. 8 � �M, � •tea Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision Ill.. N. 9508 001 17 I)—By TDG/MDC ®' �_S'L'dlfllJll'L� UTILITY PLAN C4-1 CONTRACTION JOINTS —F NO JOINT SPACED EQUALLY WITH NO CURB LENGTH OVER 10 FT. . (TYP) 3 NO. 4 EPDXY COATED REINFORCING RODS CONTINUOUS IN CROSS GUTTER FROM EXPANSION JOINT TO EXPANSION JOINT. SECTION AA THRU GUTTER N0. 4 REBARS 6R SLOP 7G SLOPE BACK OF CURB RADIUS 1 VARIES. 3• 1 - APPROMD DECEMBER 31, 2015 COMMERCIAL CROSS •v2llQy GUTTER DRIVEWAY J tt ENaNEFA REC 2]110 BY-STBT-060 3/4 j a® N_ENAHHR-1733 BERIES SOLD C.O o (OHT), FFS SFF RIRRC S. 301. AP -ROVE) EQLAL rL[x-suL suLANr OR % 9 S �� 7/8" APPROVED ES -O' (EE N y DETAIL GV -S6-010)17 5 5• nNgXINGS ®�2A .sTT • I�27�y � 15 7/tfi"� I .., ncilGii; 1�- WNFRF m TI MANNG EVSHALGL BE FU WIRN SEED MATER i BGOT ALL-AVHOLES S INCLUDE NON DOR TISK —ES NO SEA F- TA FD ON MANS ES LESS 3i. JEEP, OVER 15 FIE AULDO 05'V= ST_PS 6 9- PIR -CAST CCNC DR CAST -IN-PLACE BASE MINIMUM DINENSONS RESIDENTIAL -20' LONG X 20' WIDE BY B- DEEP. T TWHICH PREVENRACKING OR DIRECT aPPu STANDARD SANITARY �ld!!I"Dalle STONE MAY BE NECESSARY. SEWER MANHOLE WITH V CITY EN��:JNE'ERyR�EG-2311C CASTING &COVER �S OPEN AREA: THE AREA MUST BE CHEAPLY MARKED. A MINIMUM SZE OF 10x10' AND 6" BELOW EXISTING SURFACE. THE PERIMETER MUST BE PROTECTED WITH SILT FENCE (SEE DETAIL GV -EC -010) BEHIND CURB: TIE AREA MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED, A MINIMUM SIZE OF 10x10 AND 6" BELOW CURB, SLOPING AWAY FROM THE STREET. THE PERIMETER MUST BE PROTECTED WITH SET FENCE (SEE DETAIL GV -EC -010) CONCXCETE WASHOUT 2 6QIE5 A) MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDI TON WILL MINIMUM DINENSONS RESIDENTIAL -20' LONG X 20' WIDE BY B- DEEP. T TWHICH PREVENRACKING OR DIRECT COMMERCIAL -50 LONG X 20• WIDE FLOW OFMUD ONTO STREETS PERIODIC TOPDRESSINC WITH BY 8" DEEP. STONE MAY BE NECESSARY. y B) ANY MATERIAL WHICH STILL H•ta MAKES IT ONTO THE ROAD �S MUST BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATLY. TIRE COMPACTION ZONE C) RECYCLED BITUMINOUS IB NOT ALLOWED. ,e RESOENTIAL 8' - iy"J COMMERCIAL 8" MIN. SEE MNDOT 2573.3 K PUCE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER R NOT TO SCALE EXTEND 2' BEYOND EDGE. li 1' TO 3' CRUSHED ROCK FOR RE DENTAL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.(MNDOT CA -1 a CA -2 COURSE AGGREGATE) 3TO 6' CRUSHED ROOK FOR 7 COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.(MNDOT CA -1 w CA -2 COURSE AGOtEGATE) APHIOVED DEm16ER 31. ems ROCK CONSTRUCTION .`alloy att ENGNEER pec zinc ENTRANCE GY-EC-0811 WISHED SET 1/4• BELOW FINISHED GRADE BITUMINOUS ELEVATION UnUM - ALL FITTINGS STIALL BE EPDXY COATED DUCTILE IRON AND BOLTED WITH EPDXY COATED STAINLESS STEEL OR CORE BLUE BOLTS AND NUTS. cATF Vy -AVN VALVE SERIES 65 WITH EXTERIOR HD POLYURETHANE COATING OR APPROVED EQUAL f.ATF VALK BOX SZE C DUCTILE IRON TYLER 6860. MIH 5" DROP UD HAVING THE WORD "WATER' CAST THEREON AND /6 ROUND BASE THE BOXES SHALL EXTEND NOT LESS THAN 12" UPWARD FROM INITIAL INSTALLED POSITION AND INCLUDE A POWER SEAL MODEL 5000 AND BOX AUGNER. EPDXY COATED 1/4• STEEL PER ASTM A53/A512. VALVE BOX AUGNER 11CONCRETE BLOCK APIYtONTD OECOIBFR 3,. 2m5ldenalle IN TOP 8 IN. 5 FT. MIN. LENGTH POST AT �^ TYPICAL GATE VALVE INSTALLATION y att ENONEFR REc 23110 —GEOTE%TILE FABRIC GY-WM•060 F(NEENAH R -3067-L OR APPROVED EQUAL) -s" 3'-6" . QA TAPER CONIC. CURB & GUTTER TO MATCH CASTING PLAN VIEW VIEW 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT- TOP OF GUTTER / 3'-6' CASTING 3'-6 CURB 7 6 -, 1.25" SUMP CTI ON 3 LU ��. MACHINE SLICE 8 IN. - 12_ IN. DEPTH a:. 8 APPRGMED DECEMBER 31. 2015 INSTALLATION OF MACHINE p SLICED SILT FENCE y Cltt B1aRS1A REc 23110 GY-EC-080 FILTER ASSEMBLY O POLYESTER 51 SLEEVE '.I •,' CATCH BASIN �' •I COVER ASSEMBLY O FILTER ASSEMBLY POLYESTER SLEEVE MANHOLE COVER ASSEMBLY 12 �PLASTIC ZIP TIES (50 LB. TENSIL) LOCATED APPROVED DECEMBER 31, 2015 IN TOP 8 IN. 5 FT. MIN. LENGTH POST AT CV -SS -010. 6 FT. MAX. SPACING holden Volley pTY EN(YIFIIH REG 231,p —GEOTE%TILE FABRIC In S 7 - (3 FT. VIDE) s •I TIRE COMPACTION ZONE F � DIRECTION (OR AP'ROV•CD COUAL) MTV. 1 MAX. 5 FABRIC \ , LU ��. MACHINE SLICE 8 IN. - 12_ IN. DEPTH a:. 8 APPRGMED DECEMBER 31. 2015 INSTALLATION OF MACHINE p SLICED SILT FENCE y Cltt B1aRS1A REc 23110 GY-EC-080 FILTER ASSEMBLY O POLYESTER 51 SLEEVE '.I •,' CATCH BASIN �' •I COVER ASSEMBLY O FILTER ASSEMBLY POLYESTER SLEEVE MANHOLE COVER ASSEMBLY 12 STEEL T -POST: APPROVED DECEMBER 31, 2015 TEMPORARY WIMCO- MIN LGTH AT 6 CV -SS -010. PROTEC T10NEQU holden Volley pTY EN(YIFIIH REG 231,p ORINLET APPROVED GV -EC -010 RINGS SHAH RE S -AIF) USING APPROVED STEEL T -POST: =LEX-SEAL UTILITY SEALANT AND AP'LICATON SHALL FOLLOW DETAIL r25 MIN LGTH AT 6 CV -SS -010. }. MAX SPENACING NEENAH R-1733 SFJBES SOLID (SEE ESS BIOS. i PLASTIC ZIP -TIES CONCRETE N TOP 5' ADJUSTMENT RINGS MINIMUM OF 4' OF BRICK, CONCRETE HORSESHOE, OR USED FOR RTLR DUTSGE OF MANHOLE ONE. (OR AP'ROV•CD COUAL) MTV. 1 MAX. 5 FABRIC z �GEOTEXTILE (3 FT. VIDE) C, 'I sump RUNOFF / '-±•.� (4' MINIMUM; vu6 D i `41 CASTINGS SHALL BE NEENAH R30G7-L 'MTI NOTE: WHERE PVC HPE IS USED 111E CONTRACTOR SNALL P. -SN CRATE. MANHOLE MTH WATER TIGHT BOOT. TOPENINGS DASHED UNE DENOTES SUMP (4' WITH ASTM SPECIFICATION C47& MINI IF SPECIFI IN T SEAN... 5 AS REQ REQUIRED PRECAST CONORE-E EASES AB CATCH AKN lleyDESGN VVVUlBUYe- NOTE: CASTINGS SHALL BE NEENAH 83067-L WTI "L" TY -E CRATE. REINFORGNG AND CONCRETE ARE -0 BE IN ACCORDANCE PATH ASTM SPECIFICATON C476. 4 PRCKD EC£uBER St, 3015 CATCH BASIN DESIGNK ey 'NTH SUMP J -ER REc 2nlo GY-♦8-070 �i g i > O niW �F 4• a MIN.' - 9 APPROMED DECEMBER 31, 2015 INSTALLATION OF HEAVY - DUTY SILT FENCE tltt ENGINEER REC 2JI10 GY�E'C-OZO STEEL T -POST: FLEX -SEAL UTILITY SEALANT AND r25 MIN LGTH AT 6 T5• MAX SPENACING NEENAH R-1733 SFJBES SOLID (SEE ESS BIOS. i PLASTIC ZIP -TIES 7/B- N TOP 5' 83 OF FABRIC MINIMUM OF 4' OF BRICK, CONCRETE HORSESHOE, OR USED FOR RTLR DUTSGE OF MANHOLE ONE. I ITT W 7/16- FABRIC z �GEOTEXTILE (3 FT. VIDE) C, 'I FABRIC IN TRENCH WTH RUNOFF [ANCHOR NATURAL SOIL BACKFILL DIRECTION OF vu6 D i DEsa 4Dzo CASTINGS SHALL BE NEENAH R30G7-L 'MTI NOTE: WHERE PVC HPE IS USED 111E CONTRACTOR SNALL P. -SN �i g i > O niW �F 4• a MIN.' - 9 APPROMED DECEMBER 31, 2015 INSTALLATION OF HEAVY - DUTY SILT FENCE tltt ENGINEER REC 2JI10 GY�E'C-OZO L --�--8 3/� FLEX -SEAL UTILITY SEALANT AND r25 APPLICATION SHALL FOLLOW DETAIL GV -SS -oto. } APPROVED DEGEMBSR 31,zDts STANDARD STORM„� NEENAH R-1733 SFJBES SOLID (SEE ESS BIOS. i .1. M APPROVED IT MM .1. ROM" STORY SEWER' 011 R 7/B- X EFMANT OR FLEX_ 5' ONEEOAL QUAL (SFE DETAIL w -ss -m D) MINIMUM OF 4' OF BRICK, CONCRETE HORSESHOE, OR USED FOR RTLR DUTSGE OF MANHOLE ONE. I ITT W 7/16- I Zr DONOR W ADAJSING RINGS 12 1.27-a1 - (MIN. z MAX 5) 18� o-RNGS W JOINTS BASE SUB PRECAST OR BLOa( vu6 D i DEsa 4Dzo CASTINGS SHALL BE NEENAH R30G7-L 'MTI NOTE: WHERE PVC HPE IS USED 111E CONTRACTOR SNALL P. -SN CRATE. MANHOLE MTH WATER TIGHT BOOT. REIN CING AND CONCRETE ARE TO BE IN DASHED UNE DENOTES SUMP (4' WITH ASTM SPECIFICATION C47& MINI IF SPECIFI IN T SEAN... L --�--8 STAINLESS STEEL FERNCO SHEAR BANG OR APPROVID E'- FLEX -SEAL UTILITY SEALANT AND PRECAST CONCRETE OR GAST-`III-PLACE BASE 13 APPLICATION SHALL FOLLOW DETAIL GV -SS -oto. } APPROVED DEGEMBSR 31,zDts STANDARD STORM„� i SEWER MANHOLE DES TO BE MN. CL 52 DAP. aTr ENONEEH REc z3II0 4020 WITH CASTING & - COVER 11 GY-GT-G1G RINGS SHALL BE SEALED USING APPROVED STAINLESS STEEL FERNCO SHEAR BANG OR APPROVID E'- FLEX -SEAL UTILITY SEALANT AND APPLICATION SHALL FOLLOW DETAIL GV -SS -oto. } TEF. i CONCRETE TO BE MN. CL 52 DAP. ADJUSTMENT RINGS (OR APPROVED EQUAL) MIN. 2 MAX 5 MINIMUM OF 4' OF BRICK, CONCRETE HORSESHOE, OR USED FOR RTLR DUTSGE OF MANHOLE ONE. COICREIE HPE , T K•i I d OPENINGS AS REQUIRED PRECAST CONCRETE UV GY•77.070 BASE SUB NOTE CASTINGS SHALL BE NEENAH R30G7-L 'MTI "L” TYPE CRATE. REIN CING AND CONCRETE ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM SPECIFICATION C47& 5 PPROKD 215 CATCH AKN lleyDESGN VVVUlBUYe- B1T-V 02a GEOTEXTILE SILT FABRIC (MNDOT SPEC- 3666) TO BE PLACED UNDER CATCH BASIN GRATE, WRAPPED AROUND & STAPLED TO WOOD 2x4 GEOTEXTILE SILT FABRIC WOOD (MNDOT SPEC. 3886) 2X4 NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE AND _ MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL AROUND CATCH BASINS AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER UNTIL TURF HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED 10 Z70IIED pECEMBER 7 2015 GEOTEXTILE CATCH BASIN FILTER att ENONEll1 RI:G 2T10 GY•EG-MG FLEX -SEAL SEALANT a: NEEMAN R-1733 SERIESAPRNOVED EQLAL SOLID COVER, ESS BIOS—�BE cV-55-mo) Sm, m APPROVED EQUAL (SEE DETAIL GV-SS-oz0) LUIIaiEIE AQJUSTNG VARIABLE RINGS (MN. 2 MAX s) CONNECTION TO RE MAGE MTI STAINLESS STEEL FERNCO SHEAR BANG OR APPROVID E'- D.I.P. TEF. IST ZO R OF PIPE TO BE MN. CL 52 DAP. MINIMUM OF 4' OF BRICK, CONCRETE HORSESHOE, OR USED FOR RTLR DUTSGE OF MANHOLE ONE. COICREIE HPE , OTHER APPROMD MA—AI: AND CONCRETE ON ALL SIDES. K•i I d NOW: CROAT WHERE PK PIPE 5 USED _ THE LIANIIOE SHALL BE FURNISXCD WITH IW AGE - BOOT OR APPROVED EQUAL D.1 NO STEPS SHALL BE NSTAIJED ON MANHOLES LESS THAN 15 FTDE . EP. VAlt OKA 15 FT. NON -CORROSIVE •' - • I STERS SHALL BE NSTALLm, CONCRETE BLOCK MAY BE S :■ LOUCKS LOUCKS PROJECT RIG 156BS TsMwtiex MAO Nue�N�e. DN. NMsUvr Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision N.,.N. 95OB001.17 UN -BY TDG/MDC ®' �`L'iL5D5ILNT� CIVIL DETAILS C8-1 /2 HPE DA THICKNESS OF HPE PLUS G' MIN. USED FOR RTLR DUTSGE OF MANHOLE ONE. 1 4 APPROVED DECEMBER 31. 2m5 ,-/J STANDARD MANHOLE T-NA>x�Fun Ott ENONEER ISG I. I WITH DROP SECTION UV GY•77.070 :■ LOUCKS LOUCKS PROJECT RIG 156BS TsMwtiex MAO Nue�N�e. DN. NMsUvr Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision N.,.N. 95OB001.17 UN -BY TDG/MDC ®' �`L'iL5D5ILNT� CIVIL DETAILS C8-1 sPxmc urvL oR Y4 '.�• rPL ..'; �Ip ua xoCK us ° 1 STABLE OR DRY CONDITIONS .e^O sPRm ECESSNtY T° s AI Al. UNSTABLE OR WET CONDITIONS IN IN `yr • yid mi Mnlo°T SPLs. M _F SAND BEDDING DETAIL FOR HDPE PIPE," 11 STORMSEYVFA 4310 %%BEDDING r[NOKING ESSLE AVIMansLcm+vAue: Tre u,TIL a'° L�•V xnc. MIN. I 1-�pMn"%rwlTM rNporzssN A 4 FLAT CURB AND 2012` GUTTER (12') FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE 2' BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 2' BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE IMNDOT SPEC 23W LV WE35030B) IMNDOT SPEC 23W LVWE350300) 1 4 4,000 P51 TYPE CONCRETE " REINFORCE W/FIBER MESH) 1 / 4' COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE '--- - ----- ` (100%CRUSHED OR RECYCLE, MNDOT 2211) ! 6' 4,000 PSI TYPE I CONCRETE ; (REINFORCE W/FIBER MESH) '-- 6' COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE CRUSHED ORRECYCLE, MNDOT 1 --------- 2211) 2211) BITUMINOUS TACK COAT (MNDOT SPEC 2357) 2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE (MNDOT SPEC 23601VWE350306) 6' SS S AGGREGATE BASE CIA 1100%CRUSHED OR RECYCLE, MNDOT SPK 2211) BITUMINOUS TACK COAT IMNDOT SPEC 2357) (M2.BITUMINOUS RASE COURSE (MNDOT SPEC 2360LVWE350308) CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE I100%CRUSHED OR RECYCLE, MNDOT SPK 2211) (I 12' SELECT GRANUTAR M.COT SPEC 3149.13 GEOTEKTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPV MNDOT 3733.2 12- SELECT GRANULAR MNDOT SPEC 3149.13 GEOTE%TILE FILTER FABRIC TYPV MNDOT 3733.2 lY SELECF GRANUTAR MNDOT SPK 3149.D GEOTE%TILE FILTER FABRIC TYPV MNOOT 3733.2 PREPARED SUBGRADE PREPARED SUBGRADE PREPARED SUBGRADE PREPARED SUBGRADE (MNDOT 2112) UINDOT 2112) CONCRETE SIDEWALK ` V7 PAVEMENT LIGHT-DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION $ UTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION HEAVY-DUTY n SCALE: N/A �ONCREATE N/A .r PBiBFv4 �_—moo . SCALE: WA (CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW) YSTFM TYPICAL SECTION INSTALL CMP PIPE PER ASSHTO MJ6, AASHTO SECTION 12 OVEN GEOTEKTILE FABRIC WRAPPING THE TRENCH AND PIPE FREE DRAINING ANGULAR WASHED STONE W LIMESTONF/CARBONATE MATERIAL W MIN. PARTICLE SEE. COMPACT TO MINI STAND FINE FILTERAGGRAGATE MN/DOT3149.2 e' SLOTTED SINGLE WALL HDPE DMINTILE W/ CIRCULAR KNOT POLYMERIC FILAMENT FILTER SOCK PER ASTM M707-10. MNDOT 3733 TYPE 1 SEWN SEAM NON -WOVEN FABRIC SHALL NOT BE USED. RBPAMNwNs im LOUCKS LDUCRS PROJECT NO. 15635 n.�q eerN, cx as W. vn'..m� > npon Saeen.e T uw fleSN�enm Number 2 o.te alllrzole Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision 1'- 950800117 III By TDr-/MDr CIVIL DETAILS CV I I I I so TREE REMOVAL TABULATION I I i J 1 i I err craw --w1 i I , _. I 1 -HI T i v 7 \\ r KEY SIGNIFCANT TREE TYPES (Within Construction Limits) NUISANCE Tfl EES> 8" Cel CAL Quantity Replacements AS Ash 11 Cal 2 0 AS Ash 12"0a1 , 0 AS Ash 14" Cal 2 0 AS Ash 16" Cel 2 0 AS Ash 18" Cal 5 0 AS Ash 2(r Cal 3 0 AS Ash 22" Cel 1 0 AS Ash 24-001 1 0 DECUIOUS TREES Ir Cal CAL quantity FL FbneYbcust 14" Cal 1 1 CONIFEROUS TREES > 6" Cal CAL HGT Guantity SP Spruce 10"Cal 98' 6 8 SP Spruce 12"Cal 95' 8 6 SP Spruce 14•Cal 48' 8 8 �I - I . r• i - - KEY I � ; � /i i // � I - • u']R Signiflcen[ Deciduous Trees/Caliper size ! I i ^ I ?�h Significant Coniferous Tress/Caliper size 2'TR Small Trees Deciduous & Con'rfemus -� ff t \\ i _ �A�Rgp% X Trees to be Removed Construction Limits � v ! i 1❑ Construction Limits Property Line 1 ! Remove all existing trees within construction limits r I 1. Prot I �_ 1 Protect all existing trees to remain by providing protection to the r' s crifical root zone and drip line per City requirements !� — i t-) i' !°d 2. See Civil plans for grading. _ 3. Confirm all underground utilities prior to any demolition, /- / / .H I ?' excavation, mnstrucUon and planting. I 3 I 1 T^ I \\ - �s I151 1 1100 . _ 1 I i I o yM ! + R ® • a _ e / f `� . 11 H / b „� \ --- •ATF Tree and Landscape Narrative / l i a— t/ o `aH 'a The new parking ramp footprint will very closely match the footprint of the existing ramp. However the necessary excavat on for wnstruction and stonnwater management will require that a larger wnstruction/gradmg limits line be established. We are working to — —444 / Z keep this as minimal as possible. L P b ] ire • ( � The construction limits will include 22 spruce trees, 1 honeylocust and 17 ash/nuisance trees, which are deemed significant by their I I size. Al of these trees will be removed. The shallow spruceroot ! " \ — • / ] 1 f x system does not lend itself to protection nor relocation and the ash T� — — — —� T y ho Y Gust trees will be e 1 11 dI � rani � �1 trees have recently become designated as nuisance and therefor will all be removed, The spruce and ne to 7 I ' / / •,!a� 1 I I� r ^ replaced/mitigated per City code. ii itli \ ii - ( nr / .( i • f I j- I; j / The new site landscape Is intended to be elegantly simple, durable i fli ,Y9, ii i r •1J",A;dj,` S J f i and an environmentally friendly extension of recent improvements to the campus. The planting will be respectful of the existing neighborhood with wooded edges to the east and north while \I fA \' \ I ` �� h]/ / I I I ( reducing lawn and expanding the native grasseson the west The c }f \ ��\ � > � / , I i new parking structure facades on the west, south and east will I i I i 1 include living green walls of vines with bases of native grasses. The vines will be planted in shelf boxes at the second level of the ramp, one level above the existing adjacent grade The native grasses on l _ the west will extend to the public sidewalk The north edge of the site \ i;\' 'may- I \ f f (o r / , / i will remain a significant wooded zone Replacement/mi igabon of r^- j r l/ J �r f t removed sign icant trees will occur in this area and act as a buffer of the parking ramp. The species of trees will be recalled from the I^ , palette of materiels used in recent work on the Mortenson campus; .• it _ i 1 ,ne r-! \\Ol" �- ,! _.'�.,,\ oak maple birch. Pine fir, spruce, e ' c. I ,r i J ��l Or - 30 60 1 , 1.��„jj: -I _ _ <i-+—_— <--� • — _-.._ SCALE IN FEET la�—� \ eN]Rol%aWtfi nem.Pehm9AanoJderAe 3/15([:16930'.60 pMMorm law RSP ArshiMeb tIlp McMellSaeMNE 61t:]]],W M,nn.epdir 613.6!)]199 to M'_.'k MNe55goN6 11212 7 Ceai6o,iee Mortenson HQ CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision TREE REMOVAL PLAN L-001 i 1. M, Sy O I � 11 r KEY Trees Shrubs /Perennials Lawn Grass Native Grasses: MNDOT 35-241 Vine shelf boxes 83D,5 Proposed Grades -See Civil Lights/Outlets - See Electrical ® Plant Name/Quantity • 74'iRSignificant Deciduous Trees/Caliper,!— Significant Coniferous Trees/Caliper size IPSP 2Y Tl, Small Trees Deciduous 8 Coniferous — — Construction Limits �1 Construction limits �2 Properly Line 3❑ Sod 4� Vines in planter shelf boxes �5 Native Grasses MNDOT 35241 © Existing trees and native planting �7 Future North Building Site ❑B Srtow Dump area [g Rock mulch match existing NOTES: 1. All landscape/planting areas shall be irrigated with an •+9.111 t / / {J 1 / automatically controlled irrigation system 2 See Civil plans for grading. Confirm all underground utilities prior to any excavation and planting. �a ppa..✓ %''� �_� - j 3. See specification for materials and installation instructions -- / 4 Quantities on plant list are for reference, provide plants per 9 . T 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET I Elk RSPA.biw. 1)IDMeM•i—NE 612m7+m I:,- poli 6116]).]199 )u Mnn•wb 551]1106 =1 me tan 6••vilaN 59newra,:<,,... ft&. -Number 12492 Mortenson HQ CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - PUD Revision 951111,100 o No. Dow CCL o—riptim rr e / } r •tilA�l�� I I / II / "I';r l � Fr," I 0 oo� KEY Trees Shrubs /Perennials Lawn Grass Native Grasses: MNDOT 35-241 Vine shelf boxes 83D,5 Proposed Grades -See Civil Lights/Outlets - See Electrical ® Plant Name/Quantity • 74'iRSignificant Deciduous Trees/Caliper,!— Significant Coniferous Trees/Caliper size IPSP 2Y Tl, Small Trees Deciduous 8 Coniferous — — Construction Limits �1 Construction limits �2 Properly Line 3❑ Sod 4� Vines in planter shelf boxes �5 Native Grasses MNDOT 35241 © Existing trees and native planting �7 Future North Building Site ❑B Srtow Dump area [g Rock mulch match existing NOTES: 1. All landscape/planting areas shall be irrigated with an •+9.111 t / / {J 1 / automatically controlled irrigation system 2 See Civil plans for grading. Confirm all underground utilities prior to any excavation and planting. �a ppa..✓ %''� �_� - j 3. See specification for materials and installation instructions -- / 4 Quantities on plant list are for reference, provide plants per 9 . T 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET I Elk RSPA.biw. 1)IDMeM•i—NE 612m7+m I:,- poli 6116]).]199 )u Mnn•wb 551]1106 =1 me tan 6••vilaN 59newra,:<,,... ft&. -Number 12492 Mortenson HQ CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - PUD Revision SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN L-002 951111,100 No. Dow CCL o—riptim SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN L-002 A 106PPAlIgH6 M1W ffi5 PARKING 6TALLS NEEDED (1,105 EXISTING+180 NEW) 1,280 STALLS BHOWN'. SJRFACE. 202 bTAl1S+RAMP: t OBfi STALLS 9TE811!LD!xr. TOTLL FODNR1MTKg TOTLL WIIdI1G 63f NORTH BUILDING 12.]85 61,135 SOUTH BUIIDING 2;SOD SC6,250 EXISTING LINK 1,310 3,310 WEST BUILDING 1/.]50 66,375 PROPOSED PARKING RAMP 358,800' FUTURE PROPOSED BUKAING 16,250' 98,OW' FUTURE PROPOSED LINK 890' 890' •ESMrwtrtl Vallo = SETBACK LINE --•— =PROPERTY LINE r=aa bjc6W 16_Ma mmnPaNn6Knq_mHP�%n.M rpoe4gy�e�RG 0 �w�yJ I a... NPamevlp MEADOW LANE N (PUSUCLY TRAVELED ROADWAY) w3 goe,<.wm 5 LU O 0 Q > U � a 6I»REIA6�,L� OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY(STATE HIGHWAY NO. 55) (PUBLICLY TRAVELED ROADWAY) Fr I YA li ID I 1 I T I FUTURE PROPOSED LINK I EXISTING LINK i ( PROJECT NORTH RSP AmhVA F IM-A.11—INE Minneepoea 6,261))<991ex Minnaeud 55113106 vimv to er<M1.cam M1e.KMa I Irate u� N pvMpYn, eI•ediuem v repro 1t902� 301Ntfi nNumSel Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision OVERALL SITE PLAN A000 Parking 9cdeAMe-Lweer Leeel Cg111t Camlend 4 Armslde 238 2Q k'BYrlDlr�-0.00R PIAN N0. OFBCPoPiIp! ELEVATOR eHAFf 2 aHArr 3 TPICALPARKI 0 EILSTRIC CHARGINGWSW STATKKJ 5 HMDIGAPACCES519-E STOa T RB OR—PRROVJa CURB Proposed Parking Geometry is MORenaan—dq--G Vaby, MN Parking Bay 2 -Way 90* C:UWnt YmisMAlfi MweeimnPoknpPmp_mePozn.M LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ,,a=Im PROJECT MY IISP Arekibgh 3A Mardell Street NE 912 71M Minneapolis a99 M1e Minnesota SSat3-IWe xwv.�a ercNcom CwaebN p'v yvn, yvvaiuem v non Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision -mama—_ mann Em mamma mangy mangy mangy mangy LL FLOOR PLAN A101 law RSP Archi. treat NF fi1I61))I66 613e)T)ee h QFeelYeb Sienm.. 11802 Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision 1ST FLOOR PLAN Al 02 3D 1 1 AIP3 -B' Pxkl�g Schedule-Flral Flan Goure CoimeMs Atlf maw ] Aoxwide Z)4 9 EMctrc Clur9�ng S�stwn NEYN M -FLOOR PIAN NQ OESCRIPTN)N 1 ELEVATOR SH— HAFTWICPLGSTALL 9` ISP 10 Fl PLPARKING STALL CHAR ELECTRIC CHARGING STATION 5 HANDIC CESSIBLE STALL 6 TRAFFIC DIREDIRECTIpJ PRROWS ] WRB ri""""' i Proposed Parking Geometry Mort—Headguanere-Elden Velky, MN ---- --- }-- Parking Bay 2 -Way 90' r 3 Atl1 Atli BEG I ` f1 BEC. B[G EIFC 2 A@ D R ) 1 B.EYATOR LOClY --TAM 101 o � 0 IIIV 0D� PROJECT NORTH ,� FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1ns=ra -- law RSP Archi. treat NF fi1I61))I66 613e)T)ee h QFeelYeb Sienm.. 11802 Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision 1ST FLOOR PLAN Al 02 Par., acneauie-Secptl Floor Coura Lamneraa 4 Ave. Rite 261 265 10=YNOlES-ADORPLAN r1> Oa9CWP11C5N ELEVATOR SHAFT 3 SHPFf 3 MN:AL PPRNING STPII 4 HMDI ICCHAESS—TATgN 5 HPNDICAP AGDESSIBLE STPI-L b TRAFFIC Db2ECTpN uiROVS ] CURB Proposed Parking Geometry Maeerum HeaCpuarbrs- GOMen Valby, MN 1 2 Parking Bay 2 -Way 91' cwe.rrmiKaMla_M�-&ma-.M Elk RSP aakhY 12N Mer hO—INE all a]]»8 hr Minnaeob 551131 We xlwi.m ercM1.com —a- ie.mp m� dW bu pen, epoaueem vroom b •eo�.me,.rr�.n..e.mm. Ma Cie Sioomre Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision 2ND FLOOR PLAN Al 03 PasYMa 4chCtluE - TYSE Fleas CasrsR Oannetlrlf 0 Axecs de 2B5 2B9 IQYNOIS-RWRMN ND. OFSCWPTION ELEVATOR SHAFT 3 SHAF 3 65 CPARH 1 ELECTRIC CHRGMSTATM ND—PCSSIBUE — L TRFFIC DRECTION ARROWS CURB 40 w410.1 Proposed Parking Geometry Nbnalspi Heaaa— - Gamer,-', MN Parktrg By 2 -Way 9 THIRD FLOOR me=ra W-b3M 7�r PROJECT NORTH NSP l hireara MII Sheet NE Minnesore SXl3-rOJB www.rn erc�.com fnnelum Pepiure nNumEar 3/ 1/t6 Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision " ssoa.Dot.n SEMI EMMMMM� mm Ems 3RD FLOOR PLAN Al 04 KEYNOTES-EXTERK)R ELEVATION ND. OESCRIPRON PRECAST GLASS 3 UV WALLRANM WALLSCREEN MlEN 5 DRIVE LANE 7 GABLE BALLING ADE F B INRWED METAL PANEL 9 TUBE STEEL vls¢WIB MprlemvnPoBinpAemp_�pmmnm *T D STAIR TONER iia-iP THIRD FLOOR... -__. �SECOFD FLOOR..... 111'-P �FIR81 FLOOR...... 1W-0" �LQNER LEVEL NORTH ELEVATION ma=I•a h TO. STAIR TWYER THIRD FLOOR tYl -4' SECOND FLOOR 11'-P — F OOR 10V -a• 89-ry' EA ,T ELEVATION Ina=ra T.O. STAIR TONER iv -1o• m THIRD FLOOR b SECOpD FLOOR FIRST FLOOR-.-._-- 1W -P h LQNQE IEVEL Y BS -0 Elk NSP An:NNep6 veal NE W1)1W FF Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision 9508.001.17 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A401 �T O STAIR TOWER 13J-iV b THIRD FLOOR r' tYY-C' 6Ec00ID FLOIX2 ^ ,68.p• 08-6" 2 SECTION B - FACING SOUTH 1 =ra a �TO STAIR TOWER 136'.16" THIRD FLOOR L 3EWND FLOOR A FIR6r FLOOR ;av:d ;I1}LONER LEVFI _� _ Y 68 8 1 SECTION C - FACING SO— 1 ms=ra avW18 Mwnmm�iKaopflemp_me®1mn.M a lmkl RSP Ar b— YA MerNell Street NE 01207 71M Mlnneepais . roe Minn.eme 00e13-1610 bc.m Guebb n.nh nruN 0a1 ae qee, +n.ri..em v �n Repiunbn Number &tllt6 Mortenson Headquarters CITY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE -PUD Revision SECTIONS A402 ,6� e 9 4550 Laeare Road, 165155110 ] Pham 16511 4844 —4900 16511 484-2— o ha zz,eO ---_- ----------- HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS \� PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY ION AND THAT RECT I AM AU DULLY RISOCENSED / E PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER / THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA � Op Op Op Op OA BRIAN SCOTT BINNtEY ' I � OA OA A OA OA ( ., PATE 03/11/11 uc xa 45881 OA OA OA OA ' Op 4 1W— OA OA OA OA 1 OA Qt a Op Op Op °q - Q �-UJ A A O O cn I Op Op Op OA - 3 O'171 O P Op OA 0A Op �-- °p I —:—� I�L I i BE ° �A ° I IOA C 'Q CISUED E \ Is FOR E1SSVED FOR RENEW 03/11/16 ® C Fi BB7�T e l SECOND LEVEL PARKING — LIGHTING LAYOUT 1 SCALE: i" = 20"' DRAv.N ev: &A.S. SHEET INDEX LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE CHE—DBY. C.D. QIECTfq. E1 O1 SECOND LEVEL PARKING -LIGHTING LAYOUT AND SCHEDULE 's i1XNxE�'= PR urs pv5�iw�nc) amr., wssms i,'... PF1�Q a °"°R tcwart-Asut-w `rmuc ro xu,: 1 sHEET nn-E: SECOND LEVEL ,tai : Isc arK uRs smu PARKING - werom w muw_ LIGHTING LAYOUT AND SCHEDULE E7O4 ROOF LEVEL PARKING - PHOTOMETRICS x[ ononort ralr: sn sow �sswss 1v mmanioR a mew ro z twa mcruia - i r �s«u sxaac a wemi uumw. or°�esm aFll.:Am LIMIEMIA K ammo SHEET NUMBER E101 E7O2 SECOND LEVEL PARKING - PHOTOMETRICS ETO3 ROOF LEVEL PARKING - LIGHTING LAYOUT Statistics D..nption SYmbol Avg Mex Min MuNK, AvgVNin ovverramp } 3.9k TO 09 fc 8.]:1 4.3:1 itl level east } 13, 8k 17.Yk 0.1k 1770:1 38.0:1 itl level ureal + 3.9k 124fc 0.ik 124.01 39.0:1 ,id south of ramp } 38k 9.Bk 0.4k 245:1 9.8:1 I MEADOW LANE NORTH °� 4, W 1 L L y L • L •u L' L L L y L • r}+�+v L' W'u y .tr •w L• Lt L'mLL L• L ,L 4.. L .� e uLL•u •u' 11'; L•� Wb . L} L•u L L� is u^u� m} .L•1i •mb •,}.t •aL •,L L}a •w •a •u} yL L•v}.•ubL•yy+duLLb}.L•uL•u}.•u'aLLry;a•uL•u }. •u'uLL•u1•v •u •w4r,u L'u •u •uLW y•u•ubIIt�s'�mL I N, }, I I I I II •u'u.4:uu ,I I IL •uLL .•vL•u •u •u •u y'u L•u •u •u •ar•u I W'u I W L 11: 1 L 1 tr r 11L'u'u11.uL111b}a'wa-11 L•u 111 W 11 L•u b - L•. N. 'uW•u •u W'u'w 1'u'.. •v •uy 4r •vr •u L1r W L•u•ula •ar •u tr'u'u 11. 1 }r 11 N, I I I I •vr I I II 1t. 111 11 L 111 Z.I I I I I1}.• W L•v L•u •uW1'u •u •ub•u •u •m •u 'uL•m•u•u•u•u •u 1'u L•u •m b'uL1'u L•u •u •u'u •uL •u }.L•w •u t. •v 1. •u •u •m •u •u'u •u L•u t. T.•'i a't••v Lt+•ub•v •v I 1,II. N.. 1111,11111.'v 111,1. 1111111 L 1 1.11 'vLW L•u }.'u t. •u ILir L }• •u •u 1r •a.. }. }. •u •u 1r1 hr v 4r'u'u 11 11 •u }.1r 111 1 •u a. 11 }. •u •m 11 Sr 11- •u u •u L •u 4r L •u L'ar 'u L L tr •u •u •u Ltr Lear W Wn.yo•r.•rxyuW•v•u •u •u'a'b'T+'tr4af'b"mbbl•u •.. •u '45'S,'r•Nr 1•u •u •u'uL 1 u1•u •u1•u •u• ' L 'u u•ra lrb Wl. •u1 uL'u1}r •u'u . . .0 •u rm} i 1 b. a 5�3 • �, t 'w.a L',+'� bv-r•wwwa•r�-w+.•'r1. tr' - 1 •m },1 wr1 W _11.'u L .j L u L 11,W •u }u1 W y u'r W ro u L v1 I 1'ru•roe}r •u }+ }. b •u'u'rw ••u M1.r 1rW1•u Lry 4r .�iL 1 •u •uL}. 1'u y r1 ,+L L } L}a •m1•u'u JMi Lty. } u•arL r 1.'.r •u •u •m'uW LL LL t •u L'u 4r •u •u1 •.+'. •v •uLLL•a 'u eu •a 4.W •u •uL •+W lJLr . •v •u •u •u'u'u y L L u •u •v b •u •v •u 'ss L •v b •u'v L L b �4 LLLLLILLLLLLLy u urr i4v�uLy•u •uumur•'�""i+ uri'•-"i�•v •u •v •u'u'u vur. yy LLLLLLLW LLLL >+v vruu'a •vyLLtrL uu uu4rvvuvuLvv. W•v 1r L•u •u •u •v'u •.r'u 1r L•u •v L•u L'u 1.'u L'u1•u •uLL •m }.r •u'u'u'v •u L•u •u •ar u}.r 1. •w •u •u'u'uL 'w , yy.L-h.+.. }e W•u •u •u LL LL LLLW LL LL LL u•�'� ., L L •u W L 'L'u •u •u L'u •u •u •u L .� u £'u 'T+'bpYrb'•n 1r •u •u •u •w�,fblll,"}v4rL" 3'fY.}. •.. •u •u 'S 5'ea' •u 1�u11•u •u'u W+ LL'u1•u L•.,Q.•u 'wW'u1• IL b L 1'u•u'u II u•,Qru1 •r•L•v •u y'�a'u •v •u •v }m WSOuu1 • r L •w•r. wt. u •u •u r. •�..ara :.ri.',aa.a•S.S.'u' u m. .. u1,'Q'41 W W W L 'r'ru•w.y:r:r,.'u,r ......... •u •u }mra rm v'u'u •m u u u W .'u •u •u •u'u L •u L'u •r., L W •u'u •u'u L L L •u 1'u'u 1I I I 'u II }a ... L w •u'u •u uLL 2-11,11"1 •u •u• L'm'u L•u •u L•.r L•u •uI 4}.'�L,i1LL1+L •v 1'u 111r'u1 „__�h„�,-W LW Lear •u'u - •'v L•w •u •u •u •u •v L'r••ra• L•u •u •v •u'u L•v'v •v •v •, IIM1 M1 ILII 1 }+ 'v L•a •u 'u •u L'u 1. •v 41L1 , L L-1�i • • •u •u •u L •u L •Y }+ y u a .. .0 u r '. •u •u'u 1 ,. L •u u'u •u 'u •u •u ba'u'v b v tv •u L a L'v L t. •.+ •u uLL},'ae •er': L1rLL LLLLLLtrLLL 1 +. •u1 LL•u- �Lu S�•u'u L'uL} -- 'uL•..r •ar •u M1,'u •u •u L•u •..r •u •m •y L u}. L•u •., }, 1.'u yyy LLLLLL Ly LL u u•u'u• ,•u 1'.. a u1 u u•v'u •u L•ubb L a•u trm+y+y+ .A bM 4 L+Nbbb,v,I Q Zr Ti L L L L I Sr Sr L L 'u tr NA- L'uL 1PruL r.1iYa�ra'u } al h L} L }.L•u •u •u 4, }• W } L }1 1L•uL1•u •u 4.1 LL u u u'u L'u L L • u u .'.� •vL1 W1'/�1 LL}.•uLL u'u'u'u •u 1lrZ., L u 1 .N!N,u•u v1 1 v u v• 5r 4 -ly utr •v •u •a •u'a+.+%� my lr •u •u •u •u •u •ub1. •u •n 1 a L1 L L W L L I L 411 L4. L 'u 1. •u •u •u •u M 1 u•u •u •u •u •u'u'u 1. •u •.r 1. b1 u L uy'u •u •u L•u1 L L L L u'�-'v`u W:u,ju'rm}. uuv Y� 4 r• tLWI 'u L'uLL 'uWL4r uL u•u •reL V 4r •ar'u'u lu l'.tI . u u L uL u L b4.ivia+v y •u •u I •u M1s,vi+-4,'•�^.xau4ras'v L u u •u }. yb•u W•u• 'u'u'ss •u L'd1 L•u tr'u •u •u'u tr lr •u •uL1•r • L uL•v •u •v L u � LLL'u 1.'v •ss L•v W LL r 4LW L u1'u •v tr •u1 W L1 r. } L u N }, u•u •u W}. 1. •u 4 L u u •u rr1 .0utr N, I u u 'dfl L u u tr L •.aQ•L L •m1 . u uTu�ri u'1.'u •w'.0 m T` m'a�-•��•u L •r u}.+4. =u 1r• W=u •u IIuLL�+1 LL•u L'u'uL 4 1r L 1r sL'u }.L 'uL 4 a'e1'u •u •u L1r1L•.. •u •u •v'v •a •vt yL 'u'u 1,1 IN .•L• uI'u• LL v. •uL111•,u} u y •u W •maL •.AuL 1 L , Q.L - L '+r 1r •v },. •uLL u 1r L } } y u "'u'Ti u�u u•u •ra L•r. •u ua uTi �iF u-'-'�-'-' uL .+L tru IL'u •u •a •v'ar •.. •ar •..r •ar •u L •u •+.r'd,l•u }. }. •v L •.. 1r •ar •u •u y b •v' 'v L •v •m 4r'u 1 •m b •v'u .0 M1vu-rs-�u u L •u L •u tzr��u'a u L'u'u' ri4.'u-u... W W } u W •u. •r.q�r. `re u tr . •a3 •u u'r4'ti rat. L •u'+e'a.' • L•••u b' LVV L'u L' L�:u• b LL'r.1 •u• Lr Ir�1. S.. •u'u L'u •ra Iu }. '•• L Iu •u •u }. }. •u Iu' L•u 4r L'u'w'•r •u 4r 1•u S. }. 1.1 •v t, •vL 4rL4r 1r •u'u 1r'uL u^i,: 1i u°5. •v •u Iu'v 1a L •u Iu }.'u 'u W'v L Iv Iu L Iu •u'u •u•v•uy'v•a•v1.L•v•vL•u •u •u'u •u •u'u'vL•v 1rL •v1•u'u •u •u . •u1•u L'v 5, •u •u trylr lr •a. •u Sr S. •u •u L'u •u }+•r.rW W W'u•vL}.tr•u1•ar 5.. •u }. •u L'u1}. 1, •u •u •a. •w : �•m•r.L 1N1u1 trL1. }, •w •m •.. •w 1.14.116,a1}w1.1I SOUTHEAST VIEW - ISOMETRIC 3 SCALE. NONE L LILLIWILLL LLL '.0 N u u LLLyLLLLLLy W4rL 1 uuO~r.11 r uyyuuvu. �ru } rrau -S�LLSiS+WLLL1 r 'uLbb'b' b •ra L •u •u +ub'b'}abv L L1L'uLLhr •uL•u LLL u'L 1, •v ta'u 'mSv�va'b h.LLLL .1+u'v .w'.a II•'ww�•�aLm-u+n a - .Lb .LL'(JLLbLLIti• u 1j. 4111111 a .-CECIL • 1 • 1�iL .y•uLWLLLL•ub•uy}. �}• n w1 } u •r.yL W'ar •u •u •uL•ubLL}. L uL Lb'a.1Qr.L }•LL rrL W'uL uL rml .Qiuu}• a a. u1 •r+L Lby LLL LLL•ub L L'u L•r+11L w x1111 LL u } L a'w 'u uy1.LL•uL 4•L}•5. •u uLLLbyL•u11 y'.. L'e•L 1 1 •u r. •u r•u .TIL LL LLL . L'u +u lul Imola l'uuu'u 'trb-}rY3 5.L1 L1L•u L•uy1LL5a t.L1L•ay L•v4 Lb}. •u •v •u Wt. •uLLL �'s'BWtry W1L1r• b'u1.•u•u Liw>r'-..�f.1aA.•3.1 •u'u •u •u •u a-`_ _ a L•u }ey1 LLL} •uLL •o.'u L•u LZ } } 1 u b't. .'u'u •uLWL L•u •u1•+•L - L}a a1 '.. •u1L1L4 1411 i+t 14111•a11•u L•u •uL 4r 11.1 111LL} a L•u 1. •u'u it .0'n.11b '�at y•u W'r•L tArr.rL 1.1•w.1L L1. uL• •u 115. L1.y1}.LW LLL}. by.L1'v •u L}aLLWLb•u •uL •uLLL. 1}.. LLLLL u• L}.+ ub'u'uL14r1 1. •vL•u b'u L•u L•u 1�'u •v 4r 'u •u }.W L1.1�. }.LLL•u •v 5• 'L}.LL•u•u•w. 1+•u 4, L'u }, •u 614E •u 1.L1•u •w L•uW •u 1•u1 u 5.�'SiL ' LLL _... • L.mL.Iu1L1'u'u�L1.L1'v L` -T -'T 1. 1. b'v 1 •a. uyL1.1 'u •u 11.LL'u� .'u'u •u L•u 1•u •u1 Ly.1.ra •u L'u 4+4,1W•u . YrLirb •uL LW4rVb1a"'r-+..4..'a..b}.111Lu r. •r. a-+- L+uyLL LL y I I LL y•u 1x11'utO'ra'ro.}.14.'.•L'ra1LL1•L4.'.ry'ru m}.r'. .181 y.. -•.-.L.. .L.1.. 'u •u •uLLW1. bu'mb1L•u L®� �,L •u •uyL1y`tw'.a.L'�e L'u'w L'ar'u •u 4. b'u 4r1•ub 1a•uL'ubLL•uL Lb'a •uyW LLLL'u 1•u 11r1LL'ub •vrLLb 1'u •u'w'uL bL'u b• b'u14.•u•u1'u L'uWy•uL1y1, •u L•u 1•u 11r •u •u• •u1 'uLLL LL•v 1'811r'a'v'u 'u •uLLL. •uLLSr tr L•u }.1L•uL14a N, Nv 'u 1, I N,I 1r'u'u'uL1'u •v. L}.t. •n L1, •u11LL•u'u •u1L•u 4.yb•uLL 11 Lb L}a •uL1'u L'u 1'u •uL}.L 'n•v1•u 1. 4.L LLL. •uL }.LL'u b, •u •uLL1LbW }.rW1•uLLLLL'u L'u1 LLLL}. L'uLLb}. L'u'uLy LLLL}. b'uLL y•u S�Ly y'(811'wLL-b •u, L'y4. Wpb t.e,0v.'yL 1f b'r.pbb4. h,'v'w'w�1fTu4.r1 SECOND LEVEL PARKING - PHOTOMETRICS 1_1#:fr7k SCALE 1" l IN NORTHWEST VIEW - ISOMETRIC 2 SCALE: NONE - I 3550 LaB vRoctl. 1.6,51 1, MN "Il4900 Phone 3651) 481-4900 Fax (851] 484-2248 wM.gaphartNaMrlc.cwn BRIAN SCOTT BINKIEY 03/11/16 4MB1 DRANK BY: S.A.S. CHECKED BY: C.D. SECOND LEVEL PARKING - PHOTOMETRICS E E A SHEET NUMBER E102 Is, 3550 L.R— R—. St P.. MN 55110 - ph.16511 18-90O Fax 16511 484-2218 r) \L 0 ------------- i I PLAN, CERTIFY THAT THIS LAN SPECIFICA ON, OR REPORT WAS 'PREPARED TBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND 0 219 THAT I A A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER 1—fl —I THEFE MINNELSAOWTSA OF THE STATE OF 7L 61-1 N— BRIAN SCOTT BINKLEY AAl❑ oAAl 03/11/16 M M 4588 I C3 10 E3 E3AA2 AAl AQ W 1Y 'C3 AAI 0 AM 0 0 M2 AAl AAl \i, ISSUED FOR SM FOR REWV mlliAe ROOF LEVEL PARKING - LIGHTING LAYOUT SCALED— BY S.A.S. OHECKEO BY C.D. RR...T NO SHEET TITLE ROOF LEVEL PARKING — LIGHTING LAYOUT —ET NUMBER E103 LYb LL�. 1•. u:prpvu+'']v...• ,L••WuTZ", ] L55u rYv1. �. L�+•... 4L 1 +. S L• Y' 1 Ly�eL LLLL}aS t LL L ••a• .,5 ••. •.a L5u+•u u1'u' L'uu •• LL]�L u1LL L •Y W 1•u •L YL1• L4aYLY•+u L LLLL L L 'LS.r •vY W •L5 •u 5. Saia.;W LLLLW'•a•uLi+•wL'a.L•uLLLYb•w•u'uL'u•u•u•u'u•ar•u1r•u•u•u'u •uLYL•u •u'u Y'.r'u •.r'u •u •u •u Y'v W'u •uLLL•u L'uLLLLL L•n 5+'u •u •u 1a •u LLLLL•u•u4•Y•w•u'u•u•uYL•u•u•u•uL•u •a••u •v'u •a•LL LW•u S+'u L'uLL•uW W'a•WLLLL•a+L'u•u•w•uLLW•u'u'vWL•u •u •u •u'wLL'uLL•u 4+• LWLLL•u1 W'uY•uY'u}+}.r}.rL}a•uY'uL'u:r'u}.+L'uYLY.L1•uY'u1.1.•u1•uL1Y}rLYLt•L•u'.�•uY•uY L'uLi+}. •u Y'u'u'uLL'uY Y' u'uL 'uLb1a 5.1.L•u•uL•u}aLLL}aWL'uW•u'u•uYLWL'nW'•rL•w}a1'uS+tr1•a•}.LL1r'u 1r1 •wL'u'u'u •u'uLW •u 5. 4•L'uLLL•u'arLt•5.'uL LY•u 9 V'�'9 5+ •v'u L :+•u L •w1 L •u }a 1•'n+L }a W 'u'u Y •u L L L •u'u'u'n L }� •u Y L L'u'u }a 1a 4r L 4• L W W L L •u •u •u L 5+L'arL }a L }a'u'..L }a •u L •u ]a •.-n'B'49' LWL15aLb LLW•uL•u1••uWYWWl.•u•u•u•u•u1•uS•1�aW •uWY'.•4+LLL'u •uLWI+©at•4••uLL'u•u•uWla1}a }.LY WLL•ar }a •uL L'u •u •u •u •uL ^ ^-^ ^-•u sa L'u'u ^"�^ LL•ub•u•�L L1 aLL u4�4€€..• LL L ir�ilr Y'u'uL rn•i•-•rty LL4rL'v •u'u1Y} } } ,w } } }•W'u'u Y•u •u 11 1 S La' YL'u L'u1aW•uL}LLW +••}LW1 .'a.L'uLL•v' - a +• v'r 1Y •LL L 1 W LLLLL LWLu Y'u L'u •v Sa L•v •u uW wLL1wLL wu u•u tr L'u'w 5a�ia •+.`i�iau1 a+ u L4 4 .+" a �a ��-. a u uL1 uLW w1 }+jw•r+W wL L'uYL �aL uL'u •uLLL].'•a•uY•u'uLLYLL•L•.+W L•u •u1 L'.r •u'•.• u5a ira u1 b•rtr LW L +'u•'t 5nW•u•.rL•uW•u Y.L•.. 4•j•LYYWL'uLL'u •uY W'w'u'•.LLLWLLir •u 4+11•a•YL'u 1a •u 1a •uL 'uLtr tr trl W'YL11r tr •u Y'.'u5�1a'uLL4•'uYi+'v u�u'u 1��4+'uLLsa •u •u'u :.L • 'e.Wb'u•u 1a W•a••u•uL:+'ar�-'�+'�+1�u'u'uLLS.r ]a •u 1'++'nr --�Ys; r�,i-...=..RRR utr •u ••+'u}a•uLW'u•u'u•u •u •uT�+•u •u L•u •u •uLL'u'u'u L•u• 1 S3'Y"p"6 5. 'u'a• L L 1fYI"D9'93�'ff'1T'iY`x1 Y L L'u •u •• 'u L L Y L4'B�'�'iy�4'a'p Y S. W L'w t+ii'4� L-il' •u •uWLSa •^LL LLLLLL L4+L L'v •v LL'u •u S.rL [�, r ?�, n, n, u, n, u, n, n, n, ar, aL•u'uL}a'vL S.LLLL LLI•+LL LLL LLYSa}+L L'uL + .• •'- •v •^Y'u •ui LL L4••u •• L"++"+•. +r.„n,n - «-w-� 'vLLL LLYL}a} •- ^ •- LLLL1+•uL•vLLLWLL LLLLYL'u'u 5a'vL• 4 RM1RRM1RR - R WL a}aLL LYW LL LWLLL LL L5a 1�L'w Y'u �,r,'gaL�}'u 1a L L •u iy' 1 •u •u •u L'u ].r }R,•yy„,'g 44 R tS.fR R •i n.'4 � S..}! 5• W L'u'u_u _,_ u.®•may •u •u L L'v i�•,wg� t.,;{}J wL1 L•u •uLL'a+L'v1 LL LWL'v LirWL•.•L'..• L n, •i n,Rn, n, ,n, r, L +'•aLLW LYL u1•u L'uLL•u ]+L •u'uW LL1L5+'uL11 L}LYWta LLLLLL'u L'.r•u •u- ,n.RR^.RRRn, rr, n, u, L WL }aLYLLLLI L .'u'wLWLL•u]aL W'u'u Y'u 1+L'u'•+YL•u1Y M1�*�u'+�'a•'n�•L Sa'u'u 15aL}a 1a •a •a u uL n uS.YL'uLWL'u11'v'uL4r L•u 'uLWLsa'v•vL•u}a u4rL},r Enr}�L4�LLtr •uLL•^'v'u •uL n,RRR^.^. ^.R riRRn, LSr'u'u 5. •uL L1}aLLW .1wW WLL}.'uLL'u •uL•uLY `nt+'2f•'rl'uLL L1}pry^vp•I'r�''{µ��QYuM1 L•u :+S•L'r RRR RR :'uLLLYL'9P }+•u'uLLSl�W 'u ir'u 1aL1a •u W•u 'Xi9Y1 'a+t+'uWL 1: •u •v 5a1 n,R^.^.R^. ^.R �i r., n, rL•ar 1•u •..WL'uL1}aLS. ]+LL4�L'u L'u'u'u L'u Ll 'uLLL} 3.3•i•} •u? --}a L'uWLS n.Rn. ••.LL'u Y} }.rLL•u •.a ••-•.•.-^'- •uLb•u1+'u• 'u LEu Ya 4••vW }a •u114. 5+•u'v'u }a n,RRRR^r LL•u 5a 5.'uL1•u }a L•vLW L•u'wL }a •uL LSa •uLW•uL y uW +L'u'. 1 i L 'y.ty®4•ir11'u'u5 5 '. .. • Ra., n, rr, n, n, • . '• 5 -u 5aL1'u +1•Y L1 t��._y,�W'uL L•w }�•u Y'uL •uLuwLLLu 'uLEra }rLLt+•u'uLL].r •u ].••a•+ ,Rn, ^.R^.^.^•^. ^. r4M1RR •uL]a •v •.+L W'uLLLLl.+ u}+L•uWLL•uL W'wLL w •u 5+ u'u1 uLY'v f. Y'uLL'•••u •u• 1 R •., r•.R R^.RM1^. n, n, n, •� L]a L•u •v •uLL•uLL I:.. -u u'u11'uLLLLL, u •uLuu.+LLL L'avrr L'u 4.115+'u'vL ,R^.R^.RRR•iR^.RR rL5+L5•'u }aLYY'u'u1 LE u1+LL'uLLL5a 5. uL•u1 'w L'u'u'r.r 1rLL11+ u a. L+vL WL'uLL•v'w'u •u1 �• r4^.^.R^. •iR n, riR n. w, u, uL].r'u •u •u •uLLLLL a•L vW uL uL•ut LS+•u •uLLLL °'Y'Fi°HV•u'.rLL' L L L L L L u L „ 1°4a1+LY1•'u5 1 nn, n, n, +L -- 'u SaLL41�ti'U Y.'uLL'v ••PL^d'LuC' •uL•u' ]+1.L11•L •u r •u 'u •u ]a •u1•w 1+ _RRR^.^. ^.RR^. L^.R rv, n, •uL LLL'u L•vL LWLY LLLY•u'u'u Y'uL W]L' •.ia-aw L•vL•^5 n,IRR L u1 L +L •u •u •u •u L LL•u L'u'u Sa W' R^.R^. ^•RR R L }aLLW'uW L 'u'u'u'uLL L Y uL WL•u •v5 'wL11•a } u} W'uLL L u L Y L 4 WLL L} L4 •'uLL•v •u ]+• R^•M1 ^. u, n,n ., s, YW uWt•W} LWL 'uLL W L uW'aL Ltru w1 }aL}4 vW L'u Wtr•w 1.}• nn, n, n, R Rn 4 ILLL'u}rL L u L •uLL L Lu •u LY u u uLL' } LLWL, u }•LL}a L'u'u L'u •u 'uL L•uL u L[i§.�•}aLir 1•'u'u Lir •u •v a n,R^.RRR•i^.^.^.R wY u 'uLL LW[}+W u}+4•L•uLL �. .a 1+u•u 44-T-^ra •u'u L'u L}} 1a •u •w LS•• - 'u i+•uWy} WL'uLL]I•P4R9'M'R 'u to •rr'u'u'u L L L ]+L L •u 1. im+'+•'w i• L }. •a•'u L'ar 1a'u ].r •u Y 'u L L L L la W L L W !n W L S+'u }. •u L •u •u •u L L'u L • •v ••.r Y •v •u • 5a'u •u'v ]a ] R ^.RRR L L'u �'r.t L W •u L Y a.a.L.L.L a'u •u L•..'u •vYt•'u L•u }aL r'u ia'u L'u •uLL•u'u 5. L r, n, ..,R^. ^.R•l M1+'•u, r+,•a -'- Ea }. •u L'uLLL LLL'u ]'u'u5a•uW14• •+ } -u'u irL•u'• ��^. ^. n.M1Rn, nnu-„�-.uL ••u L'w 1•S�i1 LLLL q,}y„y,q:'�r •uLL•uY•u •u •u •u 'vL•u'u 5. L RR RRn, r�, r�, uW u 1n L'v •u •u •u u�u uu'u'u'�u+'u •uYL L u uL uLS.r •u LirLYL WLLWL LL L1 ] L i R 1 LLL'uL •v •u WLLL•uLLL L u u•u ]a •^Y YL1rLLW�1a a� lLS W 4iRRM1 r.R L4 W . 