Loading...
04-17-18 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber April 17, 2018 Immediately following HRA meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Presentation: Proclamation for Cooper High School Girls Basketball Team 3-4 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 - March 13, 2018 5-6 2. City Council Meeting - April 3, 2018 7-9 B. Approval of City Check Register 10 C. Licenses: 1. On-Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor License - Latitude 14 Inc. dba LAT 14 Asian Eatery 11 2. General Business Licenses - Fireworks Sales 12 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - February 26 and March 26, 2018 13-31 2. Special Planning Commission - March 12, 2018 32-33 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Approve Purchase of Office Furniture and Workstations 34-40 2. Approve Purchase of Fire Rescue Vehicle 41-53 3. Authorize Purchase of Rotating Grapple Attachment 54-57 F. Award Contract for 2018 Pavement Marking Project No. 18-11 58-59 G. Receipt of March 2018 Financial Reports 60-73 H. Approve 2017 Positive Performance General Fund Transfer 18-26 74-83 I. Approve Twin City Tennis Service Agreement 84-91 J. Providing For the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $2,975,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A 18-27 92-101 K. Approval of Partial Transfer of Interest in Global Pointe Senior Community Project 102-115 L. Authorize Submittal of Application and Execution of Agreements on behalf of Global Pointe Senior Community for Contamination Cleanup Grant Program 18-28 116-144 M. Board/Commission Appointments and Reappointments 145-146 N. Resignation from Human Services Fund 147 Page 2 April 17, 2018 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing - Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area 18-29  148-173 B. Public Hearing - Ordinance 632 - Approval of Conditional Use permit 160 - 8806 Olson Memorial Highway - Latitude 14, 14., Applicant 174-204 C. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Marie Estates - 7040 Glenwood Avenue 205-237 D. Public Hearings - Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map and the Official Zoning Map - 5508 Olson Memorial Highway (Damascus Way) 238 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input. A. Approve Entering into Agreements with Verizon Wireless for Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement and Agreement Supplement 239-262 B. Authorize a Master Funding Agreement with Metropolitan Council for Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit  263-283 C. Review of Council Calendar D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT Resolution Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 1. C. Proclamation for the Robbinsdale Cooper High School Girls Basketball Team Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary On March 17, 2018, the Cooper Girls Basketball Team defeated Northfield 49-37 and was named the 2018 Class 3A State Champions. This is a historic event as this is the first time the girls high school basketball team has been state champions. Coach Buford and members from the team will be in attendance to accept the proclamation. Attachment: • Proclamation for the Robbinsdale Cooper High School Girls Basketball Team (1 page) CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROCLAMATION FOR THE ROBBINSDALE COOPER HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM WHEREAS, Robbinsdale Cooper High School is an integral component within the Golden Valley community; and WHEREAS, the Golden Valley City Council desires to recognize the Cooper High School Girls Basketball Team for their exemplary season and outstanding performance; and WHEREAS, the Cooper Hawks capped their 29-2 regular season with their first- ever state championship; and WHEREAS, the Cooper Girls Basketball Team defeated Northfield 49-37, with their stifling defense on Saturday, March 17, 2018, at Target Center; and NOW , THEREFORE, let it be known, that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby congratulates the team and Coach Buford on their historic victory as 2018 Class 3A State Champions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 17th day of April, 2018. __________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor OFFICIAL MINUTES COUNCIL/MANAGER MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA March 8, 2018 The meeting began at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members: Clausen, Fonnest, Rosenquist and Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, Human Resources Director Santelices, Physical Development Director Nevinski, Planning Manager Zimmerman, and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner. 1. Commission Annual Report: Human Rights Commission (HRC) 2017 Annual Report, 2018 Proposed Work Plan and Welcome Statement Human Rights Commission Chair Kyle Pettersen-Scott presented the 2017 HRC Annual Report, 2018 proposed Work Plan and Welcome Statement. Human Resources Director Santelices answered questions from the Council. After discussion the Council, the consensus of the Council is to approve the 2018 Work Plan and Welcome Statement. The Welcome Statement will be placed on the next Council agenda for consideration. 2. Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-Law Ame ndment Fire Relief Association President Dominique Guzman reviewed the request to increase the retirement benefit level from $8,000 to $8,300. Staff has worked with the Fire Relief Association to streamline the process for increases in the future. City Manager Cruikshank, Finance Director Virnig and Fire Chief Crelly answered questions from the Council. The Council supports the amendments to the by-laws. The by-laws will be placed on the March 20 City Council agenda for approval. 3. Comp Plan Update: City-Owned Vacant Parcels, Implementation of 2040 Comprehensive Plan and downtown Golden Valley Planning Study Planning Manager Zimmerman, and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner reviewed the items listed above. After discussion the Council approved the staff recommendations for the properties listed with the property on Turners Crossroad be considered for R2 or R3 designations. Staff will proceed with getting appraisals for the properties and provide an update to the Council at a future date. After discussion the Council requested staff to provide an updated list with priorities of infrastructure investment, housing and sustainable efforts and transportation and report back to the Council. Official Council/Manager Minutes -2- March 13, 2018 The Council discussed potential boundaries for the study area. 4. Review Process for Discussion of Organized Garbage Collection Physical Development Director Nevinski reviewed the proposed structure for a community conversation regarding residential waste collection. Physical Development Director Nevinski and City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from the Council. After discussion the Council, the consensus of the Council is to proceed with the process as outlined by staff and provide an update at the April Council/Manager meeting. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: City Council March 20, City Council April 3 and Council/Manager April 10, 2018 No changes were submitted for the future draft agendas. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA April 3, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1B. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Gillian Rosenquist and Steve Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank and City Clerk Luedke. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of April 3, 2018, as submitted and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to approve the consent agenda of April 3, 2018, as revised: 3G-Adopt Resolution accepting a Donation from the Golden Valley Little League Youth Baseball Association for improvements at Isaacson Park and 3J-Accept resignation from Human Services Fund and the motion carried. 3A1. Approve Minutes of Council/Manager Meeting - February 13, 2018. 3A2. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting - March 20, 2018. 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C1. Receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Sons of the American Legion Post 523. 3C2. Authorize the renewal of Refuse and Recycling Vehicles licenses for a period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019, as follows: Aspen Waste, Curbside Waste Inc., Darling Ingredients Inc., Dick’s Sanitation, Randy’s Environmental Services, Suburban Waste and Republic Services.   3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Human Rights Commission - January 23, 2018 2. Human Services Fund - February 12, 2018. 3. Environmental Commission - February 26, 2018. 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - February 15, 2018. 3E1. Award the 2018 Spring Brush Pickup contract to Tim’s Tree Service in the amount of $66,410. 3E2. Approve purchase of a 2018 Bobcat 5600 Toolcat Utility Work Machine from Tri-State Bobcat Inc. in the amount of $51,033.20, the trade-in of Unit 703 from Tri-State Bobcat Inc. in the amount of $21,533.20 and to enroll in Tri-State Bobcat Inc. Annual Trade-Out Program in the amount of $4,500. 3E3. Approve purchase of a 2018 Bobcat T650 T4 Compact Track Loader from Tri-State Bobcat Inc. in the amount of $54,314.10, the trade-in of Unit 797 from Tri-State Bobcat Inc. in the amount of $29,314.10 and to enroll in Tri-State Bobcat Inc. Annual Trade-Out Program. 3F. Authorize staff to sign equipment rental agreement with GPSI Leasing II - Accord, LLC. for GPS equipment and service. 3G. Adopt Resolution 18-23, accepting a Donation from the Golden Valley Little League Youth Baseball Association for improvements at Isaacson Park. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- April 3, 2018 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3H. Adopt Resolution 18-24, amending the 2018 General Fund Budget. 3I. Adopt Resolution 18-25, providing for Public Hearing on Certain Proposed Public Improvements, Xenia Avenue South and Golden Hills Drive Improvement Project 16-09 call for a Public Hearing for Certification of Special Assessments for May 1, 2018, at 6:30 pm and publish the required hearing notices. 3J. Accept resignation from Human Services Fund. 3K. Receive and file the February 2018 Financial Reports. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3G. Acceptance of Donation for Improvements at Isaacson Park The Council thanked the Golden Valley Little League Youth Baseball Association for their donation to Isaacson Park. Motion made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adopt Resolution 18-23, accepting a Donation from the Golden Valley Little League Youth Baseball Association for improvements at Isaacson Park upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 3J. Accept Resignation from Human Services Fund The Council thanked Ms. Denise La Mere-Anderson for her service on the Human Services Fund. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to accept the resignation from Ms. La Mere-Anderson from the Human Services Fund and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. OLD BUSINESS   6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Review of Council Calendar Some Council Members may attend the Ribbon Cutting at Mathnasium Golden Valley on April 9, 2018, from 1 to 1:30 pm located at 7626 Olson Memorial Highway. Some Council Members may attend Commissioner Callison’s State of the County on April 10, 2018, 8:15 am at Brookview. Board/Commission Interviews will be held on April 10, 2018, at 4:15 pm. The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on April 10, 2018, at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the CornerHouse Blue Kids Breakfast on April 11, 2018, from 7:30 to 9 am at the Golden Valley Country Club located at 7001 Golden Valley Road. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- April 3, 2018 6A. Review of Council Calendar - continued Some Council Members may attend the Minnesota Real Estate Journal Award Ceremony on April 11, 2018, at 4 pm at the Golden Valley Country Club located at 7001 Golden Valley Road. Some Council Members may attend the DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Open House on April 11, 2018, from 5 to 7:30 pm in the Council Chambers. Some Council Members may attend the TOD Zoning Work Session on April 16, 2018, at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. Some Council Members may attend the Global Golden Valley International Student visit event on April 17, 2018, at 5:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. The next Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting will be held on April 17, 2018, at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. The next City Council meeting will be held on April 17, 2018, immediately following the HRA meeting in the Council Chambers. Some Council Members may attend the Metro Cities Annual meeting on April 19, 2018, at 5:30 pm at the Como Park Zoo & Conservatory located at 1225 Estabrook Drive, St Paul. Some Council Members may attend the 33rd Annual TwinWest Gala on April 20, 2018, from 6:30 to 11 pm at the Mystic Lake Center & Hotel located at 2400 Mystic Lake Blvd, Prior Lake. Some Council Members may attend the Run the Valley event on April 21, 2018, starting at 7:45 am at Brookview. 6B. Mayor and Council Communication Mayor Harris thanked staff for their work on the Bottineau LRT Community Workshop that was held at Unity Christ Church. Council Member Rosenquist thanked Congressman Ellison for meeting with the Council and listening their concerns regarding the City of Golden Valley. 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 6:48 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 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. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Approve On-Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor License - Latitude 14 Inc. dba Lat 14 Asian Eatery Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary Latitude 14 Inc. dba Lat 14 Asian Eatery has submitted an application for an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale Liquor License. Lat 14 will be located at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway which is the former site of the Perkin Restaurant. Lat 14 is applying for the license period of July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. The Golden Valley Police Department and City Attorney has reviewed the application, and has found the documents are in order and complete. The applicant meets all of the requirements for consideration of the issuance of an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale Liquor License. Recommended Action Motion to approve the issuance of an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale Liquor License to Latitude 14 Inc. dba Lat 14 Asian Eatery, located at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway for the July 1, 2018, through July 30, 2019 period. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. General Business Licenses - Fireworks Sales Prepared By Jill Lund, Administrative Assistant Ted Massicotte, Deputy Fire Chief Summary The following establishment has applied for renewal of their fireworks sales license for the 2018- 2019 license term. The applicant has met City Code requirements for the renewal of their license and staff is recommending approval. Menard’s Fireworks Sales $100.00 6800 Wayzata Boulevard Recommended Action Motion to authorize the renewal of the above fireworks sales license for a period of May 1, 2018 through April 31, 2019. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, February 26, 2018. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Black, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Baker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 12, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on page five and stated that the word “developer” should be changed to the word “landlord.” MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 12, 2018, minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) – 700 Meadow Lane North – SU07-11 Applicant: North Wirth Associates, LLP (Mortenson) Address: 700 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To combine two existing parcels of land. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant’s proposal to consolidate Lot 1 and Lot 4 of the Mortenson campus located at 700 Meadow Lane North. The consolidation would allow for an enclosed connection to be constructed between two existing buildings. He showed the Commissioners renderings of what the proposed connection would look like. Segelbaum questioned why subdivision standards are being used when these properties are part of a PUD. Zimmerman explained that the Minor PUD Amendment proposal will only have to be considered by the City Council, but that the Lot Consolidation process requires public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained that the Highway 55 frontage road only serves Mortenson so the City would like to vacate the road and turn it back to Mortenson for maintenance. However, the City would retain easements for utilities, a public sidewalk, and a future signed bike route. He added that the City is also requesting dedication of right- of-way along Meadow Lane for a possible future turn lane. Johnson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 2 Blum said the proposal seems reasonable and meets the City’s requirements. Segelbaum agreed that the proposal meets the eight conditions for approval. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision (lot consolidation) at 700 Meadow Lane North subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer’s memorandum, dated February 21, 2018, shall become part of this approval. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3. If required, a park dedication fee shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 3. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – 8806 Olson Memorial Highway – Class III Restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District Applicant: Latitude 14 Inc. (Ann & Tarique Ahmed) Address: 8806 Olson Memorial Highway Purpose: To allow a Class III restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District Goellner stated that the property at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway is guided and zoned Commercial. She explained that the existing Perkins restaurant is a Class I restaurant that doesn’t serve liquor and therefore did not require a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed new restaurant will be a Class III restaurant that does serve liquor and requires a Conditional Use Permit. Goellner referred to an aerial photo of the site and discussed the existing site conditions which includes: two entrances on 7th Avenue, a 164-seat, 4,713 square foot restaurant, and 71 parking spaces. She stated that the applicant is proposing to use the existing building with the addition of a 500 square foot patio on the west side of the building, 74 parking spaces, and will have 144 seats. Goellner discussed the parking and reiterated that there are currently 71 existing parking spaces and 74 proposed parking spaces. She stated that the applicant is required to have 94 parking spaces because of the additional patio and bar areas. She noted that the applicant has considered a number of changes to their plans in order to accommodate additional parking spaces including eliminating 1,500 square feet of patio space, reducing the size of the bar area, and adding 11 existing parking spaces back into the plan, but they want to apply for a variance to allow 20 fewer parking spaces than required. Goellner added that the applicant spoke with neighboring property owners TruStone Financial and Red Lobster but were unable to come to a parking arrangement with either of them. Goellner explained that the applicant’s noted reasons for requesting a parking variance include: there is no room to expand the parking lot without a variance, the outdoor seating will only be used four months of the year, the Met Council counts patios at a lower ratio for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 3 sewer and water charges, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and Edina count outdoor patio seating differently, other restaurants in Golden Valley with patios are in PUDs, it is difficult to add a liquor license and reinvest in the building without a variance, and the overall seat count will be reduced from the existing Perkins. Goellner stated that staff is recommending that this application be continued to the April 9, 2018, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant time to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals with their variance request. However, if the Planning Commission wants to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit at this time, staff recommends that a condition of approval be added to state that a variance of 20 parking spaces must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Waldhauser stated that the Planning Commission doesn’t typically recommend approval of anything that they know is going to require a variance in the future. Goellner stated that the only reason to move forward is if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the parking count as it stands today. Blum questioned if the variance process should take place before the Planning Commission process. He stated that he doesn’t want to recommend approval for this applicant if the Planning Commission isn’t willing to do the same thing for all applicants. He said he thinks the Planning Commission should discuss specific parking requirements in order to benefit this and other applications, but he wants the process to be fair to everyone. Goellner reiterated that staff is recommending continuing this item to the April 9 Planning Commission meeting. Waldhauser noted that the existing restaurant received variances when it was originally built and asked what type of variances were granted. Goellner stated that Perkins was granted variances from the parking lot setback requirements along Highway 55 and 7th Avenue, and that the building was conforming and did not require any variances. Segelbaum asked if the patio were not being proposed if that space could be used for parking. Goellner said she isn’t sure how usable the space along the west property line would be. Segelbaum asked if parking is allowed on 7th Avenue. Goellner said yes, parking is available on the north side of 7th Avenue until bike lanes are added in the future, but those parking spaces don’t count toward the applicant’s parking requirement. Segelbaum asked what the City would do if parking was deemed to be a problem on this site. Goellner said the City would work with the applicant regarding adjusting their hours of operation or ask them to pursue a shared parking agreement with neighboring property owners. Segelbaum asked if the City approves the proposal and it turns out that the parking is insufficient if the City can require anything of the applicant. Zimmerman said that the Conditional Use Permit could not be rescinded if the parking is insufficient so the City should be comfortable with what is being proposed. Black asked if there have been problems with parking variances issued in the past. Goellner said that to her knowledge, there haven’t been any issues, but that she would do further research. Zimmerman added that parking requirements change over time and that staff has been considering looking at the parking requirements again especially for patios. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 4 Blum asked if the applicant has said they are planning to invest less in the project in order to meet the City’s requirements. Goellner said yes, the applicant has reduced the patio by 1,500 square feet, thereby reducing their seating count and capacity as well. Blum asked if the applicant is still interested in their original plan if a variance for parking is granted. Goellner said she thinks the applicant would still be interested in their original plans. Johnson asked if it is physically impossible to get 94 parking spaces on this site. Goellner said yes, and explained that any restaurant with a bar area would not be able to meet the parking requirements. Blum asked if this parcel is within one of the City’s upcoming proposed area plans that are looking to make the area more walkable. Goellner said yes, this street is being considered as part of a future pedestrian or transit oriented overlay in order to encourage shared parking, buildings closer to the street, more walkable neighborhoods, and shared uses. Blum asked Goellner if she is aware of terms that leave open the possibility for the City to come back and modify Conditional Use Permits to match future plans of public transportation or overlay districts. Goellner stated that any conditions written into a Conditional Use Permit need to be very closely tied to the factors of consideration used when approving a Conditional Use Permit. Waldhauser asked if the City knows TruStone Financial’s objection to shared parking. Goellner said she doesn’t know, but the applicant could speak to that. Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, stated that when they initially started the project the floor plan was much different because they didn’t realize that the parking requirements are based on gross square footage so when they submitted their plans they were told they did the parking calculations wrong. She stated that there is no way they could get 94 parking spaces even if they didn’t have a patio. She gave some parking requirement examples from other cities and stated that the area they are proposing for the patio is of no use for parking and is only good for drive aisle space. She added that they are not expecting there to be a problem with the 74 parking spaces they are proposing. Waldhauser asked about TruStone’s objection to shared parking. Tarique Ahmed, Applicant, stated that when they initially talked to TruStone they were not interested in shared parking because they feel they don’t have enough parking spaces. He stated that the bar area requires 11 parking spaces but the bar only has 10 seats. The restaurant has 108 seats and the patio is seasonal so he believes they will have more than enough parking. Waldhauser asked if the 108 restaurant seats includes the patio space. Ahmed said there are 144 seats total with the patio. Freeman added that they have never seen the existing Perkins parking lot full either. Blum asked Ahmed if he has spoken to the property owners across the street. Ahmed said there is a brewery proposed for that location so parking there is not an option. He stated that he also talked to Red Lobster but they weren’t interested in shared parking either. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 5 Blum noted that there is a discrepancy between the plans and the staff report regarding the dumpster enclosure. Freeman stated that they are going to move the dumpster location in order to get three more parking spaces. Johnson asked if the hours of operation are determined by the City. Ahmed said no, they are standard restaurant hours and they won’t stay open later for the bar. Angell referred to the proposed patio storage structure and asked if it would be a temporary or a permanent structure. Freeman said she is thinking it will be a temporary storage structure. Johnson opened the public hearing. Wyck Linder, Property Manager, TruStone Financial, said they want to be a good neighbor they just don’t feel like they have enough information regarding a shared parking agreement. He asked how many parking spaces the applicant needs and if it would be a perpetual easement or agreement. He reiterated that they want to work with the applicant, they just need more information. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Zimmerman stated that the crux of the problem is that this proposed restaurant serves liquor. The parking requirements are almost double for restaurants that serve liquor. He stated that maybe the parking ratios aren’t right for just a restaurant with a bar, but they may make sense for other types of bars. Waldhauser said she is sure that residents want the nicest facility possible and that it makes sense to reconsider some of the City’s parking requirements. Segelbaum said he doesn’t see a need to table the proposal and make the applicant wait for the Board of Zoning Appeals consideration. He said he feels the Planning Commission can make a recommendation on this proposal with the condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals grants the variance for parking. Blum questioned if the Planning Commission would be comfortable with that process for everyone in a similar situation. Zimmerman said it has been the practice in the past to add a condition relying on the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum said he can see in other situations where it would be important to hear from the Board of Zoning Appeals first, but this proposal is a little more straightforward. Waldhauser said she would like to wait because there seems to be a lot of moving parts with this proposal. She added that the applicant might get more of what they want if they wait which would also give them more time to talk to TruStone. Black stated that if the Planning Commission recommends approval it makes it seem like they are approving a variance and that is not their job. Segelbaum stated he is in favor of recommending approval for a restaurant in this area and he hopes the application moves forward. Blum questioned if it is not part of the Planning Commission’s purview to come up with a condition that helps obtain a benefit of some kind for the City such as water quality. He questioned if the Planning Commission could require something different because they know there are future plans for the area. Zimmerman stated that the City is limited by state statute. He said if a condition of approval solves a problem that is great, but the City can’t Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 6 use conditions to do something further afield, they have to look at the impacts of the proposal. Blum suggested making space for public transportation and not adding more parking spaces in a place that provides alcohol. Segelbaum said he doesn’t think this is the place to discuss the larger issues and it comes down to if the Planning Commission thinks the number of parking spaces are sufficient. Johnson questioned what would happen if the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for 19 fewer parking spaces instead of 20. Segelbaum said the application would then come back to the Planning Commission. Waldhauser questioned if the applicant wants to wait. Goellner said the applicant would like to move as quickly as possible. Waldhauser noted that there are relatively few modifications needed and questioned if the patio could be considered in a second phase. Johnson said this is the plan they were presented with and if the Planning Commission votes on it now, it goes forward with 20 fewer parking spaces. Goellner said it would be helpful if the Planning Commission said what they are comfortable with and if they want a patio on the south side of the building or not. Johnson said this an opportunity to do a novel thing and stated that this proposal is a restaurant that is not focused on the bar. Waldhauser stated that if the proposal is tabled the City isn’t locked into anything. Black asked when the City Council will hear this proposal. Goellner stated that if the item is tabled it would go to the May 1 City Council meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval it would go to the April 17 City Council meeting. Angell said he’d be comfortable recommending approval of the proposal with the condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a parking variance. He added that the regional trends show the number of required parking spaces going down. Segelbaum agreed and stated that the applicant wants to have sufficient parking or their business won’t be successful. Waldhauser stated that if the surrounding area can absorb the parking on the street and this area is industrial it really isn’t hurting anybody. Johnson asked the Commissioners if they had any objections to tabling the proposal and moving it on to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum said he’d like to vote on the proposal now, Brookins said he would feel comfortable voting on it now as well. Zimmerman stated that there would need to either be a motion to vote on the proposal or to table it. Johnson asked the applicant if they would like to move forward or wait. Ann Ahmed, Applicant stated there are future pedestrian plans for this area and that they are proposing a bike rack and that people will want to run and walk in the area and they are prepared for that. She said she would like to move forward with their proposal and not table it. Freeman added that they are required to provide five bicycle parking spaces but they are proposing 10. She said they would also like to know if they can have the larger patio on the south side Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 7 of the building, if they can lose 11 parking spaces, and what kind of agreement they would have to have with TruStone. Goellner stated that if the larger patio is put back in the plans the variance request will be really big. Zimmerman stated that if the patio was done as a second phase that may give the applicant time to work on getting a shared parking agreement. Segelbaum said it seems that the applicant wants to move forward and how the parking agreement looks is up to them. Blum said the timeframe they are considering is two weeks. He said he wants to see development happen but he wants the best benefit to the City. MOVED by Blum, seconded Waldhauser and motion failed five to one to table this proposal. Commissioner Blum voted yes. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried five to one to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #160 subject to the following findings and conditions. Commissioner Blum voted no. Findings: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Based on the success of other restaurants in the community, there is evidence that the proposed Class III Restaurant use is appropriate. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Class III Restaurants are consistent with the Retail/Service designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its own estimated value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the proposed restaurant are minimal. The current restaurant generates a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting conversion from a Class I Restaurant to a Class III Restaurant. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of employees will be limited based on the size of the building. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed uses will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. The outdoor patio dining space is relatively small and is immediately adjacent to other businesses that generate similar 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: With the interior and exterior remodeling, staff anticipates an improvement in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the Golden Valley City Code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 8 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff finds that the parking plan submitted on February 20, 2018, will be sufficient for the proposed restaurant, but a variance to the City Code must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for this Conditional Use Permit approval to be valid. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of CUP 160 only if a variance for 20 parking spaces is received. If additional interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space is added in the future, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by Shea Design on February 20, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. A variance of 20 spaces off the required 94 spaces for a total of 74 spaces must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed to be significant by the City Manager or his/her designee, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the days or hours of operation or the use of a shared parking agreement with adjacent property owner(s) in order to address parking concerns. 3. A Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City in order to expand interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space in the future. 4. Hours of operation for the restaurant are limited to 11 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and 11 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise further limited by an approved City Liquor License. 