4•LLLLW L LWLLLLL4 LLYL •u L•u •vLLSa tr1 LL•u G+ 4L1 L i R R R L 4+LLLLL L LLLLWLL45 LW W !S'9"BTL^O •u'w L W Y WQ"9'�k�'u55Y9'T S] n, n WLL Y L W W .1'uZ. u •u •uLL•u'u •u •u •u t.rh a.+uuuuLLu�. .a uL n, n, r.,Rn,1Q R wLWL uLLL'u •u •uu u'u •u LL u•ra'OLLL wr'r •sr'u1aLL4 •..-�•�•��-++ u'u'u 5.r] +yq+yw R�CRr•, •uLWL- ` LLLL•u •w •v •u L•u }aLYi h }.LA L WWY•u }. •u x iR .R ,r�, rr, n, r�, u, n, 5aL14rL1aL WEarWLLLLYLL'w ••1�++�-�-r •u L•payr •n haLL' 4. 4r yjy,},e,„ y _-. •-u •n L•u5 •u .. .,.+an�,L RT{ 1 atu,u n r• n -..- •uLL•uL1'�} y W •waW W'uL L•u 5fbwdeir •w •u •nr •w1a•u it Sr• Wi uLlwn uuL u'u •uLL1•u RR+.RBBB RRR^, rr, n, �suL1•u 1+LL4 LW wLWLL1aL1 Wru'u'1♦j4rLL W 'u 5a ••rL•u •uLLWWW WLLW} LLW• •ua•WLYa W•u •v Y'u •u L]• r, n,R^nRR^. 4R+i n, �i n, n, S w'uLL'uLWL } • ,. }a }aW}•LLL•u •u*-'-•'-•'-- u ��- WW+.. •u •u •u W•�� +a:'+. •y '.a •uLL•uWL}+LYi }a'u }�•uLLL•n'u L•nL1 L'n •uu •u} 'uW WL•ur�^---i, Sr •u-uLLLLLLLLL iLLh+L'•a'uMLW}aLW}.L•u•uL}aYLtr•u•uY•uL•u L'•d+Aa}a •u W1+•uLLLW•uLLL}a�+5 'u L}aW}•}aLYl•}. }.L }aWLL•v •uLLLL f�`R•Q'65a •^LL•uLWSuW}a•uWL••vLLW-u'u•u•u•ra•u•u•ar'v.u•aruLL LLLWI+LW'uW1.4�1•L}.L•u'�. ru L}a L•vLW WLLS•aLL•uLL•v] LLLL �WLL•a+•u •uLW•uWLL}aLL•a+WWWL1•u •u •u ru }+'++L 4+•^4rL'n�LL•uLW'uL}a'a�irW�'aLL•w}•W'u'u •uYLLL4a 1+LL}aL LL•uLL•u'• L ^-'--^-'--L1a•uL'u'uY•u•a+i•}+LL}rL•u •^:+:r 1.r'u }�'u •v •r+}aLLL W'u'uLL•u•u•uW W4r}a}+1rL}a1•u •.�•u •u L•u }.rLL}.WW WL4+•uLL•u W �WW•wL1•n•u4••u •u •w'u•u11•v •u i. •u W•u'u •w tr'a+W IIwW}a }a..W'u.... ....L}+WLLL•u •v •u •uL LL•u •u •uYW•u •u'u •u •wLL•u W u•a+• •u •u1 Lea L•u •F`�.+L'u L•r W•u•u Lt•�L•u'u• 'u •u •u •u •Iu uuuv W W LLLWLLW LW YLL L4rLLL L'u'u •u W•a 11 Z' L' L' •••' LLL x. rl •ur 4i L• 9pppN',_. r1� ,1`'{r�t L L W LL• I uL•�LLbYrL•�L'eJL s+b. u� � cru v�n• a jWL L}aLLS:L�LLtE.4'1jLWLW.1.L4�L••r�1LiL'u�'rtj �1� i,) &EROOF LEVEL PARKING - PHOTOMETRICS SCALE: 1" = 2 WN 0 Statistics Desaipt- Symbol Avg Mex Min Max?4in AvgMtm op level } 3.5k 18.8k 0.1k op wuth or rampupper ,.� q,Ok 10.Sk 0.7k �11.3. ramp -} 3.4k 10.7k 0.7k 0 a 3550 L.B. Rood, SLPau'. "55110 Phone 36511 486-4900 Fax 36511 4S4-zz46 www.gapaartN<tric.com treat waif BRIAN SCOTr BINKLEY ldle uc .. 45881 cCL CNN /r•l V Z Y a ISSUED FOR 1911ED FOR REMEt I MAIM DRAx+m SY: S.A.S. OH -ED By C.D. SHEET TITLE. ROOF LEVEL PARKING - PHOTOMETRICS E104 I E s ORDINANCE NO. 599, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Major PUD Amendment Plan North Wirth Parkway P.U.D. No. 33, Amendment #3 North Wirth Associates, LLP, 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, and Section 11.55, by approving a Major PUD Amendment Plan to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) 33 allowing the reconstruction and expansion of the parking ramp and the addition of a future new office building at 700 Meadow Lane North. This PUD is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions: 1. The plans prepared by RSP Architects, submitted March 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated May 2, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 60 bicycles shall be provided with proof of parking for an additional 17 bicycles, based on a calculation of 5% of the 1,350 parking spaces required for the site. The applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities. 5. A finalized Temporary Parking Plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the parking ramp. 6. A snow storage/removal plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff. 7. An additional PUD amendment shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the construction of the fourth office building. 8. Pedestrian connections between the southwest and northeast stair towers of the parking ramp and the office buildings shall be improved. 9. The southwest entrance to the site must be modified to the City's satisfaction to encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances and avoid PM backups on Meadow Lane. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 6(Q): 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD amendment is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site in that the new ramp would be built in the footprint of the existing ramp and new landscaping would be used to "green" three of its faces. The proposed fourth office building would take the place of a surface parking lot, limiting its impact on the site. Ordinance No. 599 -2- June 7, 2016 2. Preservation. The PUD amendment would not impact any desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features. 3. Efficient - Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating new construction on an already developed site and building "up" rather than "out" with both the rebuilt ramp and the new office building. 4. Compatibility. The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and have shown over the past 30 years to be compatible with the surrounding properties. There is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. General Health. The PUD amendment is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a better site layout and coordination between the buildings on the site and meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows: North Wirth Parkway 2nd Addition PUD No. 33, Block 1, Lots 1-5 Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sec. 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 7th day of June, 2016. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city of goldval�\ ey 161 Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 60 day deadline: June 11, 2016 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 148 - 1000 Boone Avenue North - Ashley Ballet Arts Academy LLC, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The Ashley Ballet Arts Academy is proposing to operate a dance studio within the multi -tenant building located at 1000 Boone Avenue North. This property is zoned Industrial and guided for long-term Industrial use on the General Land Use Plan Map. Health, fitness, and/or exercise facilities require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in this zoning district. The property contains an approximately 124,000 square foot one-story, U-shaped, multi -tenant building with eleven spaces for individual tenants and 456 parking spaces. The building is currently underutilized, with a number of vacant spaces waiting to be filled totaling approximately 60,661 square feet. The eight existing tenants include various office uses as well as other warehouse uses. The applicant would like to lease approximately 7,555 square feet of space for the operation of a ballet studio. The Ashley Ballet Arts Academy has been located in Edina since 2012 and would relocate to Golden Valley if the CUP is approved. During the school year (September to May), dance classes are held between 4 pm and 9 pm on weekdays as well as between 8:30 am and 12:30 pm on Saturdays. The studio is generally closed on Sundays. During the summer, classes are scheduled intermittently throughout the day. In the new space, 2-3 classes would run concurrently. While the number of students per class varies, it is anticipated there would be no more than 40 students in the space at any one time. There are typically 1-2 employees on-site on a daily basis. The lease for the ballet studio would include 17 parking spaces. Of the many potential impacts that are regulated through the CUP process, traffic and parking are the primary issues which might be cause for concern with this proposal. In this instance, however, the hours of operation, which are generally complementary to the other uses in the building, and the large quantity of parking spaces available on-site appear to negate the potential impacts. At the May 9, 2016, Planning Commission meeting the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposal. Specifically, the Commission felt the proposed use was in compliance with the ten factors in the City Code that determine the eligibility of a conditional use, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on April 12, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated May 9, 2016 (3 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission, dated May 9, 2016 (3 pages) • Applicant's Narrative (1 page) • Memo from Fire Chief John Crelly dated May 2, 2016 (1 page) • Email of Support dated May 2, 2016 (1 page) • Plans dated April 12, 2016 (3 pages) • Ordinance #600, Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 148, 1000 Boone Avenue North, Ashley Ballet Arts Academy LLC, Applicant (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #600, Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 148, 1000 Boone Avenue North, Ashley Ballet Arts Academy LLC, Applicant. Subject Property: 1000 Boone Ave N -r 8900 890 888 870 2 860 Q 858 854 u 850 • 840 O 820 830 810820 86361298 1299 1298 N 852585158505 1299 j 8535 • ( a 1296V 1296 1297 1I � 1297 ,,r�?5�� • 1291 1294 1295 11901180 1160 �. 1289 1293 1295 i 1 1150 1292 1293 1292 1170 1100111„01140.1130 12 78 1290 1291 12 90 1149 1120 128011282;1284.1286 1288 \ j1f JJJJ 1269 1288 1145 1286 500 600650 660700. 800 900 8810. 000 400 1021 • Z X8360 Q300 200 100- B k • 915 • 8300 8325 10th Ave N 925 8459 8443 8437 8421 8405 8393 830' 8511 838`8379 8365 8357 8341 8325 Q 8: c m 825 825 :.... .. .. - �_ ..:.. 801 800 750. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 7 5. A finalized Temporary rking Plan shall b mitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a de olition per ' e parking ramp. w storage/remov pl be submitted to and approved by staff. 7. An addition be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the constru of th fourth office 8. All signs ust meet e requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 9. Thi proval is subjec o all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, aws with authority o r this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit —1000 Boone Avenue North — Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, LLC — CU -148 Applicant: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, LLC Address: 1000 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To allow for a dance studio in the Industrial zoning district. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and discussed the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a health, fitness and/or exercise facility (dance studio) in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. He stated that the property is a 124,000 square foot multi -tenant building with a mix of office and warehouse uses. The building has eight existing tenants and 60,000+ square feet of vacant space with 456 on- site parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing to lease 7,555 square feet of space to provide dance lessons. From September to May there will be classes offered between 4 pm and 9 pm on weekdays and 8:30 am to 12:30 pm on Saturdays. In the summer there would be intermittent classes offered. He added that there would be up to 40 students and 1 to 2 employees in the space at any one time, Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that the proposed use calls for 19 parking spaces. He noted that the proposed dance studio's lease includes 17 parking spaces and with the off-peak and weekend use, along with the abundance of parking spaces on site, any potential parking impacts would be limited. Baker questioned if the City has put parking restrictions on properties in the past. Zimmerman said yes and stated that one of the conditions of approval is that the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. Ashley Burkland, Applicant, said she is excited to come to Golden Valley because the larger space will provide an opportunity for her students to dance bigger and take more classes and it will also allow for Golden Valley residents to take dance classes. Kyle Gikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, said the 10th Street side of the building has been largely vacant for the last two years so they are excited to get new tenants. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 8 Blum asked the applicant how many jobs they will be bringing to Golden Valley. Burkland said she currently has six, part time employees. Segelbaum asked the applicant if they had considered following the City's requirements for parking. Gikling stated that they typically base their parking on 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office and 1 space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse. He said the proposed dance studio is largely off business hours so they don't foresee a problem. He added that the property owner is conscious of parking and will not usually allow parking problems to occur. Baker asked if the interior parking spaces are for a particular use. Gikling said no Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said the proposal looks like a great addition and a nice amenity. She said she doesn't see any conflicts with other uses or negative impacts. Blum agreed. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy is an existing business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of demand there will be for their operations. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A dance studio is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the neighborhood extremely unlikely. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and largely concentrated in the evenings. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently underutilized. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 9 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi -tenant industrial property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on April 12, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment — Amending Moderate Density Residen f al (R-2) Zoning District — ZO00-104 \caCity of Golden alley To modifythe I guage regarding setbacks, lot si nd lot width and adding oth r missing regulations to the rate Density Residential (R- ) Zoning District.000 Goellner reminded t Commission held on April 11. The c sensus at Residential regulations t e R-2 M Code: side wall articulation quirerr coverage, setbacks, garage p visio language, and home occupation q discussion on the function and loc Goellner discussed the densXs s allc explained that thegoal is position the residential zoning d' ricts. She r district allows up to 5 nits per acre minimum lot sizes a stated purpo acre and curren allows 6 units per single-family ellings. The stated p units per a and the stated purpos acre. their discussio this proposed amendment t time was dd the following R-1 Single Family e/rate ity Residential section of the City its, mum structure width, paved area door storage regulations, deck and platform ments. The Commission also requested further of future R-2 zoned properties. veN the residential zoning districts and Z-2 m appropriately with the regulations of all )ted tha a stated purpose of the R-1 zoning id current Ilows 2-4 units per acres due to e of the R-2 ning district allows up to 8 units per icre if all two -f ily dwellings, 3 units per acre if rpose of the R-3 ning district allows up to 10-12 of the R-4 zoning district allows over 12 units per Goel r referred to various photos of residential properties and noted that small -lot sin e -family residential development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of options. It also provides an opportunity to build single family homes at the same ?,sing nsity as two-family dwellings. Date: May 9, 2016 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP -148) to Allow for a Health, Fitness, or Exercise Facility in an Industrial Zoning District at 1000 Boone Avenue North — Ashley Ballet Arts Academy LLC, Applicant Summary The Ashley Ballet Arts Academy is proposing to operate a dance studio within the multi -tenant building located at 1000 Boone Avenue North. This property is zoned Industrial and guided for long-term Industrial use on the General Land Use Plan Map. Health, fitness, and/or exercise facilities require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in this zoning district. Background and Existing Conditions The subject property is bounded by 10th Avenue North to the south, Boone Avenue North to the west, industrial properties to the east, and a single family neighborhood to the north located on the far side of the railway corridor and Luce Line Trail. The property contains an approximately 124,000 square foot one-story, U-shaped, multi -tenant building with eleven spaces for individual tenants. 376 parking spaces surround the building while another 80 spaces are located internal to the U portion. Loading docks for each space are also located within the U. The primary entrance to the property is located to the west, off of Boone Avenue, with a secondary access in the southeast corner of the lot. The building is currently underutilized, with a number of vacant spaces waiting to be filled totaling approximately 60,661 square feet. The eight existing tenants include various office uses as well as other warehouse uses. Parking spaces are abundant and even with a majority of the building held to the City's required parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of office use (the more stringent requirement), excess parking spaces would still be available. The property owner has indicated that the number of spaces typically assigned as part of a lease are 4 per 1,000 square feet of office and 1 per 1,000 square feet of warehouse. Proposal The applicant would like to lease approximately 7,555 square feet of space for the operation of a ballet studio. The Ashley Ballet Arts Academy has been located in Edina since 2012 and would relocate to Golden Valley if the CUP is approved. Current use includes dance lessons for ballet, modern, jazz, and contemporary dance. During the school year (September to May), classes are held between 4 pm and 9 pm on weekdays as well as between 8:30 am and 12:30 pm on Saturdays. The studio is generally closed on Sundays. During the summer, classes are scheduled intermittently throughout the day. In the new space, 2-3 classes will be running concurrently. While the number of students per class varies, it is anticipated there will be no more than 40 students in the space at any one time. There are typically 1-2 employees on-site on a daily basis. The lease for the ballet studio would include 17 parking spaces. These spaces are not typically signed within the lot. Evaluation Of the many potential impacts that are regulated through the CUP process, traffic and parking are the primary issues which might be cause for concern with this proposal. In this instance, however, the hours of operation, which are generally complementary to the other uses in the building, and the large quantity of parking spaces available on-site appear to negate the potential impacts. The findings and recommendations for a CUP are based upon any or all of the following factors: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy is an existing business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of demand there will be for their operations. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A dance studio is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the neighborhood extremely unlikely. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and largely concentrated in the evenings. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently underutilized. 6. Increase in Noise levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi -tenant industrial property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 148 allowing for the operation of a health, fitness, or exercise facility in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on April 12, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Memo from Fire Chief John Crelly dated May 2, 2016 (1 page) Email of Support dated May 2, 2016 (1 page) Plans dated April 12, 2016 (3 pages) Narrative Description of site usage: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy - Ashley Burkland- Owner 1000 Boone Plaza, Golden Valley, MN Ashley Ballet Arts Academy opened in 2012, and is currently located at 5300 Edina Industrial Blvd Ste. 400, Edina, MN. Our Academy has been well received by the Edina and outlying communities as an arts education facility for children and serving the community with quality lessons and performances. In relocating to Golden Valley, we hope to reach a broader range of the twin cities community and continue to provide quality dance lessons and performances. The services we will provide at the Boone Plaza location will be the same as what we have been providing at our Edina location: Type of use: Dance lessons in Ballet, Modern, Jazz and Contemporary Dance Number of potential customers: We currently have 215 active students We limit our class sizes to: 10 students for classes ages 3-5 12 students for classes ages 6-12 16 students for classes ages 16+ The new site will have 3 dance studios, therefore 2-3 classes will be running at the same time for a potential of 10-40 students in the space at one time. Hours of operation: During the School Year (September- May) we run 50 classes/ week from the hours of 4-9pm. Our front desk is open from 3:30-7:30pm Monday -Thursday, Friday by appointment and Saturday 8:30-12:30pm. We are closed on Sundays with the exception of an extra rehearsals that may be called leading up to performances. Our summer class hours fluctuate and lessen as we hold "workshops" for two week intervals in the months of June, July and August during daytime and afternoon hours. Employees: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy currently employs 5 part time dance instructors and one desk worker who work 2-20 hours/ week. On a daily basis, ABAA has 1-3 employees on site. Special Measures: Between the hours of 4-9pm, ABAA will be playing music in their dance studios. We have never had problems with sound control in the past. We play mostly classical music, kept at an appropriate sound level for children. . . . . . . . . . . . . City of go, e" I'll vaiiey Date: May 2, 2016 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: John Crelly, Fire Chief • Department `{ Subject: CUP, Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, 1000 Boone Avenue N, Unknown Suite # I have reviewed the conditional use permit information for the Ashley Ballet Arts Academy at 1000 Boone Avenue N (unknown suite). The proposed use does not present any unique challenges. This project will be subjected to the construction permit process. Various permits will be required to construct the ballet studio. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the site conditions depicted and the comments above, the fire department finds the proposed CUP at this property acceptable. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763 593-8065 or by email, icrelly@goldenvalleymn.gov Wittman, Lisa From: Jim Uttley Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 10:04 AM To: Planning Subject: CUP - 1000 Boone Ave N Attention: Planning We received the notice of a public hearing on a Conditional Use Permit at 1000 Boone Ave N in Golden Valley to allow Ashley Ballet Academy LLC to locate into the Industrial zoning district. Please be advised that we have no objection. Indeed we welcome the proposed use in the mostly vacant but very attractive structure. You are welcome to enter this email into the record. Warm regards, James Uttley and Julia McGregor 1293 Castle Court Golden Valley, MN 55427-4454 REMOVE EXIST G CH ORS RECYCLING SPACE MIN RELOC INFILL t W/ TO NEW LOC It S.F. LOC. NR. SOLID •c XIS7G & NEW WASTE COLLEC PER TEN E CLASS INFILL TO MATCH RELOCATE EXIST GLASS INFILL '- - ----r i—GRAB BARS / \ L"p-' I REPLACE W/ FXIST'G O.H. DOOR /—PORCELAIN WATER '`--- / CLOSET 60" . 78" CLI SII I /i ORA / - I��— 5' ClR TURNING Ci STOR xGE / 3 n _ 17' 9 NEW _ AT FLOOR DRAIN NO CLG .._-. NO FLRDRESSING Rbi. N 27' X 10' N. CLG. 30" . 48" CUR N CPT r" R, y, _ - N� 0. "ORCEI NN LAVATORY Al I j NEWNEW DANCE STUDIO f TEACHER RM 35' z 49' 11' 12' NO CLOG YEN PROM ED FLP NN PTG max. � NNFW I_DUN.- _. +� 17' z 24' + CLG /N _ n=¢rI PT. U/S IF DECK & STRUCT. �_ A80VE - NEEM FIRE SPRINKLERS T T AS REO'D & NEW SUSPENDED 1 1 FLUOR FIXTS TYP STUDIOS ONLY N TOTAL AREA- /,3=- S.S. I'o NE N 35 z23 35 M=N'S , a< IN H M. FR. IN FF LET I z� 8' S1L� HT 8 SILL23 NEW ------- OMFN' MR GYP BD PAINTED TOILETL J ¢� Ntw 4 -0" HIGH CERAMIC TILE DANCETUDIO 62' X 43' 1 nz¢r NO CLG. C-� YEN PROVIDED F NEW PORCELAIN LAVATORY /ENTRY 15' 23' I� INSULATE ALL SUPPLY & N CLG WASTE PIPING EXPOSED N. CPT FLRP dye I n N 1 25 37' f --- 9 8' SILL HT 0 8' SILL H 77,,- r _ PANIC HARDWARE TYP AT ALL DOORS FR A3 OCC (DANCE STUDIOS) I � 9J n FLOOR PLAN t/ SCALE 1/8" = l' -C CODE ANALYSIS WALL TYPES APPLICABLE CODE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS'y°Fq,°N fi—T..ealw 2015 MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE A3. B & S1 — I,—i A. snut 2015 MINNESOTA ACCESSIBILITY CODE--AcasT UE 'cKcELlve v..vet OCCUPANCY LOADS & REOD EXIT WIDTH ceLwa P Et 5/;' uoSNn: CONSTRUCTIOPN TYPE A3=107, B=21 & S1=1, TOTAL 129=20' w. Bo[55rnwT/eiPLUMBING FIXTURES REO'D iocs-si°E STRUCT t—WERAuFIRE PROTECTION MIN1 W.0(M), &2WC ('N)&T€A. LAVSFULLY SPRINKLERED BUILDING RECYCLING SPACE Mn seas AI s ,an Snos uEA Y GA. OCCUPANCY SEPARATION : OFFICE=5, GYM=5 & W'HSF=1. TOY =11 S.F NON -SEEP PER I.BC. TABLE 508.4 STANDARD FULL HEIGHT SOUND ISOLATION PARTITION - PARTITION PARTITION - GENERAL NOTES TO CEILING NOTE MR GB &C T M -WET WALLS' ONLY I. Contractor and sub con tractors ar es nsible for observing and 8 Mechanical and electricpl to be design -build Sub Cpntractars to complying with all applicable codes and awith ADA requirements. provide as -built drawings to bldg mgr. upon completion of work LEGEND 2 Contractor is responsble for Checking an contract documents. 9 Contractor to prorlae fire damper wth fusble louver where duct- field condi ons and dmen""' far accuracy and confirming work penetrates one-hour rated walls Fire damper assembles to that work is biddable as shown before proceeding with conslructIon be approved by budding Inspector NEW WALLS 3 Contractorresponsible for np6fying Architect or Des.gner 10 Contractor to prav,de emergency righting as required WALL TYPE ,y1 mediately regarding errors / omss'ons in contract docunenls end/or I Contractor to p•ov de alum noted ext ;gas as required by cone. NEW WALLS TO DECK Feltl conditions that affect construction of project as designed WALL TYPE #2 4 Contractor is responsible for observing and complying with all 12. Typ f Const—lith for this ex'strg building s Type 118 applicable safety regulations. 13 ? d .suety glaing 0 new glazed areas per 18.0 Sec. 24063 NEW SOUND WALLS 5 Respect— trades are to or replace materials damaged 14 t r finishes to meet - ements per 1 8 C. chapter B - see table WALL TYPE #3 p repair r p g 803.5 rzgcrding flame spreagdmr during construction 15 niA ouild'ngg meets LBC Sec 507 CUled Area) req., allowing EXISTING WALLS 6 D flu ser s and concealed sprinkler heads to be located as Nerseparated occupant es per 8 C Sapp 5nrmlled Area) required by code '6 A11 ew interior doors to be,mn 3 width with heght to match b Mang standard (T+1. 6' 8 ). 7 Contractor to provide blocking as required far shelving, cobinetry 17 All _w hardware to campley with 1.8.0 Sec. 1008181 re� ding g,cess- NEW DOOR etc as 'indicated on pan. Blocking to be fire retardant treated b'I ty and Sec. 10081.82 gordng - t Italian ht (btwn 4" & 68 a.Cf ) wood per 18 C. Sec. 717.5 18. Mch.ally operated flush bolts or surface bolts are hot permitted. DASHED UNE INDICATES WALLS W/ CERAMIC TILE ON MR GYPSUM BOARD 2 TYP. TOILET PLAN A-1 SCALE 1/4" = t• -o•' 6 TYP. TOILET ELEVATION MR. GYP BD PAINTED 24' . 36' MIRROR PORCELAIN LAVATORY I 1/2"- GRAB BARS MTO 1 1/2" FROM WALL SURFACE PORCELAIN `NATER CLOSET 4'-0' HIGH CERAMIC TILF WAINSCOT CERAMIC TILE FLOOR W/ CERAMIC PLF BASE MR GYP 8D. PAIN IED A-1 SCALE1/4' = I'-0" ------- MR GYP BD PAINTED I '12 --GRAB BARS MTp 1 I/2" FROM WALL SURFACE 4'-0" HIGH CERAMIC ILE 1 1 WAINSCOT - MIN. 24" BEYOND j FACE OF WATERCLOSET 4 -0" HIGH CERAMIC TILE 4'-0" HIGH CERAMIC TILE WAINSCOT - MIN 24" BEYOND WAINSCOT (TIL€ UNLESS FACE OF WATERCLOSET !r OTHERWISE NOTED) PORCELAIN LAVATORY TOILET PAPER DISPENSER (CONT FLOW) LO_C. IN AREA INSULATE ALL SUPPLY & TWN 12' 8, 36 FR. BACK WALL WASTE PIPING EXPOSED _ AND 1' FR, SEAT TO I I/2" UNDER SINK ti BELOW GRAB BAR T CERAMIC TILE FLOOR w/ CERAMC TILE BASE -' N PORCELAIN WATER CLOSET "V �— CERAMIC TILE FLOOR W/ CERAMIC TC8ASE 3 TYP. TOILET ELEVATION____ A-1 SCALE T/4" = 1'-O �GRAB BARS PORCELAIN WATER CLOSET 60" . 78" CUR RR — fl FLOOR ORAIN TOILET PARTITIONS C Al TYP. y 5' CUR YURNING — 9 � At 30" x 48" CLI, �j✓y� I PORCELAIN LAVATORY GASHED LINE INDICATES WALLS W/ CERAMIC TILE ON MR GYPSUM BOARD 4 TYP. TOILET PLAN _ �-T SCAL`: 1/4" = 1'-0 (2)TYP, TOILET ELEVA 1 ION _ A-1 SCALE 1/4" = 1' 0" M R GYP, 80 PAINTED 57" • 48" MIRROR HANDLE CONTROLS IN C I_AM. COUNTERTOP IM ON PART. BD. APRON GRAB BARS MTD 1 1/2" WALL SURFACE r U` <.—�— _ _ SSSS •I � PORC LANWATER CLOSET CERAMIC TILE FLOOR W/ CERAMIC TILE BASE 4'-D' HIGH CERAMIC TILE WAINSCOT I YP. TOILET ELEVATION SCALE 1/4' = 1'-0" 5 TYP. TOILET ELEVATION rg TYP. TOILET ELEVATION A-1 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" A-1 SCALE 1/4' = f'-0' LEASEHOLD AREA GYM AREA 4,866 S.F. OFFICE AREA 3,174 S.F WAREHOUSE 275 S.F. SUBTOTAL 8,315 S.F. XX % OF BLDG. MECH. 8,3XX S.F. TOTAL 8,3XX S.F MR GYP 60 PAINTED 4'-0" HIGH CERAMIC TILE WAINSCOT (TILE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) PORCELAIN LAVATORY SET IN P. LAM COUNTERTOP W/ 4" APRON INSULATE ALL SUPPLY & WASTE PIPING EXPOSED UNDER SINK CERAMIC TILE FLOOR W/ CERA MC TILE 8ASE 1 BOONE PLAZA KEY PLAN NORTH APR 12 201A L_EASEHOF[�I FLOOR PEAI1:--SSSS_ AOF 1 �, ._..... M.R. GYP. 80 PAINTED t 1/2"- GRAB BARS MTD 1 1/2" FROM WALL SURFACE 4'-0" HIGH CERAMIC ILE 1 1 WAINSCOT - MIN. 24" BEYOND j FACE OF WATERCLOSET 'I PORCELAIN WATER CLOSET ^, TOILET PAPER DISPENSER (CONT. FLOW) LQC. IN AREA TWN 12' & 36 FR. BACK WALL AND 1' FR. SEAT TO I 1/2" BELOW GRAB BAR CERAMIC T1LF_ FLOOR W/ CERAMC Tu_E BASE 5 TYP. TOILET ELEVATION rg TYP. TOILET ELEVATION A-1 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" A-1 SCALE 1/4' = f'-0' LEASEHOLD AREA GYM AREA 4,866 S.F. OFFICE AREA 3,174 S.F WAREHOUSE 275 S.F. SUBTOTAL 8,315 S.F. XX % OF BLDG. MECH. 8,3XX S.F. TOTAL 8,3XX S.F MR GYP 60 PAINTED 4'-0" HIGH CERAMIC TILE WAINSCOT (TILE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) PORCELAIN LAVATORY SET IN P. LAM COUNTERTOP W/ 4" APRON INSULATE ALL SUPPLY & WASTE PIPING EXPOSED UNDER SINK CERAMIC TILE FLOOR W/ CERA MC TILE 8ASE 1 BOONE PLAZA KEY PLAN NORTH APR 12 201A L_EASEHOF[�I FLOOR PEAI1:--SSSS_ AOF 1 �, ._..... R., OR - �S.ORVCY. F M Jo� R2 0-11CAGO NapTx Rtae' ry PQAF Plple (TYP) roverhem 7 -, 7i;u 4) rUie Conc. Curb on -J --- U ICB tul,2 -14 %idi; On, C1q,TF01 4 .C� -A N —7 -M gross g 0 t area . as 1t; 41; S8.6 87-41 -1 ,0 LU 0 A: 7—t ordicuo P=ID, 4 kk O T. -�6 line F CC F -686L F`96L r MT 0Y& loqd* to T9 -X 7k, v4 vt.—adi 3Y - .,As X.- R, 7 irk -zl e� F -scow M U"E.- N Na A L N APR, .12'2016, --'.::qt BY k WE'S rrQv rQAN$po IbWer /Anas 10 JV CONAqY, P w. OiS2,3.4.6.6,.7andS, usch s Gold" Valley Acres, Hennepin County. Minnesota'; according to the race r4e4 PMZ� jhereot,. .• ................ That part of -Busch Street as dedicated in the recorded plat of 6Busch's Golden -k�• ;Valley Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota", which lies northerly of the Easterly 'extilesion, of tbe.mDst Northerly 111ne,of -Lqt 8 in said plat and lying between the West line'of Lot I in said plat and the Northerly extension of the most Westerly .-Ilne of said Lot B. That part of vacated Busch Street as dedicated in the recorded plat of "Busch's Golden Valley Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota'. lying betwee6 the Easterly extensions of the South and most Northerly lines of Lot 8 in said plat. I L 0� Rndicap P..p K=S; wo ZK STREET GENERAL NOTES: N line C)F -J 1) 0 -Denotes iron rn—ont fwql. Looding dock boys 20 48:7 46.0 48,8\yh� 2) The most westerly line of Lot has an assumed bearing of North. \ 3) Area = 407,415 square Feet or ;0.0417 Morse, c A) !�M�rking stalls: to handtmoas regoria -q)- E3uilding addres a is:- 1000eBcorL Avenue North. 6) L�- Denotes parking setback It... —Kk —51 7) --BSSL--- Denotes building setback line. a X fil 50' 6) 44ii 2Denotes underground '0 .9) UQE- Slanotes underground electric !lines. 7. % I )Usq- Denotes underground natural gas line. J 11) According to the Cit g of.Goldon Vifl-10, the subject property does not lie 'Withiwa flood plafirarea as sboula i !.t6dimunity Panel No. 270162-00038 rel 4aa Cd on 4B.71�_Al�tdjebr��ary. 4 yi .......... c 1. l 8hcA &Adi NO 1000 k v, as Irkordirw Qa— Romp V: 3. r. - Tr.:7� a e 0onc. mArb and suffer [10 -1 -ii ave. No. a114 fine 4 GeW 14H ,,Telephone Riser e. brim, or L I sew. 16-4- 40M cu dTot!744 1 /0 WaTermoin iil~A qA A or rights-of-way of others, and theri-iiiiso irgioa6h 'iffi~ property lines. The property surveyed contains 10.04 acres and is not iiin a flood plain y was prepared by Theodore D. pf the State of Minnesota, and was lnada.,t1A, 0 t -: t ( is . : i.as ,a:''� t„ 1 6 P F •afyy.i ,S. j 4 G. '? . J tv t' + / r 4 .. f y F:i ;• .:.- • S a s'>F.: - s �' 'P .1 Y'' S- „L d i !n s t.{ , f Vii. +t a -'l I �'� I .1 ; { Y"' a t M. F t g'' _ .., r « J 'x'. fi. kc YM1 Z' ` v t, .,'P' .�, F? is 4 >tt 9 9r �+ 8. R >r.: 'i'+i '� ,,'7'' qtr :'' ..'i ..'.' Y ..''r' . a { i S Er)> R d <N? . P.. .r . T .:(i .. t.. a •LL R,. e , , :,o .,.. �;, - i ., I . ... ` ^b t f i K t :il J3. S� ...y {t tom+ d - �! ., 4 t L r t t :r t>, ,fix,: t. i - 's::. [j i I. ;a, 11 rr F t , N ti' py . : .i s -{ k I. f rt- _ a -q 'a' i r.�r r N v F,.do f'' R� ; 3}M t .4 R arca *, v r � . �. . . , , :� ; , � . � r. . t yy C`...P.t r - - Vii'. 7 rte, ��:Y, CZ , _ 'tO1Ja +... i. - 1 . i.f •r l { a 1. . . y T 3�-L"1i 1,D- t . %11 -i '11 Frey. .y1� m +' ' f-. - k-nt,: i ,.�'.+,.. >„'. ,fir 't' r .3, F ae •�'}�. a } it -,' :. )f .f ,( -*r •J5 s ''""�. .S' Y ;`.} 1. a- x - / r} 6 r F ..+'c`M r `# : r a S 1 K• a z } h 4 w f Y•- a a . s- .'� :.Tr . y _ ff• { iy ,. A r� J „r >,i o#.a-j '- s- _:.. k'. rte• `> e . r - }}........ - r .•.:-.-.. ..>.. 1••1,.,4. :r . ,r. .._ - _.: .:..... lli` - -5 MkS+.. '. k '$ _ k i f : % it : c r, er'. ;r, y' e� : i f ' �. C 's.` a z :.;r' � :. fir F. i. 'l C . 3; t� i � 9 F- l k i 4. rt' a., rk [ T -1:.' '�` . ''>:4 L . ""� L"f .. it"rk 3. e : 1 ,. 4f ''- y "' y. - ..�%..:i; ?,,. �f.-.. 1. ..4• ✓ a , . . .. '..:'. a...: _ .� „-",7, ':,r I, . F - m „h ! 'fl :' • Y c :.k:..d "` -;+c,t , Li:.. .> .3_ S' v.f '.t. T rte-: f "\... > iT' 1' 1 .' .F 6 r s ..c, �(' r. 6. r� ' { d t'"-'4 z j �. •a o. I nP`. :�t i i. f J. 4 x.. g �: t Jy is ' '. y -`"u' !' '�'J �`.; 5"� g {s:' t t'1 t'-t� -x „ r q;;. ry" r :. . ;.x `- ,� „ S} w a i : t P44 :?' u r' 1 ,, arj1�t j1 K i F F1. . as.. - „? ..„ -�. -... .. _ 'F a 1 s -4 7 i t.a i, I,. ,- _ t i p7; y 4 . x q3 x F I i i I f a F� FR sat" )• -% 1- t 'W"A^ �S... - .1 j ` --- - .. ' � r .., r 6 . .-;,-s- +L ;F r fir i r j if i 1.t J J!#'' r 3k a.. :6 r.': ( i =f S ! xi.r '.i 1 '.ate._ r:.; �, . . :'a e I 1. yi'l4 z =i r-.� 4 g s �. t J %}S M' I 4. ✓ s i t. ( i ^k i. Y �•}� . l:.;l ..-q ^�Sq'-1 ifa^��i.L .xq� .t f i.., 'I 1.Iim y i, , . �, i yl r.I ., ,. - ^ ... .. ..: :-.f a I t 1. ..._ ...-. - .. .. a ,. .. i . .. q ._ jil. .. �b,..,r ., k. _f ". a: :. �. y W G:' : s„ r, i .s. fir' .� �.:�.. f f, ..i §. y 1 f a r r: 1 4+ 9' l r L . •�K•': i. S P 1, e.a. ..... e. t 2 t �f ,�..+ _,.. I t.. .. M y �. I f k f r d i P. $. r S } 'r £ 5' a i&' r' ' } x 1 o w D y f r ! U-, y 1., tr3 I.�_ . a� :Y. .i.• Y. .''q: �: 3 i.. t 4 A 3 { S Y r i J R } �` . n- 3` R. ,y 1. ! iF:•ao. �. T ; f k' •:fi .• ,r e '.'i3 I I a aa+ ' :i a a. -c 1 .ia' A J . �J 3 k �.1. x' Y t - I y. }... M «x. s s a .. h. x .: r f t• ,. 'fir' xtp. _ t �33L a Y { J ,X �'. f "4J a $. i tJ }. E ` k f flan -i` ,r 1. 6 a y , :�. g]j 1 5 r t = - P ' . I 3A � +1*a fi1. f. M1 .,. i T s --- Al 1 7 3, L; a F Tl is 5 {"r�,•f' 1 T ,$& h IV - t k 9 1 }} { {g 1 _ti x. a• o . :r' }' y F+ �. aK.r }. R .. ik e r. S ;•i 4 r c ,' r �, r- e i4 9 a' - x: :' h R'' 1 - f {pA, 1 r. w lh Y= s r' �? f ; 7 G, �k N _ tr' `. i, ii g, ,f a, `J.. 4' t 1 1 ..(A. P i V✓3 r< . x 1 3 7. Z' 3 ;i• S. St F } ' ter: ..t. } . , }• z f it 4 { $ y t 1 t 5 Y c rt >r .S Y Y. •l Y 4 , =tF-. fl } x ^c 4 - i 1.11.1 3 :r :YS u ,+ t � } ,. .c {Y .;ar! :,} � >' , - is ` J f c , k a , :fi•, . y 'G. .;c• { %. Y R Z' ' ..�- ,+� ti :,fn"`1,..' 1 J4 t X 1. r •F t� ,... -. Ks fu, 7 1 k Nr; !f '-1, "''} P f i. -:,- . - yu ,a : h• J ra i e r s,. l - 3� st• ,x, 4 ... �i •�. :ye- r�:. ax- m rtst �}��• r F t n s. s < fJx ;�::' +ia xsKra'a��"�'�c' ;.:4 , ._. .- .....,• ., ..:r�?'',' ate«,' �.• ,:�_,..i:�,._'•'_ ��:.<Lx. _ ... :._,,..L�SO �i-_,. f:.^•uU•a'. ti'J... f. ,. .... - _ ,y:t,, , . , , .. _ _ ru �inR asue- �4us a1. lam- i Y ; v" a o i - }. }. •a4 { c ` f..'.. �: f i': 11 , .:. " s "- r- t x •. f .� t 4 x.in -'C. +� _fi mri 1 4, F. �.: , A . , j 3 L ,. - V. K : :: ; i 3. ,. 7 .. • ,; . � n w. f: k T 1. r tF K 2 It f S L L t S A 1 }x t L Y i M M{ S i:. a !- .: Ir. 3Y. r. 3 4i r t L " i -. J I' 1 ;'. t '�1a•. i 7•. r t S Y • • f. ..., ..,, r' - -..... ... .. ,' r:. y. 3 }:. . ,�f pp f: a a' 4' f ....,r ,: ` .._. ---•"err-•-- �».•. �. ;n. - - - 1 . - 4' 3' a• r 1 r " r 1 5 l i � 1. i 2 } 3 r1. s.L R saa > ^x a � , I b i , �# ?.i '. 1 se+ }. . a _,y c y 1. #7�A! a ! `3 _ t f , F r +< .. _. .. , ... ,, .:. �... .. � . - .., tom.: ;' ,;Si'k 33`` . A : w a. Y r .., -..n , Y. }� '. 1 i> ', 7 4 1, 3 r .L- b' ,i ` -X t- 4 "a -ifz< x\ , a }. f+ A{ r` Sa•, ,7 R Ott Y q k K' it , 1. rti•: 5 7 m i r 'i 1j x a _ . a r '� •im I 5 i �, 4 r r _.- __ k A s s r 2. e v t e ! 1 S . is "++ �. �< a:` �, a.. a-.: it . .: . >..' .art ., . { T. :.. .,.,,... ..,. - . i •.,ice+..• ,,, .. � :. k . �. -§.�.,f v: r, { a• > h Y t' b t i S Y •h! k t n r r.fi ?i� 9 R • . r.: i � b 4'' L.r V -'\ Y �# T ''.x 4 .. a• i r ` F tr I:. (•' rt - yr t I } N' T' +s F }.. S_^ t .1.;. 7.., -a•. J $. { f. T. ar� i 6 ±r k F 't y 4 tt ,� , Yi4a'•. Vvf r :c ,k fk r' s t,. _ t f i h. a .g N I f �. 1 S .W Y 4 r' ° r x !„ �' ,�! s k' t.,j'.f•,: :d t „�_'a F ,t., lti.r,:iJ �'• f... ,it t ] Y ., Si. _ :. .. ., .1 ,. .. , a ..-. a .. .. .. .. .. ".. :. �, '. .... _._ : ,:. .�.. .. e 7 l S.. .r. Y. ,y'+.'L• x �y �: a s . >- x _ r. 3 v ..;;xx--�� 'r moi: 114 .f. p } 1. 1 ! }i .r J -:x�'1. a t� �: st is .fyrt'. F l \. _St9. -. mow. .. r. L C w.�' Y 4 Wn 4 r�. A . +y Z �,a $ iA. 7 . t*, t ..a�.. 3 ,�' �• I. I- i -J i' Y +. n ` , K ��yy((jj[[ k_ •.'F ., x. .r... 4 a .Ft s .� p© P 1 .. x .. , - _ ,. , . n - .. n a .. t r. 9._ 4 J. t D... - .-. A y. .a a._ ,. .. -T . . �1�4� I .d 4.. �•2 -i' 't• s. .�' 1 .# ,; ,.'s r W. f y z # R. irl, f �.: a','s h t agu 3a a, y. 3 to i,+ -" ., •da. x , ..;L a :r r. e . w x. x x f ,µ{F�_g �}� i e � d 1-f.l'_+:•a•Ln _'f':]'+YvaT `_:-..:?iYb.-:]iT.;_Ye._ .�.,Nft ..�SS:s...M.� .��'�o. �'...: V.':i: ', .u}. +.d ,:�3',�:�.k�37�}. �..._�2,.- , J.-. .. _ .. ..ht '�.. ..... 7-`. .. a .-6 ...i�1�% ... +i._•..4 .4 +.. ,._ ! ORDINANCE NO. 600, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 148 1000 Boone Avenue North Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, LLC, 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, and Section 11.36, by approving a Conditional Use Permit for a certain tract of land at 1000 Boone Avenue North, thereby allowing a dance studio in the Industrial Zoning District. This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the findings of the Planning Commission pursuant to City Code Section 11.80, Subd. 2(G), which findings are hereby adopted and incorporated herein as follows: 1. Ashley Ballet Arts Academy is an existing business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of demand there will be for their operations. 2. A dance studio is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the neighborhood extremely unlikely. 4. The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and largely concentrated in the evenings. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated. 5. The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently underutilized. 6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels. 7. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. 10. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi -tenant industrial property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses. This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on April 12, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. Ordinance No. 600 -2- June 7, 2016 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows: Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Busch's Golden Valley Acres, Hennepin County Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sec. 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 7th day of June, 2016. ATTEST: /s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor city of go1dcn1vVv1NMEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 4. D. Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Remove Temporary Events from Section 11.04 Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary In 2011, the City added a section to the Zoning Code dealing with Temporary Uses for the purpose of accommodating the Cavalia event in the West End. In 2015, this section of code was amended to reflect both Temporary Events, such as Cavalia, and Temporary Uses, specifically food trucks. At the City Council meeting of May 3, 2016, the Council adopted on second consideration a new Special Events policy and section of City Code that covers the details of all Special Events being held in the city, including the levels of City participation, and sets forth regulations and procedures required to hold or sponsor an event in the City. As such, the existing Temporary Events section of the Zoning Code is now redundant and should be struck. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment (6-0) at their meeting on May 9, 2016. Attachments • Planning Commission Minutes dated May 9, 2016 (1 page) • Memo to the Planning Commission, dated May 9, 2016 (1 page) • Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 11.04: Temporary Uses and Events (4 pages) • Ordinance #601, Amending Section 11.04: Temporary Uses and Events, Removing Temporary Event Language (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #601, Amending Section 11.04: Temporary Uses and Events. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 12 and the 6,000 square foot lot size and 501 that if the minimum lot width were 60 feet s . .nto two lots. Kluchka said he does nc zonin ' trict. Baker agreed that if the Cit requiring et of lot width wouldn't work meeting the Ci goal of keeping single -1 this proposed chan He said he is conc competitive advantage questioned w said he supports higher de ' developm hubs and light rail stations, but 's agai single family areas. Segelbaum agr bi. compromise for existing R-2 properties City will see a lot more R-2 zoned ert Kluchka agreed and said the p sed ch more usable. Waldhauser ed with BIL the City's density goals R-3 and R-4 a good discussion f e community to h the proposed c ges, but he is concern width. Zimm an stated that the purpos district to dress increasing housing opti FED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldr mmend approval of the proposed R - Iis t width requirements fit. Waldhauser noted n an existing 100 -foot wide lot couldn't be ant to require 60 -foot wide lots in the R-2 trying to create an additional optiggAhan Blum said he hesitates to thin they are mily large lot residential orhoods with rued about Golden y losing a real )t future gener ' s are going to want. He !nt in cert ' reas like around transportation ,t the roposed R-2 zoning amendments in this seems to be a reasonable er agreed and said he also doesn't think the Is a result of the proposed changes. nges a the existing R-2 zoning district n that ther a more dramatic ways to meet )ned propertie d she thinks that would be ie. Blum said he is with the majority of I about the purpose an proposed lot statement could be better ed in each ns, diversity in housing, etc. :r and motion carried unanimously to ning Code text amendments. 5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Amending Temporary Uses and Events – ZO00-105 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider removing redundant language in the Zoning Code regarding Temporary Events. Zimmerman stated that at the last City Council meeting the Council adopted a separate special events section of City Code so the existing language in the Zoning Code regarding temporary events is now redundant and should be removed. Segelbaum asked if the new Code section was similar to the existing language in the Zoning Code. Zimmerman said yes and added that all of the Planning related issues with special events have been addressed in the new Special Events language. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Zoning Code text amendment removing language regarding temporary events. --Short Recess— Date: May 9, 2016 Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Zoning Code Text Amendment — Temporary Events Summary In 2011, the City added a section to the Zoning Code dealing with Temporary Uses for the purpose of accommodating the Cavalia event in the West End. In 2015, this section of code was amended to reflect both Temporary Events, such as Cavalia, and Temporary Uses, specifically food trucks. At the City Council meeting of May 3, 2016, the Council adopted on second consideration a new Special Events policy and section of City Code that covers the details of all Special Events being held in the city, including the levels of City participation, and sets forth regulations and procedures required to hold or sponsor an event in the City. As such, the existing Temporary Events section of the Zoning Code is now redundant and should be struck. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the amendments to Section 11.04 of the Zoning Code removing language regarding Temporary Events. Attachments Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 11.04: Temporary Uses and Events (4 pages) § 11.04 Section 11.04: Temporary Uses Subdivision 1. Purpose and Effect The purpose of this Section is to provide conditions under which certain temporary uses and eves may be allowed while ensuring a minimum negative impact to neighboring land uses. Subdivision 32. Authorized Temporary Uses A. The City Manager or his/her designee may issue a permit for a mobile food vending operation, defined as a self-contained vehicle or trailer used to prepare and serve food that is ready movable without disassembling, to operate for a temporary period not to exceed three (3) days in City Parks or one hundred twenty (120) days in non-residential zoning districts. The permit application shall be on a form promulgated by the City Manager or Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 4 - -- • SO--- ; -- - - - Subdivision 32. Authorized Temporary Uses A. The City Manager or his/her designee may issue a permit for a mobile food vending operation, defined as a self-contained vehicle or trailer used to prepare and serve food that is ready movable without disassembling, to operate for a temporary period not to exceed three (3) days in City Parks or one hundred twenty (120) days in non-residential zoning districts. The permit application shall be on a form promulgated by the City Manager or Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 4 ; Subdivision 32. Authorized Temporary Uses A. The City Manager or his/her designee may issue a permit for a mobile food vending operation, defined as a self-contained vehicle or trailer used to prepare and serve food that is ready movable without disassembling, to operate for a temporary period not to exceed three (3) days in City Parks or one hundred twenty (120) days in non-residential zoning districts. The permit application shall be on a form promulgated by the City Manager or Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 4 § 11.04 his/her designee and shall include any information needed to establish compliance with this Subdivision. Any application shall include the application fee amount established by the City Council in the master fee schedule, and such fee shall be not refundable if the permit is denied or the applicant withdraws or otherwise ceases operation or use of the permit. All mobile food vending permit applications and permits shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. With the permit application, the applicant shall provide written proof that the applicant is the current holder of all license(s) required by Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota, as applicable, with respect to a mobile food vending operation in which food is prepared and served on a vehicle or trailer, and the vendor shall maintain such license(s) in good standing for the duration of the permit. 2. The vendor shall comply with all other applicable provisions of the City Code including, but not limited to, those regulations regarding parking, signage, lighting, and sound. 3. A permit is valid for only one (1) mobile food vending vehicle or trailer. 4. The permitted days of operation shall be set forth in the permit. A vendor that has obtained a permit under this Subdivision, upon the expiration thereof, may apply for another permit under this Subdivision. 5. The permit application shall contain a signed statement that the applicant shall hold harmless the City, and their officers and employees, and shall indemnify the City, and their officers and employees for any claims for damage to property or injury to persons which may be occasioned by any activity carried on under the terms of the permit. 6. If the application seeks to operate a vending operation in a City -owned property and/or on the public right-of-way, the application shall include documentation satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee evidencing the applicant's public liability, food products liability, automobile liability, and property damage insurance and that the City is or will be named as an additional insured on such insurance for all the permitted days of operation. Such insurance shall be maintained without change for the duration of the permitted days of operation. 7. The permit shall set forth the location(s) where the vending operation may operate and it shall be a violation of this Section for any vendor to engage in vending operations in any location in the City other than the location(s) set forth in the permit. 8. Overnight parking and storage by the vendor is prohibited at the permitted location(s). The vendor must vacate the permitted location when not engaging in vending operations. Hours of vending operation are Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 4 § 11.04 limited to 8 am to 10 pm unless otherwise limited or extended by the City Manager or his/her designee, as set forth in the permit. 9. With the permit application, the applicant shall provide written proof permission from the owner(s) of the property(ies) at the permitted location(s) to engage in vending operations at those location(s). If the permitted location is located on City -owned property, the issuance of the permit by the City shall constitute such permission. 10. The vendor must keep a copy of the permit with the vending unit and demonstrate compliance with the permit and the permit conditions set forth in this Subdivision upon inspection. 11. The vending operation may not be located on public right-of-way unless right-of-way will be closed for an event by the City. The vending operation may not block sidewalks or drive aisles, impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or interfere with public safety. 12. The vending operation shall be located on an impervious surface unless unique circumstances cause the City Manager or his/her designee to permit the operation to be located on a pervious surface. 13. No vending operation may occupy accessible parking spaces or parking spaces used to fulfill any property's minimum parking requirements under this Code, unless the applicable property owner can demonstrate that parking would be adequately supplied during the vending operations. 14. The vendor must provide and remove trash and recycling receptacles for customer use and keep the site in a neat and orderly fashion. The permitted location(s) must be kept free from litter, refuse, debris, junk or other waste which results in offensive odors or unsightly conditions. The vendor shall be responsible for all litter and garbage left by customers. 15. No vending operation may be located within two hundred (200) feet at its closest point to the main entrance of a public eating establishment or any outdoor dining area with the exception of other mobile food vendors and except with the written consent of the proprietor of the establishment or dining area. No person shall either pay or accept payment for such written consent. With the permit application, the applicant shall provide written permission from the proprietor when applicable. 16. No vending operation may be located within one thousand (1,000) feet at its closest point to a school while the school is in session unless written permission from the school principal is provided in the permit application. With the permit application, the applicant shall provide written permission from the principal when applicable. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 4 § 11.04 17. If while holding a permit granted under this Subdivision, a vendor violates any provision of this Subdivision, in addition to any other remedy provided under this Code, the City Manager or his/her designee may revoke the permit and/or prohibit such vendor from obtaining a new permit under this Subdivision for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the date of such violation. Source: Ordinance No. 562, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-30-15 Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. 601, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 11.04: Temporary Uses and Events, Removing Temporary Event Language The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 11.04: Temporary Uses and Events is amended by changing the title of Section as follows: Section 11.04: Temporary Uses Section 2. City Code Section 11.04: Subdivision 1. Purpose and Effect is amended to read as follows: The purpose of this Section is to provide conditions under which certain temporary uses may be allowed while ensuring a minimum negative impact to neighboring land uses. Section 3. City Code Section 11.04, Subdivision 2. Authorized Temporary Events is deleted in its entirety and the remaining Subdivision is renumbered accordingly. Section 4. 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 5. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 7th day of June, 2016. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city 0 goldenlVvVvm�MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 4. E. Public Hearing - Amending Section 11.22 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary In conducting research on the buildability of lots zoned for Moderate Density Residential use (R-2 Zoning), staff has determined that the minimum setbacks, lot size, and lot width requirements were not conducive to the construction of single family homes. While single family homes are permitted in the R-2 District, the minimum lot size and lot width are larger than those required in the R-1 Zoning District. Staff is recommending changes that accommodate single family homes at the same density as two-family homes in the District. Staff is also recommending the addition of essential regulations found in the R-1 District that are missing from the R-2 District. There are currently 27 properties zoned for Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in the City. Of those 27 properties, 15 have single-family homes, 10 have two-family dwellings, and 2 are vacant. All properties would conform to the proposed changes. At the Planning Commission meetings on April 11 and May 9, Commissioners were supportive of the adoption of the additional R-1 District requirements into the R-2 District. The changes to allow single family homes at the same density as two family homes was discussed further. There was concern about the potential for existing R-1 properties to be rezoned to R-2, but any application to rezone a property from R-1 to R-2 would require City Council approval. After staff and the Planning Commission update the Housing Chapter and Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in 2017-2018, the City could then explore the option to rezone additional properties to R-2. Staff is unlikely to support any rezoning applications from R-1 to R-2 until the Comprehensive Plan update is completed. After further research by staff and two discussions with Planning Commission, the Commission unanimously supported the recommended changes. Attachments • Memo to Planning Commission dated April 11, 2016 (7 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated April 11, 2016 (5 pages) • Memo to Planning Commission dated May 9, 2016 (5 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated May 9, 2016 (4 pages) • Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (12 pages) • Ordinance #602, Amending Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (11 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #602, Amending Section 11.22 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District. city pf. golden M E AND U v Y 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: Zoning Code Text Amendment — Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District Background In conducting research on the buildability of lots zoned for Moderate Density Residential use (R-2 Zoning), staff has determined that the minimum setbacks, lot size, and lot width requirements are insufficient when compared to the R-1 Single -Family Zoning District. Staff is recommending changes that further clarify the purpose of the R-2 District, modify the dimensional standards to meet that purpose, and add essential regulations missing from the R-2 District. The Moderate Family Zoning District (previously called the Two -Family Zoning District) was established in 1981, about 45 years after the first Zoning Code was adopted in Golden Valley. At the time, this district did not allow single-family homes. It was created to allow duplexes. Since it was geared toward duplexes, the lots were meant to be larger with greater setbacks to accommodate two families rather than one. In 2007, major changes were made to all Residential Zoning Districts. Single-family homes were added to the list of permitted uses in the R-2 Zoning District to bring the existing single-family homes on those lots into conformance. By not listing single-family homes as permitted in previous years, those single-family homes were considered non -conforming uses and therefore no additions could be made to those homes. This unintentionally resulted in lower reinvestment in those homes. It is believed that some single-family homes were zoned for R-2 use because they were located in areas that were envisioned for slightly higher density in the form of duplexes. However, twin homes are not a popular housing product in the real estate market following the great recession of 2008 and the homeowner liability lawsuits that have plagued the condominium and townhome market for several years. When single-family homes were added to the list of permitted uses back in 2007, the dimensional standards were not addressed. Staff would like to take the opportunity to adjust the dimensional standards to adequately accommodate both single-family homes as well as duplexes/twin homes. Lot Size The existing minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet does not adequately address the purpose and intent of the R-2 Zoning District, which is to provide up to 8 units/acre of housing. An acre is equivalent to 43,560 square feet. One acre of land can only be divided into 3 lots under the existing Proposed Minimum Lot Size of 10,000 SF regulations, which can only provide up to 6 Density Calculation for Two -Family Dwellings units/acre. By reducing the minimum lot size to Permits up to units/acre 1 Acre = 43,560 SF 200 x 200 = 40,000 SF 10,000 square feet, one acre %J land can be divided into 4 lots and provide up to 8 units/acre. The minimum lot size in the R-1 District for most properties is 10,000 square feet. Some areas of the city require a minimum size of 15,000 square feet depending on the size of surrounding lots. 200 ft In order to provide the option for small lot single- family residential in the R-2 District, staff recommends distinguishing a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for single-family homes in the R- 2 District. In this case, one acre of land can be divided into 7 lots and provide up to 7 units/acre. 100 ft x 100 ft 1 oo ft x looft - 10,000 SF =10,000 5F 2 dwellings 2 dwellings permitted permitted 100 ft x 100 ft loop x 1006 =100005F =10,000 SF 2 dwellings 2 dwellings permitted permitted 200 ft The lot sizes established in the R-1 District provide up to 2-4 units/acre depending on the neighborhood. The R-3 District provides up to 10-12 units/acre and the R-4 District provides over 12 units/acre. Lot Width Lot width is a very important regulation in managing density and neighborhood character. Without a minimum lot width, lots could be very narrow and deep. The minimum lot width in the R-1 District is 80 feet. Staff proposes keeping a minimum lot width of 100 feet for R-2 lots with two-family dwellings and allowing a minimum lot width of 50 feet for R-2 lots with a single-family dwelling. There are 30 properties zoned for R-2 residential in the City. All lots are wider than 100 feet (see attached table for more details). Side Yard Setback As with lot width, side yard setbacks are an important regulation that effects the character of a neighborhood. Since extensive work was completed in 2015 on new regulations for side Lot Size = 6,000 SF Side = 10 ft Buildable Area = 2,100 SF < 30% lot coverage = house under 1,800 SF footprint Front 35 ft Side =5ft Lot Depth House = 120 ft Rear = 25 ft Lot Width = 50 ft Side = 10 ft Buildable Area = 2,100 SF < 30% lot coverage = house under 1,800 SF footprint yard setbacks in the R-1 District, staff would like to incorporate that concept into the R-2 District as well. Garage Width As has been discussed in the past, the front facades of homes on narrower lots have the potential to be dominated by garage doors. Staff is interested in applying a maximum garage width to homes in the R-2 zoning district in an effort to limit this effect. Addition of R-1 Regulations to R-2 District It has come to staff's attention that City Code Section 11.22 "Moderate Density Zoning District (R- 2)" has not been updated along with City Code Section 11.21 "Single Family Residential (R-1)" over the last several years. Staff is recommending that multiple subdivisions be added to the R-2 District to make it further align with the R-1 District. The additions will help clarify many issues that could potentially arise in the R-2 Zoning Districts. The subdivisions include: • Side Wall Articulation • Structure Width • Height • Paved Area • Outdoor Storage • Temporary Outdoor Storage • Decks and Platforms • Home Occupation Requirements Properties Affected There are currently 27 properties zoned for Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in the City. Of those 27 properties, 15 have single-family homes, 10 have two-family dwellings, and 2 are vacant. All properties would conform to the proposed changes. Comparison of R-1 and R-2 Dimensional Standards (Existing and Proposed) Highlighted boxes reflect the dimensional standards that staff is recommending be updated Dimensional R-1 Single -Family R-2 Moderate Density R-2 Moderate Density Standard (Existing) (Proposed) Lot Size 10,000 SF if lots within 11,000 SF 6,000 SF (for single - 250 ft are on average < family homes) 18,000 SF 10,000 SF (for 15,000 SF if lots within duplexes/twin homes) 250 ft are on average > 18,000 SF Lot Width 80 ft 100 ft 50 ft (for single-family homes) 100 ft (for duplexes/twin homes) Side Yard Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft 15 ft Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft Setback and 2:1 slope above 15 and 2:1 slope above 15 ft at setback line ft at setback line Lots between 65 ft and Lots between 65 ft and 100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and 100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and 2:1 slope above 15 ft at 2:1 slope above 15 ft at setback line setback line Lots < 65 ft wide: 10% Lots < 65 ft wide: 10% of lot width on north of lot width on north and west sides and 20% and west sides and 20% of lot width on south of lot width on south and east sides and both and east sides and both sides require 4:1 slope sides require 4:1 slope above 15 ft at setback above 15 ft at setback line line Front Yard 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft Setback Rear Yard 25 ft 25 ft 25 ft Setback Structure > 22 ft No standard > 22 ft Width Side Wall Side wall > 32 ft long No standard Side wall > 32 ft long Articulation must shift 2 ft in depth must shift 2 ft in depth for at least 8 ft for at least 8 ft Structure Lots > 10,000 SF: < 30% < 30% coverage < 30% coverage Coverage on coverage Lot Lots > 5,000 SF: < 35% coverage Lots < 5,000 SF: < 40% coverage Impervious < 50% impervious < 50% impervious < 50% impervious Surface Height 28 ft for pitched roofs 30 ft for all roofs 28 ft for pitched roofs 25 ft for flat roofs 25 ft for flat roofs Paved Area 3 ft setback No standard 3 ft setback < 40% of front yard may < 40% of front yard may be paved be paved Accessory All structures total < Structures 1,000 SF 85 No single structure > Front Setback 800 SF Garden < 10 ft in height Structures 5 ft setback to all Rear Setback property lines Garage Width No standard All structures total < 650 SF per dwelling < 10 ft in height 5 ft setback to all property lines No standard All structures total < 650 SF per dwelling < 10 ft in height 5 ft setback to all property lines 22 ft maximum width Local Case Studies: Roseville, Minnetonka, and Eagan Staff has investigated whether other cities accommodate small lot single-family residential in their Zoning Codes. Several cities accommodate it, but at varied levels of difference when compared to their R-1 Districts. City of Eagan Residential Dimensional Standards Zoning District R-1 (single-family) R -1S (small lot) Lot Size 12,000 8,000 Lot Width 85 65 Front Setback 30 30 Side Setback 10 6 Rear Setback 15 15 Height 35 35 Building Coverage 20% 25% R-2 (two-family) 15,000 or 7,500/unit 100 for single family or 50 for two-family 30 10 15 35 20% Key Observations: The City of Eagan has regulations that align the most with the staff recommendations in this proposal. Eagan's Code states that the RIS District was created to increase the variety of housing styles and values within the City. City of Roseville Residential Dimensional Standards Zoning District R-1 (single-family) R -S (small lot) R-2 (two-family) Lot Size 6,000 4,500 6,000 Lot Width 60 45 60 Front Setback 20 18 20 Side Setback 5 interior, 15 street 5 interior, 12.5 street 5 interior, 15 street Rear Setback 20% lot depth, 10 10 and minimum 20% lot depth, 10 open space of 700 SF Height 35 35 35 Building Coverage 20% 20% 20% Key Observations: Roseville allows significantly smaller lot sizes, but there is small amount of the lot that many be covered by the building. This may cause larger lot sizes than the minimum amount allowed. R -S (small lot) standards are consistently 25% smaller than R-1 and R-2. City of Minnetonka Residential Dimensional Standards Zoning District R-1 (single-family) R -1A (small lot) R-2 (two-family) up to 3 units/acre up to 3 units/acre Lot Size 22,000 15,000 12,500/unit Lot Width Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Height Building Coverage Buildable Area 110 35 10, sum of all sides setbacks > 30 40 or 20% of depth 35 20% 3,500 75 35 10 30 or 20% of depth 35 20% 2,400 55 35 10 30 or 20% of depth 35 20% 2,400 Key Observations: Minnetonka's R-2 district was created to allow two-family dwellings, but not to provide for increased residential densities in comparison to R-1. The dimensional standards for the R-2 District are "per dwelling," not "per lot." The R -1A category is not an official Zoning District, rather it is acknowledging the previously platted "lots of record" like Golden Valley has on Rhode Island Avenue. Rhode Island Avenue Seven new single-family houses were built on Rhode Island Avenue in the last 3 years and are an excellent example of small lot single-family development in the city. All of the lots are 50 feet wide and have a total lot size of 6,950 square feet. These lots were platted many decades ago, so were not subjected to current subdivision regulations which limit lot size and width. The homes are zoned for R-1 and although they meet many of the setback requirements, variances were given from the side wall articulation requirement and the additional side setback for structures over 15 feet in height. The corner lots also received variances from the setback requirement on one of the front yards. A summary of each property's dimensions is attached. Summary of Recommendations Staff recommends amending Section 11.22 of the Zoning Code to modify lot size, lot width, and side yard setbacks; and add regulations regarding structure width, side wall articulation, paved area, outdoor storage, temporary outdoor storage, decks and platforms, and home occupation requirements. Staff would like to discuss further the trade-offs in the proposed lot sizes and lot widths, as well as review the side setback and side wall articulation requirements and idea of a maximum garage width. Attachments Summary of R-2 Zoned Properties (1 page) Map of R-2 Zoned Properties (1 page) Summary of Two -Family Dwellings in the R-1 Zoning District (1 page) Map of Two -Family Dwellings in the R-1 Zoning District (1 page) Summary of Recent Developments on Rhode Island Avenue (1 page) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 6 Kluchka asked if the City could have rezonethe property prior to its sale. Zimmerman id there was a small amount of time that t City knew the property was for sale. He e ained that the property hasn't been on t Zoning Map or Land Use Map for many year t has just been designated as right -o ay. Baker ask if the original zoning on the p stated that th a is no evidence that it was the property is lkt rezoned. Zimmerman sl technically thereno rules or requireme any potential issues zoning it R-1. Waldhauser said she is cli neighborhood and meets certainty as far as what can neighborhood still has all of added that she is also inter to the south. rty was ever formally remov Goellner r removed. Baker asked ut the risks if that if there is no zon' on the property, He added that the ' would like to avoid ned to zone th property R-1. eems to fit in nicely with the of the dimensi nal require nts. There would also be some built on this roperty. , e said as far as natural habitat the Th Bore WirtPark 'the back side of this property. She este keepin the isting park access/connection located Baker asked if the excess right-of-way 0 incorporated into/bn bject property. allowing someonto own and n1 MnDOT and the oard on ke ing wall located to thh, it is unli ly Mr Segelbaum said blic is oncerned thinks the best roto r one the pro happening. He saw Id also like toCommission woumaintain the trremaining MnDO-of-way propertybeen developed ere is a possibilitsubdivided so rez this property no I the existing park access could be erman said MnDOT would have to be open to nso he thinks it makes sense to work with t �a ess. Goellner added that with a noise OT w d sell any of the right-of-way. out the u\Whauser this situation and that he rty to R -1t the unknowns from t the Cityow that the Planning it/park accauser added that if the were offerend this property hadn't the two coo ther and then would end MOVEDby KI hka, seconded by Wald auser and motion carried una ously to recommend pproval of the request to c ange the designation on the Ge ral Land Use Plan Map m Right -of -Way to Residen al -Low Density for Lot 11, Block 8, est Tyrol Hills (for erly 3900 Wayzata Blvd). MOW by Kluchka, seconded by Walduser and motion carried unanimously to- rectnmend approval of the request to rTts-cingle one Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) from Right -of -Way Family Residential (R-1). --Short Recess -- 4. Discussion Item - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District - Z000-104 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 PVDs, 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. Reports on Meetings o the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zon' g Appeals and other Meetings Zimm man stated that a PU Amendment for the Central Park Office wer is expected to be s itted soon. Wald hauser scussed an meeting policy. 6. Other Busi • Council Lia that was in the S No report was given. 