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Schmidgall reported that the City is going to have pilot program of Lime Bikes and stated that there will be a meeting about it on Wednesday night. Schmidgall stated that Tennant has decided not to move forward with their campus proposals. Zimmerman added that Tennant is still planning to do the Damascus Way portion of the project. • Comp Plan Work Session – Water Resources Goellner introduced the Water Resources plan and covered main points of the chapter. She noted that there was more regulation involved in this topic and therefore less Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 9 flexibility. She indicated that the Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP) would be described in more detail and that the appendix would be very long and very technical due to the nature of the topics covered. Prior to the release of a final draft, staff would continue to revise and simplify the language in the chapter, including placing a greater emphasis on the aspirations and barriers around each section and including key points. She added that some elements of the implementation plan would center on education rather than enforcement since enforcement is often completed by other agencies. Waldhauser said that she appreciated the historical context that was written into the chapter and that it was important information for the casual reader. Johnson agreed that more detail on the IRP would be helpful. Waldhauser stated that much of the information was in the document, but that there could be a stronger explanation. She said the problems with infrastructure were not everywhere, but that it would be important to focus on the critical points. Blum said he was glad to see Key Point #2 included and that it resonated with him because including additional trees and vegetation was important to address water quality. Johnson asked about the definition of impaired waters. Goellner said that staff would likely include call out boxes with definitions of key technical terms such as impaired waters. Waldhauser asked about the City’s use of chlorides on streets to treat ice. Black confirmed that the City has been successful in reducing salt usage on roadways, but educating property owners to reduce salt is crucial. Goellner said that education around various topics might need to be carried out through partnerships rather than adding to staff responsibilities. • Comp Plan Discussion – Economic Competitiveness Zimmerman introduced the Economic Competitiveness plan and said that in general Golden Valley was in a good place with respect to its business climate and that the focus of the chapter really was on understanding and supporting the needs of the existing businesses. He pointed out the four focus areas in the plan, which are Employment, Redevelopment, Workforce, and Business Development. Waldhauser pointed out the graph that discussed the education levels of Golden Valley residents and indicated it would be great to get information on non-residents are employed in Golden Valley. Goellner added that providing similar information from Hennepin County or the Metro Area would be a good point of comparison. Zimmerman highlighted the number of businesses that had expanded or constructed facilities in Golden Valley since the last Comprehensive Plan was approved. Black asked why it should matter to non-business owners that Golden Valley has a strong business presence and suggested that be referenced in the text. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 10 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm. ____________________________ __________________________ Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 26, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, and Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman. Commissioners Angell and Black were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 26, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 26, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision – 7040 Glenwood Avenue – Marie Estates – SU17-15 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7040 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a map of the property and explained the applicant’s proposal to subdivide the lot at 7040 Glenwood Avenue into three new lots. The existing single family home would remain and two new lots would be created that could accommodate two new single family homes. He stated that in addition to the subdivision request the applicant is requesting two variances; one from the Subdivision Code and one from the Zoning Code. He clarified that the Planning Commission and City Council can consider the Subdivision Code variance, however the Zoning Code variance would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He added that a neighborhood meeting was held on March 13 and that the City received three letters from residents opposed to the proposed subdivision. Zimmerman referred to the proposed site plan and stated that the proposal shows a shared driveway between Lots 1 and 3 with access on Glenwood Avenue and access on the Olson Memorial Highway frontage road for Lot 2. Zimmerman discussed the standards when considering subdivisions and stated that each of the proposed new lots meet the minimum required lot area size of 10,000 square feet. He referred to the width of the proposed new lots and noted that the applicant is asking for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 2 a Subdivision Code variance to allow Lot 3 to be 63 feet wide 70 feet into lot rather than the required 80 feet of width. He added that the applicant is also proposing a 10-foot side yard (east) setback rather than the required 15 feet on Lot 3 in order to keep the existing house. He reiterated that this request would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the property and stated that Hennepin County and the City are recommending removing the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and prefer that all future access be off of the frontage road to the north. He noted that the restriction on the Glenwood access would limit the subdivision to two lots. Zimmerman referred to the requested variance regarding the minimum lot width of Lot 2 and stated that in order to keep the existing home, the applicant would still need this variance even if the subdivision was limited to two lots. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of this proposed subdivision because while there is enough lot area for three lots, access for Lot 1 is not acceptable to the County or the City, there is not enough width for a conforming Lot 2, and the findings necessary for a variance are not met because there is no unusual hardship, and the applicant is not being deprived of reasonable use of the land, the variance requested is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights, and the variance requested could be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood. He added that if the subdivision is approved a condition should be added that requires a variance to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to keep the existing house, or the existing house should be modified to meet the side yard setback requirements. Waldhauser referred to the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and asked if the County’s comment about removing the driveway is a request or a requirement. Zimmerman said his understanding is that the County’s recommendation is that the driveway be removed, but they don’t have the ability to require it. Baker asked if there are consequences in ignoring the County’s recommendation. Zimmerman said he doesn’t think there would be legal consequences, but it would be an improved public safety situation if the driveway was removed and staff supports it. Segelbaum said there has been City Council discussion regarding the granting of subdivision variances and that it is his understanding that they rarely if ever grant subdivision variances. Zimmerman said he is aware of a subdivision further south on Glenwood where a subdivision variance was granted in order to keep driveways off of Glenwood Avenue and in that case it didn’t shrink the building envelopes. He added that in general it is hard to make a case for a subdivision variance when it is a matter of choice in order to subdivide and create the conditions that are calling for a variance. Johnson asked if Glenwood Avenue could be considered a special circumstance or be considered differently than the safety concerns of any other road. Zimmerman explained that the variance request is in regard to the proposed width of Lot 2 and that removing the driveway from Glenwood is a County recommendation, but not a variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 3 Blum asked if the previous subdivision south of this proposal mentioned earlier pre-dates any of the recently adopted Code changes regarding lot width requirements. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked what the distance from the Lot 2 building envelope to the house to the east would be. Zimmerman said the existing house to the east is approximately 15 feet from the side yard property line of Lot 2 and that the proposed house on Lot 2 could be approximately 12.5 feet from the same property line so there could be approximately 27.5 feet between the two homes. Baker referred to the hardship requirements and asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Subdivision Code variance if it would create a hardship in regard to the Zoning Code variance. Zimmerman said it would likely have some influence but the two variances would be viewed separately. Baker questioned why the two lot subdivision option includes a sub-standard lot rather than a standard lot. Zimmerman suggested asking the applicant and stated that the property could be split down the middle in order to avoid access problems and would contain two conforming lots without the need for variances. Baker stated that the property could also be split from east to west if the access on Glenwood Avenue remained the same. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, said he’s been involved in 12 small infill developments in the City that have added approximately 20 million dollars in value. He referred to the existing house in this proposal and noted that it is about 2,000 square feet in size with no basement. It was built in 1950 and could use some remodeling, or it could be torn down. He stated that if the house was removed it would be easy to do a two or three lot subdivision depending on the Glenwood Avenue access issue. He noted that the City is looking at affordable housing issues and recently passed an affordable housing policy so he started considering keeping the existing house because it could be maintained as an affordable house. He stated that since the City has a strict policy about affordable housing and strict tree preservation requirements he doesn’t think taking down the existing house is the right thing to do. He said there are 21 significant trees on the site and to remove the house to do the subdivision 8 significant trees would have to be removed. He said keeping the affordable house and the trees is worth the City granting the variances he is requesting. He referred to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and read the goals regarding preserving existing single family homes and encouraging the affordability of the existing housing stock. He reiterated that he designed this project to save the existing home and trees. He said he understands that staff doesn’t support the variances required to save the existing home and he also understands the access issue on Glenwood Avenue, but they would design the driveways with a turnaround so nobody would be backing out onto Glenwood Avenue. He referred to the recommendation in the staff report regarding staff’s preference of having the frontage road dead-end at Glenwood with the construction of a cul-de-sac to facilitate turn arounds. He stated that he understands that plan is in the draft transportation plan but it hasn’t been approved by the City Council and there are approximately 115 homes in this neighborhood that would be affected by a cul-de-sac. He said he agrees with the Engineering Division about the cul-de-sac idea but it brings up the issue of where that cul-de-sac is going to be if Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 4 it is ever built. He said he has come up with an alternative concept and handed out a proposed site plan that shows a two lot subdivision that saves the existing house, moves the driveways to the north instead of having access on Glenwood Avenue, and preserves room for a cul-de-sac in the future. He added that this new proposal would still require the variances for the lot width and the side yard setback requirement. He stated that if there is positive consensus for this new proposal he would come back to the Planning Commission in the future with a new application and set of plans. Waldhauser referred to the proposed new drawing and asked why the proposed cul-de-sac is shown so far to the east of the property. Knaeble said a cul-de-sac wouldn’t fit further to the west without taking down the existing house. Segelbaum asked if the proposed new houses would be built as spec homes. Knaeble said he wouldn’t build any of them, he is just involved in the subdivision of the property and would sell the property to a builder in the future. Baker referred to the originally proposed three lot subdivision and asked why a two lot design splitting the lots from east to west wouldn’t work. Knaeble said it is because the County doesn’t want the driveway access on Glenwood. Baker opened the public hearing. Steve Pesavento, 1701 Valders Avenue North, said he thinks the 2040 Comprehensive Plan needs to be seriously taken into consideration when looking into ordinances. Tom Hegblom, 6501 Olson Memorial Highway, said his biggest concern is the cul-de-sac and he can guarantee that residents from Windsor Woods and Westchester will fight it because diverting traffic to Douglas Drive would really impact a lot of people. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she went through the tree preservation list and it looks like neither of the proposals would remove very many important trees. Baker asked for clarification about the cul-de-sac issue. Zimmerman said the cul-de-sac hasn’t been put on any plans, but it is a known concern and a situation that needs to be addressed. He added that when this property is re-platted there is an opportunity for the City to get some of the required land needed to address the concerns rather than trying to purchase property for a cul-de-sac in the future. Waldhauser agreed that this intersection has been a problem for years so closing the frontage seems logical. She questioned why the City is being “wishy-washy’ if there is a strong reason to do it. Baker said it isn’t the City’s call so he is reluctant to base his decision on the cul-de-sac issue. Baker referred to the issue of removing the driveway on Glenwood. He said he knows of a subdivision that was required to have a long narrow driveway parallel to Glenwood rather Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 5 than a driveway directly on Glenwood so that suggests the County is trying to avoid adding driveways on Glenwood where they can. Segelbaum asked how the location of the driveway is germane to the subdivision variance request. Baker said he doesn’t see how the location of the driveway on Glenwood has any bearing on the requested variances so the driveway issue should be left up to the County. Zimmerman stated that the County relies on the City’s approval of subdivisions so if the only option for access is on Glenwood they would allow it. Baker asked if it would be possible to create a flag lot that would retain the existing driveway on Glenwood and create new access for the other lots on the frontage road. Zimmerman said the Zoning Code does not allow flag lots and requires the entire front of a lot to abut street right-of-way and have access to and from the street from that lot. Segelbaum stated that the City has been very hesitant to grant subdivision variances so he doesn’t feel comfortable supporting this proposal unless the City Council is comfortable doing so. Blum referred to the Zoning Code variance request and said he is hesitant to say that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. He referred to the County’s recommendation regarding the driveway access on Glenwood and said he values the County’s opinion in regards to public safety, etc. He added that it seems like there has been a lot of discussion on how to make this proposal work and suggested that this might be more of a PUD type of discussion rather than the subdivision process. Zimmerman stated that PUDs do allow flexibility but this property does not meet the minimum size to do a PUD proposal. Waldhauser said there are some conforming options if the Glenwood access issue is set aside and if this property is divided into two lots, not three. Baker agreed and said he thinks the rationale for keeping the existing house has been overstated and he is not convinced it will be retained as an affordable house. Zimmerman agreed that there is nothing to stop a buyer from removing the house and building a new one. Baker stated that when the City has had discussions about affordable housing it isn’t about retaining one house it is about developing affordable housing in the City at a much larger scale. Waldhauser added that the City has supported retaining single family homes, but she doesn’t think this particular property is a good fit. Blum referred to the affordable housing policy plan and asked if that is a statute. Zimmerman stated that there is a mixed-income housing policy and that he thinks the applicant was referring to the draft housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan which represents the City’s view on affordable housing. Blum asked if the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is in place right now. Zimmerman said no. Blum referred to recently approved Zoning Code text amendments regarding affordable housing and asked if any of those amendments were related specifically to granting variances for lot subdivision. Zimmerman said no, the amendments were to support the mixed-income housing policy and this proposal is not to a scale that triggers that policy. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 6 Johnson said there are some unintended consequences here. He said the homeowner could cut down every tree on the lot if they want to and then subdivide the property. He referred to the requested variances and said the applicant makes some good points about maintaining the character of the area, following the tree preservation plan, and adding another home to the tax base which are all good things. Baker referred to the subdivision variance request and the requirements that must be met in order to grant a variance. He said he doesn’t think the applicant is meeting the requirements and he doesn’t think they’ve heard a hardship in this case. The variance isn’t required to preserve the property rights of the applicant, and the variance could be considered to be injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Segelbaum agreed that the hardship requirements have not been met. He added that he is concerned about setting a precedent with granting subdivision variances. Johnson said he would argue the special circumstance in this case is that the City has put things in place that make it difficult such as observing the tree preservation plan, observing the safety concerns of the County, and trying to maintain the nature of the original home. Baker said he thinks there are more unintended consequences with approving the subdivision variance. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval of a variance from Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A)(2) Minimum Dimension Requirements to allow proposed Lot 2 to be 17 feet off of the required 80 feet to a width of 63 feet and the motion failed 5 to 1. Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser voted no. Commissioner Johnson voted yes. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the subdivision request for the property located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue. 3. Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan Expansion Nevinski gave some background information about the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan and stated that the plan’s purpose is to outline existing conditions along Douglas Drive and identify a vision to help guide the Housing and Redevelopment Authority’s activities. Nevinski showed a map of the original plan that was done in 2009-2010 that identified three areas along the east side of Douglas Drive as potential redevelopment/reinvestment areas. He then showed a map of proposed modifications that were done in 2017 in order to expand the areas in the Corridor Plan to include the area south of Golden Valley Road and the Tennant campus. Nevinski stated that the current proposed revised plan puts the Tennant campus in its own area (A-6). He said the vision hasn’t changed and that it is expected to remain an industrial area with corporate office. He noted that area A-4 would be an 8-acre, mixed use site that would allow residential and commercial uses. He added that area A-5 would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 7 include light industrial and mixed uses consistent with the goal of maintaining and adding jobs. Nevinski explained that the HRA statute requires that the Planning Commission consider this modified plan and provide comment and feedback. He stated that there is no tax increment being discussed and that there doesn’t need to be any findings made. Blum stated that the Planning Commission is often times provided these proposals to comment on and he feels sometimes there isn’t a lot of direction as to how critically they should be looking at the proposed modifications. Nevinski explained that this plan is reflective of the work that has been done through the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and it’s reflective of previous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council. He said this is fairly a high level plan and that the focus should be on whether it is consistent with where the City is going and if the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is aligning with this proposed modified plan. Johnson referred to area A-4 and noted that the objective is to prevent blight. He asked what kind of growth strategy that is. Nevinski said it isn’t necessarily a growth strategy it is something the City wants to avoid and that a mix of uses is probably the most likely reuse of that site. Johnson asked why the word isn’t used in area A-5. He said he strongly encourages the HRA and City Council to remember that Golden Valley is a fully developed suburb, land value is at an all-time high, the economy is booming, and this is not the time to consider TIF candidates. He said to let the market determine what can be here because if the City leads with a discount, it can never go back. Waldhauser referred to areas A-1 and A-2 and questioned how access points on Douglas Drive could be reduced as stated in the goals. Nevinski agreed that in certain areas having access points on Douglas is going to the case, but in other locations there could be some parcel consolidations that reduce access points. Waldhauser said it seems that area A-4 is a much better candidate for low-rise, multifamily or senior housing and that mixed use should be moved up to Highway 55 where it is being carved out for industrial. Baker referred to the land use chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and said the Planning Commission looked at a larger area that included Duluth Street. He asked why that larger area isn’t included in this proposal in order to reflect the Comp Plan. Nevinski stated that historically, the City hasn’t seen a lot of market interest in developing that area along Duluth Street. Segelbaum agreed. Blum asked is there is benefit in focusing development on a smaller area that will be more immediately benefited by the recent development on Douglas Drive. Nevinski said that is a point of consideration. Blum asked to what extent they can hold themselves to the goals and values outlined in the plans if there isn’t a mechanism for enforceability. He added that he is concerned about losing momentum and specific desire in the future and it will be become something that doesn’t get done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 8 Johnson asked if there are any other redevelopment plans in Golden Valley. Nevinski said there are four broad areas where the City sees the most opportunity: Douglas Drive, the I- 394 Corridor, the 55 West District, and the LRT Corridor. Blum referred to the goal regarding underground utilities and asked if the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Nevinski said the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Blum said he thinks that is a great goal and he likes hearing that it is achievable. Waldhauser asked what housing is blighted in the area east of Douglas Drive. Nevinski said some of the information in the plan was written before the Douglas Drive apartment rehabilitation took place. He noted that there are some homes and a duplex that are dated and approaching blight. Baker said when he reviewed the plan he was looking for dates or struck language and said it was hard to understand. He said he thinks the plan needs to be updated. Nevinski said the plan was originally written in 2009 and some conditions have changed. Blum said he really likes the language in the plan that protects the environment. He said he also thinks the co-location of uses that reduce the amount of auto travel is a really great goal. Johnson asked when this plan is being considered by the City Council. Nevinski said it will be on the April 17 Council agenda. Segelbaum said he thinks the changes are positive and it makes sense to split area A-4 as proposed and to maintain area A-5 as job oriented. 4. Discussion of 2017 Planning Commission Annual Report Zimmerman stated that every year a summary of the Planning Commission’s work get reviewed by the City Council. He referred to the report and stated that the number of planning applications was down compared to past years but that the large Tennant proposal and the work on the Comprehensive Plan Update took a lot of time. Baker said he would prefer that the first sentence of the report be changed to state that 2017 reflected the end of a planning cycle so the emphasis was more on the Comprehensive Plan rather than saying it was a quiet year. Zimmerman reviewed a map of the City and highlighted some of the areas of change. Segelbaum stated that he feels the sentiments from the Planning Commission is that they want to see more retail base and small neighborhood commercial areas in the City and for people to stay here, not just work here. Blum agreed that tracks with some of the Comp Plan survey comments along with better transportation options. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 9 Waldhauser referred to the duties of the Planning Commission listed in the bylaws and said they are good to review. Baker stated they should be thinking about what kinds of special studies they may want. Waldhauser stated that the recommendations regarding the use of state and federal funds is only considered when there is a particular development to review and recommendations regarding the environment have been incorporated in most of their reviews, but not very proactively. Baker asked if there is room in the report to discuss aspirations for the future. Blum suggested allowing more time to discuss and plan for the LRT station areas. Zimmerman stated that some of these issues are addressed in the implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan. Johnson asked if the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan have been circulated to anybody else, besides the Planning Commission. Zimmerman said that draft chapters have gone to the Environmental Commission, the Open Space Recreation Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the City Council and that the Planning Commission will see a full draft of the plan in May. 5. Discussion of 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report Zimmerman referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals annual report and stated that there were many fewer variances in 2017. He stated that staff has been cleaning up some of the inconsistencies in the code and has been working with applicants up front to help decrease the amount of variance requests. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. ____________________________ __________________________ Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 12, 2018 A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 12, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Black, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner. Commissioner Angell was absent. 1. Comp Plan Work Session – Intro/Community Profile Zimmerman introduced the Intro/Community Profile chapter and highlighted some of the key points and reported feedback he had received to date including: adding a description of some of the social engagement efforts by the residents of Golden Valley and explaining why the City’s estimates of households and population exceeds the forecasts of the Met Council. Baker asked if the language in the chapter was too focused on growth and development. Zimmerman clarified that managing growth was a requirement of the Met Council, but as a fully developed community Golden Valley should really be thinking about how the city will reinvest and redevelop. He also implied that the Comp Plan is focused not just on physical growth, but also on growth in terms of community values about inclusion, increased variety and choices in housing and transportation, environmental values, and more. Zimmerman noted that this chapter can clarify that the City will not be growing in population just for the sake of growing, and that planning efforts are focused on reinvestment and reinvention in response the community’s values. Infill development is a result of those efforts, but not the goal. Growing in a sustainable manner will be emphasized. Baker suggested adding sustainability as a focus of the introduction. Blum asked about the two word cloud images and if they were really representative of the vision of the residents. Baker agreed that they may be slanted towards those who attended the open house or visited the web site. Zimmerman stated that he would add more emphasis on the results of the Community Survey, which was sampled from the population as a whole. Blum added that he did not want to lose the focus on preservation of the existing large suburban lots in the City. Goellner agreed that it would continue to be a priority, but that the plan focused more on the aspects of change. Johnson suggested adding language to encourage the City to partner with others to provide safe and secure senior housing. He also asked if the Comp Plan should be questioning the metro area’s fiscal disparities program and how it impacts the ability of Golden Valley to pay for infrastructure improvements. 2. Discussion of Planning Articles Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 2 Zimmerman referenced several planning-related articles he had sent out in recent months that dealt with how inner ring suburbs are redeveloping and changing. Baker stated that he was pleased to see how well-positioned Golden Valley is in terms of its location and assets. Blum stated that he has visited New Rochelle, the subject of one of the articles, and provided examples of how he was able to experience the city while walking down Main Street. Segelbaum observed that in many big box retail seems to have hurt Main Street businesses. Baker stated that Commissioner conversations on articles or other relevant planning topics were worthwhile and that more should be planned in the future. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. ____________________________ __________________________ Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Purchase of Office Furniture and Workstations Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary The 2018 Building Improvement Capital Improvement Program includes $40,000 for the replacement of office furniture (Building CIP B-047). Over the past several years the City has budgeted funds to update various areas in City Hall with new carpeting and workstations, replacing furnishings from the early 1990’s. The General Services area is scheduled for updated workstations and carpeting this year. Additionally underutilized space is being reprogramed in the Manager’s area to better serve workflow needs as well as satisfy legal requirements of employers. The City has obtained a quote from Hendricksen to purchase and install furniture and workstations in the aforementioned areas. Hendricksen is a state contract vendor and has previously provided the City with workstation furnishings. Contract No. Item Vendor Amount M47337 Workstations and Furnishings Hendricksen $32,020.91 Attachments • Quote from Hendrickson (6 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the quote from Hendricksen for the purchase and installation of office furniture in the amount of $32,020.91. � Henricksen en www.henricksenpsg.com Public Sector Group Minneapolis Quote No.: 88012083 Prepared For: Deliver To: Updated: 3/14/2018 MR.MARK NEVINSKI CITY HALL Prepared By: Ashlie Decker CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY RD Direct: 612.455.2200 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 Pricing Per Contract#M47337 D.JADIN@HENRICKSEN.COM QtY Part Number Description Tag Unit Extended Price Price 2 TK04236WR Structural Raceway Pnl Fr-No Top Trim 42 1/2Hx36W FINANCE $73.37 $146.74 $(Pl) P3 Paint Opts .137C CLR:Bungalow 4 TKG44236T Ter Tackable Acoustic Tile 42H x 36W FINANCE $43.79 $175.16 $(A) GRD A FAB .LN FAB:Landscape 20 Khaki 2 TK336PT Radius Top Trim 36W FINANCE $14.21 $28.42 $(Pl) Pl Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 30 TKO4248WR Structural Raceway Pnl Fr-No Top Trim 42 1/2Hx48W FINANCE $78.88 $788.80 $(Pl) P1 Paint Opts .137C CLR:Bungalow 20 TKG44248T Ter Tackable Acoustic Tile 42H x 48W FINANCE $53.65 $1,073.00 $(A) GRD A FAB .LN FAB:Landscape 20 Khaki 7 TK348PT Radius Top Trim 48W FINANCE $18.56 $129.92 $(P1) Pl Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 3 TKO4260WR Structural Raceway Pnl Fr-No Top Trim 421/2Hx60W FINANCE $88.45 $265.35 $(P1) P3 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 6 TKG44260T Ter Tackable Acoustic Tile 42H x 60W FINANCE $62.06 $372.36 $(A) GRD A FAB .LN FAB:Landscape 20 Khaki 3 TK360PT Radius Top Trim 60W FINANCE $22.62 $67.86 $(Pl) P1 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 6 A871248 Power Harness 48W FINANCE $70.47 $422.82 .P CLR:Black Page 1 of 6 Qty Part Number Description Tag Unit Extended Price Price 2 A871260 Power Harness 60W FINANCE $70.47 $140.94 .P CLR:Black 3 A873501 Ter/2.6/Align Duplex Receptacle Circuit 1 FINANCE $12.47 $37.41 .EX CLR:Bungalow 3 A873502 Ter/2.6/Align Duplex Receptacle Circuit 2 FINANCE $12.47 $37.41 .EX CLR:Bungalow 3 A873503 Ter/2.6/Align Duplex Receptacle Circuit 3 FINANCE $12.47 $37.41 .EX CLR:Bungalow 3 A876072 Base Infeed 6'Sealtight Cable FINANCE $74.24 $222.72 .P CLR:Black 6 TK342E E End Trim Radius ConnKit 42H Base Pnl FINANCE $21.75 $130.50 $(P1) P3 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 6 TK342L L 90-Degree Radius ConnKit 42H Base Pnl FINANCE $40.02 $240.12 $(P1) Pl Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 3 RL-MHW Relate Std Mesh High-Bk/Adj Arms FINANCE $482.11 $1,446.33 .2 Standard cylinder .0 Hard Casters .L Lumbar .CBK Charblack LKMO1 CLR:Carbon $(1) GRD 1 UPH .CU Fab:Centurion 10 CLR:Black 2 ESC3361 Essentials 39-1/8Hx36W StorageCabinet Integral FINANCE $318.20 $636.40 $(Pl) P3 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow .OMT omt Core to Ord key Alike 2 PF197-233A Essentials Support Ped BBF 28Hx22-7/8Dx15W Arch Pull FINANCE $198.07 $396.14 $(Pl) Pl Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow .EL PULL:Matte Silver .OMT omt Core to Ord key Alike 6 PF198-232A Essentials Support Ped FF 28Hx22-7/8Dx15W Arch Pull FINANCE $198.07 $1,188.42 $(P1) PI Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow .EL PULL:Matte Silver .OMT omt Core to Ord key Alike 1 PM119-232A Essentials Mobile Ped BF 22-1/2Hx22-7/8Dx15W Arch Pull FINANCE $167.62 $167.62 $(P1) PI Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow .EL PULL:Matte Silver .OMT omt Core to Ord key Alike 2 T524485 Primary 24Dx48W Flat Eg Lam w/Grommets FINANCE $108.46 $216.92 $(LICORE Ll Core Lam Opts .LT8B Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin .P Plastic Grommet Page 2 of 6 Qty •er Description Tag Unit Extended Price Price 2 T54824CR Corner 24Dx48W w/Radial Leading Eg Flat w/Gro FINANCE $182.99 $365.98 $(LICORE Ll Core Lam Opts .LT8B Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin .P Plastic Grommet 1 T5722EL Corner Cove 72x48-24L/24R Extd LH Flat w/Groms FINANCE $243.31 $243.31 $(LICORE Ll Core Lam Opts .LT8B Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin .P Plastic Grommet 2 58x46-24L/24R Corner Cove 58x46-24L/24R Extd LH Flat w/o Grom FINANCE $621.43 $1,242.86 $(LICORE L1 Core Lam Opts .LT8B Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin 1 46x58-24L/24R Corner Cove 46x58-24L/24R Extd RH Flat w/o Grom FINANCE $621.43 $621.43 $(LICORE Ll Core Lam Opts .LT8B Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin 5 TKEP2429PL DNA Pnl Mnt LH 24Dx29-1/2H End Pnl Supt FINANCE $56.84 $284.20 $(Pl) PI Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 2 TKEP2429PR DNA Pnl Mnt RH 24Dx29-1/2H End Pnl Supt FINANCE $56.84 $113.68 $(Pl) PI Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 3 TN51548S Straight 15Dx48W Cntp FINANCE $89.61 $268.83 $(LICORE Ll Core Lam Opts .LT813 Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin $(Pl) P3 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 3 Z6CLFR Fixed C-Leg Right for Flat/Sq Edge FINANCE $100.92 $302.76 $(Pl) PI Paint Opts .137C CLR:Bungalow 2 H212 210 Series Vertical File 2 Drawer Letter w/Lock FINANCE $375.38 $750.76 .P Lock:Lock $(CORE) PAINT:Select Core Paint .M2 PAINT:Bungalow 4 H212C 210 Series Vertical File 2 Drawer Legal w/Lock FINANCE $447.01 $1,788.04 .P Lock:Lock $(CORE) PAINT:Select Core Paint .M2 PAINT:Bungalow 3 ES-FS24 Flat Foot Kit,24"Depth FINANCE $40.67 $122.01 S Silver 3 ES-P-SWITCH Programmable Switch FINANCE $51.45 $154.35 3 ES3E5472-4248OC Essentia Electric Frame Set,3-Leg,Offset Corners FINANCE $841.82 $2,525.46 S Silver 1 LKFEBSLV Lock Core Kit Silver-8 Cores 2 Keys $41.76 $41.76 $(KEYNUI• Key Number Page 3 of 6 Qty •er Description Tag Unit Extended Price Price .X101 Key Number 101 .1 Quantity:1 1 LKFE3SLV Lock Core Kit Silver-3 Cores 2 Keys $15.66 $15.66 $(KEYNU� Key Number .X102 Key Number 102 .1 Quantity:1 1 LKFE3SLV Lock Core Kit Silver-3 Cores 2 Keys $15.66 $15.66 $(KEYNU� Key Number .X103 Key Number 103 .1 Quantity:I 1 LKFE3SLV Lock Core Kit Silver-3 Cores 2 Keys $15.66 $15.66 $(KEYNU� Key Number .X104 Key Number 104 .1 Quantity:1 5 ZDOC24QL Strd 24W OH Cabinet Hngd Dr w/Nitch Linear Pull TOUCHDOW $487.94 $2,439.70 N AREA $(P1) P1 Paint Opts .M12 CLR:Bungalow $(P2) P2 Paint Opts .PR6 CLR:Silver .OMT omt Core to Ord key Alike 5 