7. Adjournmen The meeting adjourned 9:16 p John Kluchka, Secretary ing the neighborhood Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant ty-Of go 1 d e n!. 0 - valley Date: May 9, 2016 Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment — Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District Summary At the Planning Commission meeting on April 11, staff discussed potential changes to the R-2 Zoning District in order to address two issues. First, the R-2 District is lacking some of the regulations currently included for homes in the R-1 District. Second, modifications to some of the dimensional requirements of the R-2 District could allow it to be better used as a tool to provide a wider variety of housing types in Golden Valley. The Commission supported the adoption of the additional R-1 District requirements into the R-2 District. The changes to allow small lot single family homes were discussed further. The Commission asked staff to return with suggestions for how this tool could be applied throughout the city. There was discussion about the potential for existing R-1 properties to be rezoned to R- 2. Some Commissioners are concerned that several R-1 properties could be rezoned as R-2, initiated by the City or a property owner. Staff recommends adopting changes to the R-2 Zoning District prior to designating any additional properties as R-2. It would be premature to rezone any properties to R-2 without analyzing, defining, and clarifying the purpose of the District and all of its regulations. After staff and the Planning Commission update the Housing Chapter and Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in 2017-2018, then the City could explore the option to rezone additional properties to R-2. Potential Priorities for R-2 Locations in 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (see attached map): • Along streets with major reinvestment in infrastructure (Douglas Drive) • Near major arterial roadways or activity centers • Near frequent transit service (existing or planned) • Some existing two-family dwellings (depending on location) (Xerxes Avenue) • Conglomeration of single-family lots conforming to R-2 dimensions (Rhode Island Avenue) There are currently 27 properties zoned for Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in the City. Of those 27 properties, 15 have single-family homes, 10 have two-family dwellings, and 2 are vacant. All properties would conform to the proposed changes. Garage Requirements The front facades of homes on narrower lots have the potential to be dominated by garage doors. Staff is recommending that a maximum garage width be established in the R-2 District in order to mitigate this potential visual impact. Staff proposes that the garage be limited to 65% of the home's width. This would be measured using architectural elevations. For a lot 50 feet in width, the maximum width of a home is limited to 35 feet by the side yard setback requirements. Therefore, a garage could be up to 22.75 feet wide measured from one exterior wall to the other (22.75 feet is 65% of the 35 foot wide home). If a builder Rhode Island Avenue in Golden Valley or homeowner prefers a larger garage, then the lot must be wider. On Rhode Island Avenue, the lots are 50 feet wide and the garages are 20.5 feet wide. For a Two -Family dwelling, it is recommended that the maximum width of the garage be limited to 65% of the width of each dwelling. In the R-1 District, a single-family dwelling must have a two stall garage unless an applicant can show adequate space for a second stall to be built in the future without a variance. In the R-2 District, a two stall garage is required for single family dwellings. For two family dwellings, each unit must have a one stall garage. Staff is recommending that the requirement for a two stall garage in single family dwellings be removed from the R-2 District requirements so that a minimum of one stall is required per dwelling unit. Articulation Staff recommends that the side wall articulation requirement be included in the R-2 Zoning District. In 2008, the City Council adopted an articulation requirement to the R-1 District in order to prevent the visual impact of long walls, which can create a tunnel -like effect between homes. For any new construction in the R-1 District, whether a new house, addition, or replacement through a tear -down, any resulting side wall longer than thirty two (32) feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length. The homes that were recently built on Rhode Island Avenue received a variance from this requirement to minimize cost and maximize buildable area. Benefits • Prevents tunnel -like effect between homes • Provides visual interest on sides of homes • Consistency with R-1 is easier to administer Potential Consequences • Cantilevers are a common way to provide articulation; bay windows and chimney chases allowed in minimum setback • Often requires higher cost of construction • Variance applications may increase and the Board may be sympathetic to small lot size Side Yard Setbacks Staff recommends that the side yard setback requirements used in the R-1 Zoning District be included in the R-2 Zoning District. In 2008, the City Council adopted a height component to the side yard setback requirement. In 2015, it was refined through the Subdivision Study process. The height component uses a "tent" approach to determine side setbacks. This ensures that light and air can reasonably reach neighboring homes. For R-1 lots less than 65 feet in width, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 4:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line. The homes that were recently built on Rhode Island Avenue received a variance from this requirement to maximize square footage on the second story of the homes. Benefits • Ensures more light and air in between homes • Consistency with R-1 is easier to administer Potential Consequences • Reduces buildable area for 2nd story • Garage could look more prominent • Potentially a higher cost of construction • Variance applications may increase and the Board may be sympathetic to small lot size Comparison of R-1 and R-2 Dimensional Standards (Existing and Proposed) Highlighted boxes reflect the dimensional standards that staff is recommending be updated Dimensional R-2 Moderate Density R-2 Moderate Density Standard R-1 Single -Family (Existing) g) (Proposed) Lot Size 10,000 SF if lots within 11,000 SF 6,000 SF (for single - 250 ft are on average < family homes) 18,000 SF 10,000 SF (for 15,000 SF if lots within duplexes/twin homes) 250 ft are on average > 18,000 SF Lot Width 80 ft 100 ft 50 ft (for single-family homes) 100 ft (for duplexes/twin homes) Side Yard Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft 15 ft Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft Setback and 2:1 slope above 15 and 2:1 slope above 15 ft at setback line ft at setback line Lots between 65 ft and Lots between 65 ft and 100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and 100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and Front Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Structure Width Side Wall Articulation Structure Coverage on Lot Impervious Surface Height Paved Area Accessory Structures Garden Structures 2:1 slope above 15 ft at setback line Lots < 65 ft wide: 10% of lot width on north and west sides and 20% of lot width on south and east sides and both sides require 4:1 slope above 15 ft at setback line 35 ft 35 ft 25 ft >22ft Side wall > 32 ft long must shift 2 ft in depth for at least 8 ft Lots > 10,000 SF: < 30% coverage Lots > 5,000 SF: < 35% coverage Lots < 5,000 SF: < 40% coverage < 50% impervious 28 ft for pitched roofs 25 ft for flat roofs 3 ft setback < 40% of front yard may be paved All structures total < 1,000 SF No single structure > 800 SF < 10 ft in height 5 ft setback to all property lines 25 ft No standard No standard < 30% coverage < 50% impervious 30 ft for all roofs No standard All structures total < 650 SF per dwelling < 10 ft in height 5 ft setback to all property lines 2:1 slope above 15 ft at setback line Lots < 65 ft wide: 10% of lot width on north and west sides and 20% of lot width on south and east sides and both sides require 4:1 slope above 15 ft at setback line 35 ft 25 ft > 22 ft Side wall > 32 ft long must shift 2 ft in depth for at least 8 ft < 30% coverage < 50% impervious 28 ft for pitched roofs 25 ft for flat roofs 3 ft setback < 40% of front yard may be paved All structures total < 650 SF per dwelling < 10 ft in height 5 ft setback to all property lines Garage Width No standard No standard maximum width = 65% of width of principal structure, measured on front elevation Summary of Recommendations Staff recommends amending Section 11.22 of the Zoning Code to modify lot size, lot width, height, and side yard setbacks; and add regulations regarding structure width, side wall articulation, garage provisions, paved area, outdoor storage, temporary outdoor storage, decks and platforms, and home occupation requirements. Attachments Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (11 pages) Map of Potential Priorities for R-2 Locations in 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (1 page) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 9 0. Other Impacts to the City andesidents: Staff does not anticipate any other ative effects of the propose use. The location is a multi -tenant industrial prop with adequate parking serve the individual us Conditions: 1. The plans by submitt the ppl this approval. 2. In the event complaints to Manager or his/her de ' ee to e modifications to t umber of in order to ad . ately address 3. All signa ust meet the reqs 4. This roval is subject to all c r ations, or laws with autho n April 12, 2016, shall become a part of arding parking are deemed by the City sig ' nt, the City reserves the right to require ;es lease to the days and hours of operation arking concerns. ements of the City's ier state, federal, and loca y over this development. e (Section 4.20). 4Dances, 4. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment — Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District — ZO00-104 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To modify the language regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot width and adding other missing regulations to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. Goellner reminded the Commission of their discussion on this proposed amendment held on April 11. The consensus at that time was to add the following R-1 Single Family Residential regulations to the R-2 Moderate Density Residential section of the City Code: side wall articulation requirements, minimum structure width, paved area coverage, setbacks, garage provisions, outdoor storage regulations, deck and platform language, and home occupation requirements. The Commission also requested further discussion on the function and location of future R-2 zoned properties. Goellner discussed the densities allowed in the residential zoning districts and explained that the goal is to position R-2 more appropriately with the regulations of all the residential zoning districts. She noted that the stated purpose of the R-1 zoning district allows up to 5 units per acre and currently allows 2-4 units per acres due to minimum lot sizes. The stated purpose of the R-2 zoning district allows up to 8 units per acre and currently allows 6 units per acre if all two-family dwellings, 3 units per acre if single-family dwellings. The stated purpose of the R-3 zoning district allows up to 10-12 units per acre and the stated purpose of the R-4 zoning district allows over 12 units per acre. Goellner referred to various photos of residential properties and noted that small -lot single-family residential development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of housing options. It also provides an opportunity to build single family homes at the same density as two-family dwellings. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 10 Goellner discussed staff's recommendations including: a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for single-family homes, a minimum lot width of 50 feet for single-family homes, the same side yard setbacks and height regulations as the R-1 Single Family zoning district, and a maximum garage width of 65% of the home's width. She added that the maximum garage width regulation is being proposed because currently there are no garage width regulations in any residential zoning district, and there are anticipated issues with wide garages on narrower lots. Goellner stated that there are currently 27 properties that would be affected by the proposed amendments. Fifteen of those are single-family homes, 10 of those are two- family homes, and two are vacant. All of the 27 existing properties would meet the proposed lot width and lot size recommendations. Goellner noted that traditional single family homes on large lots will still dominate Golden Valley as it is the community's vision to keep most residential lots larger in size. She referred to a map of the City and discussed various areas where the R-2 zoning district might be appropriate. Waldhauser said it seems logical to split 100 -foot wide lots into two 50 -foot wide lots if the City wants to allow smaller single-family properties. She questioned if something narrower than 100 feet would be logical for a twin home. Segelbaum referred to the garage requirements and questioned if the proposed language would require each unit to have two garage stalls. Goellner stated that each unit would be required to have one garage stall. Segelbaum questioned if the side yard setback requirements would be different if an R- 2 zoned property borders an R-1 zoned property. Zimmerman stated that the side yard setbacks are based on the width of the lot and would be the same for R-1 and R-2 zoned properties. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, said he wholeheartedly supports the proposed amendments, knowing that the variance process is available if a need is thought to exist. Peter Knaeble, 6100 Glenwood, said he agrees with Mr. Gross that the proposed amendments are a good idea. He stated that there may be issues in regard to side wall articulation requirements and increased side yard setbacks with the height of a house. He would not recommend those two regulations be included in the R-2 zoning district because they won't be as big of an issue on narrower lots like they are on R-1 zoned properties. Goellner noted that the homes recently built on Rhode Island Avenue have 20.5 ft. wide garages and would meet the proposed garage width regulation. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 11 Blum said he is concerned that the purpose of these proposed changes is to maximize density which is contrary to the desire of the community. Segelbaum questioned if the minimum lot size should be larger than 6,000 square feet. Blum questioned if the changes made to the Zoning Code as a result of the recent subdivision moratorium study would be applied to the R-2 zoning district. Goellner said no. Blum reiterated that during the moratorium, residents said they didn't want density maximized. Waldhauser stated that another goal of the City is to offer different types of housing options. These proposed changes give the City an opportunity for more variety which is broader than just maximizing density. She stated that smaller homes on smaller lots work and that the City did add protections to the areas with large homes on larger lots. Segelbaum questioned if the proposed changes would create a desire for homeowners to rezone their properties to R-2. Baker said he shares the same concern, but when he looks at the Zoning Map the properties zoned R-2 are not in the areas where concern has been expressed in the past so he is at ease with the proposed amendments keeping in mind that if there were a push to rezone properties to R-2 they would hear about it. Segelbaum said he is concerned about going from the required 11,000 square foot minimum lot size for R-2 properties to 10,000 square feet because he doesn't want to get inundated with rezoning requests. Blum questioned the desire for these proposed changes if there have been legal problems and no demand for twin homes in the past. Zimmerman stated that the City is trying to shift the focus from twin homes to small -lot single-family homes that would not increase the density. Waldhauser referred to the aesthetics of a twin home and said she thinks twin homes are great and she would rather see twin homes and townhomes than individual homes with alleys between them. Blum asked if twin homes could be removed from the recommendation entirely. Zimmerman stated that removing twin homes from the recommendation would cause existing twin homes to be non -conforming. Segelbaum referred to the language requiring only one garage stall per unit and stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals sees a lot of requests to add second garage stalls. He questioned if only requiring one garage stall is setting the City up for more variance requests. He said he would like to require two garage stalls for each dwelling. Baker said he would not support requiring two garage stalls because he would like to encourage fewer cars. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners how they felt about the setback requirements and the requirement regarding increased setbacks as the height of the house increases. Blum said he was okay with the recommended language. Waldhauser agreed although it makes homes more expensive to build, larger setbacks will protect neighboring properties. She stated that she doesn't think the City will see smaller or more affordable homes as a result of these proposed changes. There will just be big homes on smaller lots. Blum suggested that the proposed lot width be 60 feet to match the ratio in the Single Family zoning district. Zimmerman stated that they tried a number of different lot sizes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 12 and the 6,000 square foot lot size and 50 foot width requirements fit. Waldhauser noted that if the minimum lot width were 60 feet then an existing 100 -foot wide lot couldn't be split into two lots. Kluchka said he does not want to require 60 -foot wide lots in the R-2 zoning district. Baker agreed that if the City is trying to create an additional option than requiring 60 feet of lot width wouldn't work. Blum said he hesitates to think that they are meeting the City's goal of keeping single-family large lot residential neighborhoods with this proposed change. He said he is concerned about Golden Valley losing a real competitive advantage and questioned what future generations are going to want. He said he supports higher density development in certain areas like around transportation hubs and light rail stations, but he is against these proposed R-2 zoning amendments in single family areas. Segelbaum agreed but said this seems to be a reasonable compromise for existing R-2 properties. Baker agreed and said he also doesn't think the City will see a lot more R-2 zoned properties as a result of the proposed changes. Kluchka agreed and said the proposed changes make the existing R-2 zoning district more usable. Waldhauser agreed with Blum that there are more dramatic ways to meet the City's density goals with R-3 and R-4 zoned properties and she thinks that would be a good discussion for the community to have. Blum said he is okay with the majority of the proposed changes, but he is concerned about the purpose and the proposed lot width. Zimmerman stated that the purpose statement could be better defined in each district to address increasing housing options, diversity in housing, etc. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed R-2 Zoning Code text amendments. Informal Public Hearing – Zong Code Text Amendment – Amending Temporary Uses and EventsIZO00-105 cant: City of Golden V To consider rei regarding Tem Zimmerman stated tha the last C special events section o, MQ Code regarding temporary events Xnow ng redundant language in the Zoning Code ry Events. a,000 Council meeting thecil adopted a separate the existing Ian a in the Zoning Code undant anuld be removed. Segelbaum asked if the ne]s,,PCed Coas similar to the existing language in the Zoning Code. Zimmermanid that all of the Planning related issues with special events have been new Special Events language. Segelbaum open2AAfre public heari . See and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum cl the public hearin Zaval y Kluchka, seconded by B ker and motion rried unanimously to recommend of the Zoning Code text am ndment removing anguage regarding temporary --Short Recess— Section ii.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Moderate Density (R-2) Residential 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 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 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 Moderate Density Twe Family (R-2) Residential 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 and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts: A. Single Family dwellings B. Two -Family dwellings C. Townhouses D. Foster Family Homes E. Home occupations, as regulated by Seetien 11.21, F. Essential Services - Class I G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 12 Subdivision S. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons B. Group foster family homes Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots i cyu I -F, -e shall be Fequit=ed. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section except on those lots located within an approved plat A. Single Family Dwellings A lot of a minimum area of six thousand (6,000) square feet and a minimum width of fifty (50) feet at the front setback line shall be required for one (1) Single Family Dwelling_ B. Two -Family Dwellings. A lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a minimum width of one -hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required for a Two -Family Dwelling_ Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision S. Easements No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Building Lot CoverageMaximum Coverage by Building and impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the lot area. Tetal ingpervieus SUFfaee en any lot shall not exceed fifty peFeent (50%) ef the let area. Subdivision 10. Impervious Surface Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot or parcel area. Subdivision 4811. Principal Structures Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 12 A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Source: Ordinance No. 547, 2nd Series Effective Date: 03-26-15 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be fifteen (15) feet The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2.1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure belowl; 15' height 15' side setback 2:1 slope f / ` Average height of highest f/------------------------------- pitched roof 28' maximum -------- -------- ---------- - - - - -- -'%Flat roof 25' maximum Lot width 100' or greater 15' height 15' side setback Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 12 b. In the case of lots having a width greater than sixty-five (65) feet and less than one hundred (100) feet the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one- half (12.5) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2.1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line jsee Figure below]l 2:1 slope e f verage height of highest pitched he 28' maximum _ _. ____ Flat roof 25' maximum 15' height I 1 15' height 12.5' side setback 12.5' side setback Lot width greater than 65' & less than 100' c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty five (65) feet or less, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot width (up to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet) The side setback for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 4.1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure below]; r r � r i r t 4:1 slope it ; 1 l Average height of highest pitched roof 28' maximum \ Flat roof 25' maximum 15' height ( 115' height South or East North or West Side setback 20% of lot width Side setback 10% of lot width Golden Valley City C Lot width 65' or less )f 12 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter Front Lot Line. Source: Ordinance No. 547, 2nd Series Effective Date: 03-26-15 5. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the height limitation shall constitute the building envelope [see Figures below]. No portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for: a. cornices and eaves, no more than thirty (30) inches: b. bay windows or chimney chases, no more than twenty-four (24) inches; c. chimneys, vents, or antennas; d._ stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size; e. accessible ramps. Loo tt ne i.irw B. Height Limitations. District te exceed a height ef thiFty (30) feet as defined in the Gity's buildirq eede. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District with a Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 12 meat Yard Y SiCtt Lot Line Sick L61 L,A# E z2dNIU�JH 5i�yt Side Yard Y4rd i.irw B. Height Limitations. District te exceed a height ef thiFty (30) feet as defined in the Gity's buildirq eede. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District with a Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 12 building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses. C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than twenty-two (22) feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition, or replacement through a tear -down, any resulting side wall longer than thirty-two (32) feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length, for every thirty-two 32) feet of wall. E. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. F. Fences. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures. Subdivision 121. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 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 and side 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 thirty- five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line. Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 12 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. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from an alley. B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 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. C. Garage ProvisionSCOnStFUEtien Required. 1. Minimum Garage Stalls. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. Single faFni+y dwelling units shall FequffiFe a twe (2) stall gaFage. 2. Maximum Garage Width. The width of the front wall of a garage, whether attached or detached, shall not exceed sixty-five percent (65%) of the width of the dwelling's front fagade. For purposes of this subsection, a dwelling's front fagade means that portion of the dwelling's building facing a front lot line that includes any front wall of a garage and provides vehicular access to the garage. a. Measurement of Front Fagade. In the case of a Single Family Dwelling, the width of the front fagade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling's exterior side walls at the front fagade's widest point. In the case of a Two -Family Dwelling or Townhome, the width of the front fagade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling unit's side boundary walls at the front fagade's widest point. b. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this subsection, the front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the garage facing the front lot line, including any door providing vehicular access to the garage. The width of the front wall shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the exterior or outermost location of the garage's two side walls at their intersection with the garage's front wall. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. E. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 12 included in this requirement. Any accessory structure over two hundred (200) square feet in area requires a building permit. F. Size of Accessory Structure. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. G. -Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements as accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures. I_Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 I Roof. Gambrel or Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than two hundred (200) square feet. K. Photovoltaic Modules. Free-standing Photovoltaic modules, including solar panels and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three (3) square feet shall meet the same setback, location and height requirements as accessory structures. Source: Ordinance No. 443, 2nd Series Effective Date: 8-13-10 Subdivision 13. Decks and Platforms Decks and platforms not more than thirty (30) inches but greater than eight (8) inches above adjacent grade and not attached to a structure with frost footings and which is not part of an accessible route shall require a zoning permit issued by the City Manager or his/her designee. The fee for the zoning permit is established by the City Council. The purpose of the zoning permit is to insure that decks greater than eight (8) inches but less than thirty (30) inches in height are located in a conforming location on the lot. Subdivision 14. Home Occupation Requirements A. Home occupations in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 12 1. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes 2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation of the home occupation. 3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the home occupation. 4. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home occupation. 5. A permitted occupation, shall not result in noise fumes traffic, lights odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical radio or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health safety, enjoyment and general welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6 No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises except such that are incidental to the permitted home occupation. 7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for residential purposes. 8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the home shall be limited to between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm. 9. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation. 10. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway of the property where the home occupation operates. 11. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight (8) client trips per day and serve no more than two (2) clients or customers at a time. 12. There shall only be one (1) outside employee allowed on the premises at which a home occupation is located. 13. All other applicable City State and Federal licenses codes and regulations shall be met. B. The following uses are prohibited home occupations: 1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats and other vehicles 2. Restaurants or cafes Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 12 3. Animal hospital 4. Veterinarian Clinic 5. Funeral Home, mortuary or columbarium 6. Medical/Dental clinic or similar 7. Stable or kennel 8. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one (1) person and repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or motor 9. Retail sales 10. Sale or repair of firearms Subdivision 15. Outdoor Storage Outdoor storage of items on properties within the R-2 Zoning District is governed by the following provisions: A. Front Yard Storage. 1. Storage of items in the front yard may occur solely upon a driveway, and in no other location. 2. No personal motorized recreational vehicle or boat may be stored in a front yard, except upon a trailer. 3. Only one (1) of the following may be stored in all front yards of any lot: a. Recreational camping vehicle; b. Trailer. The term "trailer", as used in this Subdivision, means a trailer for multiple purposes including but not limited to hauling a boat, personal motorized recreational vehicle, or fish house. -I-4. Storage in the front yard of items other than those listed in Subdivision 14(A)(3) above may not exceed thirty (30) days unless a Front Yard Storage Permit is issued to the property owner. A Front Yard Storage Permit may be issued at the discretion of the City Manager or City Staff designated by the City Manager. B. Setbacks. Golden Valley City Code Page 10 of 12 1. Front Yard Storage. Any storage of items in the front yard shall be behind the property line. 2. Side Yard Storage. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the front of the rear yard, may not be stored within three (3) feet of the property line. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the rear of the primary structure or attached garde, may not be stored within five (5) feet of the property line. 3. Rear Yard Storage. Items stored in the rear yard may not be stored within five (5) feet of the property line. C. Screening. Side and Rear Yard Storage. Any storage of a recreational camping vehicle, fish house, trailer, boat, or personal motorized recreational vehicle in the side or rear yard must be screened using either vegetative screening or a fence in accordance with Section 11.72 of this Chapter. Subdivision 16. Temporary Outdoor Storage Temporary Outdoor Storage in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Duration. Temporary outdoor storage units shall not be stored on a property for more than seven (7) days. B. Location. Temporary outdoor storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be located completely on private property. Subdivision 17. Paved Area Requirements Paved areas in the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, include those constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, and are governed by the following provisions: A. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved. B. Setbacks. Paved areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. D. Street Access. Each lot may have only one (1) street curb cut access, except the following lots may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses: 1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages. Golden Valley City Code Page 11 of 12 2. A lot of a resident that requires additional driveway access that qualifies for a reduced class rate for homestead property as defined by MN Statute 273.13 subdivision 22 Class 1b. Subdivision 18-2. Garden Structures Garden Structures shall be located no closer than five (5) feet to any property line. Garden Structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. Source: Ordinance No. 433, 2nd Series Effective Date: 2-26-10 Golden Valley City Code Page 12 of 12 ORDINANCE NO. 602, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Moderate Density (R-2) Residential 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 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 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 Moderate Density (R-2) Residential 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 and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts: A. Single Family dwellings B. Two -Family dwellings C. Townhouses D. Foster Family Homes E. Home occupations F. Essential Services - Class I G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter. Ordinance No. 602 -2- June 7, 2016 Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons B. Group foster family homes Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. A. Single Family Dwellings. A lot of a minimum area of six thousand (6,000) square feet and a minimum width of fifty (50) feet at the front setback line shall be required for one (1) Single Family Dwelling. B. Two -Family Dwellings. A lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a minimum width of one -hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required for a Two -Family Dwelling. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. meet the requirements of the corner visibility Subdivision 8. Easements No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Building Lot Coverage Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Impervious Surface Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot or parcel area. Subdivision 11. Principal Structures Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, Ordinance No. 602 -3- June 7, 2016 with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure below]; 15' height 2:1 slope Average height of highest pitched roof 28' maximum - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Flat roof 25' maximum 15' height 15' side setback 15' side setback Lot width 100' or greater b. In the case of lots having a width greater than sixty-five (65) feet and less than one hundred (100) feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure below]; 2:1 slope Average height of highest _. _ _ pitched roof 28' maximum --- Flat roof 25' maximum 15' height ( ) 15' height 12.5' side setback 12.5' side setback Lot width greater than 65' & less than 100' Ordinance No. 602 -4- June 7, 2016 c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty five (65) feet or less, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot width (up to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet). The side setback for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 4:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure below]; 4:1 slope 15' height South or East Side setback 20% of lot width Average height of highest pitched roof 28' maximum Flat roof 25' maximum Lot width 65'orless 15' height North or West Side setback 10% of lot width 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter Front Lot Line. 5. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the height limitation shall constitute the building envelope [see Figures below]. No portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for: a. cornices and eaves, no more than thirty (30) inches: b. bay windows or chimney chases, no more than twenty-four (24) inches; c. chimneys, vents, or antennas; d. stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size; e. accessible ramps. Ordinance No. 602 -5- June 7, 2016 Si Lot r* Line B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses. C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than twenty-two (22) feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition, or replacement through a tear -down, any resulting side wall longer than thirty-two (32) feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length, for every thirty-two (32) feet of wall. E. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. F. Fences. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures. Subdivision 12. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 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 and side 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 Ordinance No. 602 -6- June 7, 2016 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 thirty-five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet 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. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from an alley. B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 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. C. Garage Provisions. 1. Minimum Garage Stalls. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. 2. Maximum Garage Width. The width of the front wall of a garage, whether attached or detached, shall not exceed sixty-five percent (65%) of the width of the dwelling's front fagade. For purposes of this subsection, a dwelling's front fagade means that portion of the dwelling's building facing a front lot line that includes any front wall of a garage and provides vehicular access to the garage. a. Measurement of Front Fagade. In the case of a Single Family Dwelling, the width of the front fagade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling's exterior side walls at the front fagade's widest point. In the case of a Two -Family Dwelling or Townhome, the width of the front fagade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling unit's side boundary walls at the front fagade's widest point. b. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this subsection, the front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the garage facing the front lot line, including any door providing vehicular access to the garage. The width of the front wall shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the exterior or Ordinance No. 602 -7- June 7, 2016 outermost location of the garage's two side walls at their intersection with the garage's front wall. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. E. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. Any accessory structure over two hundred (200) square feet in area requires a building permit. F. Size of Accessory Structure. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements as accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures. I. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. J. Roof. Gambrel or Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than two hundred (200) square feet. K. Photovoltaic Modules. Free-standing Photovoltaic modules, including solar panels and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three (3) square feet shall meet the same setback, location and height requirements as accessory structures. Subdivision 13. Decks and Platforms Decks and platforms not more than thirty (30) inches but greater than eight (8) inches above adjacent grade and not attached to a structure with frost footings and which is not part of an accessible route shall require a zoning permit issued by the City Manager or his/her designee. The fee for the zoning permit is established by the City Council. The purpose of the zoning permit is to insure that decks greater than eight (8) inches but less than thirty (30) inches in height are located in a conforming location on the lot. Subdivision 14. Home Occupation Requirements A. Home occupations in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: 1. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. Ordinance No. 602 -8- June 7, 2016 2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation of the home occupation. 3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the home occupation. 4. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home occupation. 5. A permitted occupation, shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment and general welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises except such that are incidental to the permitted home occupation. 7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for residential purposes. 8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the home shall be limited to between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm. 9. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation. 10. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway of the property where the home occupation operates. 11. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight (8) client trips per day and serve no more than two (2) clients or customers at a time. 12. There shall only be one (1) outside employee allowed on the premises at which a home occupation is located. 13. All other applicable City, State and Federal licenses, codes and regulations shall be met. B. The following uses are prohibited home occupations: 1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats and other vehicles 2. Restaurants or cafes 3. Animal hospital 4. Veterinarian Clinic Ordinance No. 602 -9- June 7, 2016 5. Funeral Home, mortuary or columbarium 6. Medical/Dental clinic or similar 7. Stable or kennel 8. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one (1) person and repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or motor 9. Retail sales 10. Sale or repair of firearms Subdivision 15. Outdoor Storage Outdoor storage of items on properties within the R-2 Zoning District is governed by the following provisions: A. Front Yard Storage. 1. Storage of items in the front yard may occur solely upon a driveway, and in no other location. 2. No personal motorized recreational vehicle or boat may be stored in a front yard, except upon a trailer. 3. Only one (1) of the following may be stored in all front yards of any lot: a. Recreational camping vehicle; b. Trailer. The term "trailer", as used in this Subdivision, means a trailer for multiple purposes including but not limited to hauling a boat, personal motorized recreational vehicle, or fish house. 4. Storage in the front yard of items other than those listed in Subdivision 14(A)(3) above may not exceed thirty (30) days unless a Front Yard Storage Permit is issued to the property owner. A Front Yard Storage Permit may be issued at the discretion of the City Manager or City Staff designated by the City Manager. B. Setbacks. 1. Front Yard Storage. Any storage of items in the front yard shall be behind the property line. 2. Side Yard Storage. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the front of the rear yard, may not be stored within three (3) feet of the property line. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the rear of the primary structure or attached garage, may not be stored within five (5) feet of the property line. Ordinance No. 602 -10- June 7, 2016 3. Rear Yard Storage. Items stored in the rear yard may not be stored within five (5) feet of the property line. C. Screening. Side and Rear Yard Storage. Any storage of a recreational camping vehicle, fish house, trailer, boat, or personal motorized recreational vehicle in the side or rear yard must be screened using either vegetative screening or a fence in accordance with Section 11.72 of this Chapter. Subdivision 16. Temporary Outdoor Storage Temporary Outdoor Storage in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Duration. Temporary outdoor storage units shall not be stored on a property for more than seven (7) days. B. Location. Temporary outdoor storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be located completely on private property. Subdivision 17. Paved Area Requirements Paved areas in the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, include those constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, and are governed by the following provisions: A. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved. B. Setbacks. Paved areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. D. Street Access. Each lot may have only one (1) street curb cut access, except the following lots may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses: 1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages. 2. A lot of a resident that requires additional driveway access that qualifies for a reduced class rate for homestead property as defined by MN Statute 273.13 subdivision 22 Class 1 b. Subdivision 18. Garden Structures Garden Structures shall be located no closer than five (5) feet to any property line. Garden Structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Ordinance No. 602 -11- June 7, 2016 Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon passage and publication of Ordinance 603, as required by law or on the 30th day of June, 2016, whichever is sooner. Adopted by the City Council this 7th day of June, 2016. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city of r OldenMEMORANDUM valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 6. A. Authorize Issuance, Awarding Sale, and Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing Payment for: 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. Doug Green, Representative from Springsted, Inc., will be in attendance at the meeting to present the bid results that will be received June 7. Figures will be filled in when final numbers are known from the bidding process. If the City Council desires to proceed with these bond sales, after reviewing the bid results, they should adopt the attached resolutions. Attachments Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing For The Payment of $1,290,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A (23 pages) Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing For The Payment of $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B (19 pages) • Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing For The Payment of $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C (21 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $1,290,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A. Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B. Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C. Resolution 16-39 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF $1,290,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2016A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the City), as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND SALE. 1.01. Authorization. This Council, by resolution duly adopted on May 3, 2016, authorized the issuance and sale on the date hereof of its General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475. Proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance various street improvement projects in the City pursuant to the 2016 Pavement Management Program (the Project). 1.02. Sale. Pursuant to the Terms of Proposal and the Official Statement prepared on behalf of the City by Springsted Incorporated, sealed proposals for the purchase of the Bonds were received at or before the time specified for receipt of proposals. The proposals have been opened, publicly read and considered and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each proposal have been determined. The most favorable proposal received is that of [Original Purchaser] in [City], [State] (the Purchaser), to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest, if any, on all Bonds to the day of delivery and payment, on the further terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 1.03. Award. The sale of the Bonds is hereby awarded to the Purchaser, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract on behalf of the City for the sale of the Bonds in accordance with the Terms of Proposal. The good faith deposit of the Purchaser shall be retained and deposited by the City until the Bonds have been delivered and shall be deducted from the purchase price paid at settlement. SECTION 2. BOND TERMS; REGISTRATION; EXECUTION AND DELIVERY. 2.01. Issuance of Bonds. All acts, conditions and things which are required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the valid issuance of the Bonds having been done, now existing, having happened and having been performed, it is now necessary for the City Council to establish the form and terms of the Bonds, to provide security therefor and to issue the Bonds forthwith. 2.02. Maturities; Interest Rates; Denominations and Payment. The Bonds shall be originally dated as of the date of original issuance thereof, shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each, or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities, shall mature on February 1 in the years and amounts stated below, and shall bear interest from date of issue until Resolution No. 16-39 -2- June 7, 2016 paid or duly called for redemption, at the annual rates set forth opposite such years and amounts, as follows.- Year ollows: Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 20 $ % 20 $ % The Bonds shall be issuable only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein, provided that, so long as the Bonds are registered in the name of a securities depository, or a nominee thereof, in accordance with Section 2.08 hereof, principal and interest shall be payable in accordance with the operational arrangements of the securities depository. 2.03. Dates and Interest Payment Dates. Upon initial delivery of the Bonds pursuant to Section 2.07 and upon any subsequent transfer or exchange pursuant to Section 2.06, the date of authentication shall be noted on each Bond so delivered, exchanged or transferred. Interest on the Bonds shall be payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2017, each such date being referred to herein as an Interest Payment Date, to the persons in whose names the Bonds are registered on the Bond Register, as hereinafter defined, at the Registrar's close of business on the fifteenth day of the month immediately preceding the Interest Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year composed of twelve 30 -day months. 2.04. Redemption. Bonds maturing on February 1, 2026 and later years shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City, in whole or in part, in such order of maturity dates as the City may select and, within a maturity, by lot as selected by the Registrar (or, if applicable, by the bond depository in accordance with its customary procedures) in multiples of $5,000, on February 1, 2025, and on any date thereafter, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date of redemption. The Manager shall cause notice of the call for redemption thereof to be published if and as required by law, and at least thirty and not more than 60 days prior to the designated redemption date, shall cause notice of call for redemption to be mailed, by first class mail, to the registered holders of any Bonds to be redeemed at their addresses as they appear on the bond register described in Section 2.06 hereof, but no defect in or failure to give such mailed notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond not affected by such defect or failure. Official notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions of Bonds so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment of the redemption price) such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon partial redemption of any Bond, a new Bond or Bonds will be delivered to the owner without charge, representing the remaining principal amount outstanding. [Bonds maturing on February 1, 20_ and 20_ (the Term Bonds) shall be subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity pursuant to the sinking fund requirements of this Section 2.04 at a redemption price equal to the stated principal amount thereof plus interest Resolution No. 16-39 -3- June 7, 2016 accrued thereon to the redemption date, without premium. The Registrar shall select for redemption, by lot or other manner deemed fair, on February 1 in each of the following years the following stated principal amounts of such Bonds: Term Bonds Maturing February 1, 20 Year Principal Amount 20 $ The remaining $ stated principal amount of such Bonds shall be paid at maturity on February 1, 20_. Term Bonds Maturing February 1, 20 Year Principal Amount 20 $ The remaining $_stated principal amount of such Bonds shall be paid at maturity on February 1, 20_.] Notice of redemption shall be given as provided in the preceding paragraph. 2.05. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City hereby appoints U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the initial bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the Registrar). The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company organized under the laws of the United States or one of the states of the United States and authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar, effective upon not less than thirty days' written notice and upon the appointment and acceptance of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the Bond Register to the successor Registrar. 2.06. Registration. The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corporate trust office a register (the Bond Register) in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. The term Holder or Bondholder as used herein shall mean the person (whether a natural person, corporation, association, partnership, trust, governmental unit, or other legal entity) in whose name a Bond is registered in the Bond Register. Resolution No. 16-39 -4- June 7, 2016 (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the Holder thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the Holder thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the Holder in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. At the option of the Holder of any Bond in a denomination greater than $5,000, such Bond may be exchanged for other Bonds of authorized denominations, of the same maturity and a like aggregate principal amount, upon surrender of the Bond to be exchanged at the office of the Registrar. Whenever any Bond is so surrendered for exchange the City shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver the Bonds which the Bondholder making the exchange is entitled to receive. (d) Cancellation. All Bonds surrendered for payment, transfer or exchange shall be promptly canceled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is at any time registered in the Bond Register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and all payments made to or upon the order of such Holder shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Bonds (except for an exchange upon a partial redemption of a Bond), the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond shall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar shall deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Resolution No. 16-39 -5- June 7, 2016 Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. All Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar shall be canceled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. (i) Authenticating Agent. The Registrar is hereby designated authenticating agent for the Bonds, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1, as amended. 0) Valid Obligations. All Bonds issued upon any transfer or exchange of Bonds shall be the valid obligations of the City, evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this Resolution as the Bonds surrendered upon such transfer or exchange. 2.07. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the City Manager and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that the signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on any Bond shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of such Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until the date of delivery of such Bond. Notwithstanding such execution, no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond, substantially in the form provided in Section 2.09, has been executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on any Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been duly authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager shall deliver them to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore executed, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 2.08. Securities Depository. (a) For purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Beneficial Owner" shall mean, whenever used with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name such Bond is recorded as the beneficial owner of such Bond by a Participant on the records of such Participant, or such person's subrogee. "Cede & Co." shall mean Cede & Co., the nominee of DTC, and any successor nominee of DTC with respect to the Bonds. "DTC" shall mean The Depository Trust Company of New York, New York. Resolution No. 16-39 -6- June 7, 2016 "Participant" shall mean any broker-dealer, bank or other financial institution for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository. "Representation Letter" shall mean the Representation Letter pursuant to which the City agrees to comply with DTC's Operational Arrangements. (b) The Bonds shall be initially issued as separately authenticated fully registered bonds, and one Bond shall be issued in the principal amount of each stated maturity of the Bonds. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of such Bonds shall be registered in the bond register in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. The Registrar and the City may treat DTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive owner of the Bonds registered in its name for the purposes of payment of the principal of or interest on the Bonds, selecting the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed, if any, giving any notice permitted or required to be given to registered owners of Bonds under this resolution, registering the transfer of Bonds, and for all other purposes whatsoever, and neither the Registrar nor the City shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Neither the Registrar nor the City shall have any responsibility or obligation to any Participant, any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the Bonds under or through DTC or any Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the bond register as being a registered owner of any Bonds, with respect to the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or any Participant, with respect to the payment by DTC or any Participant of any amount with respect to the principal of or interest on the Bonds, with respect to any notice which is permitted or required to be given to owners of Bonds under this resolution, with respect to the selection by DTC or any Participant of any person to receive payment in the event of a partial redemption of the Bonds, or with respect to any consent given or other action taken by DTC as registered owner of the Bonds. So long as any Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on such Bond, and shall give all notices with respect to such Bond, only to Cede & Co. in accordance with DTC's Operational Arrangements, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than DTC shall receive an authenticated Bond for each separate stated maturity evidencing the obligation of the City to make payments of principal and interest. Upon delivery by DTC to the Registrar of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the Bonds will be transferable to such new nominee in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (c) In the event the City determines that it is in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners that they be able to obtain Bonds in the form of bond certificates, the City may notify DTC and the Registrar, whereupon DTC shall notify the Participants of the availability through DTC of Bonds in the form of certificates. In such event, the Bonds will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and the Registrar and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event the Bonds will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (d) The execution and delivery of the Representation Letter to DTC, if not previously filed with DTC, by the Mayor or City Manager is hereby authorized and directed. Resolution No. 16-39 -7- June 7, 2016 (e) In the event that any transfer or exchange of Bonds is permitted under paragraph (b) or (c) hereof, such transfer or exchange shall be accomplished upon receipt by the Registrar of the Bonds to be transferred or exchanged and appropriate instruments of transfer to the permitted transferee in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. In the event Bonds in the form of certificates are issued to owners other than Cede & Co., its successor as nominee for DTC as owner of all the Bonds, or another securities depository as owner of all the Bonds, the provisions of this resolution shall also apply to all matters relating thereto, including, without limitation, the printing of such Bonds in the form of bond certificates and the method of payment of principal of and interest on such Bonds in the form of bond certificates. 2.09. Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be prepared in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2016A CONSTRUCTION FUND. There is hereby established on the official books and records of the City a separate fund designated the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A Construction Fund (the Construction Fund). To the Construction Fund there shall be credited from the proceeds of the Bonds an amount equal to the estimated cost of the Project. There shall also be credited to the Construction Fund all special assessments collected with respect to the Project until all costs of the Project have been fully paid. All proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Construction Fund will be expended solely for the payment of the costs of the Project. To the extent required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, subdivision 4, the City shall maintain a separate account within the Construction Fund to record expenditures for each improvement. The City Manager shall maintain the Construction Fund until all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the construction of the improvements have been paid. All special assessments on hand in the Construction Fund when terminated or thereafter received, and any Bond proceeds not so transferred, shall be credited to the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A Bond Fund. SECTION 4. GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS SERIES 2016A BOND FUND. There is hereby established on the official books and records of the City a separate fund designated the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A Bond Fund (the Bond Fund). Into the Bond Fund shall be paid (a) the amounts specified in Section 3 above, (b) any amounts received from the Purchaser upon delivery of the Bonds in excess of the amounts appropriated to the Construction Fund pursuant to Section 3 hereof, (c) any special assessments and taxes collected pursuant to Sections 5 or 6 hereof, except as otherwise provided in Section 3 hereof and (d) any other funds appropriated by the City Council for the payment of the Bonds. The money on hand in the Bond Fund from time to time shall be used only to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. If the balance on hand in the Bond Fund is at any time insufficient to pay principal and interest then due on the Bonds, such amounts shall be paid from other money on hand in other funds of the City, which other funds shall be reimbursed therefor when sufficient money becomes available in the Bond Fund. The Bond Fund shall be maintained until the City has paid, or made provision for the payment of, all of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. There are hereby established two accounts in the Bond Fund, designated as the "Debt Service Account" and the "Surplus Account." There shall initially be deposited into the Resolution No. 16-39 -8- June 7, 2016 Debt Service Account upon the issuance of the Bonds the amount set forth in (b) above. Thereafter, during each Bond Year (i.e., each twelve month period commencing on February 2 and ending on the following February 1), as monies are received into the Bond Fund, the City Manager shall first deposit such monies into the Debt Service Account until an amount has been appropriated thereto sufficient to pay all principal and interest due on the Bonds through the end of the Bond Year. All subsequent monies received in the Bond Fund during the Bond Year shall be appropriated to the Surplus Account. If at any time the amount on hand in the Debt Service Account is insufficient for the payment of principal and interest then due, the City Manager shall transfer to the Debt Service Account amounts on hand in the Surplus Account to the extent necessary to cure such deficiency. Investment earnings (and losses) on amounts from time to time held in the Debt Service Account and Surplus Account shall be credited or charged to said accounts. If the aggregate balance in the Bond Fund is at any time insufficient to pay all interest and principal then due on all Bonds payable therefrom, the payment shall be made from any fund of the City which is available for that purpose, subject to reimbursement from the Surplus Account in the Bond Fund when the balance therein is sufficient, and the City Council covenants and agrees that it will each year levy a sufficient amount of ad valorem taxes to take care of any accumulated or anticipated deficiency, which levy is not subject to any constitutional or statutory limitation. In order to ensure compliance with the Code and applicable Regulations (all as defined in Section 8.01 hereof), the Finance Director, upon allocation of any funds to the Bond Fund, shall ascertain the balance then on hand in the Bond Fund. If it exceeds the amount of principal and interest on the Bonds to become due and payable through the next following February 1, plus a reasonable carryover equal to 1/12th of the debt service due in the following bond year, the excess shall (unless an opinion is received from bond counsel stating that another use shall not interfere with the tax exemption of the bonds) be used to prepay or purchase Bonds, or be invested at a yield which does not exceed the yield on the Bonds calculated in accordance with Section 148 of the Code. SECTION 5. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. The City hereby covenants and agrees that, for the payment of the costs of the Project, the City has done or will do and perform all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of special assessments in an amount not less than 20% of the cost of the Project financed by the Bonds. The City estimates it has levied or will levy special assessments in the original aggregate principal amount of $359,700. It is estimated that the principal and interest on such special assessments will be levied beginning in 2016 and collected in the years 2017-2026 in the amounts shown on Schedule I attached hereto. The principal of the special assessments shall be made payable in annual installments, with interest as established by this City Council in accordance with law on installments thereof from time to time remaining unpaid. In the event any special assessment shall at any time be held invalid with respect to any lot or tract of land, due to any error, defect or irregularity in any action or proceeding taken or to be taken by the City or by this City Council or by any of the officers or employees of the City, either in the making of such special assessment or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City hereby covenants and agrees that it will forthwith do all such further things and take all such further proceedings as shall be required by law to make such special assessment a valid and binding lien upon said property. Resolution No. 16-39 -9- June 7, 2016 SECTION 6. PLEDGE OF TAXING POWERS. For the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as such payments respectively come due, the full faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. In order to produce aggregate amounts which, together with the collections of special assessments as set forth in Section 5, will produce amounts not less than 5% in excess of the amounts needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds, ad valorem taxes are hereby levied on all taxable property in the City. The taxes will be levied and collected in years and amounts shown on the attached levy computation. Said taxes shall be irrepealable as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce said levies in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61. SECTION 7. DEFEASANCE. When all of the Bonds have been discharged as provided in this Section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Resolution to the Holders of the Bonds shall cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or, if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued from the due date to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they are prepayable according to their terms by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date an amount equal to the principal, interest and redemption premium, if any, which are then due, provided that notice of such redemption has been duly given as provided herein. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with the Registrar or with a bank or trust company qualified by law to act as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are authorized by law to be so deposited for such purpose, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing or callable at the holder's option on such dates as shall be required to pay all principal and interest to become due thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been irrevocably provided for, to an earlier designated redemption date, provided, however, that if such deposit is made more than ninety days before the maturity date or specified redemption date of the Bonds to be discharged, the City shall have received a written opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such deposit does not adversely affect the exemption of interest on any Bonds from federal income taxation and a written report of an accountant or investment banking firm verifying that the deposit is sufficient to pay when due all of the principal and interest on the Bonds to be discharged on and before their maturity dates or earlier designated redemption date. SECTION 8. TAX COVENANTS; ARBITRAGE MATTERS AND CONTINUING DISCLOSURE. 8.01. General Tax Covenant. The City agrees with the registered owners from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take, or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents, any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to become includable in gross income of the recipient under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) and applicable Treasury Regulations (the Regulations), and agrees to take any and all actions within its powers to ensure that the interest on the Bonds will not Resolution No. 16-39 -10- June 7, 2016 become includable in gross income of the recipient under the Code and the Regulations. All proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Construction Fund will be expended solely for the payment of the costs of the Project. The Project is and will be owned and maintained by the City and available for use by members of the general public on a substantially equal basis. The City shall not enter into any lease, management contract, use agreement, capacity agreement or other agreement with any non-governmental person relating to the use of the Project, or any portion thereof, or security for the payment of the Bonds which might cause the Bonds to be considered "private activity bonds" or "private loan bonds" pursuant to Section 141 of the Code. 8.02. Arbitrage Certification. The Mayor and City Manager being the officers of the City charged with the responsibility for issuing the Bonds pursuant to this Resolution, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchaser a certificate in accordance with Section 148 of the Code, and applicable Regulations, stating the facts, estimates and circumstances in existence on the date of issue and delivery of the Bonds which make it reasonable to expect that the proceeds of the Bonds will not be used in a manner that would cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of the Code and Regulations. 8.03. Arbitrage Rebate. The City acknowledges that the Bonds are subject to the rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code. The City covenants and agrees to retain such records, make such determinations, file such reports and documents and pay such amounts at such times as are required under said Section 148(f) and applicable Regulations to preserve the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes, unless the Bonds qualify for an exception from the rebate requirement pursuant to one of the spending exceptions set forth in Section 1.148-7 of the Regulations and no "gross proceeds" of the Bonds (other than amounts constituting a "bona fide debt service fund") arise during or after the expenditure of the original proceeds thereof. 8.04. Reimbursement. The City certifies that the proceeds of the Bonds will not be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure with respect to the Project which the City paid or will have paid more than 60 days prior to the date of adoption of its reimbursement resolution for the Project, July 16, 2013, provided that this certification shall not apply (i) with respect to certain de minimis expenditures, if any, with respect to the Project meeting the requirements of Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations, or (ii) with respect to "preliminary expenditures" for the Project as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, including engineering or architectural expenses and similar preparatory expenses, which in the aggregate do not exceed 20% of the "issue price" of the Bonds. 