ZWN24Z Strd 24W Horz Wall-Mt Bracket for Shelf w/Nitch TOUCHDOW $24.18 $120.90 N AREA 2 CSDC19 Center Drawer 19Wx14-3/4Dx3H w/Lock Metal TOUCHDOW $47.56 $95.12 N AREA $(P1) P3 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow .OMT omt Core to Ord key Alike 5 ZWMTB1524 Strd 15Hx24W Wall-Mounted Tackboard TOUCHDOW $168.02 $840.10 N AREA $(A) GRD A FAB IN FAB:Landscape 20 Khaki 1 T524485 Primary 24Dx48W Flat Eg Lam w/Grommets TOUCHDOW $108.46 $108.46 N AREA $(LICORE L1 Core Lam Opts .LT8B Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin .P Plastic Grommet 1 T524725 Primary 24Dx72W Flat Eg Lam w/Grommets TOUCHDOW $150.51 $150.51 N AREA $(LICORE L1 Core Lam Opts .LT8B Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin .P Plastic Grommet 2 CEP2429F Freestanding 24DX29-1/2H End Pnl Sup TOUCHDOW $50.75 $101.50 N AREA $(P1) P1 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 1 CSL2429F Freestanding 24Dx29-1/2H Sup Leg TOUCHDOW $43.79 $43.79 N AREA $(P1) P1 Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 2 CDG Gussets(1 Pr) $33.06 $66.12 $(Pl) PI Paint Opts .P7C CLR:Bungalow 1 Z5SC72 60W External Supt Channel for 72W W/S TOUCHDOW $23.78 $23.78 N AREA Page 4 of 6 Qty Part Number Description Tag Unit Extended Price Price 2 RL-MHW Relate Std Mesh High-Bk/Adj Arms TOUCHDOW $482.11 $964.22 N AREA .2 Standard cylinder .0 Hard Casters .L Lumbar .CBK Charblack LKMO1 CLR:Carbon $(1) GRD 1 UPH .CU Fab:Centurion 10 CLR:Black 1 4202 Nail Head Coat Hook-6 Hook,Silver TOUCHDOW $420.36 $420.36 N AREA 1 T524965 Primary 24Dx96W Flat Eg Lam w/Grommets ACCOMMOD $253.17 $253.17 ATION $(LICORE L1 Core Lam Opts .LTBB Lam:Sheer Mesh .EU Edg:Muslin .P Plastic Grommet 1 HLD-L3AA Student Desk Lam Top/SecurEdge Adj Leg Assembled ACCOMMOD $343.07 $343.07 ATION .E Glide:Nylon Hard Surface .A5 Laminate:Sheer Mesh .P Edge:Black .T1 PAINT:Platinum 1 L40P35UA Sofa Chair with Upholstered Arm ACCOMMOD $2,141.40 $2,141.40 ATION 6 La-Z-Boy Fabric Price Grade 6 (23) (Mayer)Affinity Plus Coordinates-Sherlock (12) Straw MF Brushed Metal Feet No Selection No Selection 1 TR1304 Room Saver Recliner ACCOMMOD $1,516.80 $1,516.80 ATION 6 La-Z-Boy Fabric Price Grade 6 (29) (Mayer)Vinyl Coordinates IV-Caressa (49) Willow W Wood Arm Caps 530-1 Medium Maple No Selection — No Selection No Selection No Selection 1 12W10 Bowery Antique Brass Adjustable Arc Floor Lamp,white marble ACCOMMOD $234.76 $234.76 base ATION 1 Z6DM3460D Strd Mod Pnl 14Hx60W Pntd Wd HGT ADJ $106.02 $106.02 DESK $(Pl) P1 Paint Opts .M12 CLR:Bungalow 1 Z5SC60 48W External Supt Channel for 60W W/S HGT ADJ $19.14 $19.14 DESK 1 Corner Cove 72x60-30L/24R Extd LH Flat W/O Groms HGT ADJ $828.57 $828.57 DESK Laminate Edge 1 ES3E7890-4248OC Essentia Electric Frame Set,3-Leg,Offset Corners HGT ADJ $846.72 $846.72 DESK S Silver 1 ES-FS24 Flat Foot Kit,24"Depth HGT ADJ $40.67 $40.67 DESK S Silver Page 5 of 6 Qty Part Number Description Tag Unit Extended Price Price 1 ES-P-SWITCH Programmable Switch HGT ADJ $51.45 $51.45 DESK 2 H80192 Occasional Laminate Occasional Corner Table 24L 24W 20H WAIT AREA $229.20 $458.40 $(L1STD) Grd Ll Standard Laminates .0 LAM:Harvest C LAM:Harvest 1 Labor Installation $2,565.00 $2,565.00 GRAND TOTAL $32,020.91 Approved By: Date: PLEASE REMIT WITH COPY OF YOUR PURCHASE ORDER PO: All items are special order and cannot be changed,cancelled or returned once factory production runs have closed. Installation to occur during regular business hours unless otherwise specified. Site to be accessible by commercial vehicles,free of obstacles&debris and subject to inspection and approval by Henricksen PSG. Construction punchlist to be completed before furniture is delivered and installed Installation of modular electrical components to be performed by licensed electrician and not included in this proposal unless otherwise specified. Any existing furniture to be removed from areas designated to receive new furniture prior to delivery/installation of new furniture. Handling of existing furniture not included in this proposal unless otherwise specified. Page 6 of 6 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Approve Purchase of Fire Rescue Vehicle Prepared By John Crelly, Fire Chief Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager Marshall Beugen, Street and Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Summary The 2018 Vehicle and Equipment Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $90,000 for the purchase of a Fire Department Rescue Vehicle (V&E-060). The existing rescue vehicle, Unit 339, meets replacement criteria set forth in the City’s vehicle replacement policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above meets the category of “needs immediate consideration.” The 2001 rescue vehicle due for replacement scored 36 points. The Minnesota Materials Management Division has awarded the following contracts: Contract No. Item Vendor Amount 135919 2018 Ford F-350 4x4 XLT Crew Cab Midway Ford $37,550 Staff solicited quotes for the purchase of the body and setup. The results are as follows: Item Vendor Amount Highland Rescue Body ABM Equipment & Supply $47,168 Highland Rescue Body BFX Fire Apparatus $49,475 Total Purchase Price (Chassis, Cab, Body, and Setup) $84,718 Attachments • Midway Ford Quote (1 page) • ABM Equipment & Supply Quote (9 pages) • BFX Fire Apparatus Quote (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve purchase of a 2018 Ford F-350 4x4 XLT Crew Cab from Midway Ford in the amount of $37,550. Motion to approve purchase of a Highland Rescue Body from ABM Equipment & Supply in the amount of $47,168. Midway Ford Commercial Travis Swanson Fleet and Government Sales 1 — 651-343-5212 2777 N. Snelling Ave. tswanson(a)_rosevillemidwayford.com Roseville MN 55113 Fax#651-604-2936 ■ C-44 Contract# 135919 2018 F350 4X4-Crew Cab-60" CA SRW XLT W3F Standard Automatic Transmission 40/20/40 Cloth Front Seat Front Tow Hooks Dual Front Air Bags Sync Hands Free Carpet Floor Covering AM/FM/CD Player 4-Wheel ABS Brakes Chrome Bumper Tilt Wheel Air Conditioning 6.2L V8 E85 Upfitter Switches LT245/7507 E All Season Tires Cab Lights Chrome Grille Power Windows/Locks Cruise Control Brake Controller Options Code Price Select Exterior Colors Code . Select Block Heater 41 H N/C x Blue Jeans Metallic N1 LT275/70r18E BSW AT TDX $152 x Race Red PQ 18"Aluminum Wheels 648 $730 x Caribou Metallic LQ Shift on Fly 44 213 $171 x Shadow Black G1 E-Locking 4.30 X4M $359 x Magnetic Metallic J7 Snow Plow Prep Pkg 473 $171 x Ingot Silver Metallic UX XLT Value package 17V $1,472 x Oxford White YZ Cab Steps 18B $409 x Vermillion Red ($747.00) IXX I x Rubber Floor 166 N/C x Special Paint $747 x Extended Service Contracts Cost Select 7 year/75,000 mile $2,570 PremiumCare Warranty (Bumper to Bumper) Option Total $4,211 You must have a active FIN code to participate in this Base Price Totals purchase contract : FIN code # 6.2 Gas $33,319.00 Purchase Order required prior to order placement Options Price Totals $4,211.00 Extended Warranty PO# Transit Impr Excise Tax $20.00 Tax Exempt Lic 6.5% Sales Tax Name of Organization Document fee Sub total per vehicle $37,550.00 Number of Vehicles 1 Address Grand Total for all units $37,550.00 City, State, Zip Acceptance Signature Contact Person/Phone# Print Name and Title Date Contact's e-mail address and fax# 3332 nd STREET NE HOPKINS,MN 55343-8337 D 952-938-5451 800-229-5451 me � FAX 952-938-0159 www.abmegEip.com Custom Truck Equipment for the Utility, Construction,Municipal and Refuse Industries Quotation#021518-095-01 April 9, 2018 Marshall Beugen City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Marshall, I am pleased to submit the following per your request. == Highland Rescue Body== Workmanship Requirements The installation of hardware parts such as hinges, catches, handles, or knobs shall be accomplished to avoid damaging the hardware or the mounting surface.After fabrication, all parts shall be cleaned of the following: smudges; loose, spattered, or excess welding; metal chips or filings; or any other foreign material which might detract from the intended operation, function, or appearance of the apparatus or its equipment. This would include any particles which could loosen or become dislodged during the normal expected life of the equipment. Whenever possible, this cleaning shall take place before the parts are assembled. Threaded parts or devices shall show no evidence of cross-threading, mutilation, or detrimental burrs. All screw type and rivet fasteners shall be tight to allow no relative movement between the attached parts. All bolts and screws shall not be tightened in excess of the SAE torque standard established for the grade, screw, and thread type. All welds shall be free of harmful defects such as cracks, porosity, undercuts, voids, and gaps. There shall be no weld burn through. Fillets shall be uniform and smooth. There shall be no damage to adjacent parts resulting from the welding. Customer Supplied Chassis Information The apparatus body shall be installed on the customer supplied chassis by ABM Equipment&Supply. ■ Make: Ford ■ Model: F-350 ■ Cab-to-Axle: 60-inches ■ Color: TBD BRINGING YO U THE BEST NAMES IN THE BUSINESS An Equal Opportunity Employer Quotation#021518-095-01 -2- April 9, 2018 Body Construction The entire apparatus body is to be an independent structure constructed from bonded and molded fiber reinforced composite panels and compartments. The resin shall be thermoset and shall not be subject to distortion or loss of structural integrity at temperatures up to 450° Fahrenheit. This shall provide a strong, lightweight, corrosion free structure that will withstand extremely high temperatures. All fiberglass used in the construction of the unit shall be grade"E" or"S," and the resin to glass ratio shall be a 30170 ratio average or higher. The glass reinforced polyester shall be not less than 3/16 inches thick at any point on the body. Additionally, all coring materials shall have a minimum covering of 118-inch thick glass and resin on either side. All coring for bulkheads, partitions, floors, cabinets, and doors shall be PVC-based, rigid, closed cell structural foam. The apparatus manufacturer shall determine the proper thickness and foam density for each particular application. The top of the apparatus shall have a nonskid surface across the entire area. Additionally, it shall support, without distortion, a walking person weighing up to 300 lbs. The entire body shall be removable in its entirety without the disassembly of any compartments, flooring, or other structural components. Body Frame Construction The body and cabinets shall be supported with a frame of channel or tubular aluminum members. The frame shall extend under the wheel well areas at the front and rear and shall be attached to the compartments. The cross members in the support system shall be spaced so that there is no more than 1/4-inch of vertical deflection per 256 square inches when 250 lbs. is evenly distributed over 40 square inches. All tubular aluminum shall have a minimum wall thickness of 3/16-inch, and any channel shall be a minimum of 1/4-inch thick. The frame shall be constructed to become an integral portion of the service body. The channel or tubular aluminum deck and cabinet support frames shall be strong enough to support 5000 lbs. in the bed area and 1000 lbs. of equipment in each side cabinet(the actual load capability of the completed apparatus may be limited by the GVWR). Body Mounting System A spring-loaded body mounting system shall be used to mount the body to the chassis. This system shall be designed to allow independent movement between the body frame and the chassis frame protecting the module from the stresses and twisting rendered by the flexing of the chassis frame. As such, the body frame shall not rest on the chassis frame at any point. The mounts shall be pre-engineered for their intended use. All of the mounting hardware (nuts, bolts, washers) required for complete body installation shall be Grade 8 for sizes'/2-inch and smaller, and Grade 5 for sizes larger than '/2-inch.All nuts shall be self-locking style.All mounting brackets shall be powder coated black. The body front shall be mounted utilizing springer type mounts. The center mount shall consist of an 18-inch-long Delrin spacer mounted mid-length allowing the body frame to rest in a neutral position under full load. The rear body mounts shall be affixed via solid mounts to the chassis frame. Quotation#021518-095-01 -3- April 9, 2018 Vertical Surface(s) The entire front vertical surface of the body shall be covered with a minimum 1/8-inch-thick polished aluminum tread plate for appearance, wear, and enhanced visibility at night. The tread plate shall be designed so that joints are minimized and shall cover the entire vertical surface area. The tread plate shall also incorporate protection of the outboard comers and serve as corner scuff guards. The entire rear vertical surface of the body shall be covered with a minimum 1/8-inch-thick smooth aluminum for the application of chevron reflective striping. The smooth aluminum shall be designed so that joints are minimized and shall cover the entire vertical surface area. The smooth aluminum shall also incorporate protection of the outboard corners and serve as corner scuff guards. Wheel Well Area The wheel well panels shall be constructed as independent components of the apparatus body. They shall be attached with screws or bolts to allow easy replacement if necessary. Sufficient clearance shall be provided for the use of tire chains. The inside of each wheel well shall be lined with three(3) separate pieces of a minimum 16-gauge stainless steel sheet material to protect the underside of the entire body wheel well area against damage from rocks or broken snow chain links. Each of these sheets shall be attached with stainless steel screws or bolted with self-locking nuts. The use of rivets shall not be acceptable. High Angle of Departure on Back of Body The back of the body shall be angled upward so that the total angle of departure is no less than 23 degrees. This angle shall be fully molded into the side packs of the body and shall have a lip on the inside to provide rigidity. The angle shall be trimmed with aluminum tread plate. AMDOR Roll-Up Door Construction Compartment door construction shall be of the roll-up style and shall be manufactured by Amdor. Each Amdor roll-up shall be constructed of aluminum box section slats with a modular height of one (1) inch and a wall thickness of 0.045 inches. The smooth interior door surface shall prevent the interference with compartment contents. The exterior of the doors shall remain a flat anodized aluminum finish to present an attractive finish. Rollup doors with larger slats shall not be acceptable. Individual slats shall be connected by an integral continuous hinge. This superior hinge arrangement, running the full width of the door at one-inch intervals, shall ensure exceptional strength with a high degree of flexibility. The endshoe on the roll-up door shall be independent of all other endshoes and be positively secured by a snap-in device. This combination shall allow for quick removal and reinstallation when required for service. All door hardware shall be type 6 nylon, a self-lubricating material to reduce friction. Type 6 nylon performance has been proven in temperatures ranging from-50 to 300 degrees Fahrenheit. The door shall be complete with a top gutter section and a one-piece track and side frame section with a finishing flange to extend beyond the edge of the compartment opening. Quotation#021518-095-01 -4- April 9, 2018 The bottom rail shall have a stainless-steel locking bar assembly to allow quick and reliable access to the compartment contents. The locking bar system can be activated from any point along the door width. The door shall utilize a small slat and a balancer plate designed to save space. Each door slat shall have its own recessed bulb seal engineered and tested to ensure zero infiltration under the most severe conditions. The configuration of the seal shall prevent rattle between slats and ensure a perfectly smooth exterior door surface. The seals shall have been specifically tested to ensure superior performance in temperatures ranging from -50 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A switch shall be incorporated in the door to activate the "Do Not Move Apparatus" light in the cab when the door is "OPEN". Compartment Lighting The AMDOR roll-up doors described elsewhere in this specification shall incorporate Integral LED compartment lighting that is specifically designed to snap into the side frame of the roll up door. Each custom length shall be encased in a high- impact polycarbonate enclosure with an IP67 waterproof rating. The LEDs shall be clear white. Front Transverse One (1)transverse shall be provided between the forward side compartments of maximum width and height feasible while maintaining the structural integrity of the apparatus body. The transverse shall be a composite"tunnel"that is fiberglassed into the backside of the two(2)front compartments. Driver Side Compartment(s) The driver's side module of the apparatus body shall have approximate overall dimensions as specified. It shall consist of three (3)compartments,each with specified approximate clear depth behind the door when the door is shut. One (1) forward compartment shall be provided in front of the rear wheels. The compartment shall have approximate dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 56.50-inches tall with approximate clear door opening dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 49.50-inches tall, not including the "stop" area of the roll up door. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 15-inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a "flow through" vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a "sweep-out"design. One (1)center compartment shall be provided over the rear wheel(s). The compartment shall have approximate dimensions of 42.00-inches wide by 37.25-inches tall with approximate clear door opening dimensions of 42.00-inches wide by 30.25- inches tall, not including the "stop" area of the roll up door. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 15.00-inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a "flow through" vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a "sweep-out" design. The compartment shall have a "flow through" vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a "sweep-out"design. Quotation#021518-095-01 -5- April 9, 2018 One (1) rear compartment shall be provided aft of the rear wheels. The compartment shall have approximate dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 56.50-inches tall with approximate clear door opening dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 49.50- inches tall, not including the"stop"area of the roll up door. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 15.00-inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a"flow through"vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a"sweep-out" design. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 19 inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a"flow through" vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a"sweep-out"design. Passenger Side Compartment(s) The passenger's side module of the apparatus body shall have approximate overall dimensions as specified. It shall consist of three (3)compartments, each with specified approximate clear depth behind the door when the door is shut. One (1) forward compartment shall be provided in front of the rear wheels. The compartment shall have approximate dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 56.50-inches tall with approximate clear door opening dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 49.50-inches tall, not including the "stop" area of the roll up door. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 15-inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a "flow through"vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a "sweep-out" design. One (1)center compartment shall be provided over the rear wheel(s). The compartment shall have approximate dimensions of 42.00-inches wide by 37.25-inches tall with approximate clear door opening dimensions of 42.00-inches wide by 30.25- inches tall, not including the "stop" area of the roll up door. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 15.00-inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a "flow through" vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a "sweep-out" design. The compartment shall have a "flow through" vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a"sweep-out"design. One (1) rear compartment shall be provided aft of the rear wheels. The compartment shall have approximate dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 56.50-inches tall with approximate clear door opening dimensions of 32.00-inches wide by 49.50- inches tall, not including the"stop"area of the roll up door. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 15.00-inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a"flow through" vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a"sweep-out" design. The clear depth of the compartment shall be approximately 19 inches behind the door when the door is shut. The compartment shall have a"flow through"vent provided to supply air flow and minimize moisture. The floor of the compartment shall be flush with the door opening to present a"sweep-out"design. Quotation#021518-095-01 -6- April 9, 2018 Load Bed Area Load Bed Floor The rear load bed area in the center of the body shall have approximate dimensions of 114.00-inches long (unless a front transverse is specified) by 48.00-inches wide by 43.00-inches tall (from the bed floor to the top of the compartments). The floor of the bed shall be formed from the aluminum body frame covered in a single sheet of smooth aluminum. A minimum of four(4) drain holes shall be provided in the corners of the load bed floor to prevent trapping water. Load Bed Walls The load bed area shall be equipped with a 1/8-inch smooth aluminum, permanently attached to the load bed walls. Tailgate An aluminum tread plate tailgate shall be installed at the rear of the load bed area. The tailgate shall be between 18.00- inches to 20.00-inches in height and have single latching mechanism. The tailgate shall be securely fastened on each side. Two(2) rubber bumpers shall be positioned in a manner to prevent any part of the tailgate from directly contracting the rear panel of the apparatus body. Durable Coating The load bed floor, load bed walls, and backside,forward facing surface, of the tailgate shall be lined with a commercially available black bed liner. The surfaces shall be prepped properly prior to the application of the bed liner to ensure of proper adhesiveness. Scene/Work Lighting Four(4)4.00-inch diameter round LED scene/work lights shall be recessed into the load bed walls, inboard facing, to illuminate the load bed area. Two (2) lights shall be installed on each load bed, one (1)towards the front and one (1) towards the rear and shall be mounted in stainless steel bezels. The lights shall be controlled from a switch located in the chassis cab. Compartment Interior(s) Each of the side compartment interiors shall be finished with Zolatone paint. This paint shall have a multicolor finish with high resistance to scratching and wear. This shall present a neat, finished appearance to the interior of the compartments. Compartment Floor Matting The side compartments shall each have black Dri-Dek plastic flooring on the floor of the compartment. The tiles shall be opened faced to allow drainage and ventilation while preventing moisture buildup against equipment stored in the compartment. The leading edges of the compartment openings shall have a ramp. Quotation#021518-095-01 -7- April 9, 2018 Apparatus Body Trim The front and rear of the unit and all leading outside edges of the apparatus body shall be protected with a minimum of 1/8- inch (3 mm)thick polished aluminum tread plate. The aluminum shall wrap around the corners a minimum of 1-25-inches. Composite Shelving Struts/Tracks Vertically-mounted composite shelving tracks shall be provided and installed in all enclosed body compartments, except passenger's side lower rear compartment, for the current or future installation of infinitely-adjustable shelving, slide out trays or equipment brackets. The composite tracks shall allow for the shelves to be adjustable every two inches vertically utilizing nylon reinforced composite shelving standards with embedded stainless lock nuts. Compartment Shelving Six(6) adjustable shelves shall be provided and installed in the completed body compartments. The shelves shall be 12.00- inches in depth and be constructed from protruded fiberglass and be capable of supporting 250 pounds of live load without being damaged or permanently distorted. The shelf location(s)shall be as follows: Driver Side Front Passenger Side Front — See Transverse Line Item — See Transverse Line Item Driver Side Center Passenger Side Center — One(1) protruded fiberglass shelf — One(1) protruded fiberglass shelf Driver Side Rear Passenger Side Rear — Two(2) protruded fiberglass shelves — Two (2)protruded fiberglass shelves Grab Handles Two (2) 24.00-inch long NFPA compliant grab handles shall be installed on the inboard edges of the load bed area, one (1) per side. Each handle shall be positioned just above the tailgate allowing a person to access the handle from the ground. One (1)warning plate shall be affixed to the rear of the apparatus body in a conspicuous location. The warning plate shall read "WARNING: DO NOT RIDE ON REAR STEP WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION. DEATH OR SERIOUS IN iURY MAY RESULT," ICC and Work Lighting One license plate mounting bracket shall be provided at the rear of the apparatus on the driver's side. One (1) clear LED light shall be provided to illuminate the license plate. Three (3) round ICC clearance lights shall be located at the rear of the apparatus above the bumper.Additional lighting shall be provided to conform to DOT, Federal, and NHTSA specifications for vehicles of 80.00-inches(2032 mm)wide. All lighting shall be compatible with the 12-volt chassis electrical system. The clearance lights shall be LED lights. The clearance lights shall be located according to ICC regulations. Quotation#021518-095-01 -8- April 9, 2018 Tail Light Assembly One (1)four taillight assembly shall be mounted on each side of the rear panel (two assemblies total). Each assembly shall consist of a Whelen 700 series red LED stop/tail light, a Whelen 700 series amber LED arrow turn signal light, a Whelen 700 series emergency flasher described elsewhere in this specification, and a Whelen 700 series LED back up light. Each light shall be approximately 7.00-inches wide by 3.00-inches tall. All four (4) lights shall be mounted together in a Cast Products polished aluminum four light surface mount vertical bezel. Taillight Assembly Layout; Emergency LED Flasher Red LED Stop/Tail Light Amber LED Arrow Turn Signal Back Up Light LED Ground Lighting Two (2) 4.00-inch diameter round LED step lights shall be mounted in stainless steel bezels to the underside of the rear bumper. The lights shall face downward and shall be mounted so that the beam shines towards the ground. The lights shall be recessed into the bumper to protect them from brush. Body Finish Apparatus Body Finish The exterior finish of the apparatus body shall be painted to match the chassis cab. All aluminum and stainless steel shall remain unpainted.Any raw steel used in the fabrication of the mounting system shall be prepared for powder coating following the any/all recommendations for the preparation of the surface. Powder coat for all steel parts shall be matte black. Striping and Lettering Rear At least four inches, not to exceed eight inches, of chevron striping, red and fluorescent yellow, shall be provided on the vertical rear facing surface of the apparatus body; the edge of the bumper shall be included. The pattern shall slope downward and away from the centerline of the vehicle at an angle of 45 degrees. If a single 4-inch-wide vertical surface is unavailable, multiple strips may be used. Rear Bumper Construction The rear bumper shall be constructed from 3116-inch aluminum tread plate shall be as wide as the overall apparatus body width. The bumper shall protect the apparatus body. Additionally, the rear bumper shall support, without distortion, a walking person weighing up to 300 pounds. The bumper shall be shipped loose with the apparatus body. Tow Package Class V receiver hitch (or equal)with 2"or 2 W(specify) receiver tube, tow hooks and trailer socket(specify). Quotation#021518-095-01 -9- April 9, 2018 PRICE AS DESCRIBED, FOB HOPKINS, MN 47168.00 Above prices do not include any applicable taxes. Thank you for considering ABM Equipment&Supply. I hope with the enclosed that you will be able to place this business with us. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Rick Loosbrock or myself. Sincerely, !'" 644UMM Ron Zimmer President BFX Fire Apparatus City of Golden Valley City of Golden Valley Marshall Beugen Marshall Beugen 7800 Golden Valley Road 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Golden Valley, MN 55427 mbeugen@goldenvalleymn.gov mbeugen@goldenvalleymn.gov Quote No: 10953-0001 03/14/2018 Pae 1 PART NO DESCRIPTION == ig an escue tway=_ 02-24-0200 Workmanship Requirements 00-19-1004 Customer Supplied Chassis Information 02-18-0200 Body Construction 06-00-9000 Body Frame Construction 06-02-9000 Body Mounting System 17-60-0200 Vertical Surface(s) 04-02-9100 Wheel Well Area 10-90-1000 High Angle of Departure on Back of Body 11-21-9000 Front Transverse 11-21-0200 Load Bed Area 11-30-0100 Compartment Interior(s) 11-30-3100 Compartment Floor Matting 17-60-0250 Apparatus Body Trim 17-60-1100 Grab Handles 25-06-9000 ICC and Work Lighting 26-04-1300 Tail Light Assembly 26-00-1000 LED Ground Lighting 30-02-0100 Body Finish 37-20-6000 Rear Bumper Construction 37-20-6500 Trailer Hitch 60-00-0100 Delivery Location Total 49,475.00 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. E. 3. Authorize Purchase of Rotating Grapple Attachment Prepared By Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager Marshall Beugen, Streets and Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Joe Hansen, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor Summary The 2018 Storm Sewer Capital Improvement Program includes $40,000 for the purchase of a rotating grapple (SS-57). The grapple attaches to the City’s M320 Excavator Unit 614. The grapple will be used to clear trees, brush, and debris from creeks and water bodies to prevent flooding. In addition, it will be used to stack brush and load trucks when significant storms produce large amounts of waste material. The existing after-market grapple was purchased separately 18 years ago. The grapple is not designed for the City’s existing equipment making it difficult and dangerous to transport and to use. Staff recommends trading-in the 2003 Caterpillar 950G Front End Loader (Unit 766) in exchange for the proposed grapple to Ziegler CAT, an authorized dealer. Unit 766 has been replaced with a dump truck for more efficient operations and is no longer needed in the City’s fleet. Authorized dealers typically offer better trade in amounts as they have unique knowledge of the equipment and can market it more effectively. The Minnesota Materials Management Division has awarded the following contract: Contract No. Item Vendor Amount E-95(5) 132297 Caterpillar G315B-D Grapple Ziegler CAT $32,303.75 Less Unit 766 Trade-In $51,000.00 Remittance to Vendor $(18,696.25) Staff does not anticipate an appropriate trade-in amount for the existing grapple attachment and recommends utilizing the State of Minnesota Surplus Auctioning Services. The trade-in proceeds will be credited to the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund. Attachments • Ziegler CAT Quote (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve purchase of a Caterpillar G315B-D Grapple from Ziegler CAT in the amount of $32,303.75. Motion to approve trade-in of a 2003 Caterpillar 950G Front End Loader Unit 766, from Ziegler CAT in the amount of $51,000. Motion to authorize staff to sell the existing grapple attachment using the State of Minnesota Surplus Services. Ziegler Inc. ZIEGLER IM 156450-01 April 6,2018 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ATTN:ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota 55427-4508 Dear Marshall, We would like to thank you for your interest in our company and our products, and are pleased to quote the following for your consideration. Caterpillar Model: G315B Grapple We wish to thank you for the opportunity of quoting on your equipment needs.This quotation is valid for 30 days,after which time we reserve the right to re-quote. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Charles Norgaard Territory Manager Caterpillar Model: G315B MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS DESCRIPTION LIST PRICE BRACKET, MOUNTING(B) $3,419.00 GRAPPLE, G31513-D $34,146.00 SELL PRICE $37,565.00 STATE BID DISCOUNT-25% ($9,391.25) SUBTOTAL $28,173.75 SCREW ON HYD QUICK COUPLERS AND HOSES $2,820.00 LABOR FOR INSTALLING COUPLERS, FITTINGS AND HOSES $1,310.00 TOTAL $32,303.75 TRADE-950GII ($51,000.00) BALANCE ($18,696.25) Page 1 of 2 Ziegler Inc. ****Shop labor to be billed at$131/hour, the above is assuming 10 hours in Ziegler's shop to install mounting bracket, connecting lines,quick couplers, fittings on M320F stick, installing G315B on M320F and confirming all functionality on customer's M320F. Ziegler can either cut a check for the difference or put credit on customer's account, customer will have the final decision. WARRANTY Standard Warranty: 1 Year Unlimited Premier F.O.B/TERMS: MINNEAPOLIS EXCLUSION OF PRODUCT WARRANTIES 1.)EKCLU540N OF WARRANrEs ZEGLER INC.as Seller,and the aboae Purchaser agree that any IMPL.ED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTAB',LITY or IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE and all other warranties,express or implied,except for any express warranties attached hereto,are EXCLUDED from this transaction by ZIEGLER,INC.and shall not apply to the products sold. 2.)Purchaser further agrees that his SOLE AND EKCLUSNE remedy,if any,against Z EGLER,INC.shall be as contained in any express written warranty applicable hereto. Purchaser acknowledges that he has received,read,understands and accepts the terms contained therein. Irha Purchaser agrees that no other remedy(including but not limited to claims for INCIDENTAL,CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES,OR ANY CAUSE,LOSS,ACTION,CLAIM OR DAMAGE WHATSOEVER or INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL,ECONOMIC OR INCIDENTAL LOSSI shall be available to Purchaser,whether said claims for ingury or damages be asserted on the basis of waffanty,negligence,strict liability or otherwise. All new products are sold subject to the terms of the applicable manufacturer's warranty Copies of the Warranty applicable to the purchase are attached hereto and the Purchaser by signing this order acknowledges receipt of said warranty. BILL OF SALE ON TRADED PRODUCT(S) KNOW ALLMEN BY THESE PRESENTS,that the undersigned for valuable consideration does hereby assign,grant,sell,transfer,and deliver unto ZIEGLER,INC.the following ProductlsI: CATERPILLAR 450GII AXX00428 Make Model Serial Number Make Model Serial Number To have and to hold all and singular the said Product(s)to ZIEGLER,INC.,its successors and assigns. The undersigned covenants with ZIEGLER,INc.that undersigned is the lawful owner of said Product(s);that undersigned has a good right to sell the same;that undersigned will warrant and defend same against the Iawful claims and demands of all persons;that said Productlsl are free from all encumbrances except S c payable to Address Signature' Dm This Bill of Sale on traded Products shall be effective as of the time of delivery to Purchaser of the Products purchased by Purchaser hereunder,or at such earl ier time as Seller may assume physical possession of the Traded Products. Salesman's Signature THIS AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE This ofie,to purchaser is subjectto availability of the Product:described SIDE OF THIS FORM. anc does not become a Bind fig contract for the purchase of the Products Purchaser: untJ accepted by ZIEGLER.INC. ACCEPTED:ZIEGLER,INC By By: ITitlel Date: [Title; Date. Page 2 of 2 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. F. Award Contract for 2018 Pavement Marking Project No. 18-11 Prepared By R.J. Kakach, PE, Assistant City Engineer Summary The 2018 Pavement Marking Project will be located in Maintenance Zone 3, as shown on the attached map. Quotes for the 2018 Pavement Marking project were opened on April 6, 2018. The following amounts were received: Sir Lines-A-lot $26,220.10 AAA Striping Service $41,557.71 Century Fence Company $60, 361.60 Staff has reviewed the bids and found them to be accurate and in order. Funding for this project is in the 2018 Street Maintenance Division budget (1440.6440) with a current balance of $148,800.48. Attachment • Maintenance Zones Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion authorizing a contract with Sir Lines-A-Lot for the 2018 Pavement Marking project, City Project No. 18-11 in the amount of $26,220.10. o-•·L.r ·-··-·-l __ .,_ ___ _ . i ,i 0 C ~ n ~ ~ • g ;;·-s ~ 01*F '!1 I o Q~j.~. Hi;>~ i~! ~ 'i-?~ • ~ 1 t i j ' C) I f l \ 1 i f i • ' 4 w i ~ O-.Nlr.-.,, ...... i \ c,_11 . ! ,..,,., \ ' ~ J &,.igfl_H \ = j • t • .__\ f , ••• \ \ ' \ \ _,..,.A .. lt ._ .... I •' I ~ N ••••• N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 ::::, ::::, ::::, ::::, ::::, <D <D <D <D <D 01 .t. (.,) N ...... -; C ITY OF PLY M OUTH I l 3:: !!!. ::::, .. CD ::::, DI ::::, n CD N 0 ::::, CD n ~ ~ . : ii ;; > N 0 :I CD u, ~ Dt ··-.. ,, -· ·.:: :I ,<::) .. ..... :'\ CD :I Dt :I n CD ' Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. G. Receipt of March 2018 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) ∼ Brookview Center (Special Revenue Fund) ∼ Human Services Fund (Special Revenue Fund) ∼ Building Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) ∼ Park Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) General Fund Operations: As of March 2018, the City has used $3,542,898 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments • March 2018 General Fund (2 pages) • March 2018 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) • March 2018 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) • March 2018 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) • March 2018 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) • March 2018 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) • March 2018 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) • March 2018 Brookview Center Fund (1 page) • March 2018 Human Services Fund (1 page) • March 2018 Building Improvement Fund (1 page) • March 2018 Park Improvement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the March 2018 Financial Reports. Over % 2018 March YTD (Under)Of Budget Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 001 Council $350,935 20,787 68,077 ($282,858)19.40% 003 City Manager 813,410 58,101 167,129 (646,281)20.55% 004 Transfers Out 1,982,580 0 882,580 (1,100,000)44.52%(1) 005 Admin. Services 1,986,970 153,281 364,746 (1,622,224)18.36% 006 Legal 158,100 20,317 42,389 (115,711)26.81%(2) 007 Risk Management 310,000 0 1,000 (309,000)0.32% 011 General Gov't. Bldgs.732,680 67,982 159,960 (572,720)21.83% 016 Planning 409,655 22,951 64,582 (345,073)15.76% 018 Inspections 811,280 52,688 142,704 (668,576)17.59% 022 Police 6,204,575 435,535 1,174,817 (5,029,758)18.93% 023 Fire 1,496,150 98,812 342,170 (1,153,980)22.87% 035 Physical Dev Admin 309,505 23,620 64,418 (245,087)20.81% 036 Engineering 776,095 58,324 137,575 (638,520)17.73% 037 Streets 1,790,925 129,938 363,129 (1,427,796)20.28% 066 Park & Rec. Admin.737,210 49,553 143,766 (593,444)19.50% 067 Park Maintenance 1,215,945 74,242 201,134 (1,014,811)16.54% 068 Recreation Programs 445,385 16,012 67,581 (377,804)15.17% TOTAL Expenditures $20,531,400 $1,282,143 $4,387,757 ($16,143,643)21.37% (1) Tranfers will be made in June, 2018 except for Equipment Transfer of $882,580. (2) Legal services are billed thru February. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures March, 2018 (unaudited) Division 25.00% Over % 2018 March YTD (Under)of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $17,253,460 0 0 ($17,253,460)0.00%(1) Licenses 220,980 1,650 46,935 ($174,045)21.24% Permits 929,785 100,214 324,158 ($605,627)34.86% State Aid 52,375 0 0 ($52,375)0.00%(2) County Aid 1,116 1,116 Charges For Services: General Government 25,250 82 4,083 ($21,167)16.17% Public Safety 160,900 6,993 74,251 ($86,649)46.15% Public Works 163,600 17,198 31,517 ($132,083)19.26% Park & Rec 415,550 33,583 79,154 ($336,396)19.05% Other Funds 691,500 54,836 169,639 ($521,861)24.53% Fines & Forfeitures 320,000 29,266 60,516 ($259,484)18.91%(3) Interest On Investments 75,000 0 0 ($75,000)0.00%(4) Miscellaneous Revenue 193,000 14,471 45,991 ($147,009)23.83% Transfers In 30,000 2,500 7,500 ($22,500)25.00%(5) TOTAL Revenue $20,531,400 $261,909 $844,860 ($19,687,656)4.11% 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. LGA is paid in July, Dec ($37,185 total). (3) Fines/Forfeitures are thru for February 2018. (4) Investment income is allocated at year end. (5)Transfers are monthly. Percentage Of Year Completed City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Revenues March 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 March YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 42,875 0 0 (42,875)0.00%(4) Recycling Charges 382,520 29,483 63,445 (319,075)16.59%(2) Miscellaneous Revenues 8,000 0 0 (8,000) Interest on Investments 4,000 0 0 (4,000)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 437,395 29,483 63,445 (373,950)14.51% Expenses: Recycling 461,605 43,854 52,438 (409,167)11.36%(3) Total Expenses 461,605 43,854 52,438 (409,167)11.36% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Includes utility billings thru February 2018. (3) This includes the recycling services thru Feb 2018. (4) Grant reduced due to no compost program. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund March 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 March YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,571,280 240,614 672,125 (3,899,155)14.70% Emergency Water Supply 183,080 11,355 31,810 (151,270)17.37% Sewer Charges 3,512,300 248,515 699,498 (2,812,802)19.92% Meter Sales 20,000 3,404 10,064 (9,936)50.32% Penalties 130,000 32,559 46,495 (83,505)35.77% Charges for Other Services 100,000 2,608 26,969 (73,031)26.97% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 46,000 3,394 7,565 (38,435)16.45% Sale of Assets 10,000 1,500 1,500 (8,500)15.00% Franchise Fees 1,000,000 0 0 (1,000,000)0.00% Certificate of Compliance 75,000 8,650 19,050 (55,950)25.40% Interest Earnings 25,000 0 0 (25,000)0.00% Total Revenue 9,672,660 552,599 1,515,076 (8,157,584)15.66% Expenses: Utility Administration 2,930,400 58,235 496,483 (2,433,917)16.94% Sewer Maintenance 3,088,750 241,757 875,497 (2,213,253)28.34% Water Maintenance 4,712,065 245,942 982,139 (3,729,926)20.84% Total Expenses 10,731,215 545,934 2,354,119 (8,377,096)21.94% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund March 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 March YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 920,950 0 0 (920,950)0.00% Driving Range Fees 180,000 0 0 (180,000)0.00% Par 3 Fees 170,000 0 0 (170,000)0.00% Lawn Bowling 30,000 0 0 (30,000)0.00% Pro Shop Sales 90,000 621 1,183 (88,817)1.31% Pro Shop Rentals 300,000 616 3,443 (296,557)1.15% Concession Sales 889,960 55,197 150,294 (739,666)16.89% Other Revenue 182,500 21,634 30,293 (152,207)16.60% Interest Earnings 5,000 0 0 (5,000)0.00%(1) Less: Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (30,000)(2,963)(3,023)26,977 10.08% Total Revenue 2,738,410 75,105 182,190 (2,556,220)6.65% Expenses: Golf Operations 802,410 48,014 127,943 (674,467)15.94%(2) Course Maintenance 1,219,520 68,509 209,895 (1,009,625)17.21% Pro Shop 124,400 23,135 39,244 (85,156)31.55% Grill 647,710 71,374 202,491 (445,219)31.26% Driving Range 74,300 522 1,246 (73,054)1.68% Par 3 Course 26,640 0 0 (26,640)0.00% Lawn Bowling 8,380 1,324 1,324 (7,056)15.80% Banquet Staffing 25,400 2,758 5,971 (19,429)23.51% Total Expenses 2,928,760 215,636 588,114 (2,340,646)20.08% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund March 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 March YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 2,880 0 0 (2,880)0.00%(1) Charges for Services 469,965 38,086 115,617 (354,348)24.60% Total Revenue 472,845 38,086 115,617 (357,228)24.45% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 423,335 31,571 97,202 (326,133)22.96% Total Expenses 423,335 31,571 97,202 (326,133)22.96% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund March 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 March YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 50,000 0 0 (50,000)0.00%(1) Interest Earnings-Other 0 0 0 0 Storm Sewer Charges 2,475,000 184,519 511,947 (1,963,053)20.68% Bassett Creek Watershed 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Receipts 313,300 0 4,500 (308,800) Sale or Loss of Assets 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 Total Revenue 2,838,300 186,019 517,947 (2,320,353)18.25% Expenses: Storm Utility 2,707,450 188,537 414,083 (2,293,367)15.29%(2) (3) Street Cleaning 128,595 8,667 9,243 (119,352)7.19% Environmental Control 336,790 13,999 42,792 (293,998)12.71% Debt Service Payments 65,000 0 31,750 (33,250)0.00%(3) Total Expenses 3,237,835 211,203 497,868 (2,739,967)15.38%(4) (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. (3) Debt service payments and Medicine Lake Rd Improvements will be reimbursed by TIF. (4) Reserves are being used that were planned. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Storm Utility Enterprise Fund March 2018 (unaudited) 2018 Equipment Replacement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5700 2018 March YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Positive Performance -2017 1,200,000 0 0 (1,200,000) Sale of Assets 35,000 66,497 75,650 40,650 Miscellaneous 0 10,931 12,994 12,994 DUI Fund Transfer 40,000 0 40,000 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)23,538 0 0 (23,538) Total Revenues 1,298,538 77,428 128,644 (1,169,894) Expenditures: Program #Project Number Project Name 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars (Police)100,000 41,698 41,698 58,302 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers (Finance)80,000 8,680 16,124 63,876 (1) V&E-009 Front End Loader (Street)260,000 0 0 260,000 V&E-022 Sign Truck (Street)120,000 0 0 120,000 5760 V&E-037 Aerial Ladder (Fire)575,000 300,801 905,753 (330,753)(2) V&E-060 Rescue Vehicle (Fire)90,000 0 0 90,000 V&E-095 Pickup Truck (Police)40,000 0 0 40,000 V&E-116 Bobcat Toolcat (Park)50,000 0 0 50,000 V&E-130 Rotary Mower (Park)25,000 0 0 25,000 5709 V&E-135 Body Cameras/Dash Cams/Software (Police)24,070 20,335 112,287 (88,217)(3) V&E-145 Skid Steer Loader (Street)55,000 0 0 55,000 5710 V&E-151 Fire Pumper (Fire)600,000 0 598,573 1,427 Total Expenditures 2,019,070 371,514 1,674,435 343,208 (1) Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. (2) In 2017, this included $400,000 for the first half payment that was not made until 2018. (3) In 2016, a transfer was made to the equipment replacement fund to purchase video dash cams and body cameras together. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. Over 2018 March YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Brookview CC Rentals 157,815 4,794 16,790 (141,025)10.64% Backyard Play Area 326,500 28,232 74,395 (252,105)22.79% Miscellaneous Revenues 5,500 0 0 (5,500)0.00% Interest on Investments 100 0 0 (100)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 489,915 33,026 91,185 (398,730)18.61% Expenses: General Area Rooms 290,790 17,841 51,123 (239,667)17.58%(2) Indoor Play Area 107,210 5,794 16,287 (90,923)15.19% Banquet Facility 87,945 5,099 16,148 (71,797)18.36% Total Expenses 485,945 28,734 83,558 (402,387)17.19% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Staff Time/Supplies for Brookview Rental City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Center Special Revenue Fund March 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 March YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Pull Tab (10%) Revenues 30,000 3,646 7,441 (22,559)24.80%(3) Fundraisers 30,000 1,656 3,064 (26,936)10.21%(4) Interest on Investments 700 0 0 (700)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 60,700 5,302 10,505 (50,195)17.31% Expenses: Supplies 17,100 0 0 (17,100)0.00% Allocations 60,000 700 7,225 (52,775)12.04%(2) Total Expenses 77,100 700 7,225 (69,875)9.37% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Allocations in 2018 are $60,000. (3) Pull Tab revenues are thru February. (4) Solicitation Letters -$1,663; should be allocated to designation Fund Balance at 12/31/17 was $213,524. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Human Services Fund March 2018 (unaudited) 2018 Building Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5200 2018 March YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Transfer from General Fund 350,000 0 0 (350,000)(1) Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)7,718 0 0 (7,718) Total Revenues 357,718 0 0 (357,718) Expenditures: Project Name Carpet Replacement-City Buildings 30,000 0 0 30,000 Generators 35,000 0 0 35,000 Air Compressor 10,000 0 0 10,000 Installation of Building Security Systems 30,000 0 3,302 26,698 Public Buildings Roof Replacement 270,000 0 0 270,000 Workstation Replacements 40,000 2,750 11,079 28,921 Window Replacements-Various Buildings 25,000 0 0 25,000 Total Expenditures 440,000 2,750 14,381 425,619 (1)Transfer will be made in June. 2018 Park Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5600 2018 March YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Transfer from General Fund 300,000 0 250,000 (50,000) Park Dedication Fee 0 0 0 0 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant 150,000 0 100,000 (50,000) Little League/Youth Associations/Play Eq Grants 15,000 0 18,500 3,500 Other Donations 0 0 21,454 21,454 Golden Valley Community Foundation 0 0 35,000 35,000 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)4,915 0 0 (4,915) Total Revenues 469,915 0 424,954 (44,961) Expenditures: Project Name Bleacher, Etc Replacement 25,000 0 19,103 5,897 Park Trail and Parking Lot Improvements 40,000 0 4,659 35,341 Play Structure Replacement 55,000 0 82 54,918 Ball Field Lighting 250,000 213,721 213,721 36,279 Outdoor Basketball and Hoop Replacement 28,000 0 0 28,000 Park Signage Replacement 10,000 9,795 9,795 205 Sun Shelter Replacement/Additions 50,000 0 0 50,000 Tennis & Pickle Ball Court Resurfacing 30,000 0 0 30,000 Wildwood Pickleball Courts 60,000 0 0 60,000 Relamp Athletic Field and Rink Lights 25,000 0 0 25,000 Dugout, Fence and Field Replacement 55,000 0 0 55,000 Tennis Court Reconstruction 150,000 0 0 150,000 Total Expenditures 778,000 223,516 247,360 530,640 Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. H. 2017 Positive Performance-General Fund Transfer and Assignment of Fund Balance Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary At its April 10, Council Manager Meeting, the Council reviewed the 2017 Positive Performance and the Fund Balance Policy for the General Fund. Staff presented the 2017 revenues and expenditures of the General Fund. The City of Golden Valley seeks to have a good balance in its General Fund in order to have sufficient reserves for cash flow purposes, projects, and unexpected shortfalls or emergencies. In December 2011, the City established a formal policy that states the level of fund balance should be maintained at 60% of adopted expenditures in the General Fund. Adequate reserves indicates fiscal prudence and maintains a high rating with bond-rating agencies, which prefer to see very strong and healthy balances. When the fund balance is greater than 60 percent, it should be reduced to 60 percent by using the excess funds for specific one-time projects, acquisitions, or transfers to capital funds to lessen the future impact on the property tax rate or long-term debt reduction. The one-time use protocol is important to ensure the City does not commit itself to expenditures that may create deficits in future budgets. For instance, when the City experiences an excess fund balance due to a one-time building permit revenue from a major commercial development, the City should not expect that same revenue will be received from future building permits. Budgets should be set using an average year of revenues and expenditures and not an exceptional year. In 2017, Golden Valley was extremely fortunate once again to have a positive performance level. Building permit revenue was at an all-time high along with various divisions that came in under budget. These items created Fund balance to exceed 60 percent of 2018 Expenditures by $1,966,420. From the 2018 Council Goals to reduce debt, staff recommends making the following transfers: General Fund (stays in fund) $85,000 The General Fund included two items that were not completed. One was the Crisis Management Plan documentation for $20,000 and the other was fire coat purchases for $65,000. This one-time amount of $85,000 will be restricted in the General Fund for these two purchases in 2018. Equipment Replacement Fund $1,881,420 One of the Council goals was to create a long-term debt strategy that would lessen or lower the overall debt the city has from the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and using certificates of indebtedness to finance equipment purchases. The use of positive performance will allow the City to finance equipment purchases without selling certificates of indebtedness. With this transfer, the City will still need an additional $155,977 (pg. XXX) to fund the Equipment Fund as outlined in the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In 2017, Council approved the debt levy for certificates of indebtedness to be added to the General Fund Levy. In 2018, this amount would be transferred to Debt Service to make the remaining payment of the current certificates. The Certificates are short term so the City does not have a call feature. The last payment for certificates will be in 2021. As the certificates outstanding decrease, the levy amount will be transferred to the Equipment Replacement Fund to pay for projects outlined in the CIP. If the City receives future positive performance and to meet the Council Goals, staff would recommend reducing future debt service payments to pay off bonds early or to transfer monies to help fund the Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP). This plan begins in 2023 but financing involves many sources of revenue such as utility (water, storm, sewer) funds, franchise fees, general fund transfers, assessments and sale of bonds. After discussion, staff will proceed with formal action on the April 17 Council Meeting. Attachments • Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of $1,884,420 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) • December 2017 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages) • Fund Balance Policy for General Fund (3 pages) • Fund Balance Year-End Classifications Policy in Accordance with GASB (4 pages) • Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund Financial Report (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the Transfer of $1,884,420 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund. Resolution 18-26 April 17, 2018 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $1,881,420 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND WHEREAS, the General Fund Reserves meets 60% of 2018 expenditures, and WHEREAS, per Resolution 11-82 states that staff will review with the Council any amounts above the 60% and recommend proposed uses of the funds; and WHEREAS, in 2017, permit revenue was at an exceptional high due to record high number of developments and cost containment from various expenditures from employee retention, general liability insurance, electric service, and maintenance materials in the amount above the 60% is $1,966,420; and WHEREAS, the amount of $85,000 will stay in the General Fund for completing the Crisis Management Plan for $20,000 and purchase the remaining fire coats for $65,000; and WHEREAS, the transfer of $1,881,420 to the Equipment Replacement Fund to help fund purchases of vehicles and equipment outlined in the 2018-2022 Vehicles and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Fund and to reduce the debt with eliminating the need to sell certificates of indebtedness to finance the equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley to authorize the transfer of $1,881,420 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund. _____________________________ 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. Over % 2017 December YTD (Under)Of Budget Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 001 Council $362,710 26,774 306,907 ($55,803)84.61% 003 City Manager 816,815 84,864 726,964 (89,851)89.00%(3) 004 Transfers Out 850,000 0 850,000 0 100.00%(1) 005 Admin. Services 1,874,665 215,512 1,860,542 (14,123)99.25% 006 Legal 215,000 41,350 206,807 (8,193)96.19%(2) 007 Risk Management 305,000 (19,926)225,617 (79,383)73.97% 011 General Gov't. Bldgs.583,635 105,832 533,164 (50,471)91.35% 016 Planning 362,450 37,931 317,174 (45,276)87.51% 018 Inspections 791,310 104,484 714,044 (77,266)90.24%(3) 022 Police 5,885,265 709,265 5,544,701 (340,564)94.21%(3) 023 Fire 1,494,620 140,493 1,348,889 (145,731)90.25% 035 Physical Dev Admin 304,310 36,837 293,558 (10,752)96.47% 036 Engineering 803,380 104,509 733,273 (70,107)91.27% 037 Streets 1,609,730 185,342 1,408,173 (201,557)87.48%(3) 066 Park & Rec. Admin.719,970 87,333 738,561 18,591 102.58%(4) 067 Park Maintenance 1,170,340 116,614 1,153,228 (17,112)98.54% 068 Recreation Programs 418,845 37,420 352,647 (66,198)84.20% TOTAL Expenditures $18,568,045 $2,014,634 $17,314,249 ($1,253,796)93.25% (1) This transfer was made in June, 2017. (2) Legal services are billed thru December (amended budget 12-19-17). (3) Following Departments had employee changes. (4) Due to the new building, more employee costs and supplies were needed. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures December 2017 (unaudited) Division 100.00% Over % 2017 December YTD (Under)of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $14,814,685 7,325,359 14,853,621 $38,936 100.26%(1) Licenses 217,365 8,920 249,439 $32,074 114.76% Permits 1,128,790 138,293 2,892,472 $1,763,682 256.25%(2) Federal Grants 0 4,557 19,785 $19,785 State Aid 268,380 134,945 350,069 $81,689 130.44% County Aid 0 0 408 $408 #DIV/0! Charges For Services: General Government 19,000 5,402 50,794 $31,794 267.34%(2) Public Safety 154,175 10,691 152,045 ($2,130)98.62% Public Works 150,800 (1,187)151,526 $726 100.48% Park & Rec 385,350 17,379 384,838 ($512)99.87% Other Funds 791,500 63,087 766,525 ($24,975)96.84% Fines & Forfeitures 300,000 60,609 400,233 $100,233 133.41% Interest On Investments 75,000 102,007 102,007 $27,007 136.01% Miscellaneous Revenue 233,000 21,881 222,654 ($10,346)95.56% Transfers In 30,000 2,500 30,000 $0 100.00% TOTAL Revenue $18,568,045 $7,894,443 $20,626,416 $2,058,371 111.09% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January (delinquencies). (2) The City set a record for the valuation of permits. 1% of System Availability Charges (SAC) is collected. Percentage Of Year Completed City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Revenues December 2017 (unaudited) Resolution 11-82 - Continued December 20, 2011 Exhibit A City of Golden Valley Fund Balance Policy - General Fund The City Council authorizes the City Manager and/or Finance Director to assign fund balance that reflects the City's intended use of those funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned 3) unassigned. These fund balance classifications apply only to Governmental Funds, not Enterprise or Internal Service Funds. Unassigned Fund Balance—Working Capital Policy The City's unassigned fund balance -working capital as of the end of the year should equal 60% of the current year's adopted expenditures. Any amount in excess of 60% will be used for budget stabilization. If the balance falls below 60%, a plan will be developed and implemented to replenish the funds. A balance equal to 60% of the current year's adopted expenditures is needed to fund the following year's operations until the tax settlement is received at the beginning of July. Unassigned Fund Balance— Budget Stabilization In recognition that the amount for working capital only covers operating costs for the first six months of the year, the City wants to maintain additional resources on hand to provide for contingencies. Therefore, at the end of each year, staff will review with the Council any amounts above 60% and recommend proposed uses of the funds. Proposed uses may include transfer to the capital maintenance or other funds, use for one-time projects to minimize the issuance of debt, or any other City purpose. The balance may be used for various contingencies including the following: Provide flexibility if state law significantly limits the City's taxing and spending powers. This could include legislation regarding levy limits, property tax freezes, levy referendum requirements, etc. Provide flexibility if the State eliminates or reduces State revenue including fire pension aid, police pension aid, state street aid, or PERA aid. Provide some protection for future funding needs of the capital improvement plan CIP). Support the City's bond rating. Cover expenses created by natural disaster, including flood, fire, or tornado; provided that if federal or state funds are received to offset these expenditures, the budget stabilization fund will be reimbursed. Resolution 11-82 - Continued December 20, 2011 Cover a General Fund deficit when actual revenues are less than expenditures and to allow for a reasonable degree of error in budget forecasting. Protect against other unforeseen expenditures and any other items. This policy protects the City in the event of temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted expenditures and provides time to react to permanent changes in the City's operating environment. Staff will seek council approval prior to use of the budget stabilization fund. Resolution 11-83 December 20, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FUND BALANCE YEAR-END CLASSIFICATIONS POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has issued Statement No. 54, which changes the terminology used for fund balance reporting on balance sheets of Governmental Funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has set up Fund Balance Year-End Classification Policy in Accordance with GASB #54; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley that is adopts the Fund Balance Year-End Classification Policy In Accordance with GASB #54, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, 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 her signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 11-83 - Continued December 20, 2011 Exhibit A City of Golden Valley Fund Balance Year-End Classification Policy in Accordance with GASB #54 PURPOSE: The Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA's) guiding principle for classifying the various components of fund balance is to indicate the extent to which the government is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in the fund can be spent. Following governmental accounting standards, the City has three basic categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. This fund balance classification policy applies only to the governmental categories. GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS In 2009, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued a new standard, GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. This new standard has altered the categories and terminology used to describe the components of fund balance in the governmental funds (but it does not apply to the proprietary or fiduciary funds). This standard is effective for Golden Valley beginning December 2011. The City's governmental funds include the following fund types: A. General Fund B. Special Revenue Funds C. Debt Service Funds D. Capital Projects Funds Definitions (as they apply to Governmental Funds under GASB 54): Fund balance -the difference between assets and liabilities reported in a governmental fund. Non-spendable fund balance - amounts that are not in a spendable form (e.g., prepaid items and inventories of supplies). Resources that must be maintained intact pursuant to legal or contractual requirements are also considered non-spendable. Restricted fund balance - amounts subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions creditors, grantors, contributors, and by law through constitutional provisions or enabling regulations). Eliminate: Equipment Certificates 2018-2022 CIP Financing 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Current Certificates O/S 2014B 251,125.00 2015B 275,050.00 272,700.00 2016B 278,350.00 273,050.00 272,700.00 2017A 25,197.00 285,475.00 282,450.00 284,200.00 Debt Service Payments 829,722.00 831,225.00 555,150.00 284,200.00 0.00 Equipment Fund Needs 1,200,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 Transfer to Eq Fund (50,000.00)(100,000.00)(100,000.00)(100,000.00)(100,000.00) Transfer to Debt Service (882,580.00)(882,580.00)(882,580.00)(882,580.00)(882,580.00) Total Needs 1,097,142.00 648,645.00 372,570.00 101,620.00 (182,580.00)2,037,397.00 1,881,420.00 Future Needs 155,977.00 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. I. Approve Twin City Tennis Camps Service Agreement Prepared By Rick Birno, Parks & Recreation Director Summary Parks & Recreation staff is recommending a service agreement with Twin City Tennis Camps (TCTC) to provide tennis instruction and programs for youth and adults at tennis courts throughout Golden Valley. TCTC will be offering services on Golden Valley tennis court facilities as an independent contractor. The total independent contractor fee to be paid in 2018 for use of the tennis facilities is $45,000. Attachments • 2018 Service Agreement and Addendum (7 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize City Manager to sign agreement with Twin City Tennis Camps. Independent Contractor Agreement Parties and terms This Agreement is by and between the City of Golden Valley (“City”) and Daniel Nabedrick doing business as Twin City Tennis Camps (“Contractor”). This Agreement is in effect from Date of annual agreement approved by City Council through October 31, 2018 (the “Term”). Services to be performed The Contractor will perform the services outlined in the Service Addendum attached to this Agreement (the “Services”) for the Term. The provisions of the Service Addendum are hereby incorporated by reference. Independent contractor This Agreement shall not render the Contractor an employee, partner, or agent of the City for any purpose. The Contractor is and will remain an Independent Contractor in his relationship to the City. The City shall not be responsible for withholding taxes with respect to the Contractor’s compensation hereunder. The Contractor shall have no claim against the City hereunder or otherwise for vacation pay, sick leave, retirement benefits, social security, worker’s compensation, health or disability benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, or employment benefits of any kind. The Contractor will be responsible for the hiring, training, supervision and conduct of any staff utilized in the above listed Services. All staff hired to work directly with minors will be subject to background checks. All background checks must be completed prior to the start of the above listed Services. The Contractor is responsible for background check fees. The Contractor will determine the method, details and means of performing the Services outlined. Compensation The Contractor agrees to pay the City a flat all-inclusive fee of $45,000. First payment of 50% will be due on June 15, 2018, with a second payment of 50 % due on August 15, 2018. Both payments to be made by check. The City will invoice Contractor for payments. Additional fees may be charged, see Service Addendum, section 7e. All fees shall be fully earned by the City upon receipt by the City. Business Expenses Any expenses incurred by the Contractor pursuant to providing the Services, including but not limited to travel and phone expenses, are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Insurance The Contractor and its subcontractors shall secure and maintain adequate insurance to protect itself and the City from claims and liability for all work performed by it and its respective employees or agents under this Agreement, according to the terms set out in the Service Addendum attached to this Agreement. Acceptance of the insurance by the City shall not relieve, limit or decrease the liability of the Contractor. Any policy deductibles or retention shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall control any special or unusual hazards and be responsible for any damages that result from those hazards. The City does not represent that the insurance requirements are sufficient to protect the Contractor's interest or provide adequate coverage. The City may direct that copies of the actual insurance policies, or renewals or replacements thereof, be submitted to the City. Any certificate of insurance and the required insurance policies shall contain a provision that the coverage afforded will not be cancelled or allowed to expire until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to the City. In addition to the foregoing, Contractor shall provide a certificate of insurance showing evidence of workers’ compensation coverage, or provide evidence of qualification as a self-insurer of workers’ compensation or that the Contractor is not required by law to maintain workers’ compensation coverage. Waiver The Contractor waives all its rights against the City for damages covered by property insurance. The Contractor shall require a similar waiver from all its consultants. The Contractor waives all of its rights of recovery against the City because of deductible clauses in, or inadequacy of limits in, any policies of insurance that are in any way related to the work and that are secured and maintained by the Contractor. The Contractor waives any of its rights of recovery against the City because of a lack of insurance coverage. The Contractor shall require similar waivers from all of its consultants. The Contractor shall waive all of its rights of recovery against the City for loss or damage to any of its equipment, machinery, tools or property that is used in connection with this Agreement. The Contractor shall require a similar waiver from all its consultants. Hold harmless The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees, from any liabilities, claims, damages, costs, judgments, and expenses, including attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the Contractor, its employees, agents or employees of subcontractors, in the performance of this contract or by reason of the failure of the Contractor to fully perform, in any respect, all of its obligations under this Agreement. Compliance with statutes The Contractor shall abide by all laws that govern the City and by the policies of the City, including but not limited to the Data Practices Act, records retention guidelines, non-discrimination and disability accommodation laws and guidelines. Data practices The Contractor agrees to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws relating to data privacy or confidentiality. The Contractor will immediately report to the City any requests from third parties for information relating to this Agreement. The City agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from the Contractor concerning data requests. The Contractor agrees to hold the City, its officers, department heads and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Contractor's unlawful disclosure or use of data protected under state and federal laws. Audits The Contractor agrees that the City, its Auditor or any of their duly authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers, and records that are relevant and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Applicable law The law of the State of Minnesota shall govern all interpretations of this contract, and the appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation which may arise hereunder will be in and under those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, regardless of the place of business, residence or incorporation of the Contractor. Termination, cancellation and default The City or Contractor may terminate this Agreement, for any reason or for no reason, effective upon thirty (30) prior to the end of the Term by providing written notice to the other party prior to such date. Either party may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event of a substantial breach of the Agreement by the other, effective upon providing written notice to the other party. Contractor will be liable for any expenses incurred by the City due to failure to provide the Services described herein. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if at any time the actions of the Contractor and/or their staff compromise the physical, mental or emotional safety of a participant (as determined by the City), the City shall have the right to immediately suspend Services until the issue has been resolved or the contract terminated. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City as a result of any breach of this Agreement by the Contractor. Modification or amendment No amendment, change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the parties hereto. No interest in this Agreement is assignable without the express written consent of the other party. Entire understanding This document and any exhibit attached constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and any and all prior agreements, understandings and representations are hereby terminated and canceled in their entirety and are of no further force and effect. Unenforceability of provisions If any provision of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, is held to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remainder of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In witness whereof, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above; City of Golden Valley Contractor: ___________________________ _______________________________ Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Daniel Nabedrick, Twin City Tennis Camps City of Golden Valley 4/11/18 Page 1 of 4 Independent Contractor Agreement - SERVICE ADDENDUM This Agreement is by and between the City of Golden Valley (“City”) and Daniel Nabedrick doing business as Twin City Tennis Camps (“Contractor”). This Service Addendum is in effect from Date of annual agreement approved by City Council through October 31, 2018 (the “Term”). Contractor Address:8014 Highway 55 Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Contractor Phone:612-600-2460 Contractor E-mail:dnabedrick@twincitytenniscamps.com Services to be provided by Contractor It is understood that the Contractor is experienced and trained to provide tennis recreation program services and that the City requires such services. Therefore, it is hereby agreed that the Contractor will provide the following services. 1. Instruction: a. Contractor must be a member of the United States Tennis Association (“USTA”) and follow all USTA guidelines for tennis instruction. b. All instructors are required to complete background checks according to the terms of the Agreement and to undergo concussion training, with the latter provided through the Center of Disease Control and Prevention website. Copies of all staff’s background checks and Concussion Training Certificates must be made available upon request to Golden Valley Parks and Recreation. c. All instructors must be at least 16 years of age or older. 