8.05 Continuing Disclosure. (a) Purpose and Beneficiaries. To provide for the public availability of certain information relating to the Bonds and the security therefor and to permit the Purchaser and other participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to comply with amendments to Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-12), relating to continuing disclosure (as in effect and interpreted from time to time, the Rule), which will enhance the marketability of the Bonds, the City hereby makes the following covenants and agreements for the benefit of the Owners (as hereinafter defined) from time to time of the Outstanding Bonds. The City is the only obligated person in respect of the Bonds within the meaning of Resolution No. 16-39 -11- June 7, 2016 the Rule for purposes of identifying the entities in respect of which continuing disclosure must be made. If the City fails to comply with any provisions of this section, any person aggrieved thereby, including the Owners of any Outstanding Bonds, may take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or appropriate to enforce performance and observance of any agreement or covenant contained in this section, including an action for a writ of mandamus or specific performance. Direct, indirect, consequential and punitive damages shall not be recoverable for any default hereunder to the extent permitted by law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall a default under this section constitute a default under the Bonds or under any other provision of this resolution. As used in this section, Owner or Bondowner means, in respect of a Bond, the registered owner or owners thereof appearing in the bond register maintained by the Registrar or any Beneficial Owner (as hereinafter defined) thereof, if such Beneficial Owner provides to the Registrar evidence of such beneficial ownership in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar. As used herein, Beneficial Owner means, in respect of a Bond, any person or entity which (i) has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, such Bond (including persons or entities holding Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (ii) is treated as the owner of the Bond for federal income tax purposes. (b) Information To Be Disclosed. The City will provide, in the manner set forth in subsection (c) hereof, either directly or indirectly through an agent designated by the City, the following information at the following times: (1) on or before 12 months after the end of each fiscal year of the City, commencing with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, the following financial information and operating data in respect of the City (the Disclosure Information): (A) the audited financial statements of the City for such fiscal year, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in accordance with the governmental accounting standards promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board or as otherwise provided under Minnesota law, as in effect from time to time, or, if and to the extent such financial statements have not been prepared in accordance with such generally accepted accounting principles for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the City, noting the discrepancies therefrom and the effect thereof, and certified as to accuracy and completeness in all material respects by the fiscal officer of the City; and (B) to the extent not included in the financial statements referred to in paragraph (A) hereof, the information for such fiscal year or for the period most recently available of the type contained in the Official Statement under the headings: City Property Values; City Indebtedness and City Tax Rates, Levies and Collections, which information may be unaudited. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, if the audited financial statements are not available by the date specified, the City shall provide on or before such date unaudited financial statements in the format required for the audited financial statements as part of the Disclosure Information and, within 10 days after the receipt thereof, the City shall provide the audited financial statements. Any or all of the Disclosure Information may be Resolution No. 16-39 -12- June 7, 2016 incorporated by reference, if it is updated as required hereby, from other documents, including official statements, which have been filed with the SEC or have been submitted to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) through its Electronic Municipal Market Access System (EMMA). The City shall clearly identify in the Disclosure Information each document so incorporated by reference. If any part of the Disclosure Information can no longer be generated because the operations of the City have materially changed or been discontinued, such Disclosure Information need no longer be provided if the City includes in the Disclosure Information a statement to such effect, provided, however, if such operations have been replaced by other City operations in respect of which data is not included in the Disclosure Information and the City determines that certain specified data regarding such replacement operations would be described in paragraph (2) hereof, then, from and after such determination, the Disclosure Information shall include such additional specified data regarding the replacement operations. If the Disclosure Information is changed or this section is amended as permitted by this paragraph (b)(1) or subsection (d), then the City shall include in the next Disclosure Information to be delivered hereunder, to the extent necessary, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect of any change in the type of financial information or operating data provided. (2) In a timely manner not in excess of ten business days after the occurrence of the event, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events: (A) Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (B) Non-payment related defaults, if material; (C) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (D) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (E) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (F) Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the Bonds; (G) Modifications to rights of security holders, if material; (H) Bond calls, if material, and tender offers; (1) Defeasances; (J) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material; (K) Rating changes; (L) Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City; (M) The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and (N) Appointment of a successor or additional paying agent or the change of name of a paying agent, if material. Resolution No. 16-39 -13- June 7, 2016 As used herein, for those events that must be reported if material, an event is "material" if it is an event as to which a substantial likelihood exists that a reasonably prudent investor would attach importance thereto in deciding to buy, hold or sell a Bond or, if not disclosed, would significantly alter the total information otherwise available to an investor from the Official Statement, information disclosed hereunder or information generally available to the public. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, an event is also "material" if it is an event that would be deemed material for purposes of the purchase, holding or sale of a Bond within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws, as interpreted at the time of discovery of the occurrence of the event. For the purposes of the event identified in (L) hereinabove, the event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer for an obligated person in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person. (3) In a timely manner, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events or conditions: (A) the failure of the City to provide the Disclosure Information required under paragraph (b)(1) at the time specified thereunder; (B) the amendment or supplementing of this section pursuant to subsection (d), together with a copy of such amendment or supplement and any explanation provided by the City under subsection (d)(2); (C) the termination of the obligations of the City under this section pursuant to subsection (d); (D) any change in the accounting principles pursuant to which the financial statements constituting a portion of the Disclosure Information are prepared; and (E) any change in the fiscal year of the City. (c) Manner of Disclosure. (1) The City agrees to make available to the MSRB through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, the information described in subsection (b). (2) All documents provided to the MSRB pursuant to this subsection (c) shall be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB from time to time. (d) Term; Amendments; Interpretation. (1) The covenants of the City in this section shall remain in effect so long as any Bonds are Outstanding. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, however, the Resolution No. 16-39 -14- June 7, 2016 obligations of the City under this section shall terminate and be without further effect as of any date on which the City delivers to the Registrar an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that, because of legislative action or final judicial or administrative actions or proceedings, the failure of the City to comply with the requirements of this section will not cause participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to be in violation of the Rule or other applicable requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any statutes or laws successory thereto or amendatory thereof. (2) This section (and the form and requirements of the Disclosure Information) may be amended or supplemented by the City from time to time, without notice to (except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) hereof) or the consent of the Owners of any Bonds, by a resolution of this Council filed in the office of the recording officer of the City accompanied by an opinion of Bond Counsel, who may rely on certificates of the City and others and the opinion may be subject to customary qualifications, to the effect that: (i) such amendment or supplement (a) is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in law or regulation or a change in the identity, nature or status of the City or the type of operations conducted by the City, or (b) is required by, or better complies with, the provisions of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule; (ii) this section as so amended or supplemented would have complied with the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule at the time of the primary offering of the Bonds, giving effect to any change in circumstances applicable under clause (i)(a) and assuming that the Rule as in effect and interpreted at the time of the amendment or supplement was in effect at the time of the primary offering; and (iii) such amendment or supplement does not materially impair the interests of the Bondowners under the Rule. If the Disclosure Information is so amended, the City agrees to provide, contemporaneously with the effectiveness of such amendment, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect, if any, of the change in the type of financial information or operating data being provided hereunder. (3) This section is entered into to comply with the continuing disclosure provisions of the Rule and should be construed so as to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule. SECTION 9. CERTIFICATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 9.01. Registration of Bonds. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Hennepin County and obtain a certificate that the Bonds and the taxes levied pursuant hereto have been duly entered upon the Auditor's bond register. 9.02. Authentication of Transcript. The officers of the City and the County Auditor are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Bond Counsel, certified copies of all proceedings and records relating to the Bonds and such other affidavits, certificates and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds, as the same appear from Resolution No. 16-39 -15- June 7, 2016 the books and records in their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, affidavits and certificates, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. 9.03. Official Statement. The Official Statement relating to the Bonds, dated , 2016, prepared and distributed by Springsted Incorporated, the financial consultant for the City, is hereby approved. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to prepare and deliver to the Purchaser within seven business days from the date hereof a supplement to the Official Statement listing the offering price, the interest rates, selling compensation, delivery date, the underwriters and such other information relating to the Bonds required to be included in the Official Statement by Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as may be appropriate concerning the accuracy, completeness and sufficiency of the Official Statement. 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. 16-39 -16- June 7, 2016 EXHIBIT A FORM OF SERIES 2016A BOND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND, SERIES 2016A No. R- $ Interest Rate Maturity Date Date of Original CUSIP No. Issue February 1, 20 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: July 7, 2016 THOUSAND DOLLARS THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (the City) acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the registered owner specified above, or registered assigns, the principal amount specified above on the maturity date specified above and promises to pay interest thereon from the date of original issue specified above or from the most recent Interest Payment Date (as hereinafter defined) to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, at the annual interest rate specified above, payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2017 (each such date, an Interest Payment Date), all subject to the provisions referred to herein with respect to the redemption of the principal of this Bond before maturity. The interest so payable on any Interest Payment Date shall be paid to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the calendar month immediately preceding the Interest Payment Date. Interest hereon shall be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year composed of twelve 30 -day months. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of the Registrar described below, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft drawn on U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent, or its successor designated under the Resolution described herein (the Registrar). For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Bond is one of an issue (the Bonds) in the aggregate principal amount of $1,290,000 issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on June 7, 2016, Resolution No. 16-39 -17- June 7, 2016 (the Resolution), to finance various street improvement projects in the City and is issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475. The Bonds are issuable only in fully registered form, in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities. Bonds maturing in 2026 and later years shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City, in whole or in part, in such order of maturity dates as the City may select and, within a maturity, by lot as selected by the Registrar (or, if applicable, by the bond depository in accordance with its customary procedures) in multiples of $5,000, on February 1, 2025, and on any date thereafter, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date of redemption. The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption thereof to be published if and as required by law, and at least thirty and not more than 60 days prior to the designated redemption date, shall cause notice of call for redemption to be mailed, by first class mail, to the registered holders of any Bonds, at the holders' addresses as they appear on the bond register maintained by the Registrar, but no defect in or failure to give such mailed notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond not affected by such defect or failure. Official notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions of Bonds so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment of the redemption price) such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon partial redemption of any Bond, a new Bond or Bonds will be delivered to the owner without charge, representing the remaining principal amount outstanding. [Bonds maturing in the years 20_ and 20_ shall be subject to mandatory redemption, at a redemption price equal to their principal amount plus interest accrued thereon to the redemption date, without premium, on February 1 in each of the years shown below, in an amount equal to the following principal amounts:] Term Bonds Maturing in 20 Sinking Fund Aggregate Payment Date Principal Amount 20 F Term Bonds Maturing in 20 Sinking Fund Aggregate Payment Date Principal Amount 20 Notice of redemption shall be given as provided in the preceding paragraph. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney, and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the designated transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, Resolution No. 16-39 -18- June 7, 2016 bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date; subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to any such transfer or exchange. The City and the Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment as herein provided and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Bond, so long as this Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, or in the name of any other nominee of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on this Bond, and shall give all notices with respect to this Bond, only to Cede & Co. or other nominee in accordance with the operational arrangements of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository as agreed to by the City. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed prior to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required; that, prior to the issuance hereof, the City Council has by the Resolution covenanted and agreed to levy ad valorem taxes upon all taxable property in the City and special assessments upon property specially benefited by the local improvements financed by the Bonds, which taxes and special assessments will be collectible for the years and in amounts sufficient to produce sums not less than five percent in excess of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due, and has appropriated such special assessments and taxes to its General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A Bond Fund for the payment of principal and interest; that if necessary for payment of principal and interest, additional ad valorem taxes are required to be levied upon all taxable property in the City, without limitation as to rate or amount and that the issuance of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and City Manager. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (facsimile signature - Mayor) (facsimile signature - City Manager) Resolution No. 16-39 -19- June 7, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. Date of Authentication: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Registrar Authorized Representative The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to the applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common UTMA ................... as Custodian for ..................... (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act .............. (State) JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used. Resolution No. 16-39 -20- June 7, 2016 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guaranty program" as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to or in substitution for STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: Resolution No. 16-39 -21- SCHEDULEI City of Golden Valley, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A Payments on Special Assessments Year of Collection 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 TOTAL Principal Interest Total June 7, 2016 Resolution No. 16-39 -22- June 7, 2016 PROJECTED TAX LEVIES Date Levy 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2036 Total $ Resolution No. 16-39 -23- June 7, 2016 HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO REGISTRATION AND TAX LEVY The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certifies that there has been filed in my office a certified copy of a resolution duly adopted on June 7, 2016, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, setting forth the form and details of an issue of $1,290,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2016A, dated as of the date of issuance thereof and levying taxes for their payment. I further certify that the issue has been entered on my bond register and the tax required by law for their payment has been levied and filed as required by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.61 through 475.63. WITNESS my hand officially this day of , 2016. Hennepin County Auditor (SEAL) Resolution 16-40 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT 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. AUTHORIZATION AND SALE. 1.01. Authorization. This Council, by resolution duly adopted on May 3, 2016, authorized the issuance and sale of $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B (the Certificates) of the City to finance the costs of acquiring items of capital equipment (the Project). Said items of capital equipment have a useful life not less than the term of the Certificates. The principal amount of the Certificates does not exceed 0.25 percent of the market value of taxable property in the City. 1.02. Sale. Pursuant to the Terms of Proposal and the Official Statement prepared on behalf of the City by Springsted Incorporated, sealed proposals for the purchase of the Certificates were received at or before the time specified for receipt of proposals. The proposals have been opened, publicly read and considered and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each proposal have been determined. The most favorable proposal received is that of [Original Purchaser], in [City], [State] (the Purchaser), to purchase the Certificates at a price of $ plus accrued interest, if any, on all Certificates to the day of delivery and payment, on the further terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 1.03. Award. The sale of the Certificates is hereby awarded to the Purchaser, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract on behalf of the City for the sale of the Certificates in accordance with the terms of the proposal. The good faith deposit of the Purchaser shall be retained by the City until the Certificates have been delivered, and shall be deducted from the purchase price paid at settlement. SECTION 2. CERTIFICATE TERMS: REGISTRATION: EXECUTION AND DELIVER 2.01. Issuance of Certificates. All acts, conditions and things which are required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed prior to and in the valid issuance of the Certificates having been done, now existing, having happened and having been performed, it is now necessary for the City Council to establish the form and terms of the Certificates, to provide security therefor and to issue the Certificates forthwith. 2.02. Maturities; Interest Rates; Denominations and Payment. The Certificates shall be originally dated as of the date of issuance thereof, shall be in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities, shall mature on February 1 in the years and amounts stated below, without option of prior payment, and shall bear interest from Resolution No. 16-40 -2- June 7, 2016 date of issue until paid at the annual rates set forth opposite such years and amounts, as follows.. Year Amount Interest Rate 20 $ % 20 20 The Certificates shall be issuable only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Certificate at the principal office of the Registrar described herein, the principal amount thereof, shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. Upon the initial delivery of the Certificates pursuant to Section 2.07, and upon any subsequent transfer or exchange pursuant to Section 2.06, the date of authentication shall be noted on each Certificate so delivered, exchanged or transferred. 2.03. Dates and Interest Payment Dates. Upon initial delivery of the Certificates pursuant to Section 2.07 and upon any subsequent transfer or exchange pursuant to Section 2.06, the date of authentication shall be noted on each Certificate so delivered, exchanged or transferred. Interest on the Certificates shall be payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2017, each such date being referred to herein as an Interest Payment Date, to the persons in whose names the Certificates are registered on the Bond Register, as hereinafter defined, at the Registrar's close of business on the fifteenth day of the month immediately preceding the Interest Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year composed of twelve 30 -day months. 2.04. Redemption. The Certificates shall not be subject to prepayment prior to their stated maturities. 2.05. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City hereby appoints U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the initial bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the Registrar) for the Certificates. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon thirty days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Certificates in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. 2.06. Registration. The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows.- (a) ollows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Certificates and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Certificates entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Certificates. Upon surrender for transfer of any Certificate duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner Resolution No. 16-40 -3- June 7, 2016 thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Certificates of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Certificates. Whenever any Certificates are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver one or more new Certificates of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. All Certificates surrendered upon any transfer or exchange shall be promptly canceled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Certificate is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Certificate or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Certificate is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Certificate, whether the Certificate shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Certificate and for all other purposes, and all payments made to any registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon Certificate to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Certificates (except for an exchange upon a partial redemption of an Certificate), the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Certificates. In case any Certificate shall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar shall deliver a new Certificate of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Certificate or in lieu of and in substitution for any Certificate destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith, and, in the case of an Certificate destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Certificate was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. All Certificates so surrendered to the Registrar shall be canceled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to Resolution No. 16-40 -4- June 7, 2016 the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Certificate has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Certificate prior to payment. (i) Authenticating Agent. The Registrar is hereby designated authenticating agent for the Certificates, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1, as amended. 0) Valid Certificates. All Certificates issued upon any transfer or exchange of Certificates shall be the valid obligations of the City, evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this Resolution as the Certificates surrendered upon such transfer or exchange. 2.07. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Certificates shall be prepared under the direction of the City Manager and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that the signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Certificates shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of any Certificate, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, no Certificate shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Certificate has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Certificates need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on each Certificate shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Certificates have been prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager shall deliver them to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore executed, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 2.08. Securities Depository. (a) For purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Beneficial Owner" shall mean, whenever used with respect to an Certificate, the person in whose name such Certificate is recorded as the beneficial owner of such Certificate by a Participant on the records of such Participant, or such person's subrogee. "Cede & Co." shall mean Cede & Co., the nominee of DTC, and any successor nominee of DTC with respect to the Certificates. "DTC" shall mean The Depository Trust Company of New York, New York. "Participant" shall mean any broker-dealer, bank or other financial institution for which DTC holds Certificates as securities depository. "Representation Letter" shall mean the Representation Letter pursuant to which the sender agrees to comply with DTC's Operational Arrangements. Resolution No. 16-40 -5- June 7, 2016 (b) The Certificates shall be initially issued as separately authenticated fully registered obligations, and one Certificate shall be issued in the principal amount of each stated maturity of the Certificates. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of such Certificates shall be registered in the bond register in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. The Registrar and the City may treat DTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive owner of the Certificates registered in its name for the purposes of payment of the principal of or interest on the Certificates, selecting the Certificates or portions thereof to be redeemed, if any, giving any notice permitted or required to be given to registered owners of Certificates under this resolution, registering the transfer of Certificates, and for all other purposes whatsoever, and neither the Registrar nor the City shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Neither the Registrar nor the City shall have any responsibility or obligation to any Participant, any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the Certificates under or through DTC or any Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the bond register as being a registered owner of any Certificates, with respect to the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or any Participant, with respect to the payment by DTC or any Participant of any amount with respect to the principal of or interest on the Certificates, with respect to any notice which is permitted or required to be given to owners of Certificates under this resolution, with respect to the selection by DTC or any Participant of any person to receive payment in the event of a partial redemption of the Certificates, or with respect to any consent given or other action taken by DTC as registered owner of the Certificates. So long as any Certificate is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on such Certificate, and shall give all notices with respect to such Certificate, only to Cede & Co. in accordance with DTC's Operational Arrangements, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and interest on the Certificates to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than DTC shall receive an authenticated Certificate for each separate stated maturity evidencing the obligation of the City to make payments of principal and interest. Upon delivery by DTC to the Registrar of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the Certificates will be transferable to such new nominee in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (c) In the event the City determines that it is in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners that they be able to obtain Certificates in the form of bond certificates, the City may notify DTC and the Registrar, whereupon DTC shall notify the Participants of the availability through DTC of Certificates in the form of certificates. In such event, the Certificates will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Certificates at any time by giving notice to the City and the Registrar and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event the Certificates will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (d) The execution and delivery of the Representation Letter to DTC, if not previously filed with DTC, by the Mayor or City Manager is hereby authorized and directed. (e) In the event that any transfer or exchange of Certificates is permitted under paragraph (b) or (c) hereof, such transfer or exchange shall be accomplished upon receipt by the Registrar of the Certificates to be transferred or exchanged and appropriate instruments of transfer to the permitted transferee in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution No. 16-40 -6- June 7, 2016 resolution. In the event Certificates in the form of certificates are issued to owners other than Cede & Co., its successor as nominee for DTC as owner of all the Certificates, or another securities depository as owner of all the Certificates, the provisions of this resolution shall also apply to all matters relating thereto, including, without limitation, the printing of such Certificates in the form of bond certificates and the method of payment of principal of and interest on such Certificates in the form of bond certificates. 2.09. Form of Certificates. The Certificates shall be prepared in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A hereto. SECTION 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 2016B SINKING FUND. So long as any of the Certificates are outstanding and any principal of or interest thereon unpaid, the City Manager shall maintain a separate debt service fund on the official books and records of the City to be known as the General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B Sinking Fund (the Sinking Fund), and the principal of and interest on the Certificates shall be payable from the Sinking Fund. The City irrevocably appropriates to the Sinking Fund (a) the amount of $ received from the Purchaser; (b) all taxes levied and collected in accordance with this Resolution; and (c) all other moneys as shall be appropriated by the City Council to the Sinking Fund from time to time. If the balance in the Sinking Fund is at any time insufficient to pay all interest and principal then due on all Certificates payable therefrom, the payment shall be made from any fund of the City which is available for that purpose, subject to reimbursement from the Sinking Fund when the balance therein is sufficient, and the City Council covenants and agrees that it will each year levy a sufficient amount of ad valorem taxes to take care of any accumulated or anticipated deficiency, which levy is not subject to any constitutional or statutory limitation. SECTION 4. PLEDGE OF TAXING POWERS. For the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Certificates as such payments respectively become due, the full faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. In order to produce aggregate amounts not less than 5% in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Certificates, ad valorem taxes are hereby levied on all taxable property in the City. The taxes are to be levied and collected in the years and amounts shown on the exhibit hereto. The taxes shall be irrepealable as long as any of the Certificates are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the tax levies in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61. SECTION 5. DEFEASANCE. When all of the Certificates have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Resolution to the holders of the Certificates shall cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Certificates which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full, or if any Certificate should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued from the due date to the date of such deposit. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Certificates, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a bank or trust company qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are authorized by law to Resolution No. 16-40 -7- June 7, 2016 be so deposited, bearing interest payable at such time and at such rates and maturing or callable at the holder's option on such dates as shall be required to pay all principal and interest to become due thereon to maturity. SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 6.01. Registration of Certificates and Levy of Taxes. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Hennepin County and obtain a certificate that the Certificates have been duly entered upon the Auditor's bond register and the tax required by law has been levied. 