2. Supplies: a. Contractor will provide all supplies necessary for conducting the programs. b. All supplies must be removed from the tennis courts at the end of program. Any teaching aides, supplies, additional signage, etc. must be removed at the end of each daily program. c. Contractor is allowed to have clocks and court caddies on the court. Clocks and caddies may stay on the courts. The City is not responsible for damaged or stolen items. d. Contractor is expected to retrieve all tennis balls and other supplies from the area at the conclusion of each day. e. The city will supply 4 keys for the Brookview tennis building. Keys must be returned by Oct. 31, 2018. 3. Programming: a. Contractor will work with Golden Valley Parks and Recreation staff for programming. b. Contractor will meet with Park and Recreation staff as needed to resolve any conflicts. City of Golden Valley 4/11/18 Page 2 of 4 4. Registration and Communication: a. Contractor is responsible for all aspects of registration. b. Contractor must have working website and access for phone communication for all participants and Golden Valley Park and Recreation staff. c. Contractor will use best efforts to accommodate the registration requests of Golden Valley residents before the registration requests of non-Golden Valley residents. . d. Contractor will offer fee assistance for Golden Valley residents who request financial assistance. 5. Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”): The City is mandated by law to provide reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities which include contracted recreation services. Contractors are expected to work with the City’s Recreation Staff in order to provide for reasonable accommodations. 6. Insurance: Contractor shall secure, maintain, and furnish the City with proof of Commercial General Liability Insu rance with limits of at least $2,000,000.00 per occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional insured and be provided with an appropriate endorsement thereof and a Certificate of Insurance. 7. Facility: a. All facility repair requests must be submitted in writing/email to City staff and resolved before any action is taken. b. Contractor will receive use of Brookview Tennis Court building on date of approved agreement by City Council through October 31, 2018. c. Request for court reservations must be made by March 31, 2018, to be guaranteed for the 2018 season. d. Contractor is expected to maintain a neat and orderly operation during program usage. All recycling, garbage, and debris is expected to be picked up and placed in appropriate containers at conclusion of each day. e. Any additional court usage above and beyond the contracted days and times must be requested and approved and will incur additional charges. 8. Permits/Ordinance: a. Contractor must follow City signage guidelines as directed by Parks and Recreation Staff. One banner/sign is allowed per two tennis courts. Banners/signs are not allowed on any City building. b. Contractor must obtain permit to sell merchandise if desired. 9. Tournaments: Contractor will be responsible for ordering and paying dumpster expense for all tournaments. 10. Safety: a. Contractor is responsible for first aid kit, ice, and safety supplies. b. Contractor is responsible for reporting any injury that is the result of facility usage. City of Golden Valley 4/11/18 Page 3 of 4 11. Transportation. If the Contractor transports, or provides any transportation services to, any participants in the tennis recreation program then: a. If the Contractor transports any minor it shall obtain the written consent of the parent or guardian of such minor prior to transporting such minor; b. The transportation services provided to any participants shall be provided in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations; and c. Contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance, and if necessary, umbrella liability insurance with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 per accident. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, the general aggregate limit shall be not less than $2,000,000. The insurance shall cover liability arising out of any auto, including owned, hired, and non-owned autos. 4/19/17 Page 4 of 4 Services to be provided by the City It is understood that the City will provide the following services to facilitate and support the contracted services listed above. 1. Promotion: Contractor will receive one to two full pages of advertising in the Spring/Summer brochure and one-half to one page in the Fall brochure. Contractor will work with Golden Valley Park and Recreation staff for layout and brochure deadlines. Contractor will receive a complimentary room at Brookview Community Center for two evenings for registration if desired. 2. Facility Use: See Attachment Service Suspension and Cancellation 1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, of at any time the actions of the Contractor and/or their staff compromise the physical, mental or emotional safety of a participant (as determined by the City), the City shall have the right to immediately suspend services until the issue has been resolved or the contract terminated (see “Termination, cancellation and default” section of this Agreement). City Initial Contractor Initial____ Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. J. Providing For the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $2,975,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary The proceeds of the $2,975,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A will finance the following: • The bond proceeds of $2,975,000 will finance the reconstruction of local streets and driveways included in the 2018 Pavement Management Program project area. This project and special assessment hearing was approved by the City Council on January 16, 2018. The debt service on these bonds will be paid from tax levies and special assessments levied against benefitted properties. If approved, the bids will be received on May 15, 2018, and awarded after the Council consideration. The bond proceeds will be received on June 14, 2018. The 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program included $3,330,000 in the 2018 Street Capital Improvement Plan (S-001). After review of the construction bids, the amount was lowered to $2,975,000. Attachments • Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $2,975,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A (9 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $2,975,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A. Resolution 18-27 April 17, 2018 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $2,975,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2018A WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its $2,975,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A (the “Bonds”) to finance the City’s 2018 Pavement Management Program; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota (“Springsted”), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit bids for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Bid Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed bids for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The Clerk, or designee, shall open bids at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the “Terms of Proposal” attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement. In connection with said competitive negotiated sale, the Clerk and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. _____________________________ 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. 18-27 -2- April 17, 2018 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City’s $2,975,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A. WITNESS my hand this ____ day of April, 2018. City Clerk Golden Valley, Minnesota Resolution No. 18-27 -3- April 17, 2018 EXHIBIT A THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $2,975,000* CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2018A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the above-referenced obligations (the “Bonds”) will be received by the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the “City”) on Tuesday May, 15, 2018 (the “Sale Date”) until 10:00 A.M., Central Time at the offices of Springsted Incorporated (“Springsted”), 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55101, after which time proposals will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at its meeting commencing at 6:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of a bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the proposal is submitted. (a) Sealed Bidding. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223-3046 to Springsted. Signed proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223-3000 or fax (651) 223-3046 for inclusion in the submitted proposal. OR (b) Electronic Bidding. Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY®. For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY® shall constitute the official time with respect to all proposals submitted to PARITY®. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY® for purposes of submitting its electronic proposal in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents, nor PARITY® shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents, nor PARITY® shall be responsible for a bidder’s failure to register to bid or for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY®. The City is using the services of PARITY® solely as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY® is not an agent of the City. Resolution No. 18-27 -4- April 17, 2018 __________________________________ * Preliminary; subject to change. If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY®, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY®, including any fee charged, may be obtained from: PARITY®, 1359 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10018 Customer Support: (212) 849-5000 DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated as of the date of delivery and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2019. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts* as follows: 2019 $135,000 2020 $150,000 2021 $150,000 2022 $150,000 2023 $150,000 2024 $155,000 2025 $155,000 2026 $155,000 2027 $160,000 2028 $160,000 2029 $165,000 2030 $125,000 2031 $130,000 2032 $135,000 2033 $140,000 2034 $145,000 2035 $145,000 2036 $150,000 2037 $155,000 2038 $165,000 * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds or the amount of any maturity or maturities in multiples of $5,000. In the event the amount of any maturity is modified, the aggregate purchase price will be adjusted to result in the same gross spread per $1,000 of Bonds as that of the original proposal. Gross spread for this purpose is the differential between the price paid to the City for the new issue and the prices at which the proposal indicates the securities will be initially offered to the investing public. Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption scheduled to conform to the maturity schedule set forth above. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify “Years of Term Maturities” in the spaces provided on the proposal form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the Resolution No. 18-27 -5- April 17, 2018 books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The lowest bidder (the “Purchaser”), as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2027, and on any day thereafter, to redeem Bonds due on or after February 1, 2028. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be redeemed. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All redemptions shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition, the City will pledge special assessments from benefited properties for repayment of a portion of the Bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance the City’s 2018 Pavement Management Program. BIDDING PARAMETERS Proposals shall be for not less than $2,942,275 plus accrued interest, if any, on the total principal amount of the Bonds. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals on the Sale Date unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 1/100 or 1/8 of 1%. The initial price to the public for each maturity as stated on the proposal must be 98.0% or greater. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. ESTABLISHMENT OF ISSUE PRICE In order to provide the City with information necessary for compliance with Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, the “Code”), the Purchaser will be required to assist Resolution No. 18-27 -6- April 17, 2018 the City in establishing the issue price of the Bonds and shall complete, execute, and deliver to the City prior to the closing date, a written certification in a form acceptable to the Purchaser, the City, and Bond Counsel (the “Issue Price Certificate”) containing the following for each maturity of the Bonds (and, if different interest rates apply within a maturity, to each separate CUSIP number within that maturity): (i) the interest rate; (ii) the reasonably expected initial offering price to the “public” (as said term is defined in Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-1(f) (the “Regulation”)) or the sale price; and (iii) pricing wires or equivalent communications supporting such offering or sale price. Any action to be taken or documentation to be received by the City pursuant hereto may be taken or received on behalf of the City by Springsted. The City intends that the sale of the Bonds pursuant to this Terms of Proposal shall constitute a “competitive sale” as defined in the Regulation based on the following: (i) the City shall cause this Terms of Proposal to be disseminated to potential bidders in a manner that is reasonably designed to reach potential bidders; (ii) all bidders shall have an equal opportunity to submit a bid; (iii) the City reasonably expects that it will receive bids from at least three bidders that have established industry reputations for underwriting municipal bonds such as the Bonds; and (iv) the City anticipates awarding the sale of the Bonds to the bidder who provides a proposal with the lowest true interest cost, as set forth in this Terms of Proposal (See “AWARD” herein). Any bid submitted pursuant to this Terms of Proposal shall be considered a firm offer for the purchase of the Bonds, as specified in the proposal. The Purchaser shall constitute an “underwriter” as said term is defined in the Regulation. By submitting its proposal, the Purchaser confirms that it shall require any agreement among underwriters, a selling group agreement, or other agreement to which it is a party relating to the initial sale of the Bonds, to include provisions requiring compliance with the provisions of the Code and the Regulation regarding the initial sale of the Bonds. If all of the requirements of a “competitive sale” are not satisfied, the City shall advise the Purchaser of such fact prior to the time of award of the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser. In such event, any proposal submitted will not be subject to cancellation or withdrawal. Within twenty-four (24) hours of the notice of award of the sale of the Bonds, the Purchaser shall advise the City and Springsted if a “substantial amount” (as defined in the Regulation) of any maturity of the Bonds (and, if different interest rates apply within a maturity, to each separate CUSIP number within that maturity) has been sold to the public and the price at which such substantial amount was sold. The City will treat such sale price as the “issue price” for such maturity, applied on a maturity-by-maturity basis. The City will not require the Purchaser to comply with that portion of the Regulation commonly described as the “hold-the-offering-price” requirement for the remaining maturities, but the Purchaser may elect such option. If the Purchaser exercises such option, the City will apply the initial offering price to the public provided in the proposal as the issue price for such maturities. If the Purchaser does not exercise that option, it shall thereafter promptly provide the City and Springsted the prices at which a substantial amount of such maturities are sold to the Resolution No. 18-27 -7- April 17, 2018 public; provided such determination shall be made and the City and Springsted notified of such prices whether or not the closing date has occurred, until the 10% test has been satisfied as to each maturity of the Bonds or until all of the Bonds of a maturity have been sold. GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT To have its proposal considered for award, the Purchaser is required to submit a good faith deposit to the City in the amount of $29,750 (the “Deposit”) no later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time on the Sale Date. The Deposit may be delivered as described herein in the form of either (i) a certified or cashier’s check payable to the City; or (ii) a wire transfer. The Purchaser shall be solely responsible for the timely delivery of its Deposit whether by check or wire transfer. Neither the City nor Springsted have any liability for delays in the receipt of the Deposit. If the Deposit is not received by the specified time, the City may, at its sole discretion, reject the proposal of the lowest bidder, direct the second lowest bidder to submit a Deposit, and thereafter award the sale to such bidder. Certified or Cashier’s Check. A Deposit made by certified or cashier’s check will be considered timely delivered to the City if it is made payable to the City and delivered to Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 by the time specified above. Wire Transfer. A Deposit made by wire will be considered timely delivered to the City upon submission of a federal wire reference number by the specified time. Wire transfer instructions will be available from Springsted following the receipt and tabulation of proposals. The successful bidder must send an e-mail including the following information: (i) the federal reference number and time released; (ii) the amount of the wire transfer; and (iii) the issue to which it applies. Once an award has been made, the Deposit received from the Purchaser will be retained by the City and no interest will accrue to the Purchaser. The amount of the Deposit will be deducted at settlement from the purchase price. In the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis calculated on the proposal prior to any adjustment made by the City. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. Resolution No. 18-27 -8- April 17, 2018 BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION The City has not applied for or pre-approved a commitment for any policy of municipal bond insurance with respect to the Bonds. If the Bonds qualify for municipal bond insurance and a bidder desires to purchase a policy, such indication, the maturities to be insured, and the name of the desired insurer must be set forth on the bidder’s proposal. The City specifically reserves the right to reject any bid specifying municipal bond insurance, even though such bid may result in the lowest TIC to the City. All costs associated with the issuance and administration of such policy and associated ratings and expenses (other than any independent rating requested by the City) shall be paid by the successful bidder. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after the award of the Bonds shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the successful bidder to accept delivery of the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser. SETTLEMENT On or about June 14, 2018, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE In accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), the City will undertake, pursuant to the resolution awarding sale of the Bonds, to provide annual reports and notices of certain events. A description of this undertaking is set forth in the Official Statement. The Purchaser's obligation to purchase the Bonds will be conditioned upon receiving evidence of this undertaking at or prior to delivery of the Bonds. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of a Preliminary Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Preliminary Official Statement has been deemed final by the City as of the date thereof within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of Resolution No. 18-27 -9- April 17, 2018 the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Preliminary Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Municipal Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. A Final Official Statement (as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12) will be prepared, specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts, and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law. By awarding the Bonds to the Purchaser, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the Purchaser up to 25 copies of the Final Official Statement. The City designates the Purchaser as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each syndicate member, if applicable. The Purchaser agrees that if its proposal is accepted by the City, (i) it shall accept designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with its syndicate members for purposes of assuring the receipt of the Final Official Statement by each such syndicate member. Dated April 17, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Susan Virnig Finance Director Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. K. Approval of Partial Transfer of Interest in Global Pointe Senior Community Project Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary Global One wishes to transfer a portion of its interest in the Global Pointe Senior Living project (to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, Globus Golden Valley Addition, PUD No. 112) to Empire IV Global Pointe, LLC. The original development agreement with Global One requires that the HRA approve any sale, transfer or assignment of interest in the project. Staff and the City attorney have reviewed the terms of the proposed transfer and completed due diligence with regard to Empire IV and have no concerns with the transfer of interest in the project. The Council is asked to authorize the execution of the attached documents to enable the partial transfer of interest to Empire IV. Attachments • First Partial Assignment and Assumption of Planned Unit Development Agreement and Consent (7 pages) • First Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement (6 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the following documents: 1. First Partial Assignment and Assumption of Planned Unit Development Agreement and Consent 2. First Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement FIRST PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT THIS PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (the “Assignment”), dated as of April ____, 2018 and to be effective as of ____________, 2018, is made and entered into by and between EMPIRE IV GLOBAL POINTE, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company with its principal office at 1505 River Shore Drive, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 (“Empire IV”), 394 ASSOCIATES, LLP, a Colorado limited liability partnership, with its principal office at 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South; Suite 550, Glendale, Colorado 80246 (“394”); GLOBAL ONE GOLDEN VALLEY, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, with its principal office at IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900, Minneapolis, Minnesota (“Global One”); and THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a municipal corporation, with its principal offices at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 (the “HRA”). All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Planned Unit Development Agreement, as defined below. WHEREAS, the City, Global One and 394 entered into that certain Planned Unit Development Agreement dated February 10, 2016 and filed in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of titles as document no. T05326959; and as of the date hereof are entering into the First Amendment to PUD (together, the “PUD Agreement”) related to the property legally described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, Global One is, as of April ___, 2018, conveying to Empire IV a partial tenant-in-common interest in Lot 3, Block 1, of the Project (“Lot 3”) and retaining a partial tenant-in-common interest in Lot 3; and WHEREAS, Global One now wishes to assign a portion of its rights and obligations in the PUD Agreement and the Development Property to Empire IV, and Empire IV wishes to accept such assignment and assume a portion of the rights and obligations of Global One with respect to Lot 3 contained in the PUD Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Assignment and Assumption. For value received, Global One hereby assigns to Empire IV all rights title and interest in the PUD Agreement with respect to that portion of the Development Property described in the Deed, effective and recorded of even date herewith, conveying a partial tenant-in-common interest in Lot 3 from Global One to Empire IV subject to the limitations, exclusions and provisions of this Assignment. Empire IV hereby assumes and agrees to perform all of the obligations, covenants, agreements and conditions related to Lot 3 referred to in the PUD Agreement, subject to the limitations, exclusions and provisions of this Assignment. Empire IV and Global One collectively shall be the “Developer” as it relates to Lot 3, and shall be jointly and severally responsible for completion of the Senior Building Site Improvement and Public Improvements (as required in Section 5 of the PUD Agreement) on Lot 3. 2. Improvements and Securities. Empire IV and Global One shall be jointly and severally responsible for all improvements to be constructed on Lot 3 or for the benefit thereof and for all securities required in Section 9 of the PUD Agreement related to Lot 3. 3. Approval of Successor Developer and First Mortgagee. Empire IV is hereby approved by the_ City as a successor developer, on the terms and conditions as set forth in this Assignment. 4. Events of Default. Global One and Empire IV shall each have the right to take action to cure any default or failure to perform by the other party, as such default may be alleged by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a default by Global One of its obligations under the PUD Agreement shall not be deemed a default by Empire IV of its obligations under the PUD Agreement. 5. Notices and Demands. Section 12 of the PUD Agreement is hereby supplemented to provided that all notices related to Lot 3, and all notices of default, shall be delivered to those Parties set forth in the PUD Agreement, and also to: Empire IV Global Pointe LLC c/o Leon J. Endres 1505 River Shore Drive Hastings, MN 55033 With copies to: Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Mark Johnson 6. Consent of the City. The City hereby consents to the foregoing Assignment provided, however, that Global One shall remain jointly and severally liable with Empire IV for all of the obligations under the PUD Agreement assigned by Global One to Empire IV hereby, and Global One shall remain solely liable for all of the obligations under the PUD Agreement not assigned to Empire IV or 394. The City is not aware of any uncured defaults by Global One, 394 or the City under the PUD Agreement as of the date hereof, nor is the City aware of any facts that, but for the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute a default by either Global One, 394 or the City under the PUD Agreement. As of the date of this Agreement, all amounts due under Section 8 of the PUD Agreement have been paid and all securities due under section 9, other than those related to Lot 3, have been posted. 7. Consent of 394. 394 hereby consents to the foregoing Assignment. 394 is not aware of any uncured defaults by Global One, 394 or the City under the PUD Agreement as of the date hereof, nor is 394 aware of any facts that, but for the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute a default by either Global One, 394 or the City under the PUD Agreement. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK. SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this First Partial Assignment and Assumption to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, Global One has caused this First Partial Assignment and Assumption to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, 394 has caused this First Partial Assignment and Assumption to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, and Empire IV Global Pointe LLC has caused this First Partial Assignment and Assumption to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf as of the date first written above. THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: _______________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by Shepard M. Harris, Mayor and Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager, of THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, on behalf of the organization. ____________________________________ Notary Public GLOBAL ONE GOLDEN VALLEY, LLC By: _______________________________ Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by Mark C. Globus, Chief Manager of Global One Golden Valley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company on behalf of the company. ____________________________________ Notary Public 394 ASSOCIATES, LLP By: _______________________________ Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by _________________, as ________________ of Forum Management, Inc., a Colorado corporation, as Managing Partner of 394 ASSOCIATES, LLP, a Colorado limited liability partnership, on behalf of the partnership. ____________________________________ Notary Public EMPIRE IV GLOBAL POINTE, LLC By: _______________________________ Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by _________________, as ________________ of Empire IV Global Pointe, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company on behalf of the company. ____________________________________ Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Best & Flanagan LLP 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”), effective as of April ___, 2018, is made and entered into by and between 394 ASSOCIATES LLP, a Colorado limited liability partnership, with its principal office at 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 550, Glendale, Colorado 80246 (“394”); GLOBAL ONE GOLDEN VALLEY, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, with its principal office at IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (“Global One”); and THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a Minnesota municipal corporation, with it principal offices at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 (the “City”). All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the PUD Agreement, as defined below. WHEREAS, the City, Global One and 394 entered into that certain Planned Unit Development Agreement dated February 10, 2016, filed in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles as document no. T05326959 (the “PUD Agreement”), relating to the property legally described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Global One intends to assign certain of its rights and obligations under the PUD Agreement to EMPIRE IV GLOBAL POINTE, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, with its principal office at 1505 River Shore Drive, Hastings, Minnesota 55033 (“Empire IV”), pursuant to the First Partial Assignment and Assumption of PUD Agreement and Consent (the “Assignment”) in the form contemporaneously executed herewith and effective as of _____________, 2018 (as defined below), and Empire IV intends to accept the Assignment and the City intends to consent to the Assignment; and WHEREAS, the parties now wish to amend the PUD Agreement to reflect the intended Assignment and make certain other changes to the PUD Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. The revisions to the Agreement set forth in this First Amendment that are related to Empire IV or the Assignment or both, are expressly contingent upon the City, Global One, 394 and Empire IV executing and entering into the Assignment and the Assignment becoming effective pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth therein. 2. The defined term “Final Plans” is hereby amended to mean the plans for the Three Nine Four Apartments dated September 26, 2013, and approved on October 15, 2013, prepared by MFRA, Inc. and Tushie Montgomery Architects, as amended by vote of the Golden Valley City Council on November 8, 2017, all on file with the City, and as the same may be amended from time to time. 3. Section 7 is hereby revised to replace the date “November 30, 2020” with “November 30, 2021.” 4. Section 12 is hereby revised to add the following after Fisher & Suhr, P.C.: Empire IV Global Pointe, LLC c/o Leon J. Endres 1505 River Shore Drive Hastings, MN 55033 And: Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Mark Johnson 5. Except as set forth herein, all terms, provisions and covenants of the PUD Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this First Amendment to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, Global One has caused this First Amendment to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, 394 has caused this First Amendment to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, and Empire IV has caused this First Amendment to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf as of the date first written above. THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: _______________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by Shepard M. Harris, Mayor and Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager, of THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, on behalf of the organization. ____________________________________ Notary Public GLOBAL ONE GOLDEN VALLEY, LLC By: _______________________________ Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by Mark C. Globus, Chief Manager of Global One Golden Valley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company on behalf of the company. ____________________________________ Notary Public 394 ASSOCIATES, LLP By: _______________________________ Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by _____________, as ______________ of Forum Management, Inc., a Colorado corporation, as Managing Partner of 394 ASSOCIATES, LLP, a Colorado limited liability partnership, on behalf of the partnership. ____________________________________ Notary Public EMPIRE IV GLOBAL POINTE LLC By: _______________________________ Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of April, 2018 by _____________, as ______________ of GLOBAL POINTE LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. ____________________________________ Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Best & Flanagan LLP 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. L. Authorize Submittal of Application and Execution of Agreements on behalf of Global Pointe Senior Community for Contamination Cleanup Grant Program Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Contamination Cleanup Grant Program helps communities with the costs of redeveloping contaminated sites. City governments must apply for funding on the developer’s behalf. In order to assist with the redevelopment costs of the Global Pointe Senior Living development site (located at 5200 Wayzata Boulevard at the northwest quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100), staff is seeking authorization from the City Council to apply for a Contamination Cleanup Grant from DEED on behalf of the developer of Global Pointe Senior Community. This project will include 98 units of senior housing and it is expected to begin construction in May. If the grant is awarded, the Physical Development Department of the City will work with DEED and Global One Golden Valley, LLC to administer the funds. The developer will be providing the necessary local match for this grant. The grant request is for $323,163. These funds would be used for the removal of contaminated soils, installation of ventilation piping, and the treatment and discharge of contaminated groundwater as required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). If the development fails to substantially provide the public benefits listed in the grant application within five years from the date the grant is awarded, the City of Golden Valley may be required to repay 100 percent of the grant amount. To mitigate financial risk to the City, the City will require financial securities from the developer totaling the full amount of the grant award. Grant applications are due May 1, 2018. Grant funding decisions are in the summer of 2018. The developer allowed to incur cleanup costs over the summer in advance of a fully executed grant agreement. In this situation, the developer is reimbursed once the award is available. Attachments • Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Application and Execution of Agreements on behalf of Global Pointe Senior Community for Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Contamination Cleanup Grant Program (2 pages) • Redevelopment Grant Application (25 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Application and Execution of Agreements on behalf of Global Pointe Senior Community for Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Contamination Cleanup Grant Program. Resolution 18-28 April 17, 2018 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF GLOBAL POINTE SENIOR COMMUNITY FOR MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DEED) CONTAMINATION CLEANUP GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley is the official governing body of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Contamination Cleanup Grant funds would be used for environmental remediation in order to create a buildable site for the 98-unit Global Pointe Senior Community project; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has approved the Contamination Cleanup grant application to be submitted to DEED on May 1, 2018, by City of Golden Valley for the Global Pointe Senior Community site; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is located within the seven county metropolitan area defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, and is participating in the local housing incentives program under section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley act as the legal sponsor for project(s) contained in the Contamination Cleanup Grant Program to be submitted on May 1, 2018 and that the Physical Development Director is hereby authorized to apply to the DEED for funding of this project on behalf of City of Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS, the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the application are committed to the project identified; and WHEREAS, City of Golden Valley has not violated any Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice; and WHEREAS, upon approval of its application by the state, the City of Golden Valley may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project(s), and that City of Golden Valley certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Resolution No. 18-28 -2- April 17, 2018 _____________________________ 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. Contamination Cleanup Grant Application Submitted by: City of Golden Valley Global Pointe Senior Community 5200 Wayzata Boulevard Golden Valley, Minnesota May 1, 2018 Prepared for: Department of Employment and Economic Development FY 17-18 Cleanup - 1 Brownfields and Redevelopment Unit 1st National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200 St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 Contamination Cleanup Grant Application and Part 1 of the Revolving Loan Application Applicant (Public Entity): City of Golden Valley Head of Applicant Agency (e.g., Mayor): Shep Harris Applicant Address: 7800 Golden Valley Rd. City: Golden Valley Zip Code: 55427 If the applicant is a city, what form of government? ☐ Home Rule ☒ Statutory City For reference, please give the State Statute number which gives the applicant authority to carry out the activities for which you are requesting grant funds. ____________________ Project Contact for the Public Entity: Emily Goellner Phone: 763-593-3979 Email: egoellner@goldenvalleymn.gov Mailing Address: 7800 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Project Manager for this project from the Public Entity, in the event of an award: Emily Goellner Project Manager’s Phone and email: 763-593-3979; egoellner@goldenvalleymn.gov Application Author: Imants Pone – Braun Intertec Corporation Author’s Phone and email: 952-995-2665; ipone@braunintertec.com Provide a written executive summary of the project, including the applicant’s involvement in the project to date and how the applicant intends to manage the project should a grant be awarded. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 2 The City of Golden Valley has been working in cooperation with the property owner to plan, coordinate and implement the redevelopment of an underutilized property in the City of Golden Valley. The redevelopment plan is now fully approved for start of construction. The 0.99 acre Site at 5200 Wayzata Boulevard has been vacant since the 1980’s, when the former on-Site structure was demolished after the Minnesota Department of Transportation purchased the southern portion of the Site for conversion of U.S. Highway 12 into U.S. Interstate Highway 394 and expansion of the interchange with Highway 100. The proposed redevelopment includes construction of a five-story assisted living apartment building with one below grade level used for underground parking and common space for residents and staff. The development will also include paved access driveways and sidewalks, landscaping, and new utilities. As the grant applicant, the City of Golden Valley will play an intermediary role in assuring the environmental funding is properly applied and administered in accordance with the funding award, and all third party contractor work is completed within the scope of the MPCA-approved RAP/CCP before any funds are released. Grant reporting, follow-up and close out procedures will be completed by the City in accordance with the funding agreement. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 3 I. SITE IDENTIFICATION AND HISTORY SITE INFORMATION 1. Name of Site: _Global Pointe Senior Community (GLOBUS GOLDEN VALLEY ADDITION PUD NO. 1112, Lot 3) Site Address: 5200 Wayzata Boulevard City, County or Township: Golden Valley, Hennepin County Zip Code: 55416 Acreage of Site: _0.994 Sq. Ft. of Site: ____43,315__________ Minnesota Legislative District # of the site __46____A__________B (Note: The Minnesota Legislature has a tool to look up legislative district numbers. You must have a precise address and know the zip code of the site. Go to: Who Represents Me tool and find the district where your project is located. 2. A. Current property owner(s): ___Global One Golden Valley, LLC____ When was the property purchased? February 10, 2016 For what amount? $2,430,806.70 From whom was the property purchased? Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Golden Valley and Mayfair Apartments, LLC. B. Who will develop the site? Global One Golden Valley, LLC Will the developer own the property at any time? ☒ Yes ☐ No When was/will the property be purchased? February 10, 2016 For what amount? $2,430,806.70 C. Are eminent domain proceedings necessary to acquire the property on which the cleanup and redevelopment will occur? If so, explain any difficulties anticipated in acquiring the site. No D. Who will own the project site after development? Global One Golden Valley, LLC and Empire IV Global Pointe, LLC When was or will the property be purchased? Empire IV Global Pointe, LLC will purchase a portion of the property (46.54% undivided Tenants In Common Interest on or about April 30, 2018 contemporaneously with the closing of the construction loan. For what amount? $908,903 for a 46.54% interest in the property. The remaining 53.46% will be retained by Global One Golden Valley as an undivided Tenants in Common Interest. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 4 3. Provide a legal description of the site. Parcel 1: Lot 3, Block 1, Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No. 112, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Parcel 2: Non-exclusive easements contained in Operation and Easement Agreement dated February 10, 2016, filed February 11, 2016, as Document No. T05326960. SITE VALUATION: ASSESSMENT OR APPRAISAL 4. If you are applying for cleanup grant funds you may submit either assessed value information or an appraisal. If you are applying for a revolving loan, you must submit an appraisal and may not submit assessor’s information in place of an appraisal. If your site is publicly-owned, you must still submit a value associated with the property. Attach an appraisal completed by a qualified independent appraiser licensed under chapter 82B using accepted appraisal methodology which shows the current market value (pre-cleanup) of the property, separately taking into account the effect of the contaminants on the market value. This value should include both the value of the land and, if applicable, any buildings on the Site. Along with the appraisal, please include the projected value after cleanup and development. Current Appraised Value $2,000,000 Projected Value $30,400,000 (Appraisal included in Attachment 1) OR Attach documentation showing the assessed value of the property for the latest year, as determined by the local assessor, shown on the most recent valuation notice used under Minn. Stat. § 273.121. Along with the assessed value, please include the projected value after cleanup and development. Current Assessed Value ___________ Projected Value _____________ MAPS AND SITE FEATURES 5. Attach an accurate and legible site and location map showing locations of prominent and relevant site features such as buildings, retaining walls, etc. (NOTE: maps shall include property boundaries, a north arrow and bar scale). The map(s) should show the following: • The current condition of the site including labeled structures; • The proposed development of the site including labeled structures; and • The location(s) of contamination. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 5 Adding photographs is recommended. The requested maps, photographs showing current Site conditions, and selected diagrams depicting the proposed development are provided in Attachment 2. CURRENT AND FUTURE SITE USE 6. Zoning/Land Use: A. Current: Industrial_____ Commercial_____ Residential X . Mixed-use___________ Other (Specify): The site is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which is zoned for residential. B. After Cleanup: Industrial _Commercial_Residential X . Mixed-use___________ Other (Specify): The site will remain part of the PUD and be zoned residential. 7. If a change in zoning in necessary, please provide a schedule of required approvals. The Site is a PUD approved for the proposed project so no zoning change is necessary 8. Current economic condition: Vacant lot___X____ Developed site________ Other: 9. How many buildings are currently on site? Industrial __0______ How many are occupied? ______ If vacant, for how long? Commercial __0___ How many are occupied? ____ If vacant, for how long? Since 1980s Residential ___0____ How many are occupied? ______ If vacant, for how long? 10. Year building(s) was/were built:___Site is vacant______ 11. Please describe the condition of the buildings on the site. NA 12. Is demolition required for RAP implementation? ☐ Yes ☒ No Is demolition addressed in the RAP? ☐ Yes ☐ No NA 13. Please describe how site redevelopment will spur adjacent development. Global One Golden Valley was the master developer of the entire 7 acre site. As part of the redevelopment of Global One Golden Valley LLC’s site, Global One Golden Valley, LLC sold a 6 acre portion of the site to 394 Associates, LLP for the development of the TALO Apartments which is a 303-unit luxury multi-family residential complex. The total value of the redevelopment of the current site and neighboring site will be over $99,913,387. That is $26,852,862 Total Project Costs for Global Pointe Senior Community and $73,060,525 for TALO Apartments. The redevelopment of this site will likely also spur additional development on neighboring sites, including the neighboring office building on Circle FY 17-18 Cleanup - 6 Down that was recently vacated and sold. SITE HISTORY 14. Please attach a brief synopsis on the history and general background of this site. This includes but is not limited to former uses of the site, known and/or suspected causes of contamination, etc. Also describe the current condition of the site and include a description of existing structures and existing occupants of the site. The Site consists of an irregular shaped parcel approximately 0.99 acres in size. It is a vacant parcel that is currently being used as a staging area for the redevelopment of the adjoining parcel to the east. Information about the Site is available back to 1896. The Site was undeveloped or used as cultivated farm land until the 1950s when an office building was constructed. That building was demolished in the 1980s and the Site has been vacant since that time. A small retail mall previously located on the adjoining property to the west included a dry cleaner that operated from the 1950s until approximately 1999. In the late 1990s, the adjoining property to the west was enrolled into the Minnesota Pollution Control agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program. Based on available information, a release of chlorinated solvent attributed to the dry cleaners was identified and remedial actions occurred. Several environmental investigations have been conducted at the Site. Based on information from those investigations, contaminated urban fill soil was identified at the Site. Contaminated groundwater and soil vapor has also been identified at the Site and is attributed to the adjoining site to the west. II. CONTAMINATION 15. Is applicant enrolled in an MPCA Program? ☒ Yes ☐ No VIC Prog. I.D. VP30391 VIC Project Manager Amy Hadiaris Phone: 651-757-2402 PBP Prog. I.D. __________ PBP Proj. Manager ________________ Phone: ____________ Other ____________________________________________________________________ 16. Current environmental consultant: Consultant Company Name: _Braun Intertec Corporation________________ Consultant Name _Imants Pone_________Phone:_952-995-2665__ FY 17-18 Cleanup - 7 17. What contaminants have been identified at the site? Contaminant types identified at the Site include diesel range organics (DRO), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum and non-petroleum volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and various metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury. 18. To qualify for cleanup funding, you must attach a copy of the RAP and written approval of your Response Action Plan from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The RAP and RAP approval letter are included in Attachment 3. 19. What is the likely source of contamination? The source of the groundwater and soil vapor contamination is likely associated with the adjoining site to the west. The source of the contamination in the fill soils is likely the fill soils themselves. The origin of the fill is unknown. 20. Summary of Contamination Information: A. Provide a concise description of the identified contamination and proposed RAP. The description should include the occurrence of the contamination (i.e., are there distinct areas of contamination or is contamination widely disseminated across the site? Is the contamination at the surface or at depth?) Fill soils consisting of primarily of silty sand have been observed across the Site from the ground surface to depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). Debris was encountered within the fill soils across much of the Site and included concrete, brick, bituminous, glass, paper, and wood. Elevated concentrations of PAHs, DRO, and arsenic were identified in the fill soils. No elevated contaminant concentrations were found in the underlying native soil samples. Based on the results of the Phase II ESA and the intermixed nature of the fill materials, all fill soil at the Site should be considered to be impacted, and all soils excavated for development will require special management and/or offsite disposal at a permitted landfill due to the elevated contaminant concentrations and/or intermixed debris. Groundwater is impacted with VOCs (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene, Tetrachloroethene (PCE), and Vinyl Chloride). Depth to groundwater was observed to be 8 to 15 feet bgs. The project will need to obtain an appropriate discharge permit that considers the presence of measurable contamination for construction dewatering. Soil vapor is impacted by petroleum and non-petroleum VOCs at concentrations greater than Residential ISVs. However, based on the vapor sampling that was conducted prior to the RAP, the RAP did not include an active vapor mitigation system. As a contingency measure, the RAP included installation of sub-slab ventilation piping under the lowest building level floor slab, and provided for additional/confirmation vapor sampling after the building has been constructed. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 8 B. Complete the following table for soil contamination (be sure to include areas of contamination that have been identified at the site but will not be treated or removed as part of the approved RAP): General contaminant type (i.e., DRO, VOCs, metals, etc.) Total volume of identified contaminated soil (cyds) Total volume of identified contaminated soil to be remediated (cyds) Remedy RAP Cleanup Goal (i.e., residential SRVs, industrial SRVs, etc.) Fill soil with PAHs, DRO, and arsenic impacts and fill soil with intermixed debris. Present across the entire Site. 6,965 6,965 Disposal at a permitted landfill. Residential SRVs and Screening SLVs. C. Complete the following table for groundwater contamination. If no or limited groundwater investigation has been conducted, indicate this. Also indicate if a groundwater investigation was conducted but no contamination was detected. General contaminant type (i.e., DRO, VOCs, metals, etc. Affected aquifer (i.e., water table, deeper aquifers) Approximate dimensions of contaminant plume on- site. Specify if the plume extends off-site. Remedy VOCs (Cis-1,2- dichloroethene; PCE; Vinyl Chloride) Water Table Detected on western portion of the Site, but the extent of groundwater impacts has not been delineated. Discharge to sanitary sewer if dewatering required for construction. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 9 D. List all compounds comprising the identified release in soil and the corresponding average and maximum concentration for each compound. Also include petroleum in the table. If distinct areas of contamination are present at the site, please describe separately. (NOTE: It is acceptable to provide an overview with estimated average and maximum concentrations if the amount of analytical data is overwhelming.) (Note: for PAHs, please provide individual compound concentrations or Benzo(a)pyrene equivalent concentrations for the carcinogenic PAH compounds.) Compound Tier I SRV (residential) Average Concentration Maximum Concentration DRO 100 mg/kg (Unregulated Fill Criterion) 46.15 mg/kg 143 mg/kg BaP Equivalent (PAHs) 2 mg/kg 1.69 mg/kg 10.592 mg/kg Arsenic 9 mg/kg 4.66 mg/kg 13.8 mg/kg Lead 300 mg/kg 38.75 mg/kg 109 mg/kg Mercury 0.5 mg/kg 0.07 mg/kg 0.26 mg/kg E. Please do the same as in D. for groundwater. Compound HRL Average Concentration Maximum Concentration Cis-1,2-dichloroethene 6 µg/L 56.04 µg/L 158 µg/L Tetrachloroethene, PCE 4 µg/L 6.1 µg/L 2.12 µg/L Vinyl Chloride 0.2 µg/L 0.66 µg/L 0.45 µg/L Trichloroethene (TCE) 0.4 µg/L 1.03 µg/L 4.2 µg/L F. If groundwater at the site is contaminated, note the geologic makeup of the affected aquifer (sand/gravel, till, lacustrine clay, etc.), and the estimated average linear velocity (be sure to indicate how this number was determined). Groundwater at the Site has been observed at depths ranging from approximately 8 feet to 15 feet bgs. At the shallower depths, the groundwater appeared to be in a shallow perched condition within the fill materials. The regional groundwater flow direction within the unconsolidated deposits in the Site vicinity is generally east (Kanivetsky, 1989). Based on the highly variable subsurface conditions encountered during the previous investigations (including perched groundwater conditions), it is not practical to estimate the average linear velocity of groundwater at the Site. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 10 G. Please do the same as in E. for soil vapor. Compound ISV circle one (residential/commercial) 33X ISV Maximum Concentration No compounds were found to be above 33X the residential ISV H. Briefly describe possible exposure scenarios posed by identified contamination at the site (i.e., ingestion or human contact with contaminated soil, consumption of contaminated groundwater, ecological impacts, etc.), and nearby receptors that could be affected by contaminants migrating from site (high value wetland/creeks/rivers, etc.). The following potential contaminant exposure pathways/issues have been considered and addressed in the MPCA-approved RAP: Contaminated Soil/Direct Contact • Receptor Concern: Direct contact with contaminated soil during construction and by future users of development. • RAP Approach: Disposal of excavated contaminated soils exceeding MPCA Residential SRVs and MPCA Unregulated Fill Criteria at a permitted landfill. Contaminated Soil Vapor • Receptor Concern: Vapor intrusion into new building structures and inhalation of those vapors by users of future development. • RAP Approach: Installation of contingency sub-slab ventilation piping to be used for passive ventilation and, if warranted, can be activated by installing an electric extraction fan. Contaminated Groundwater • Receptor Concern: Contaminated groundwater entering construction excavations. Minimize direct storm water infiltration in areas with known contamination. • RAP Approach: Obtain appropriate permits to manage, treat (if necessary) and discharge contaminated water from construction excavations to the sanitary sewer. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 11 I. If you are requesting costs for soil vapor mitigation, please submit documentation to justify the request. Not requesting vapor mitigation costs. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 12 III. COST ANALYSIS: INVESTIGATION, CLEANUP AND PROJECT COST BUDGET 21. What is the total of all eligible investigation, cleanup and project costs for the site? $ 430,884 22. How much grant funding are you requesting from DEED (cannot be more than 75% of the cost listed in the question above)? $ 323,163 23. Please fill out the following budget table to identify the investigation costs, cleanup costs and project costs for the site as defined in the instruction section of this application. Attach additional sheets if necessary. BUDGET Eligible Activities for Investigation and RAP Development % Complete Date(s) Completed Total Cost Phase I ESA 100 2/23/2018 $1,600 Pre-construction Environmental Investigation 100 2/23/2018 $12,229 RAP preparation 100 2/23/2018 $5,775 MPCA program review fees 0 NA $2,000 A. Investigation Costs Subtotal $21,604 Eligible Activities for Soil and Groundwater Cleanup % Complete Date(s) Completed Total Cost Segregate Contaminated Soil 0% NA $6,965 Haul and Dispose of Contaminated Soil as Industrial Waste 0% NA $313,415 Clean Soil Import to Replace Removed Contaminated Soil 0% NA $28,000 Contaminated Groundwater Management 0% NA $15,000 RAP Implementation Oversight; Environmental Monitoring 0% NA $40,400 MPCA Program Review Fees 0% NA $5,500 B. Cleanup Costs Subtotal $409,280 C. Total A & B, This is your total cleanup cost* $430,884 Other Project Activities Necessary to Implement the RAP % Complete Date(s) Completed Total Cost D. Project Cost Subtotal E. Total A, B & D $430,884 FY 17-18 Cleanup - 13 24. What is the breakdown of sources for the above budget? Amount Source Status (Committed, pending decision date) $323,163 DEED Cleanup Grant - 75% Pending (Application 5/1/18) $107,721 25% Unrestricted/Developer Match* Committed $430,884_____ TOTAL (should equal Total in line E above) *(12% of the above cleanup costs in line C must be paid with unrestricted funds, as defined on page V; Please indicate which source(s) will contribute to the unrestricted match.) 25. Is all of the project’s financing in place? (i.e., cleanup, construction, operations) The financing for the project has been fully approved by KleinBank with the closing anticipated for April 30, 2018. 26. If requesting project costs, please explain why these costs are necessary to remediate the contamination. Not Applicable 27. If any of the activities listed above are partially or fully completed, how were those activities financed? If work has occurred, please submit the invoices for which you will be seeking reimbursement. The Phase I ESA, RAP preparation, and pre-construction environmental investigation tasks were completed by Braun Intertec using predevelopment funds provided by the developer. Copies of the invoices for the grant eligible tasks are included in Attachment 4. 28. If you are requesting acquisition costs as match, and the amount for acquisition is different from the appraised or assessed value, please explain why there is a difference. Not Applicable FY 17-18 Cleanup - 14 ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES 29. Please indicate whether you have applied for or received all funds available to you from other funding sources. If you applied for or received funds, please list the amount(s) below. Source Requested or received all funds available (Y or N)? Amount(s) requested or received? Date(s) requested or received? Met Council N --- --- County ERF Grant N --- --- PetroFund N --- --- ACRRA N --- --- MPCA Funding N --- --- EPA N --- --- Other (Specify) N --- --- COST RECOVERY 30. Has the site been identified as a state or federal Superfund site? ☐ Yes ☒ No 31. Based on question 18, are there any existing or former businesses or landowners who may have caused or contributed to the contamination on the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, who? Not applicable What is the status of the business (in operation, sold, closed, moved)? Not applicable 32. What efforts have been made to recover some or all of the cleanup costs from the party(ies)? Not applicable There is a mechanism to recover costs from the responsible party if this grant receives funding. See Minn. Stat. § 116J.557 for further details. FINANCIAL INFORMATION 33. Please submit a copy of the applicant’s most current audit, or financial statement if an audit is not available. If this information is available electronically, you may submit the web address in lieu of a paper copy. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR] for the City of Golden Valley for 2016 can be found at: http://weblink.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/Public/2/doc/598049/Page1.aspx FY 17-18 Cleanup - 15 34. Is there a possibility that the site will be cleaned up without DEED money? ☒ Yes ☐ No The current financing includes the cost of site cleanup but due to the high costs of acquiring the land, the high cost of environmental remediation and the high cost of construction due to poor soils, the environmental cleanup costs add additional risk for the profitability of the development. The project would proceed with the cleanup without DEED money, but Global One Golden Valley, LLC would have to take a close look at some of the planned components of the project. The project would be adversely affected by the lost funds, and some planned amenities or design features may need to be downgraded. IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AFTER CLEANUP 35. Describe in detail the Development Plan for the site after implementation of the RAP? (Number of buildings or housing units, square footage, etc.). The proposed Development Plan is for the construction of a senior living community known as “Global Pointe Senior Community,” which will be a five story, 133,061 gross square foot structure with 98 living units and approximately 40 underground parking stalls. The facility’s residential living units will span the continuum of care and will include independent living units with services, assisted living units, and memory care units. The facility will include a full commercial kitchen and dining room providing 3 meals a day for residents. The facility will also have numerous other amenities including a movie theater, hair salon, exercise room, art room and other communal activity areas. The facility’s residential units will be a mix of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units. The facility will be built next to the TALO Apartments which are nearing completion and are part of the same master development plan. 36. Have all of the required local/city approvals necessary for this project to proceed been obtained (planning commission, zoning, etc.) ☒ Yes ☐ No If not, what remains to be done and what is the process for completing the process of obtaining approvals? The Owners have obtained all of the necessary approvals for the project from the City of Golden Valley from the planning department. The only further approval needed is the full building permit and the City’s approval of a partial assignment of the Development Agreement to for an additional named owner on the project. 37. What is the estimated cost of the Development (construction costs not including the cleanup costs)? $26,533,662 Of these how much is public? $ 0 private? $26,533,662 38. Is all of the financing in place for the final development of the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, FY 17-18 Cleanup - 16 attach evidence that funds for the project have been secured. If not, what is the process to secure the funds and the timeline for securing them? The bank financing has been fully approved by KleinBank and the investor equity is in place. The Owner is in the final stage of negotiating loan documents and anticipates closing the loan at the end of April, 2018. The letter confirming approval of financing from KleinBank is provided as Attachment 5. 39. If the site will be redeveloped for residential use, provide the following data: RENTAL: Total number of units 98 Monthly rental cost per unit $3,100 Per Month(Independent Living) $4,653 Per Month (Assisted Living) $7,076 Per Month (Memory Care) Number of affordable units 0 Level of affordability ______________ Construction cost per unit $171,913 (Hard Construction Cost Per Unit) $272,331 (Total Cost Per Unit-Hard Cost, Soft Costs, OWNER OCCUPIED: Total number of units Not Applicable Purchase price per unit $___ Number of affordable units/homes ______ Level of affordability _______________ Construction cost per unit $______ 40. Are you applying for HUD financing? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, have you received an “Invitation to Apply” from HUD (attach a copy, if so). If not, where are you in the HUD financing process? PROPERTY TAXES 41. What are the property taxes on the site for the current year (prior to cleanup)? $12,451 for 2018; $34,875 for 2019. 42. What is the projected property tax on the site after redevelopment? $475,000 Per Year Starting at Year 3. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 17 A. How were the figures in Questions 41 and 42 determined? Actual Tax Assessment from City and then based on Projected Value Estimate for the stabilized tax number. B. Who determined them? Hennepin County and Mark C. Globus (Developer) FY 17-18 Cleanup - 18 JOB CREATION AND RETENTION 43. Project the number of new jobs created at the site after cleanup and development of the site. (Jobs that did not exist in Minnesota prior to development) NEW JOBS TABLE Position Title Total # of Full-Time Jobs Total # of Part- Time Jobs Expected Hiring Date Executive Director 1 3/19 Marketing Manager 1 3/19 Program Director 1 8/19 Receptionist 1 8/19 Director of Health Services/RN 1 7/19 Registered Nurse 1 8/19 Health Aides 11 8/19 Head Chef 1 7/19 Assistant Cook 1 8/19 Dietary Aides 3 8/19 Maintenance Manager 1 7/19 Housekeeping 4 8/19 Van Driver 1 8/19 Total New Jobs: 18 FTEs FY 17-18 Cleanup - 19 44. Project the number of retained jobs after cleanup and development of the site. (Jobs that existed either on-site or elsewhere in Minnesota prior to development, and will be relocating to the site) The site is currently vacant, so there will be no retained jobs. All jobs on the Site will be new jobs. RETAINED JOBS TABLE Position Title Total # of Full-Time Jobs Total # of Part- Time Jobs Former Location of Retained Jobs Total Retained Jobs: 0 FTEs FY 17-18 Cleanup - 20 PROJECT SCHEDULE 45. Provide a detailed project schedule outlining the individual tasks and schedules of the overall project (for both cleanup and redevelopment of the site). Indicate on this form the expected month and year of individual tasks involved in the project. At a minimum, time lines should include outstanding approvals, response actions/cleanup activities, demolition, construction start and end date, and any other project activities. Please be advised that if awarded, this schedule will be incorporated into your future grant contract, so you should be as accurate and realistic as possible. Scheduled Tasks: YEAR 2018 YEAR 2019 YEAR 201__ TASK Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Excavation X X Drive Pile X Footings/Foundations X X X X Precast Plank X Framing X X X X X Garage – Utilities and Floor slab X X X Fifth Floor X X X X Fourth Floor X X X X X Third Floor X X X X X Second Floor X X X X X First Floor X X X X X X Exterior work X X X X X X X X X X X Landscaping X Occupancy X Cleanup Start date 04/23/18 Cleanup Completion date 11/30/18 Construction Completion date 07/26/19 FY 17-18 Cleanup - 21 46. Please list any factors which would change or delay this schedule. All financing is in place and the start of construction is imminent. No significant delays are foreseen at this time. Unexpected weather could potentially delay the schedule. FY 17-18 Cleanup - 22 V. THIRD PARTY/COMPANY COMMITMENT INFORMATION 47. If there is a commitment from a third party to develop on the site after cleanup, please complete the following: Third Party/Company Name: Global One Golden Valley, LLC Contact Person: Mark C. Globus Title: President Phone Number (include area code): 612-333-0606 48. Do you have an executed development agreement? ☒ Yes ☐ No 49. Please attach a commitment letter from the developer or other commitment documentation, such as a development agreement. (If you cannot obtain a commitment letter from the developer, please explain.) The Development Agreement is provided as Attachment 6. VI. PAYMENT INFORMATION Most grant payments take place through electronic funds transfer (EFT). To ensure proper payment, a Vendor Number assigned by Minnesota Management and Budget is required. Vendor information is available at Vendor Resources. Financial Contact Person: Sue Virnig, Finance Director Telephone Number (include area code): 763-593-8010 State of Minnesota Vendor Number (if known): _________________________________ If a Minnesota Vendor Number is not available, please supply: Federal Employer Identification Number: ___________________________ V A L L E YGLOBAL POINTE SENIOR LIVING68 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS30 MEMORY CARE UNITSUNIT TYPESTUDIOONE BEDONE BED/ DENTWO BEDTWO BED/ DENTOTALS3RD FLR1984022TOTAL4232515168PERCENT6%34%37%22%1%100%ASSISTED LIVINGUNIT TYPESTUDIO1 BEDTOTALSMEMORY CAREUNIT SUMMARYGRAND TOTAL = 982ND FLR0451010TOTAL28230PERCENT93%7%100%5TH FLR2555118AREA477- 517619- 792767- 992936- 128112664TH FLR15750181ST FLR28230PREPARED FOR:Issue Record2017 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, Inc.©--- 10/12/17PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE: LICENSE #: x/xx/xxTUSHIEMONTGOMERYARCHITECTS7645 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, #100MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423-4084612 . 861 . 9636 FAX:612 . 861 . 9632W W W . T M I A R C H I T E C T S . C O MALL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS ARE IN CONFIDENCE AND DISSEMINATION MAY NOT BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ALL COMMON LAW RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT AND OTHERWISE, ARE HEREBY SPECIFICALLY RESERVED.10/12/2017 4:10:21 PMGlobal Pointe Senior Living 5200 Wazata Boulevard Golden Valley, MN 55416A2.0SITE PLAN212114ASCALE 3/32" = 1'-0"1SITE PLANNBUILDING AREA (Gross SF)GARAGE FLOOR 24,422 SF1ST FLOOR 24,260 SF2ND FLOOR 21,796 SF3RD FLOOR 22,631 SF4TH FLOOR 19,799 SF5TH FLOOR 20,152 SFTOTAL 133,061 SF 1ST FLOOR0"3RD FLOOR24' - 4 1/2"2ND FLOOR12' - 2 5/8"GARAGE FLOOR-10' - 4"4TH FLOOR35' - 6 3/8"ROOF57' - 9 3/8"UTILITY BRICK5TH FLOOR46' - 8 1/4"CEMENT BOARD - PANEL SIDINGSIMULATED STONEASPHALT SHINGLESCMU1ST FLOOR0"3RD FLOOR24' - 4 1/2"2ND FLOOR12' - 2 5/8"4TH FLOOR35' - 6 3/8"ROOF57' - 9 3/8"CEMENT BOARD - LAP SIDINGCEMENT BOARD - PANEL SIDINGFIBERGLASS SHINGLESUTILITY BRICK5TH FLOOR46' - 8 1/4"CEMENT BOARD SIDINGSIMULATED STONECEMENT BOARD -PANEL SIDINGPREPARED FOR:Issue Record2017 Tushie Montgomery & Associates, Inc.©--- 10/12/17PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE: LICENSE #: x/xx/xxTUSHIEMONTGOMERYARCHITECTS7645 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, #100MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423-4084612 . 861 . 9636 FAX:612 . 861 . 9632W W W . T M I A R C H I T E C T S . C O MALL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS ARE IN CONFIDENCE AND DISSEMINATION MAY NOT BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ALL COMMON LAW RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT AND OTHERWISE, ARE HEREBY SPECIFICALLY RESERVED.10/12/2017 4:10:45 PMGlobal Pointe Senior Living 5200 Wazata Boulevard Golden Valley, MN 55416A2.6EXTERIORELEVATIONS212114ASCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. M. Board/Commission Appointments and Reappointments Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Each year the City Council conducts interviews with persons who have applied to serve on a board and/or commission. After the interviews are conducted the Council makes their appointments. Recommended Action Motion to make the following appointments: Environmental Commission Scott Seys 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Human Rights Commission Chris Mitchell 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Human Services Fund Jason Kapel 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Jonas Courneya 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Michelle Shull 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Denise La Mere-Anderson 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Open Space and Recreation Commission Max Hyberger 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Planning Commission Lauren Pockl 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Recommended Action Motion to make the following reappointments: Board of Zoning Appeals David Perich 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 George Maxwell 1 year term term expires- May 1, 2019 Nancy Nelson 1 year term term expires- May 1, 2019 Richard Orenstein 1 year term term expires- May 1, 2019 Civil Service Commission Ralph Schulz 3 year term term expires- May 1, 2021 Environmental Commission Dawn Hill 3 year term term expires- May 1, 2021 Joseph Ramlet (Student) 1 year term term expires- May 1, 2019 Human Rights Commission Gloria Peck 3 year term term expires- May 1, 2021 Eve Clarkson (Student) 1 year term term expires- May 1, 2019 Human Services Fund Stephanie Devitt 3 year term term expires- May 1, 2021 Sophia Vento (Student) 1 year term term expires- May 1, 2019 Open Space and Recreation Commission Bob Mattison 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Kimberly Sanberg 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2021 Planning Commission Ronald Blum 3 year term term expires- May 1, 2021 Andy Johnson 3 year term term expires- May 1, 2021 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 3. N. Resignation from Human Services Fund Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary A resignation letter has been received from Andrea Mac Arthur, Human Services Fund. Recommended Action Motion to accept the resignation of Andrea Mac Arthur. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary The City Council is asked consider the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (the Plan). The Plan serves to guide the undertakings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The Council should hold a public hearing on the Plan modification before considering the resolution adopting the Plan. In July 2017, the HRA proposed expanding the area included in the Plan by incorporating an additional parcel along Douglas Drive, as well as parcels around the Tennant corporate campus in anticipation of the Tennant World Headquarters project. Those parcels were referred to in the Plan as Area A-4, even though the parcels were all non-contiguous. The goal for Area A-4 was to create opportunities for housing and mixed use development along Douglas Drive, and further develop the Tennant corporate campus area. At the October 2017 Council/Manager meeting, the City Council, which sits as the HRA, reviewed the Plan, and concluded additional parcels along Douglas Drive between the Union Pacific Railroad and Highway 55 should also be incorporated into the Plan. Those parcels are referred to in the Plan as Area A-5. The goal in this area is to retain and create employment opportunities through the reuse and redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial properties. The Planning Commission also reviewed these modifications in October 2017 and determined they were appropriate and consistent with the City’s general plans for development. Since that time, the Tennant World Headquarters project has been postponed. To date, no modifications to the Plan have been adopted. Staff has further reviewed the Plan due to continued development interest along the corridor, as well as the proposed land use designations in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The following modifications are proposed: Area A-4 has been split into two areas with distinct goals. The eight acre parcel at the southwest corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road will continue to be referenced in the Plan as Area A-4. It will be guided as Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and allow for residential and commercial uses. The parcels comprising the Tennant campus from Lilac Drive to the CP Railroad tracks, have been removed from Area A-4 and will be referenced in the Plan as Area A-6. The area will be guided Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and allow for industrial and office related uses. One parcel will be guided Medium Density to accommodate an existing a residential facility. As required by statute, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed plan modifications on March 26, 2018, and offered the following comments: • Ensure the Plan is up to date. • The undergrounding of utilities is important and should continue to be part of the Plan. • Inclusion of the properties along Duluth Street, between Douglas Drive and Highway 100, should be considered either now or in the future. Attachments • Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (9 pages) • Approved minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of 3-26-2018 (3 pages) • Resolution to provide a Public Hearing Resolution Adopting the Amended Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (12 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution providing for Public Hearing on Adopting the Amended Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. 1 Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Section 1. Introduction As part of a goal-setting session in 2006 the City Council identified Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) as a primary area of concern for the future of the City. As part of the 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City again identified the Douglas Drive Corridor from Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70) to Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 55 as a priority for further study. There is significant through traffic from communities to the north and the mixture of land uses along the corridor in Golden Valley adds even more traffic. The volume of traffic combined with limited public right-of-way available for expansion will present challenges to improving this corridor and its public infrastructure. Traffic is heavy along the corridor due to its designation by Hennepin County as a minor arterial corridor. Its mixture of land uses including single-family, multi-family, offices, retail, schools, churches and industrial uses, some of which are blighted, could through redevelopment, become a more vibrant, integrated community. The initial focus of redevelopment has been on the east side of Douglas Drive between Duluth Street (CR 66) and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The City desires to look at this area in a comprehensive manner. The existing land use is a mixture of low- and-high density housing, some relatively new and some blighted, as well as office, commercial and industrial uses. Since the inception of the Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Area, the City has partnered with Hennepin County to reconstruct Douglas Drive in 2016 and 2017 from Minnesota Trunk Highway 55 to Medicine Lake Road. This project includes construction of accessible sidewalks on both sides of the roadway for its entire length, dedicated on- street bike lanes, and lane realignments and traffic control improvements to encourage redevelopment opportunities. The new infrastructure is designed to last another 50 years with basic maintenance. Private investments within the project area includes the construction of a new operation facility by Centerpoint Energy, which brings additional employment to the area and maximizes land use, as well as reinvestment in the Douglas Drive Apartments. The areas South of Golden Valley Road to the Union Pacific Railroad and south of the Union Pacific Railroad to Minnesota Trunk Highway 55 are an additional focus of redevelopment going forward. The existing land use is primarily industrial and office as well as some single family homes and a residential facility. As an area where redevelopment and change are anticipated, this area offers significant opportunities to improve the Douglas Drive Corridor. Section 2. Statement of Need and Public Purpose, Statutory Authorization The Authority finds that there is a need for development within the City and the Project Area in order to provide employment and housing opportunities, to improve the local tax base, and to improve the general economy of the City and the State. The economic security of the people in the City depends upon proper development of property that meets any one of a number of conditions, including properties whose values are too low to pay for the public services required or rendered and properties whose lack of use or 2 improper use has resulted in stagnant or unproductive land that could otherwise contribute to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Authority finds that in many cases such property cannot be developed without public participation and assistance in various forms including property acquisition and/or write-down, proper planning, the financing of development costs associated with clearance, grading and soil correction, and the making of various other public and private improvements necessary for development. In cases where the development of property cannot be done by private enterprise alone, the Authority believes it to be in the public interest to consider the exercise of its powers, to advance and spend public money, and to provide the means and impetus for such development. The Authority finds that in certain cases property within the Project Area would not or may not be available for development without the specific financial aid to be sought, that the Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project Area by private enterprise, and that this Redevelopment Plan Conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. It is the intention of the Governing Body, notwithstanding the enumeration of specific goals and objectives in the Redevelopment Plan, that the Authority shall have and enjoy with respect to the Project Area the full range of powers and duties conferred upon the Authority pursuant to the HRA Act, the TIF Act, municipal housing and redevelopment authority laws, and such other legal authority as the Authority may have or enjoy from time to time. The HRA Act authorizes the Authority to exercise all the powers relating to a housing and redevelopment authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, or other law. Section 3. Background When Douglas Drive was initially constructed, the surrounding land uses were more rural in nature. Now a number of major employers including Honeywell and Tennant Company have a significant presence in the corridor and the average daily traffic on various sections of the corridor in Golden Valley range from 10,000 to 14,000 vehicle trips per day. The presence of numerous schools (Sandburg School, King of Grace Lutheran School and Perpich School of Performing Arts) and recreational facilities (Sandburg fields, Honeywell Little League field, Seeman and Hampshire Parks, and the Three Rivers Luce Line Trail) in the corridor increase the need for improved safety for non-motorized transportation. The Three Rivers Park District has constructed a portion of the Luce Line Trail through Golden Valley that provides a bicycle connection to regional amenities such as French Park in Plymouth and Wirth Park in Minneapolis. When the original Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area was established there were no safe north-south connections to this trail for bikers and pedestrians. In order to improve these connections Golden Valley received funding through the Non-Motorized Transportation Act to study this corridor and plan for future improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections in this corridor. The Principles for this study are outlined below. 3 Section 4. Principles 1. Improve connectivity and functionality for all transportation modes. Douglas Drive, which is classified as a county state-aid highway in the Hennepin County Transportation Plan and minor arterial road in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, has historically focused on motorized vehicles. Traffic volume has increased significantly over the years as has the need for better, safer pedestrian and non-motorized transportation and transit options. Significant improvements were made to bicycle and pedestrian facilities when the corridor was reconstructed in 2016 and 2017. However, intersection improvements at Highway 55 and Douglas Drive are critical to safer and improved movement for pedestrians, non-motorized, and vehicular traffic in the corridor. 2. Enable the corridor to maintain a diverse mix of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. A mix of activities, uses and densities will help to sustain the corridor through changing economic cycles, consumer preferences and housing trends. Clustered and mixed uses can create synergies, increase transit use and enhance the level of pedestrian activity. 3. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate. Many land uses can benefit from increased integration with one another, including neighborhood-serving retail, multi-family and senior housing, offices, and low-impact services. Non-residential corridor uses should be buffered from adjacent residential neighborhoods. 4. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. Jobs within the corridor help maintain Golden Valley’s jobs-housing balance while sustaining commercial enterprises. Retaining ‘living wage’ jobs should be a priority. 5. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor. Improvements in streetscapes, landscaped areas, open spaces, building aesthetics and parking/service areas all contribute to a more unified and visually appealing environment, with an increased sense of identity. Buildings and other private improvements should make positive contributions to the corridor and the broader public realm, while public improvements should set the standard for private investment. 6. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services. Multimodal links to commercial development should be enhanced. 7. Foster sustainable development and work to establish a balance between urban and natural systems. Encourage the application of green building and infrastructure techniques. Examples include low-impact development that maintains the natural functions of the land, encourages reduced stormwater runoff and fosters resource conservation and the use of renewable systems in new construction. Section 5. Goals and Objectives The current mix of incompatible land uses, minimal building setbacks from a high-traffic road, and the desirability of buffering residential uses from the high volume of traffic make the corridor an ideal candidate for broader redevelopment. A goal of the redevelopment addressed through the Douglas Drive reconstruction in partnership with 4 Hennepin County has been to provide for additional right-of-way, including addressing impediments in the right-of-way (electrical poles, fire hydrants, utility boxes, etc.) that have complicated the infrastructure needs for the area and impeded pedestrian and bike access. Other goals, such as consolidating corridor land uses, require further redevelopment to address. To achieve its mission of structured redevelopment, this Plan has identified six goals with related objectives to encourage cohesive planning and structured redevelopment within the corridor. It then outlines policies that will help to achieve the goals and objectives. Goal 1 – Improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Objectives  Improved roadway with added pedestrian and non-motorized transportation facilities  Complete streets that meet vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs  Reduced impediments in the sidewalks  Undergrounded utilities  Consolidated access points onto Douglas Drive Goal 2 – Redevelop obsolete properties. Objectives  Blighted, functionally obsolete, and/or economically unsustainable buildings removed  New uses compatible with existing uses Goal 3 – Create jobs and life-cycle housing. Objectives  Increased high-paying jobs  Housing stock that is maintained or improved  Higher density housing  Housing for seniors and young families  Affordable housing  Commercial uses that serve the community Goal 4 – Require design that is sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. Objectives  Enhanced community identity through features which reflect Golden Valley  Visually attractive development that complements its surroundings  Buildings constructed with environmentally sustainable ‘green building’ practices (Development that meets environmental criteria set forth by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the United States Department of Energy).  Active living criteria included in design Goal 5 – Protect the environment. Objectives  Wetlands that are protected and enhanced  Land free of soil and wetland contamination  Arborous environments  Natural features retained and native vegetation (re)established 5  Co-located uses that reduce the amount of auto travel and corresponding air pollution  Best shoreline management practices implemented along Bassett Creek Goal 6 – Maintain a regional framework. Objectives  Growth compatible with the Metropolitan Council development framework  Public infrastructure designed in cooperation with Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation  Participation in grant programs available through Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and other agencies  A positive relationship with surrounding communities and governmental agencies  Continued participation in cooperative traffic management strategies  Improved transit options Section 6. Policies Land Use The City will study planned land uses to determine the need or desirability of individual parcel or area-wide comprehensive plan or zoning amendments to accommodate desired land uses. The City and HRA will assure that its review processes, zoning, and building regulations will promote desired development projects. The City will assure that new uses in the redevelopment area are compatible with existing development and the City’s land use plan. The City and HRA will review existing corridor properties to consider their long term viability and/or options for alternative uses. Land use plans will promote mixed use developments and increased density where appropriate, in keeping with the Metropolitan Council’s regional growth strategy. Financing The City and HRA will identify criteria to target redevelopment funds such as tax increment financing, tax abatements, Livable Communities, Community Development Block Grants and other funding made available by the legislature or other agencies or governmental units. The City and HRA will consider providing public assistance to redevelopment projects that serve a substantial public purpose, remove blight, or mitigate contamination. The City and HRA will consider using land write-downs to subsidize redevelopment projects. Redevelopment funding will be paired with other funding options such as assessments, based on the Golden Valley Special Assessment Policy. 6 The City will consider franchise fees and utility surcharges to underwrite the cost of utility and infrastructure upgrades. Design and Environmental Standards The City will promote best practices to meet the highest environmental standards. The City and HRA will identify approaches and/or incentives to promote a corridor beautification program. This program will include both public and private components. The City will monitor ongoing research on sustainable development initiatives to guide redevelopment and future updates of this plan. Transportation The City will work with Metropolitan Transit to monitor transportation needs of area residents and workers and identify ways to improve transportation services including improving transit routes, and working with area businesses to develop transportation management plans. The City will work with Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota and other agencies to design and seek funding for an improved roadway with added pedestrian and non- motorized transportation facilities that meet city, county and state needs. Section 7. Redevelopment Area Defined In 2008-09 the City studied the full length of Douglas Drive from Medicine Lake Road on the north to Trunk Highway 55 on the south. The Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area includes the Douglas Drive street right-of-way and parcels on the east side of the street from Duluth St. to the Union Pacific railroad right-of-way to the south. This is an area that had no pedestrian infrastructure prior to the establishment of the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area and the 2016/2017 road reconstruction. South of the Union Pacific railroad to TH 55, Douglas Drive has a number of commercial and industrial uses with redevelopment and reuse opportunities, including parcels near the Tennant campus. The full Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area is identified on Map A. The area is divided into subsections, based on land use. Area A-1 Area A-1 extends from Duluth Street south to the Canadian Pacific Railroad and is guided Commercial and Office. It has three parcels, with the following land uses: two gas stations and a multi-tenant office. Area A-2 Area A-2 extends from the Canadian Pacific Railroad south to Golden Valley Road. It is guided for Medium and High Density Residential. Existing land uses range from single family, duplex, and triplex units to three- to five- story rental apartment and condominium buildings and railroad facilities. The Metropolitan Council has identified this rail corridor for a regional, mixed-use trail on its 2030 Regional Parks System Map. Area A-3 Area A-3 extends from Golden Valley Road south to the Union Pacific Railroad/Luce Line Trail. It has only one parcel which is guided Industrial. A CenterPoint Energy 7 peaking plant and maintenance center and a CenterPoint Energy operation facility built in 2015 currently occupy this site. Area A-4 Area A-4 comprises one parcel of nearly eight acres and was developed with an office building in 1979. It is currently owned and occupied by Tennant Company and houses approximately 400 employees. The area is presently guided for Office and zoned Business & Professional Office in a PUD. Area A-5 Area A-5 is located along Douglas Drive, south of the Union Pacific Railroad to Highway 55. The area includes six parcels developed with commercial and industrial buildings. On the west side of Douglas Drive is a vacant 350,000 square foot office and industrial building siting on approximately 30 acres. The site is currently guided Commercial- Office and zoned Industrial. On the east side of Douglas Drive are five parcels. Included in these is a self-storage facility, and a bank located along the south and west side of the frontage road, which are guided Commercial and zoned Industrial. On the north and east side of the frontage road are an office building, and two industrial properties with multiple tenants. One property contains multiple buildings. These parcels are guided Industrial and zoned Industrial. Area A-6 Area A-6 includes six parcels, three of which are owned by Tennant Company as part of a PUD, along with right-of-way remnants and Zane Ave N. The area is located east of Douglas Drive and is bounded by the Canadian Pacific railroad on the west, the Union Pacific Railroad on the north, Highway 100 on the east and Highway 55 on the south. The area is guided Industrial but zoning is a mix of Industrial, Office and Residential. Residential uses include two single family homes and a residential facility. Section 8. Redevelopment Opportunities Infrastructure A main objective of redevelopment is the provision of public infrastructure, including: road improvements that accommodate existing and future development along the corridor while limiting direct access to the road; sidewalk, trail and bicycle facilities in conjunction with the roadway or in the CP Rail corridor that bisects and runs adjacent to the Redevelopment Area; ponding and storm sewer facilities that meet current environmental standards; and water and sanitary sewer upgrades to meet current and future needs. Area A-1 Proposed land uses for Area A-1 include commercial and office development consistent with its location near the key intersection of Douglas Drive and Duluth Street. The goal of redevelopment would be to provide high-quality uses and reduce the number of access points on both Douglas Drive and Duluth Street. 8 Area A-2 The focus of Area A-2 would remain residential, but in keeping with the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, higher density housing could replace existing single-family, duplex and triplex housing. The goal of replacement housing would be to provide high- quality life-cycle housing that provides a greater range of housing options for Golden Valley residents and to reduce the number of access points on Douglas Drive. Area A-3 In Area A-3 the objective has been to maximize CenterPoint’s use of the site while keeping access points on Douglas Drive to a minimum. Expanded CenterPoint facilities like the operation facility built in 2015 complement the existing peaking facilities at this site and increase the intensity of land usage, enhance the tax base and bring additional employees to the corridor. Area A-4 The objective in Area A-4 is to prevent blight and maximize land use at the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive. Area A-4 is approximately eight acres and is adjacent to multi-family and single family uses, as well as office and industrial uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is scheduled for adoption in 2018, designates the parcel as Mixed Use. Area A-5 Golden Valley has experienced a significant number of multi-family apartment buildings in recent years, many of which have been built on former commercial or industrial properties. Area A-5 is a commercial and industrial area and should remain as such. However, many of the buildings are dated, do not have modern features required by contemporary users, and show indications of blight. Goals for Area A-5 include retaining and adding jobs through building renovation and redevelopment. Commercial amenities, such as restaurant or retail uses, either incorporated into projects or as stand-alone developments, may also be also be appropriate uses in the area if supported by the marketplace. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is scheduled for adoption in 2018, guides the parcels west of Douglas Drive Light Industrial and those east of Douglas as Mixed Use. Area A-6 Plans to consolidate the parcels in Area A-6 to expand office and industrial related uses have been proposed but have not advanced. Objectives for this area include the expansion of office and industrial uses, retaining and expanding the number of jobs, eliminating blight, maximizing land use, minimizing incompatible land uses, and enhancing water quality in the Bassett Creek Watershed. To the extent possible, the preservation or addition of high quality trees in the area, along with the removal of invasive or low quality species should be considered as part of any future development. Additionally, continuation of the existing Residential Facility in Area A-6 is expected, and may include its future expansion. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is scheduled for adoption in 2018, guides all the parcels in Area A-6 as Industrial, although the residential facility is guided Medium Density. 9 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 6 hnson said there are some unintende consequences here. He said the homeowner c cut down every tree on the lot if t y want to and'then subdivide the property refe to the requested variances and aid the applicant makes some good s about mainta ' the character of the area, f wing the tree preservation plan adding another ho to the tax base which are II good things. Baker referred to subdivision varian request and the re ements that must be met in order to grant a v ' nce. He said he esn't think the scant is meeting the requirements and he d 't think they'v heard a har ip in this case. The variance isn't required to preserve the pr rights the appli t, and the variance could be considered to be injurious to of rope in t eighborhood. Segelbaum agreed that the hardship requirements have no a added that he is concerned about setting a precedent with granting subdivision v ces. Johnson said he would argue the special circumstance in this case is that the C' t things in place that make it difficult such as observing the tree preservation n, se the safety concerns of the County, and trying to maintain the nature of origin home. r said he thinks there are more unintended consequences ' approvin he subdivis variance. MOVED by Johnson, onded by Waldh user to recommen roval of a variance from Section 12.50, Sub (A)(2) Minimum Di ension Requirements Now proposed Lot 2 to be 17 feet off of required 80 feet to a dth of 63 feet and the mo ailed 5 to 1. Commissione aker, Blum, Brookins, S elbaum, and Waldhauser vo o. Commissio r Johnson voted yes. MOV y Segelbaum, seconded by Wa hauser and motion carried unanimous rec mend denial of the subdivision req st for the property located at 7040 Glenwood nue. 3. Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan Expansion Nevinski gave some background information about the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan and stated that the plan's purpose is to outline existing conditions along Douglas Drive and identify a vision to help guide the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's activities. Nevinski showed a map of the original plan that was done in 2009-2010 that identified three areas along the east side of Douglas Drive as potential redevelopment/reinvestment areas. He then showed a map of proposed modifications that were done in 2017 in order to expand the areas in the Corridor Plan to include the area south of Golden Valley Road and the Tennant campus. Nevinski stated that the current proposed revised plan puts the Tennant campus in its own area (A-6). He said the vision hasn't changed and that it is expected to remain an industrial area with corporate office. He noted that area A-4 would be an 8-acre, mixed use site that would allow residential and commercial uses. He added that area A-5 would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 7 include light industrial and mixed uses consistent with the goal of maintaining and adding jobs. Nevinski explained that the HRA statute requires that the Planning Commission consider this modified plan and provide comment and feedback. He stated that there is no tax increment being discussed and that there doesn't need to be any findings made. Blum stated that the Planning Commission is often times provided these proposals to comment on and he feels sometimes there isn't a lot of direction as to how critically they should be looking at the proposed modifications. Nevinski explained that this plan is reflective of the work that has been done through the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and it's reflective of previous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council. He said this is fairly a high level plan and that the focus should be on whether it is consistent with where the City is going and if the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is aligning with this proposed modified plan. Johnson referred to area A-4 and noted that the objective is to prevent blight. He asked what kind of growth strategy that is. Nevinski said it isn't necessarily a growth strategy it is something the City wants to avoid and that a mix of uses is probably the most likely reuse of that site. Johnson asked why the word isn't used in area A-5. He said he strongly encourages the HRA and City Council to remember that Golden Valley is a fully developed suburb, land value is at an all-time high, the economy is booming, and this is not the time to consider TIF candidates. He said to let the market determine what can be here because if the City leads with a discount, it can never go back. Waldhauser referred to areas A-1 and A-2 and questioned how access points on Douglas Drive could be reduced as stated in the goals. Nevinski agreed that in certain areas having access points on Douglas is going to the case, but in other locations there could be some parcel consolidations that reduce access points. Waldhauser said it seems that area A-4 is a much better candidate for low-rise, multifamily or senior housing and that mixed use should be moved up to Highway 55 where it is being carved out for industrial. Baker referred to the land use chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and said the Planning Commission looked at a larger area that included Duluth Street. He asked why that larger area isn't included in this proposal in order to reflect the Comp Plan. Nevinski stated that historically, the City hasn't seen a lot of market interest in developing that area along Duluth Street. Segelbaum agreed. Blum asked is there is benefit in focusing development on a smaller area that will be more immediately benefited by the recent development on Douglas Drive. Nevinski said that is a point of consideration. Blum asked to what extent they can hold themselves to the goals and values outlined in the plans if there isn't a mechanism for enforceability. He added that he is concerned about losing momentum and specific desire in the future and it will be become something that doesn't get done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 8 Johnson asked if there are any other redevelopment plans in Golden Valley. Nevinski said there are four broad areas where the City sees the most opportunity: Douglas Drive, the 1- 394 Corridor, the 55 West District, and the LRT Corridor. Blum referred to the goal regarding underground utilities and asked if the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Nevinski said the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Blum said he thinks that is a great goal and he likes hearing that it is achievable. Waldhauser asked what housing is blighted in the area east of Douglas Drive. Nevinski said some of the information in the plan was written before the Douglas Drive apartment rehabilitation took place. He noted that there are some homes and a duplex that are dated and approaching blight. Baker said when he reviewed the plan he was looking for dates or struck language and said it was hard to understand. He said he thinks the plan needs to be updated. Nevinski said the plan was originally written in 2009 and some conditions have changed. Blum said he really likes the language in the plan that protects the environment. He said he also thinks the co-location of uses that reduce the amount of auto travel is a really great goal. Johnson asked when this plan is being considered by the City Council. Nevinski said it will be on the April 17 Council agenda. Segelbaum said he thinks the changes are positive and it makes sense to split area A-4 as proposed and to maintain area A-5 as job oriented. Discussion of 2017 Plan g Commission Annual Report Zimm an stated that every y r a summary of the Planning Commission's work get reviewe the City Council. H referred to the report and stalg that the number of planning ap ' ations was down ompared to past yearsthe large Tennant proposal and t rk on the C prehensive Plan a took a lot of time. Baker said he would pr that a first ence of the report be changed to state that 2017 reflected the end of a in a so the emphasis was more on the Comprehensive Plan rather th aying it was a quiet year. Zimmerman reviewe ap of he Ci d highlighted some of the areas of change. Segelbaum d that he feels he sentimen om the Planning Commission is that they want to more retail base a small neighbor d commercial areas in the City and for le to stay here, not just ork here. Blum agr that tracks with some of the p Plan survey comments ng with better transpo options. Resolution 18-29 April 17, 2018 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AMENDED DOUGLAS DRIVE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOUGLAS DRIVE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: 1. Amendment to Redevelopment Plan. The City previously adopted the original Redevelopment Plan (the “Redevelopment Plan”) for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (the “Redevelopment Area”) on November 10, 2008. The City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley (the “Authority”), in cooperation with the owners of certain properties along the Douglas Drive Corridor that were not included in the Redevelopment Area, propose to amend the Redevelopment Plan to reflect current conditions along the Douglas Drive Corridor and to expand the Redevelopment Area to include such additional properties. The Planning Commission of the City of Golden Valley approved the amended Redevelopment Plan (the “Amended Redevelopment Plan”) at its meeting on March 26, 2018. 2. Review of Amended Redevelopment Plan. The City has reviewed the Amended Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (the “Amended Redevelopment Area”), which is attached as Exhibit A. 3. Findings for Approval of Project Plan. The City hereby makes the following findings: 3.01 The land in the Amended Redevelopment Area would not be made available for development or redevelopment, as the case may be, without the financial aid to be sought since private developers could not adequately develop or redevelop the Redevelopment Area without the proposed redevelopment activities. 3.02 The Amended Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Amended Redevelopment Area by private enterprise. 3.03 The City has undertaken a study of the Amended Redevelopment Area and determined that the properties proposed to be included therein are blighted as a result of being vacant, underused, structurally substandard and/or environmentally contaminated. 3.04 The redevelopment activities proposed in the Amended Redevelopment Plan would remove or reduce blight in the Amended Redevelopment Area and provide for an increase in employment and housing opportunities in the City and enhance the tax base. 3.05 The redevelopment activities proposed by the Amended Redevelopment Plan conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. The redevelopment activities are compatible with the City’s zoning ordinances and other related regulations and encourage efficient use of existing infrastructure as set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Resolution No. 18-29 -2- April 17, 2018 3.06 The Amended Redevelopment Plan provides an outline for the development or redevelopment of the Amended Redevelopment Area and is sufficiently complete to indicate its relationship to definite local objectives as to appropriate land uses and to indicate general land uses and general standards of development or redevelopment. 