6.02. Authentication of Transcript. The officers of the City and the County Auditor are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Bond Counsel, certified copies of all proceedings and records relating to the Certificates and such other affidavits, certificates and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Certificates, as the same appear from the books and records in their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, affidavits and certificates, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. 6.03. Official Statement. The Official Statement relating to the Certificates, dated 2016, prepared and delivered on behalf of the City by Springsted Incorporated, is hereby approved. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to prepare and distribute to the Purchaser within seven business days from the date hereof, a supplement to the Official Statement listing the offering price, the interest rates, selling compensation, delivery date, the underwriters and such other information relating to the Certificates required to be included in the Official Statement by Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as may be appropriate concerning the accuracy, completeness and sufficiency of the Official Statement. SECTION 7. TAX COVENANTS; ARBITRAGE MATTERS; REIMBURSEMENT AND CONTINUING DISCLOSURE. 7.01. General Tax Covenant. The City covenants and agrees with the registered owners from time to time of the Certificates that it will not take, or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents, any actions that would cause interest on the Certificates to become includable in gross income of the recipient under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) and applicable Treasury Regulations (the Regulations), and covenants to take any and all actions within its powers to ensure that the interest on the Certificates will not become includable in gross income of the recipient under the Code and the Regulations. In particular, the City covenants and agrees that all proceeds of the Certificates will be expended solely for the payment of the costs of acquisition and installation of capital equipment to be owned and maintained by the City and used in the City's general governmental operations. The City shall not enter into any lease, use or other agreement with any non-governmental person relating to the use of the equipment or security for the payment of the Certificates which might cause the Certificates Resolution No. 16-40 -8- June 7, 2016 to be considered "private activity bonds" or "private loan bonds" pursuant to Section 141 of the Code. 7.02. Certification. The Mayor and City Manager being the officers of the City charged with the responsibility for issuing the Certificates pursuant to this Resolution, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchaser a certificate in accordance with the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and Regulations, stating the facts, estimates and circumstances in existence on the date of issue and delivery of the Certificates which make it reasonable to expect that the proceeds of the Certificates will not be used in a manner that would cause the Certificates to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of the Code and Regulations. 7.03. Arbitrage Rebate. The City acknowledges that the Certificates are subject to the rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code. The City covenants and agrees to retain such records, make such determinations, file such reports and documents and pay such amounts at such times as are required under said Section 148(f) and applicable Regulations to preserve the exclusion of interest on the Certificates from gross income for federal income tax purposes, unless the Certificates qualify for an exception from the rebate requirement pursuant to one of the spending exceptions set forth in Section 1.148-7 of the Regulations and no "gross proceeds" of the Certificates (other than amounts constituting a "bona fide debt service fund") arise during or after the expenditure of the original proceeds thereof. 7.04. Reimbursement. The City certifies that the proceeds of the Certificates will not be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure with respect to the equipment which the City paid or will have paid more than 60 days prior to the issuance of the Certificates unless, with respect to such prior expenditures, the City shall have made a declaration of official intent which complies with the provisions of Section 1.150-2 of the Regulations, provided that this certification shall not apply (i) with respect to certain de minimis expenditures, if any, with respect to the equipment meeting the requirements of Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations, or (ii) with respect to "preliminary expenditures" for the equipment as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations which in the aggregate do not exceed 20% of the "issue price" of the Certificates. 7.05. Continuing Disclosure. (a) Purpose and Beneficiaries. To provide for the public availability of certain information relating to the Certificates and the security therefor and to permit the Purchaser and other participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Certificates to comply with amendments to Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-12), relating to continuing disclosure (as in effect and interpreted from time to time, the Rule), which will enhance the marketability of the Certificates, the City hereby makes the following covenants and agreements for the benefit of the Owners (as hereinafter defined) from time to time of the Outstanding Certificates. The City is the only obligated person in respect of the Certificates within the meaning of the Rule for purposes of identifying the entities in respect of which continuing disclosure must be made. If the City fails to comply with any provisions of this section, any person aggrieved thereby, including the Owners of any Outstanding Certificates, may take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or appropriate to enforce performance and observance of any agreement or covenant contained in this section, including an action for a writ of mandamus or specific Resolution No. 16-40 -9- June 7, 2016 performance. Direct, indirect, consequential and punitive damages shall not be recoverable for any default hereunder to the extent permitted by law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall a default under this section constitute a default under the Certificates or under any other provision of this resolution. As used in this section, Owner or Certificateowner means, in respect of a Certificate, the registered owner or owners thereof appearing in the bond register maintained by the Registrar or any Beneficial Owner (as hereinafter defined) thereof, if such Beneficial Owner provides to the Registrar evidence of such beneficial ownership in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar. As used herein, Beneficial Owner means, in respect of a Certificate, any person or entity which (i) has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, such Certificate (including persons or entities holding Certificates through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (ii) is treated as the owner of the Certificate for federal income tax purposes. (b) Information To Be Disclosed. The City will provide, in the manner set forth in subsection (c) hereof, either directly or indirectly through an agent designated by the City, the following information at the following times: (1) on or before 12 months after the end of each fiscal year of the City, commencing with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, the following financial information and operating data in respect of the City (the Disclosure Information): (A) the audited financial statements of the City for such fiscal year, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in accordance with the governmental accounting standards promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board or as otherwise provided under Minnesota law, as in effect from time to time, or, if and to the extent such financial statements have not been prepared in accordance with such generally accepted accounting principles for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the City, noting the discrepancies therefrom and the effect thereof, and certified as to accuracy and completeness in all material respects by the fiscal officer of the City; and (B) to the extent not included in the financial statements referred to in paragraph (A) hereof, the information for such fiscal year or for the period most recently available of the type contained in the Official Statement under the headings: City Property Values; City Indebtedness and City Tax Rates, Levies and Collections, which information may be unaudited. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, if the audited financial statements are not available by the date specified, the City shall provide on or before such date unaudited financial statements in the format required for the audited financial statements as part of the Disclosure Information and, within 10 days after the receipt thereof, the City shall provide the audited financial statements. Any or all of the Disclosure Information may be incorporated by reference, if it is updated as required hereby, from other documents, including official statements, which have been filed with the SEC or have been submitted to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) through its Electronic Municipal Market Access System (EMMA). The City shall clearly identify in the Disclosure Information each document so incorporated by reference. If any part of the Disclosure Information can no Resolution No. 16-40 -10- June 7, 2016 longer be generated because the operations of the City have materially changed or been discontinued, such Disclosure Information need no longer be provided if the City includes in the Disclosure Information a statement to such effect, provided, however, if such operations have been replaced by other City operations in respect of which data is not included in the Disclosure Information and the City determines that certain specified data regarding such replacement operations would be described in paragraph (2) hereof, then, from and after such determination, the Disclosure Information shall include such additional specified data regarding the replacement operations. If the Disclosure Information is changed or this section is amended as permitted by this paragraph (b)(1) or subsection (d), then the City shall include in the next Disclosure Information to be delivered hereunder, to the extent necessary, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect of any change in the type of financial information or operating data provided. (2) In a timely manner not in excess of ten business days after the occurrence of the event, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events: (A) Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (B) Non-payment related defaults, if material; (C) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (D) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (E) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (F) Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Certificates, or other material events affecting the tax status of the Certificates; (G) Modifications to rights of security holders, if material; (H) Certificate calls, if material, and tender offers; (1) Defeasances; (J) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material; (K) Rating changes; (L) Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City; (M) The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and (N) Appointment of a successor or additional paying agent or the change of name of a paying agent, if material. As used herein, for those events that must be reported if material, an event is "material" if it is an event as to which a substantial likelihood exists that a reasonably prudent investor would attach importance thereto in deciding to buy, hold or sell a Certificate or, if not disclosed, would significantly alter the total information otherwise available to an investor from the Official Statement, information disclosed hereunder or information generally available to the public. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, an event is also "material" Resolution No. 16-40 -11- June 7, 2016 If it is an event that would be deemed material for purposes of the purchase, holding or sale of a Certificate within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws, as interpreted at the time of discovery of the occurrence of the event. For the purposes of the event identified in (L) hereinabove, the event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer for an obligated person in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person. (3) In a timely manner, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events or conditions: (A) the failure of the City to provide the Disclosure Information required under paragraph (b)(1) at the time specified thereunder; (B) the amendment or supplementing of this section pursuant to subsection (d), together with a copy of such amendment or supplement and any explanation provided by the City under subsection (d)(2); (C) the termination of the obligations of the City under this section pursuant to subsection (d); (D) any change in the accounting principles pursuant to which the financial statements constituting a portion of the Disclosure Information are prepared; and (E) any change in the fiscal year of the City. (c) Manner of Disclosure. (1) The City agrees to make available to the MSRB through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, the information described in subsection (b). (2) All documents provided to the MSRB pursuant to this subsection (c) shall be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB from time to time. (d) Term; Amendments; Interpretation. (1) The covenants of the City in this section shall remain in effect so long as any Certificates are Outstanding. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, however, the obligations of the City under this section shall terminate and be without further effect as of any date on which the City delivers to the Registrar an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that, because of legislative action or final judicial or administrative actions or proceedings, the failure of the City to comply with the requirements of this section will not cause participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Certificates to be in violation of the Rule or other Resolution No. 16-40 -12- June 7, 2016 applicable requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any statutes or laws successory thereto or amendatory thereof. (2) This section (and the form and requirements of the Disclosure Information) may be amended or supplemented by the City from time to time, without notice to (except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) hereof) or the consent of the Owners of any Certificates, by a resolution of this Council filed in the office of the recording officer of the City accompanied by an opinion of Bond Counsel, who may rely on certificates of the City and others and the opinion may be subject to customary qualifications, to the effect that: (i) such amendment or supplement (a) is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in law or regulation or a change in the identity, nature or status of the City or the type of operations conducted by the City, or (b) is required by, or better complies with, the provisions of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule; (ii) this section as so amended or supplemented would have complied with the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule at the time of the primary offering of the Certificates, giving effect to any change in circumstances applicable under clause (i)(a) and assuming that the Rule as in effect and interpreted at the time of the amendment or supplement was in effect at the time of the primary offering; and (iii) such amendment or supplement does not materially impair the interests of the Certificateowners under the Rule. If the Disclosure Information is so amended, the City agrees to provide, contemporaneously with the effectiveness of such amendment, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect, if any, of the change in the type of financial information or operating data being provided hereunder. (3) This section is entered into to comply with the continuing disclosure provisions of the Rule and should be construed so as to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule. 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. 16-40 -13- l�1 FORM OF SERIES 2016B CERTIFICATE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY June 7, 2016 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 2016B No. R- $ Interest Rate Maturity Date % February 1, 20 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: Date of Oriqinal CUSIP No. Issue July 7, 2016 THOUSAND DOLLARS THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (the City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay the principal sum specified above on the maturity date specified above, without option of prior payment, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2017, to the person in whose name this Certificate is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. Interest hereon shall be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year composed of twelve 30 -day months. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft or other agreed means of payment by U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota as Registrar and Paying Agent (the Registrar), or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Certificate is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $800,000 issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on June 7, 2016 (the Resolution), to finance the costs of acquisition of capital equipment, and is issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301 and Chapter 475. The Certificates are issuable only in fully registered form, in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities. Resolution No. 16-40 -14- June 7, 2016 The Certificates are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Certificate is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney, and may also be surrendered in exchange for Certificates of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Certificate or Certificates to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Certificate, so long as this Certificate is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, or in the name of any other nominee of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on this Certificate, and shall give all notices with respect to this Certificate, only to Cede & Co. or other nominee in accordance with the operational arrangements of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository as agreed to by the City. The City and the Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Certificate is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Certificate is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed prior to and in the issuance of this Certificate in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required; that, prior to the issuance hereof, the City Council has levied ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City, which taxes will be collectible for the years and in amounts sufficient to produce sums not less than five percent in excess of the principal of and interest on the Certificates when due, and has appropriated such taxes to its General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B Sinking Fund for the payment of such principal and interest; that if necessary for payment of such principal and interest, additional ad valorem taxes are required to be levied upon all taxable property in the City, without limitation as to rate or amount and that the issuance of this Certificate, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. This Certificate shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. Resolution No. 16-40 -15- June 7, 2016 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Certificate to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Certificate to be dated as of the date set forth below. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (facsimile signature — Mayor) (facsimile signature — City Manager) Resolution No. 16-40 -16- June 7, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Certificates delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. Dated: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Registrar Authorized Representative The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to the applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common UTMA ................... as Custodian for ..................... (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act .............. (State) JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used. Resolution No. 16-40 -17- June 7, 2016 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Certificate and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Certificate on the books kept for registration of the within Certificate, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guaranty program" as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to or in substitution for STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: Resolution No. 16-40 -18- June 7, 2016 Date 2017 2018 2019 PROJECTED LEVIES Total Levy Resolution No. 16-40 -19- June 7, 2016 COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO REGISTRATION AND TAX LEVY The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certifies that there has been filed in my office a certified copy of a resolution duly adopted on June 7, 2016, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, setting forth the form and details of an issue of $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 201613, dated as of the date of issuance thereof, and levying taxes for their payment. I further certify that the issue has been entered on my bond register and the tax required by law for their payment has been levied and filed, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.61 to 475.63. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of , 2016. County Auditor (SEAL) Resolution 16-41 June 7, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF $5,630,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2016C BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the City), as follows: 1.01. Authorization. The City Council hereby determines that it is in the best interest of the City to issue its $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, subdivision 3b. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used, together with any additional funds of the City which might be required, to finance the cost of certain street reconstruction projects, including the 2016 Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project (the "Project'), described in the 5 - Year Street Reconstruction Plan adopted by this Council, following a public hearing, on April 19, 2016. A petition requesting a vote on the question of issuing the Bonds, signed by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the last municipal general election, was not filed with the City within 30 days of the public hearing held with respect to issuance of the Bonds on April 19, 2016. Accordingly, the issuance of the Bonds is authorized without an election. 1.02. Sale. Pursuant to the Terms of Proposal and the Official Statement prepared on behalf of the City by Springsted Incorporated, sealed proposals for the purchase of the Bonds were received at or before the time specified for receipt of proposals. The proposals have been opened, publicly read and considered and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each proposal have been determined. The most favorable proposal received is that of [Original Purchaser] in [City], [State] (the Purchaser), to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest, if any, on all Bonds to the day of delivery and payment, on the further terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 1.03. Award. The sale of the Bonds is hereby awarded to the Purchaser, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract on behalf of the City for the sale of the Bonds in accordance with the terms of the proposal. The good faith deposit of the Purchaser shall be retained and deposited by the City until the Bonds have been delivered, and shall be deducted from the purchase price paid at settlement. SECTION 2. BOND TERMS: REGISTRATION: EXECUTION AND DELIVERY. 2.01. Issuance of Bonds. All acts, conditions and things which are required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the valid issuance of the Bonds having been done, now existing, having happened and having been performed, it is now necessary for the Council to establish the form and terms of the Bonds, to provide security therefor and to issue the Bonds forthwith. Resolution No. 16-41 -2- June 7, 2016 2.02. Maturities; Interest Rates; Denominations and Payment. The Bonds shall be originally dated as of the date of original issuance thereof, shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each, or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities, shall mature on February 1 in the years and amounts stated below, and shall bear interest from date of issue until paid or duly called for redemption at the annual rates set forth opposite such years and amounts, as follows: Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate [REVISE MATURITY SCHEDULE FOR ANY TERM BONDS] The Bonds shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year composed of twelve 30 -day months. The interest on and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein, provided that, so long as the Bonds are registered in the name of a securities depository, or a nominee thereof, in accordance with Section 2.08 hereof, principal and interest shall be payable in accordance with the operational arrangements of the securities depository. 2.03. Dates and Interest Payment Dates. Upon initial delivery of the Bonds pursuant to Section 2.07 and upon any subsequent transfer or exchange pursuant to Section 2.06, the date of authentication shall be noted on each Bond so delivered, exchanged or transferred. Interest on the Bonds shall be payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2017, each such date being referred to herein as an Interest Payment Date, to the persons in whose names the Bonds are registered on the Bond Register, as hereinafter defined, at the Registrar's close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. 2.04. Redemption. Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2026 shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City, in whole or in part, in such order of maturity dates as the City may select and, within a maturity, by lot as selected by the Registrar (or, if applicable, by the bond depository in accordance with its customary procedures) in multiples of $5,000, on February 1, 2025, and on any date thereafter, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date of redemption. The City Manager shall cause notice of the call for redemption thereof to be published if and as required by law, and, at least thirty (30) and not more than sixty (60) days prior to the designated redemption date, shall cause notice of call for redemption to be mailed, by first class mail, to the Registrar and registered holders of any Bonds to be redeemed at their addresses as they appear on the register described in Section 2.06 hereof, provided that notice shall be given to any securities depository in accordance with its operational arrangements. No defect in or failure to give such mailed notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond not affected by such defect or failure. Official notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions of Bonds so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment of the redemption price) such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon partial redemption of any Bond, a new Bond or Bonds will be Resolution No. 16-41 -3- June 7, 2016 delivered to the registered owner without charge, representing the remaining principal amount outstanding. [COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS IF THERE ARE TERM BONDS - ADD ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IF THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO TERM BONDS] [Bonds maturing on February 1, 20 and 20 (the Term Bonds) shall be subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity pursuant to the sinking fund requirements of this Section 2.04 at a redemption price equal to the stated principal amount thereof plus interest accrued thereon to the redemption date, without premium. The Registrar shall select for redemption, by lot or other manner deemed fair, on February 1 in each of the following years the following stated principal amounts of such Bonds: Year The remaining $ maturity on February 1, 20 Year The remaining $ maturity on February 1, 20 Principal Amount stated principal amount of such Bonds shall be paid at Principal Amount stated principal amount of such Bonds shall be paid at [Notice of redemption shall be given as provided in the preceding paragraph.] 2.05. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City hereby appoints U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the initial bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the Registrar). The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company organized under the laws of the United States or one of the states of the United States and authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar, effective upon not less than thirty (30) days' written notice and upon the appointment and acceptance of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. 2.06. Registration. The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corporate trust office a register (the Bond Register) in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. The term Holder or Bondholder as used herein shall mean the person (whether a natural person, corporation, Resolution No. 16-41 -4- June 7, 2016 association, partnership, trust, governmental unit, or other legal entity) in whose name a Bond is registered in the Bond Register. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. Whenever any Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. All Bonds surrendered for payment, transfer or exchange shall be promptly canceled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes; and all payments made to any registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Bonds (except for an exchange upon a partial redemption of a Bond), the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond shall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar shall deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory Resolution No. 16-41 -5- June 7, 2016 to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. All Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar shall be canceled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. (i) Authenticating Agent. The Registrar is hereby designated authenticating agent for the Bonds, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1, as amended. 0) Valid Obligations. All Bonds issued upon any transfer or exchange of Bonds shall be the valid obligations of the City, evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this Resolution as the Bonds surrendered upon such transfer or exchange. 2.07. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the City Manager and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and City Manager, provided that the signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. When the Bonds have been prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager shall deliver them to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore executed, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 2.08. Securities Depository. (a) For purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Beneficial Owner" shall mean, whenever used with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name such Bond is recorded as the beneficial owner of such Bond by a Participant on the records of such Participant, or such person's subrogee. "Cede & Co." shall mean Cede & Co., the nominee of DTC, and any successor nominee of DTC with respect to the Bonds. "DTC" shall mean The Depository Trust Company of New York, New York. "Participant" shall mean any broker-dealer, bank or other financial institution for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository. Resolution No. 16-41 -6- June 7, 2016 "Representation Letter" shall mean the Representation Letter pursuant to which the City agrees to comply with DTC's Operational Arrangements. (b) The Bonds shall be initially issued as separately authenticated fully registered bonds, and one Bond shall be issued in the principal amount of each stated maturity of the Bonds. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of such Bonds shall be registered in the bond register in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. The Registrar and the City may treat DTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive owner of the Bonds registered in its name for the purposes of payment of the principal of or interest on the Bonds, selecting the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed, if any, giving any notice permitted or required to be given to registered owners of Bonds under this resolution, registering the transfer of Bonds, and for all other purposes whatsoever; and neither the Registrar nor the City shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Neither the Registrar nor the City shall have any responsibility or obligation to any Participant, any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the Bonds under or through DTC or any Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the bond register as being a registered owner of any Bonds, with respect to the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or any Participant, with respect to the payment by DTC or any Participant of any amount with respect to the principal of or interest on the Bonds, with respect to any notice which is permitted or required to be given to owners of Bonds under this resolution, with respect to the selection by DTC or any Participant of any person to receive payment in the event of a partial redemption of the Bonds, or with respect to any consent given or other action taken by DTC as registered owner of the Bonds. So long as any Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on such Bond, and shall give all notices with respect to such Bond, only to Cede & Co. in accordance with DTC's Operational Arrangements, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than DTC shall receive an authenticated Bond for each separate stated maturity evidencing the obligation of the City to make payments of principal and interest. Upon delivery by DTC to the Registrar of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the Bonds will be transferable to such new nominee in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (c) In the event the City determines that it is in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners that they be able to obtain Bonds in the form of physical certificates, the City may notify DTC and the Registrar, whereupon DTC shall notify the Participants of the availability through DTC of Bonds in the form of certificates. In such event, the Bonds will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and the Registrar and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event the Bonds will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (d) The execution and delivery of the Representation Letter to DTC by the Mayor or City Manager, if not previously filed with DTC, is hereby authorized and directed. (e) In the event that any transfer or exchange of Bonds is permitted under paragraph (b) or (c) hereof, such transfer or exchange shall be accomplished upon receipt by the Registrar of the Bonds to be transferred or exchanged and appropriate instruments of transfer to the permitted transferee in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. In Resolution No. 16-41 -7- June 7, 2016 the event Bonds in the form of certificates are issued to owners other than Cede & Co., its successor as nominee for DTC as owner of all the Bonds, or another securities depository as owner of all the Bonds, the provisions of this resolution shall also apply to all matters relating thereto, including, without limitation, the printing of such Bonds in the form of physical certificates and the method of payment of principal of and interest on such Bonds in the form of physical certificates. form: 2.09. Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be prepared in substantially the following UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN BOND, SERIES 2016C No. R- $ Interest Rate Maturity Date Date of Original Issue CUSIP No. % February 1, 20_ July 7, 2016 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: THOUSAND DOLLARS THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (the City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the registered owner named above, or registered assigns, the principal amount specified above on the maturity date specified above, and promises to pay interest thereon from the date of original issue specified above or from the most recent Interest Payment Date (as hereinafter defined) to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, at the annual interest rate specified above, payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2017 (each such date, an Interest Payment Date), to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding calendar month, all subject to the provisions referred to herein with respect to the redemption of the principal of this Bond before maturity. Interest hereon shall be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year composed of twelve 30 -day months. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of the agent of the Registrar described below, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft drawn on U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent, or its successor designated under the Resolution described herein (the Registrar) or other agreed-upon means of payment by the Registrar. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. Resolution No. 16-41 -8- June 7, 2016 This Bond is one of an issue (the Bonds) in the aggregate principal amount of $5,630,000, issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council (the Council) on June 7, 2016 (the Resolution) to provide funds to finance certain street reconstruction projects in the City, including the 2016 Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project, pursuant to a street reconstruction plan approved by the Council in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, subdivision 3b, and is issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. The Bonds are issuable only in fully registered form, in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities. Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2026 shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City, in whole or in part, in such order of maturity dates as the City may select and, within a maturity, by lot as selected by the Registrar (or, if applicable, by the bond depository in accordance with its customary procedures) in multiples of $5,000, on February 1, 2025, and on any date thereafter, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date of redemption. The City Manager shall cause notice of the call for redemption thereof to be published if and as required by law, and, at least thirty (30) and not more than sixty (60) days prior to the designated redemption date, shall cause notice of call for redemption to be mailed, by first class mail, to the Registrar and registered holders of any Bonds to be redeemed at their addresses as they appear on the register, provided that notice shall be given to any securities depository in accordance with its operational arrangements. No defect in or failure to give such mailed notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond not affected by such defect or failure. Official notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions of Bonds so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment of the redemption price) such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon partial redemption of any Bond, a new Bond or Bonds will be delivered to the registered owner without charge, representing the remaining principal amount outstanding. [COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS IF THERE ARE TERM BONDS] [Bonds maturing in the years 20 and 20 shall be subject to mandatory redemption, at a redemption price equal to their principal amount plus interest accrued thereon to the redemption date, without premium, on February 1 in each of the years shown below, in an amount equal to the following principal amounts: Term Bonds Maturina in 20 -- Sinking Fund Payment Date Aggregate Principal Amount Term Bonds Maturing in 20 -- Sinking Fund Payment Date Aggregate Principal Amount Notice of redemption shall be given as provided in the preceding paragraph. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Resolution No. 16-41 -9- June 7, 2016 Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Bond, so long as this Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, or in the name of any other nominee of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on this Bond, and shall give all notices with respect to this Bond, only to Cede & Co. or other nominee in accordance with the operational arrangements of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository as agreed to by the City. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required; that, prior to the issuance hereof, the City has established its General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C Bond Fund and has appropriated thereto ad valorem taxes heretofore levied on all taxable property in the City, which taxes will be collectible for the years and in amounts sufficient to produce sums not less than five percent in excess of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due; that if necessary for payment of such principal and interest, additional ad valorem taxes are required to be levied upon all taxable property in the City, without limitation as to rate or amount; that all proceedings relative to the improvements financed by this Bond have been or will be taken according to law and that the issuance of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and City Manager. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (facsimile signature - Mayor) (facsimile signature - City Manager) Resolution No. 16-41 -10- June 7, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. Date of Authentication: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Registrar : Authorized Representative The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to the applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common UTMA ................... as Custodian for ..................... (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act .............. (State) JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used. Resolution No. 16-41 -11- June 7, 2016 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. Signature Guaranteed- Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guaranty program" as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to or in substitution for STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: [end of bond form] Resolution No. 16-41 -12- June 7, 2016 SECTION 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2016C CONSTRUCTION FUND. There is hereby established on the official books and records of the City a General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C Construction Fund (the Construction Fund). The City Manager shall maintain the Construction Fund until payment of all costs and expenses incurred in connection with the construction of the Project have been paid. To the Construction Fund there shall be credited from the proceeds of the Bonds, exclusive of unused discount and accrued interest, an amount equal to the estimated cost of the Project and from the Construction Fund there shall be paid all construction costs and expenses incurred by the City in construction of the Project. After payment of all construction costs, the Construction Fund shall be discontinued and any Bond proceeds remaining therein received shall be credited to the Bond Fund described in Section 4.01 hereof. SECTION 4. GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2016C BOND FUND; PLEDGE OF TAXING POWER. 4.01, General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C Bond Fund. So long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and any principal of or interest thereon unpaid, the City Manager shall maintain a separate debt service fund on the official books and records of the City to be known as the General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C Bond Fund (the Bond Fund), and the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable from the Bond Fund. The City irrevocably appropriates to the Bond Fund (i) the amount of $ received from the Purchaser; (ii) the amounts specified in Section 3 above, after payment of all costs of the Project; (iii) all taxes levied and collected in accordance with this resolution; and (iv) all other moneys as shall be appropriated by the Council to the Bond Fund from time to time. If the aggregate balance in the Bond Fund is at any time insufficient to pay all interest and principal then due on all Bonds payable therefrom, the payment shall be made from any fund of the City which is available for that purpose, subject to reimbursement from the Bond Fund when the balance therein is sufficient, and the Council covenants and agrees that it will each year levy a sufficient amount of ad valorem taxes to take care of any accumulated or anticipated deficiency, which levy is not subject to any constitutional or statutory limitation. 4.02. Pledge of Taxing Powers. For the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as such payments respectively become due, the full faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. In order to produce aggregate amounts not less than five percent in excess of amounts needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds, ad valorem taxes are hereby levied on all taxable property in the City, said taxes to be levied and collected in the following years and amounts: Levy Years Collection Years See attached levy computation Amount Said taxes shall be irrepealable as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce said levies from other legally available funds in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61. Resolution No. 16-41 -13- June 7, 2016 SECTION 5. DEFEASANCE. When all of the Bonds have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the registered owners of the Bonds shall cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by irrevocably depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full, or, if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued from the due date to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they are prepayable according to their terms by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date an amount equal to the principal, redemption premium, if any, and interest then due, provided that notice of such redemption has been duly given as provided herein. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with the Registrar or with a bank or trust company qualified by law to act as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are authorized by law to be so deposited for such purpose, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing or callable at the holder's option on such dates as shall be required to pay all principal and interest to become due thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been irrevocably provided for, to an earlier designated redemption date, provided, however, that if such deposit is made more than ninety days before the maturity date or specified redemption date of the Bonds to be discharged, the City shall have received a written opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such deposit does not adversely affect the exemption of interest on any Bonds from federal income taxation and a written report of an accountant or investment banking firm verifying that the deposit is sufficient to pay when due all of the principal and interest on the Bonds to be discharged on and before their maturity dates or earlier designated redemption date. SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 6.01. Registration of Bonds. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the records of Hennepin County, together with such additional information as is required, and to issue a certificate that the Bonds have been duly entered upon the County Auditor's bond register and the tax required by law has been levied. 6.02. Authentication of Transcript. The officers of the City and the County Auditor are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Bond Counsel, certified copies of all proceedings and records relating to the Bonds and such other affidavits, certificates and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds, as the same appear from the books and records in their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, affidavits and certificates, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. 6.03. Official Statement. The Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, dated , 2016, prepared and distributed by Springsted Incorporated, is hereby approved. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to prepare and distribute to the Purchaser within seven business days from the date hereof, a Resolution No. 16-41 -14- June 7, 2016 supplement to the Official Statement listing the offering price, the interest rates, selling compensation, delivery date, the underwriters and such other information relating to the Bonds as is required to be included in the Official Statement by Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as may be appropriate concerning the accuracy, completeness and sufficiency of the Official Statement. SECTION 7. TAX COVENANTS; ARBITRAGE MATTERS AND CONTINUING DISCLOSURE. 7.01. General Tax Covenant. The City covenants and agrees with the registered owners of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any actions that would cause interest on the Bonds to become includable in the gross income of the recipient under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) and applicable Treasury Regulations (the Regulations), and covenants to take any and all actions within its powers to ensure that the interest on the Bonds will not become includable in gross income of the recipient under the Code and the Regulations. In particular, the City covenants and agrees that all proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Construction Fund will be expended solely for the payment of the costs of the Project. All improvements so financed will be owned and maintained by the City as part of the public infrastructure of the City and available for use by members of the general public on a substantially equal basis. The City has not entered and will not enter into any lease, management, use or other agreement or contract relating to the use of the Project, or any portion thereof, or security for the payment of the Bonds which might cause the Bonds to be considered "private activity bonds" or "private loan bonds" pursuant to Section 141 of the Code. 7.02. Arbitrage Certification. The Mayor and City Manager, being the officers of the City charged with the responsibility for issuing the Bonds pursuant to this resolution, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchaser a certificate in accordance with Section 148 of the Code and applicable Regulations stating the facts, estimates and circumstances in existence on the date of issue and delivery of the Bonds which make it reasonable to expect that the proceeds of the Bonds will not be used in a manner that would cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of the Code and Regulations. 7.03. Arbitrage Rebate. The City acknowledges that the Bonds are subject to the rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code. The City covenants and agrees to retain such records, make such determinations, file such reports and documents and pay such amounts at such times as are required under said Section 148(f) and applicable Regulations to preserve the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes, unless the Bonds qualify for an exception from the rebate requirement pursuant to one of the spending exceptions set forth in Section 1.148-7 of the Regulations and no "gross proceeds" of the Bonds (other than amounts constituting a "bona fide debt service fund") arise during or after the expenditure of the original proceeds thereof. 7.04. Reimbursement. The City certifies that the proceeds of the Bonds will not be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure with respect to the Project which the Resolution No. 16-41 -15- June 7, 2016 City paid or will have paid more than 60 days prior to the date of adoption of its reimbursement resolution for the Project, March 19, 2013, provided that this certification shall not apply (i) with respect to certain de minimis expenditures, if any, with respect to the Project meeting the requirements of Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations, or (ii) with respect to "preliminary expenditures" for the Project as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, including engineering or architectural expenses and similar preparatory expenses, which in the aggregate do not exceed 20% of the "issue price" of the Bonds. 7.06. Continuing Disclosure. (a) Purpose and Beneficiaries. To provide for the public availability of certain information relating to the Bonds and the security therefor and to permit the Purchaser and other participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to comply with amendments to Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-12), relating to continuing disclosure (as in effect and interpreted from time to time, the Rule), which will enhance the marketability of the Bonds, the City hereby makes the following covenants and agreements for the benefit of the Owners (as hereinafter defined) from time to time of the Outstanding Bonds. The City is the only obligated person in respect of the Bonds within the meaning of the Rule for purposes of identifying the entities in respect of which continuing disclosure must be made. If the City fails to comply with any provisions of this section, any person aggrieved thereby, including the Owners of any Outstanding Bonds, may take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or appropriate to enforce performance and observance of any agreement or covenant contained in this section, including an action for a writ of mandamus or specific performance. Direct, indirect, consequential and punitive damages shall not be recoverable for any default hereunder to the extent permitted by law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall a default under this section constitute a default under the Bonds or under any other provision of this resolution. As used in this section, Owner or Bondowner means, in respect of a Bond, the registered owner or owners thereof appearing in the bond register maintained by the Registrar or any Beneficial Owner (as hereinafter defined) thereof, if such Beneficial Owner provides to the Registrar evidence of such beneficial ownership in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar. As used herein, Beneficial Owner means, in respect of a Bond, any person or entity which (i) has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, such Bond (including persons or entities holding Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (ii) is treated as the owner of the Bond for federal income tax purposes. (b) Information To Be Disclosed. The City will provide, in the manner set forth in subsection (c) hereof, either directly or indirectly through an agent designated by the City, the following information at the following times: (1) on or before 12 months after the end of each fiscal year of the City, commencing with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, the following financial information and operating data in respect of the City (the Disclosure Information): (A) the audited financial statements of the City for such fiscal year, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in accordance with the governmental accounting standards promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board or as otherwise provided under Minnesota law, as in effect from time to time, or, if and to the extent such financial statements have not been prepared in accordance with such Resolution No. 16-41 -16- June 7, 2016 generally accepted accounting principles for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the City, noting the discrepancies therefrom and the effect thereof, and certified as to accuracy and completeness in all material respects by the fiscal officer of the City; and (B) to the extent not included in the financial statements referred to in paragraph (A) hereof, the information for such fiscal year or for the period most recently available of the type contained in the Official Statement under the headings: City Property Values; City Indebtedness and City Tax Rates, Levies and Collections, which information may be unaudited. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, if the audited financial statements are not available by the date specified, the City shall provide on or before such date unaudited financial statements in the format required for the audited financial statements as part of the Disclosure Information and, within 10 days after the receipt thereof, the City shall provide the audited financial statements. Any or all of the Disclosure Information may be incorporated by reference, if it is updated as required hereby, from other documents, including official statements, which have been filed with the SEC or have been submitted to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) through its Electronic Municipal Market Access System (EMMA). The City shall clearly identify in the Disclosure Information each document so incorporated by reference. If any part of the Disclosure Information can no longer be generated because the operations of the City have materially changed or been discontinued, such Disclosure Information need no longer be provided if the City includes in the Disclosure Information a statement to such effect, provided, however, if such operations have been replaced by other City operations in respect of which data is not included in the Disclosure Information and the City determines that certain specified data regarding such replacement operations would be described in paragraph (2) hereof, then, from and after such determination, the Disclosure Information shall include such additional specified data regarding the replacement operations. If the Disclosure Information is changed or this section is amended as permitted by this paragraph (b)(1) or subsection (d), then the City shall include in the next Disclosure Information to be delivered hereunder, to the extent necessary, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect of any change in the type of financial information or operating data provided. (2) In a timely manner not in excess of ten business days after the occurrence of the event, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events: (A) Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (B) Non-payment related defaults, if material; (C) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (D) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (E) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (F) Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the Bonds; (G) Modifications to rights of security holders, if material; (H) Bond calls, if material, and tender offers; Resolution No. 16-41 -17- June 7, 2016 (1) Defeasances; (J) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material; (K) Rating changes; (L) Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City; (M) The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and (N) Appointment of a successor or additional paying agent or the change of name of a paying agent, if material. As used herein, for those events that must be reported if material, an event is "material" if it is an event as to which a substantial likelihood exists that a reasonably prudent investor would attach importance thereto in deciding to buy, hold or sell a Bond or, if not disclosed, would significantly alter the total information otherwise available to an investor from the Official Statement, information disclosed hereunder or information generally available to the public. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, an event is also "material" if it is an event that would be deemed material for purposes of the purchase, holding or sale of a Bond within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws, as interpreted at the time of discovery of the occurrence of the event. For the purposes of the event identified in (L) hereinabove, the event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer for an obligated person in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person. (3) In a timely manner, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events or conditions: (A) the failure of the City to provide the Disclosure Information required under paragraph (b)(1) at the time specified thereunder; (B) the amendment or supplementing of this section pursuant to subsection (d), together with a copy of such amendment or supplement and any explanation provided by the City under subsection (d)(2); (C) the termination of the obligations of the City under this section pursuant to subsection (d); (D) any change in the accounting principles pursuant to which the financial statements constituting a portion of the Disclosure Information are prepared; and (E) any change in the fiscal year of the City. Resolution No. 16-41 -18- June 7, 2016 (c) Manner of Disclosure. (1) The City agrees to make available to the MSRB through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, the information described in subsection (b). (2) All documents provided to the MSRB pursuant to this subsection (c) shall be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB from time to time. (d) Term; Amendments; Interpretation. (1) The covenants of the City in this section shall remain in effect so long as any Bonds are Outstanding. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, however, the obligations of the City under this section shall terminate and be without further effect as of any date on which the City delivers to the Registrar an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that, because of legislative action or final judicial or administrative actions or proceedings, the failure of the City to comply with the requirements of this section will not cause participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to be in violation of the Rule or other applicable requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any statutes or laws successory thereto or amendatory thereof. (2) This section (and the form and requirements of the Disclosure Information) may be amended or supplemented by the City from time to time, without notice to (except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) hereof) or the consent of the Owners of any Bonds, by a resolution of this Council filed in the office of the recording officer of the City accompanied by an opinion of Bond Counsel, who may rely on certificates of the City and others and the opinion may be subject to customary qualifications, to the effect that: (i) such amendment or supplement (a) is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in law or regulation or a change in the identity, nature or status of the City or the type of operations conducted by the City, or (b) is required by, or better complies with, the provisions of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule; (ii) this section as so amended or supplemented would have complied with the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule at the time of the primary offering of the Bonds, giving effect to any change in circumstances applicable under clause (i)(a) and assuming that the Rule as in effect and interpreted at the time of the amendment or supplement was in effect at the time of the primary offering; and (iii) such amendment or supplement does not materially impair the interests of the Bondowners under the Rule. If the Disclosure Information is so amended, the City agrees to provide, contemporaneously with the effectiveness of such amendment, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect, if any, of the change in the type of financial information or operating data being provided hereunder. Resolution No. 16-41 -19- June 7, 2016 (3) This section is entered into to comply with the continuing disclosure provisions of the Rule and should be construed so as to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule. 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. 16-41 -20- June 7, 2016 APPENDIX I Taxes Levied with respect to the Project Levy Years Collection Years Amount Resolution No. 16-41 -21- June 7, 2016 HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO REGISTRATION AND TAX LEVY The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certifies that there has been filed in my office a certified copy of a resolution duly adopted on June 7, 2016, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, setting forth the form and details of an issue of $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C, dated as of the date of issuance thereof and levying taxes for the payment of the Bonds. I further certify that the issue has been entered on my bond register and the tax required by law for their payment has been levied and filed as required by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.61 through 475.63. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of , 2016. Hennepin County Auditor (SEAL) try of goldenl� Y Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 7, 2016 Agenda Item 6. B. First Consideration - Amending Sections 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards and 12.50: Minor Subdivision and Consolidations Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary In order to clarify the frontage requirements for newly subdivided lots and how access to them should be provided, staff has worked with the City Attorney to revise a key line of the Subdivision Code. The changes make it clear that the front of a lot must abut entirely on a public street right-of-way and access must be provided via that frontage or via a public alley. This would help avoid potential misinterpretation of how frontage should be considered and disallow attempts to utilize frontage where no access is allowed. In 2015, the City Council approved changes to the Subdivision Code that required the minimum width of new R-1 zoned lots be maintained for a distance of 70 feet into the lot. Staff recommends extending this requirement to R-2 zoned lots as well. The proposed changes would be applied to both regular and minor subdivisions (Sections 12.20 and 12.50). Attachments • Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 12.20 Subd. 5: Lots, and Section 12.50 Subd. 3: Conditions for Approval or Denial (2 pages) • Ordinance #603, Amending Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting), Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt first consideration Ordinance #603, Amending Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting), Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width. § 12.50 A. should be identified in both graphic and tabular form. This existing tree survey must be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applicant. Source: Ordinance No. 548, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-16-15 B. Any other information specific to the particular site and required for the complete evaluation of the application. Such information shall be supplied at the expense of the applicant. Source: Ordinance No. 34, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-11-90 Subdivision 3. Conditions for Approval or Denial A. Minor subdivisions or consolidations shall be denied if the proposed lots fail to meet the following requirements: 1. All lots shall meet the minimum area requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single Family Residential District created through minor subdivision after November 4, 2015, must be at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet if the average of the R-1 single-family lots within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the subject parcel have an average lot area of eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet or greater, excluding from the calculation the subject parcel and lots less than four thousand one (4,001) square feet. 2. All lots shall meet the minimum dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single Family and R-2 Moderate Density Residential Districts created through minor subdivision after November 4, 2015, must meet the minimum lot width at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that lot width to a point seventy (70) feet back from the front lot line. 3. The entire front of each lot shall abut cntircly on an improvcd public a street right-of-way and there shall be vehicular access to and from each lot via an improved street on which the lot abuts and/or via an improved public alleyway on which the lot abuts. 4. Corner lots shall be platted at least twenty (20) feet wider than the required minimum lot width as required by the Zoning Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 582, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-12-15 B. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's determination that the buildable portion of a resulting new lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. Alternatively, approval of the minor subdivision may be conditioned on the applicant's submittal of a certified engineer's ORDINANCE NO. 603, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Sections 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards and 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations, Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(A)(2) & (3) Lots are amended to read as follows: 2. All lots shall meet the minimum dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single -Family and R-2 Moderate Density Residential Districts created through subdivision after November 4, 2015, must meet the minimum lot width at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that lot width to a point seventy (70) feet back from the front lot line. 3. The entire front of each lot shall abut on a street right-of-way and there shall be vehicular access to and from each lot via an improved street on which the lot abuts and/or via an improved public alleyway on which the lot abuts. Section 2. City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A)(2) & (3) Conditions for Approval or Denial are amended to read as follows: 2. All lots shall meet the minimum dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single -Family and R-2 Moderate Density Residential Districts created through minor subdivision after November 4, 2015, must meet the minimum lot width at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that lot width to a point seventy (70) feet back from the front lot line. 3. The entire front of each lot shall abut on a street right-of-way and there shall be vehicular access to and from each lot via an improved street on which the lot abuts and/or via an improved public alleyway on which the lot abuts. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 12.99 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 7th day of June, 2016. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk AGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room June 14, 2016 6:30 pm Pages Winter Parking Restrictions (15 minutes) 2. Fiscal Disparities (15 minutes) 3. Annual Audit (15 minutes) 4. Lilac Plan (10 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. i AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber June 21, 2016 6:30 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Certificate of Recognition - Twin Cities Honor Flight Participant Gaylen Johnson 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 June 7, 2016 B. Approval of City Check Register C. Licenses: D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: E. Bids and Quotes: F. Appointment of 2016 Election Judges 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit- Ceramics Studio at 1000 Boone Ave N B. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Morrie's Heritage Car Connection C. Public Hearing - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan D. Public Hearing - Comp Plan and Zoning Map Amendment - 9050 Golden Valley Road 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Second Consideration - Subdivision Code Text Amendment - Frontage Requirement B. Approve Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Task Force Members C. Minor PUD Amendment - Tennant - 701 Lilac Drive N F. Announcements of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: City Council July 5, 2016, Council/Manager July 12, 2016 and City Council July 19, 2016 G. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT 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. PAGFS 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber July 5, 2016 6:30 pm 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 June 21, 2016 B. Approval of City Check Register C. Licenses: D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: E. Bids and Quotes: F. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 9050 Golden Valley Rd - Affinity Plus Credit Union B. Public Hearing - Major PUD Amendment - 810 Lilac Drive - Addition C. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 825 Boone Ave N - Executive Leasing (Auto Sales/Rentals) 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. First Consideration - Lodging Tax for Conventions and Visitor Bureau B. Appointment to Conventions and Visitor Bureau C. Announcements of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: Council/Manager July 12, 2016 and City Council July 19 and August 3, 2016 D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT 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. PAGES