4. Approval and Adoption of Redevelopment Plan. The Amended Redevelopment Plan is hereby adopted based on the findings in Section 3 hereof. _____________________________ 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. 18-29 -3- April 17, 2018 Exhibit A Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Resolution No. 18-29 -4- April 17, 2018 Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Section 1. Introduction As part of a goal-setting session in 2006 the City Council identified Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) as a primary area of concern for the future of the City. As part of the 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City again identified the Douglas Drive Corridor from Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70) to Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 55 as a priority for further study. There is significant through traffic from communities to the north and the mixture of land uses along the corridor in Golden Valley adds even more traffic. The volume of traffic combined with limited public right-of-way available for expansion will present challenges to improving this corridor and its public infrastructure. Traffic is heavy along the corridor due to its designation by Hennepin County as a minor arterial corridor. Its mixture of land uses including single-family, multi-family, offices, retail, schools, churches and industrial uses, some of which are blighted, could through redevelopment, become a more vibrant, integrated community. The initial focus of redevelopment has been on the east side of Douglas Drive between Duluth Street (CR 66) and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The City desires to look at this area in a comprehensive manner. The existing land use is a mixture of low-and-high density housing, some relatively new and some blighted, as well as office, commercial and industrial uses. Since the inception of the Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Area, the City has partnered with Hennepin County to reconstruct Douglas Drive in 2016 and 2017 from Minnesota Trunk Highway 55 to Medicine Lake Road. This project includes construction of accessible sidewalks on both sides of the roadway for its entire length, dedicated on-street bike lanes, and lane realignments and traffic control improvements to encourage redevelopment opportunities. The new infrastructure is designed to last another 50 years with basic maintenance. Private investments within the project area includes the construction of a new operation facility by Centerpoint Energy, which brings additional employment to the area and maximizes land use, as well as reinvestment in the Douglas Drive Apartments. The areas South of Golden Valley Road to the Union Pacific Railroad and south of the Union Pacific Railroad to Minnesota Trunk Highway 55 are an additional focus of redevelopment going forward. The existing land use is primarily industrial and office as well as some single family homes and a residential facility. As an area where redevelopment and change are anticipated, this area offers significant opportunities to improve the Douglas Drive Corridor. Section 2. Statement of Need and Public Purpose, Statutory Authorization The Authority finds that there is a need for development within the City and the Project Area in order to provide employment and housing opportunities, to improve the local tax base, and to improve the general economy of the City and the State. The economic security of the people in the City depends upon proper development of property that meets Resolution No. 18-29 -5- April 17, 2018 any one of a number of conditions, including properties whose values are too low to pay for the public services required or rendered and properties whose lack of use or improper use has resulted in stagnant or unproductive land that could otherwise contribute to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Authority finds that in many cases such property cannot be developed without public participation and assistance in various forms including property acquisition and/or write- down, proper planning, the financing of development costs associated with clearance, grading and soil correction, and the making of various other public and private improvements necessary for development. In cases where the development of property cannot be done by private enterprise alone, the Authority believes it to be in the public interest to consider the exercise of its powers, to advance and spend public money, and to provide the means and impetus for such development. The Authority finds that in certain cases property within the Project Area would not or may not be available for development without the specific financial aid to be sought, that the Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project Area by private enterprise, and that this Redevelopment Plan Conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. It is the intention of the Governing Body, notwithstanding the enumeration of specific goals and objectives in the Redevelopment Plan, that the Authority shall have and enjoy with respect to the Project Area the full range of powers and duties conferred upon the Authority pursuant to the HRA Act, the TIF Act, municipal housing and redevelopment authority laws, and such other legal authority as the Authority may have or enjoy from time to time. The HRA Act authorizes the Authority to exercise all the powers relating to a housing and redevelopment authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, or other law. Section 3. Background When Douglas Drive was initially constructed, the surrounding land uses were more rural in nature. Now a number of major employers including Honeywell and Tennant Company have a significant presence in the corridor and the average daily traffic on various sections of the corridor in Golden Valley range from 10,000 to 14,000 vehicle trips per day. The presence of numerous schools (Sandburg School, King of Grace Lutheran School and Perpich School of Performing Arts) and recreational facilities (Sandburg fields, Honeywell Little League field, Seeman and Hampshire Parks, and the Three Rivers Luce Line Trail) in the corridor increase the need for improved safety for non-motorized transportation. The Three Rivers Park District has constructed a portion of the Luce Line Trail through Golden Valley that provides a bicycle connection to regional amenities such as French Park in Plymouth and Wirth Park in Minneapolis. When the original Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area was established there were no safe north-south connections to this trail for bikers and pedestrians. In order to improve these connections Golden Valley received funding through the Non-Motorized Transportation Act to study this corridor and plan for future improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections in this corridor. The Principles for this study are outlined below. Resolution No. 18-29 -6- April 17, 2018 Section 4. Principles 1. Improve connectivity and functionality for all transportation modes. Douglas Drive, which is classified as a county state-aid highway in the Hennepin County Transportation Plan and minor arterial road in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, has historically focused on motorized vehicles. Traffic volume has increased significantly over the years as has the need for better, safer pedestrian and non-motorized transportation and transit options. Significant improvements were made to bicycle and pedestrian facilities when the corridor was reconstructed in 2016 and 2017. However, intersection improvements at Highway 55 and Douglas Drive are critical to safer and improved movement for pedestrians, non-motorized, and vehicular traffic in the corridor. 2. Enable the corridor to maintain a diverse mix of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. A mix of activities, uses and densities will help to sustain the corridor through changing economic cycles, consumer preferences and housing trends. Clustered and mixed uses can create synergies, increase transit use and enhance the level of pedestrian activity. 3. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate. Many land uses can benefit from increased integration with one another, including neighborhood-serving retail, multi-family and senior housing, offices, and low-impact services. Non-residential corridor uses should be buffered from adjacent residential neighborhoods. 4. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. Jobs within the corridor help maintain Golden Valley’s jobs-housing balance while sustaining commercial enterprises. Retaining ‘living wage’ jobs should be a priority. 5. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor. Improvements in streetscapes, landscaped areas, open spaces, building aesthetics and parking/service areas all contribute to a more unified and visually appealing environment, with an increased sense of identity. Buildings and other private improvements should make positive contributions to the corridor and the broader public realm, while public improvements should set the standard for private investment. 6. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services. Multimodal links to commercial development should be enhanced. 7. Foster sustainable development and work to establish a balance between urban and natural systems. Encourage the application of green building and infrastructure techniques. Examples include low-impact development that maintains the natural functions of the land, encourages reduced stormwater runoff and fosters resource conservation and the use of renewable systems in new construction. Section 5. Goals and Objectives The current mix of incompatible land uses, minimal building setbacks from a high-traffic road, and the desirability of buffering residential uses from the high volume of traffic make the corridor an ideal candidate for broader redevelopment. A goal of the redevelopment addressed through the Douglas Drive reconstruction in partnership with Hennepin County Resolution No. 18-29 -7- April 17, 2018 has been to provide for additional right-of-way, including addressing impediments in the right-of-way (electrical poles, fire hydrants, utility boxes, etc.) that have complicated the infrastructure needs for the area and impeded pedestrian and bike access. Other goals, such as consolidating corridor land uses, require further redevelopment to address. To achieve its mission of structured redevelopment, this Plan has identified six goals with related objectives to encourage cohesive planning and structured redevelopment within the corridor. It then outlines policies that will help to achieve the goals and objectives. Goal 1 – Improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Objectives  Improved roadway with added pedestrian and non-motorized transportation facilities  Complete streets that meet vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs  Reduced impediments in the sidewalks  Undergrounded utilities  Consolidated access points onto Douglas Drive Goal 2 – Redevelop obsolete properties. Objectives  Blighted, functionally obsolete, and/or economically unsustainable buildings removed  New uses compatible with existing uses Goal 3 – Create jobs and life-cycle housing. Objectives  Increased high-paying jobs  Housing stock that is maintained or improved  Higher density housing  Housing for seniors and young families  Affordable housing  Commercial uses that serve the community Goal 4 – Require design that is sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. Objectives  Enhanced community identity through features which reflect Golden Valley  Visually attractive development that complements its surroundings  Buildings constructed with environmentally sustainable ‘green building’ practices (Development that meets environmental criteria set forth by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the United States Department of Energy).  Active living criteria included in design Goal 5 – Protect the environment. Objectives  Wetlands that are protected and enhanced  Land free of soil and wetland contamination  Arborous environments  Natural features retained and native vegetation (re)established  Co-located uses that reduce the amount of auto travel and corresponding air pollution  Best shoreline management practices implemented along Bassett Creek Resolution No. 18-29 -8- April 17, 2018 Goal 6 – Maintain a regional framework. Objectives  Growth compatible with the Metropolitan Council development framework  Public infrastructure designed in cooperation with Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation  Participation in grant programs available through Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and other agencies  A positive relationship with surrounding communities and governmental agencies  Continued participation in cooperative traffic management strategies  Improved transit options Section 6. Policies Land Use The City will study planned land uses to determine the need or desirability of individual parcel or area-wide comprehensive plan or zoning amendments to accommodate desired land uses. The City and HRA will assure that its review processes, zoning, and building regulations will promote desired development projects. The City will assure that new uses in the redevelopment area are compatible with existing development and the City’s land use plan. The City and HRA will review existing corridor properties to consider their long term viability and/or options for alternative uses. Land use plans will promote mixed use developments and increased density where appropriate, in keeping with the Metropolitan Council’s regional growth strategy. Financing The City and HRA will identify criteria to target redevelopment funds such as tax increment financing, tax abatements, Livable Communities, Community Development Block Grants and other funding made available by the legislature or other agencies or governmental units. The City and HRA will consider providing public assistance to redevelopment projects that serve a substantial public purpose, remove blight, or mitigate contamination. The City and HRA will consider using land write-downs to subsidize redevelopment projects. Redevelopment funding will be paired with other funding options such as assessments, based on the Golden Valley Special Assessment Policy. The City will consider franchise fees and utility surcharges to underwrite the cost of utility and infrastructure upgrades. Resolution No. 18-29 -9- April 17, 2018 Design and Environmental Standards The City will promote best practices to meet the highest environmental standards. The City and HRA will identify approaches and/or incentives to promote a corridor beautification program. This program will include both public and private components. The City will monitor ongoing research on sustainable development initiatives to guide redevelopment and future updates of this plan. Transportation The City will work with Metropolitan Transit to monitor transportation needs of area residents and workers and identify ways to improve transportation services including improving transit routes, and working with area businesses to develop transportation management plans. The City will work with Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota and other agencies to design and seek funding for an improved roadway with added pedestrian and non- motorized transportation facilities that meet city, county and state needs. Section 7. Redevelopment Area Defined In 2008-09 the City studied the full length of Douglas Drive from Medicine Lake Road on the north to Trunk Highway 55 on the south. The Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area includes the Douglas Drive street right-of-way and parcels on the east side of the street from Duluth St. to the Union Pacific railroad right-of-way to the south. This is an area that had no pedestrian infrastructure prior to the establishment of the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area and the 2016/2017 road reconstruction. South of the Union Pacific railroad to TH 55, Douglas Drive has a number of commercial and industrial uses with redevelopment and reuse opportunities, including parcels near the Tennant campus. The full Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area is identified on Map A. The area is divided into subsections, based on land use. Area A-1 Area A-1 extends from Duluth Street south to the Canadian Pacific Railroad and is guided Commercial and Office. It has three parcels, with the following land uses: two gas stations and a multi-tenant office. Area A-2 Area A-2 extends from the Canadian Pacific Railroad south to Golden Valley Road. It is guided for Medium and High Density Residential. Existing land uses range from single family, duplex, and triplex units to three- to five- story rental apartment and condominium buildings and railroad facilities. The Metropolitan Council has identified this rail corridor for a regional, mixed-use trail on its 2030 Regional Parks System Map. Area A-3 Area A-3 extends from Golden Valley Road south to the Union Pacific Railroad/Luce Line Trail. It has only one parcel which is guided Industrial. A CenterPoint Energy peaking plant and maintenance center and a CenterPoint Energy operation facility built in 2015 currently occupy this site. Resolution No. 18-29 -10- April 17, 2018 Area A-4 Area A-4 comprises one parcel of nearly eight acres and was developed with an office building in 1979. It is currently owned and occupied by Tennant Company and houses approximately 400 employees. The area is presently guided for Office and zoned Business & Professional Office in a PUD. Area A-5 Area A-5 is located along Douglas Drive, south of the Union Pacific Railroad to Highway 55. The area includes six parcels developed with commercial and industrial buildings. On the west side of Douglas Drive is a vacant 350,000 square foot office and industrial building siting on approximately 30 acres. The site is currently guided Commercial-Office and zoned Industrial. On the east side of Douglas Drive are five parcels. Included in these is a self-storage facility, and a bank located along the south and west side of the frontage road, which are guided Commercial and zoned Industrial. On the north and east side of the frontage road are an office building, and two industrial properties with multiple tenants. One property contains multiple buildings. These parcels are guided Industrial and zoned Industrial. Area A-6 Area A-6 includes six parcels, three of which are owned by Tennant Company as part of a PUD, along with right-of-way remnants and Zane Ave N. The area is located east of Douglas Drive and is bounded by the Canadian Pacific railroad on the west, the Union Pacific Railroad on the north, Highway 100 on the east and Highway 55 on the south. The area is guided Industrial but zoning is a mix of Industrial, Office and Residential. Residential uses include two single family homes and a residential facility. Section 8. Redevelopment Opportunities Infrastructure A main objective of redevelopment is the provision of public infrastructure, including: road improvements that accommodate existing and future development along the corridor while limiting direct access to the road; sidewalk, trail and bicycle facilities in conjunction with the roadway or in the CP Rail corridor that bisects and runs adjacent to the Redevelopment Area; ponding and storm sewer facilities that meet current environmental standards; and water and sanitary sewer upgrades to meet current and future needs. Area A-1 Proposed land uses for Area A-1 include commercial and office development consistent with its location near the key intersection of Douglas Drive and Duluth Street. The goal of redevelopment would be to provide high-quality uses and reduce the number of access points on both Douglas Drive and Duluth Street. Area A-2 The focus of Area A-2 would remain residential, but in keeping with the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, higher density housing could replace existing single-family, duplex and triplex housing. The goal of replacement housing would be to provide high-quality life- cycle housing that provides a greater range of housing options for Golden Valley residents and to reduce the number of access points on Douglas Drive. Resolution No. 18-29 -11- April 17, 2018 Area A-3 In Area A-3 the objective has been to maximize CenterPoint’s use of the site while keeping access points on Douglas Drive to a minimum. Expanded CenterPoint facilities like the operation facility built in 2015 complement the existing peaking facilities at this site and increase the intensity of land usage, enhance the tax base and bring additional employees to the corridor. Area A-4 The objective in Area A-4 is to prevent blight and maximize land use at the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive. Area A-4 is approximately eight acres and is adjacent to multi-family and single family uses, as well as office and industrial uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is scheduled for adoption in 2018, designates the parcel as Mixed Use. Area A-5 Golden Valley has experienced a significant number of multi-family apartment buildings in recent years, many of which have been built on former commercial or industrial properties. Area A-5 is a commercial and industrial area and should remain as such. However, many of the buildings are dated, do not have modern features required by contemporary users, and show indications of blight. Goals for Area A-5 include retaining and adding jobs through building renovation and redevelopment. Commercial amenities, such as restaurant or retail uses, either incorporated into projects or as stand-alone developments, may also be also be appropriate uses in the area if supported by the marketplace. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is scheduled for adoption in 2018, guides the parcels west of Douglas Drive Light Industrial and those east of Douglas as Mixed Use. Area A-6 Plans to consolidate the parcels in Area A-6 to expand office and industrial related uses have been proposed but have not advanced. Objectives for this area include the expansion of office and industrial uses, retaining and expanding the number of jobs, eliminating blight, maximizing land use, minimizing incompatible land uses, and enhancing water quality in the Bassett Creek Watershed. To the extent possible, the preservation or addition of high quality trees in the area, along with the removal of invasive or low quality species should be considered as part of any future development. Additionally, continuation of the existing Residential Facility in Area A-6 is expected, and may include its future expansion. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is scheduled for adoption in 2018, guides all the parcels in Area A-6 as Industrial, although the residential facility is guided Medium Density. Resolution No. 18-29 -12- April 17, 2018 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 60 Day Deadline: March 26, 2018 60 Day Extension: May 25, 2018 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 160 - 8806 Olson Memorial Highway - Latitude 14, Inc., Applicant Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Latitude 14, Inc., represented by Ann & Tarique Ahmed, are proposing a new restaurant at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway. They have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a Class III Restaurant. A Class III Restaurant is defined as “any type of night club, tavern, restaurant or other facility providing entertainment, food and/or beverage that provides sit-down service but may also provide standup bar service and standup tables within the premises.” This property is zoned Commercial and guided for Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. It is surrounded by Commercial zoned properties to the east and west. Properties to the north are zoned for Light Industrial use. The applicants intend on utilizing the existing building, which is 4,713 square feet in size. They are planning to add a 500 square foot outdoor patio space to the west side of the building. Engineering and Fire staff have reviewed the proposal and there are no outstanding issues or corrections that must be addressed. The site currently has a parking lot containing 71 spaces, but code requires 94 spaces for this proposal. The applicant is proposing 74 spaces for the site, which requires a variance from City Code. In the attached letter dated February 20, 2018, the applicant provides an explanation for this parking proposal. The plans that they originally submitted on January 25, 2018, included a much larger patio, larger bar area, more seating, and the removal of 11 parking spaces on the south side of the building. The applicant adjusted their plan in order to reduce the minimum parking requirements. They also inquired with Red Lobster at 8900 Golden Valley Road and TruStone Financial at 605 Boone Avenue, but these property owners were not interested in entering into a shared parking agreement at this time. At the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on March 27, the Board approved a variance of 20 spaces off the required 94 spaces to a total of 74 spaces. They noted that the amount of parking proposed was reasonable and unlikely to cause a parking shortage. They appreciated that the applicant adjusted their plan in order to request a significantly smaller parking variance. Planning staff intends on reviewing off-street parking requirements in 2019. At the Planning Commission meeting on February 26, the Commission recommended approval (5- 1) of Conditional Use Permit 160. A letter about the proposal was sent to property owners within 500 feet of this site. The City received questions from TruStone Financial Credit Union about signage and landscaping. The applicant has addressed their questions and staff is not aware of any further concerns from neighboring property owners at this time. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 160 based on an evaluation of the ten factors in the City Code that determine eligibility of a conditional use (see evaluation in attached memo to Planning Commission). Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted by Shea Design on February 20, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. A variance of 20 spaces off the required 94 spaces to a total of 74 spaces must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed to be significant by the City Manager or his/her designee, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the days or hours of operation or the use of a shared parking agreement with adjacent property owner(s) in order to address parking concerns. 3. A Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City in order to expand interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space in the future. 4. Hours of operation for the restaurant are limited to 11 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and 11 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise further limited by an approved City Liquor License. 5. 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 dated January 23, 2018 (2 pages) • Letter from Applicant dated February 20, 2018 (2 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission, dated February 26, 2018 (5 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated February 26, 2018 (7 pages) • Plans submitted by Shea Design on February 20, 2018 (2 pages) • Memo from Ted Massicotte, Fire Department, dated February 22, 2018 (1 page) • Email from Eric Eckman, Engineering Division, dated February 21, 2018 (1 page) • Memo to the Board of Zoning Appeals, dated March 27, 2018 (3 pages) • Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes dated March 27, 2018 ( pages) • Ordinance #632, Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 160, 8806 Olson Memorial Highway, Latitude 14, Inc., Applicant (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #632, Approval of Conditional Use Permit 160 - 8806 Olson Memorial Highway - Latitude 14, Inc., Applicant. f±� a 9105 Z azo 825 0 m o a m e0o 875 " 742 Iso M� bs 00 730 745 730 0400 $300 8401 e Subject Property:8806 110 OUp£r,en e501 Pond Olson Memorial Highway P 710 Pond Building B 8800 7tl�Ave N 240 9140 8525 8845 8900 605 600 9200 9050 9000 8106 210 9110 9110 600 Golden Valley Rd 9201 91009010 8950 eels 33 439 z 440 424 0951 $945 473 a 9131 9031 p3 p2 sell 424 423 _ 424 9141 421 416 9147 347 R 410$928 8920 8912 415 9131A 400 . 345 w WS&13169143 339 89338925891789138909 400 i-913 IC 91310 325 88458835 9145 r, 10 South Eighth Street t6123392257 • Minneapolis MN 55402 sheadesign.com RECEIVED January 23,2018 CITY GOLDEN VALLEY JAN 2 5 2018 Emily Goellner City of Golden Valley Inspections Dept 7800 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Remodel of the existing Perkins restaurant off of Hwy 55 and 169 Shea Project No.: 7833.00 Dear Emily, Please consider this the narrative that is required as part of our Conditional Use Permit Application. Our responses to the 10 factors of evaluation: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use. a We, are a Class Ili type of restaurant that will be serving food and alcohol 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. a The Comprehensive Plan of the City notes that our lot should be Retail/Service,which we believe a restaurant use falls under 3. Effect upon property values in the neighboring area. a We believe the property values would be the same if not bettered by us putting in a new, nice restaurant with an award winning chef that has already proven successful in its existing Brooklyn Park location 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flor and congestion in the area. a We do not anticipate any change in the amount of traffic The Perkins has normal restaurant traffic and we anticipate the same with our new restaurant 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses. a We do not anticipate any affect in ilopulation density 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use. a. We will have an exterior patio, so there will be a little more activity outside than there currently is, but this is not a noisy restaurant that should be causing noise complaints from any neighboring business owners or residents 7. Any odors,dust, smoke,gas,or vibration to be caused by the proposed use. a There will be some minor restaurant odors. but it should not be any more than the current Perkins or any other restaurant would have 8. Any increase in flies, rats,or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use. a No, there should not be any increase in flies, rats or other animals or vermin Trash will be controlled and tidy and maintained in the existing dumpster enclosure 9. Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use. a We are planning on painting the outside of the building and roof a dark gray color, which is very popular these days and have nice wood accents at the patio,entrance and above the windows It will be a nice upgrade in design from what is currently there with the existing Perkins 10. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. a No, there should be no additional concerns on this topic The only proposed use of the property is Restaurant(Assembly). The existing building is 4,713 sf and we are planning on adding a seasonal, uncovered patio that is just under 2,000 sf.There is also an indication on our plan for a potential future shed that might be placed next to the patio for storage of the patio furniture in the winter, but that would be pretty more of an off the shelf item from one of the local hardware stores(nice looking though so it does not detract from the design of the building).The anticipated number of employees is 40 people.The anticipated number of potential customers or R.\7800-7899\7833.00 LAT 14-NEW RESTAURANT CONCEPT\PROJECT MGMT\narrative for the planning dept 01-23-18.docx � E- visitors is on average 350 per day,and our hours of operation will be Sunday-Thursday 11 am-10pm and Friday-Saturday 11 am-11 pm. Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Erica Freeman, Project Architect Shea, Inc. R:\7800-7899\7833.00 LAT 14-NEW RESTAURANT CONCEPT\PROJECT MGMT\narrative for the planning dept 01-23-18.docx . W 10 South Eighth Street t 612_339_2257 NW Minneapolis MN 55402 sheadesign.com February 20,2018 RECEIVED CITY OF Emily Goellner GOLDEN VALLEY City of Golden Valley Planning Dept. FEBc�0 2018 7800 Golden Valley Rd. CDD Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Latitude 14 Shea Project No.: 7833.00 Dear Planning Board, Since we submitted our drawings in the middle of January,we were told that there was an error on how our parking calculation was completed,so we have updated the calculation as requested and have resubmitted new floorplans and site plans for review. On behalf of Tarique and Ann Ahmed, new owners of the former Perkins location at 8806 Olson Memorial Hwy,we would like to formally request that you consider approving a variance for the total number of required off-street parking spaces at this location.Ann and Tarique purchased this property to remodel the existing building to a very high caliber. It will still be a full-service restaurant but it will be called Latitude 14.They are intending to serve beer,wine and alcohol here,so as far as we understand,we are going from a Class I (traditional-no liquor)to a Class III(restaurant w/liquor)restaurant according to your Zoning Code. Per the code,if we have a small patio as shown in our submitted site plan and floorplan, we are required to have 94 parking spaces.The current parking lot has 71,and we are willing to move the existing trash enclosure to gain an additional 3 spaces,giving us a total of 74.We are requesting a variance of 20 spaces,which gets us from the required 94 spaces down to what we can fit on our property(74 spaces). We have looked at the current setbacks,and we cannot add additional parking on our site.The side yards are the minimum 10 ft,and we have(2)front yards which have 35 ft setbacks(both of which have existing approved variances from Perkins in place which allowed them to build additional parking within),so our site is maxed out as far as how much we can build.We have also reached out to all of our neighbors to try and make a shared parking agreement deal,and unfortunately none are interested. 7"'Avenue South,which is directly to the north of us does appear to have enough width where street parking could be utilized, but we are told that we can not use any spaces on that street to count towards our required off street parking calculation.The main issue here is that Perkins was a Class I restaurant,which has a different parking calculation than a Class III restaurant,and because we are hoping to get a liquor license,we no longer have enough parking spaces on this site.Therefore,we are coming to you for help so we can remodel this property and run it the way the owners intended when they purchased it. Below includes several points that we would like to have you consider in your review of this variance. 1. The City of Golden Valley Zoning Code does not give clear guidelines with regards to parking requirements for restaurant patios. In addition,the city does not have enough restaurants with patios to be able to measure the true need for number of parking spaces for seasonal patios. a. Shea designs a lot of restaurants,and in our experience, in the summer,guests sit outside, and in the winter,guests sit inside.Therefore, patios should not be included in parking calculations because it is an either or scenario, not both. Even the Met Council only counts patio seating as 1/4 of a full indoor seat because it is seasonal and they most likely are in agreement with the above reasoning. b. Other neighboring city parking requirements: i. The City of Minnetonka does not require any additional parking for restaurant patios, you count the interior squarefootage and they disregard the exterior. (1 space per 50 sf of gross floor area or 1 space per 2 seats whichever is greater, but they don't count patios) RA7800-789917833.00 LAT 14-NEW RESTAURANT CONCEPTIPLOTS\01-19-18 Planning and liquor license plans\02-19-18 ALTERNATE OPTIONSUetter to planning board 02-20- 18.docx ii. The City of Saint Louis Park does not require any additional parking if a patio is less than 500 sf. (which is the size of patio that we would hope to build and that is shown on our site and floorplans for your review)(1 space per each 60 sf of floor area, and parking will be required at the same rate as the principle use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 sf or 10%of the gross building area, whichever is less. but if the patio is less than 500 sf, it is not counted) iii. The City of Edina requires parking spaces equal in number to 1/3 of the maximum seating capacity, plus 1 space for each employee on the major shift. If we were to go by this calculation, even if we included the patio,that would be only 63 spaces required. 2. The City of Golden Valley's parking calculation is 1 per 60 sf of gross floorplan area and the bar area is separated off as 1 per 25sf. Here at Latitude 14,the bar area requires 11 spaces according to the calculation, but we only have 10 bar seats. This means there is more than 1 parking space per chair at the bar.We do not feel that this is realistic. Latitude 14 is not a bar, it is a restaurant.At the owner's current restaurant location in Brooklyn Park,guests sit at the bar and have a drink before dinner or sit and eat their dinner there.We are not expecting 2-3 people deep standing around the bar like what we think this portion of the code is trying to guard against.The intention of the bar in this restaurant is for guests to be able to make alcoholic beverages for guests to be able to have with their meal at the table. 3. Our indoor seat count is 108. Perkins seat count for the same gross sf was 164.And yet,the parking calculation says that because we will be serving alcohol,we are short parking spaces even with 35%less seats. a. If we average 3 people per car,we would need a total of 36 spaces. b. If we average 2 people per car,we would need a total of 54 spaces(even if we add 15 spaces for each employee to drive separately during the busiest time of day,we only would need 69 spaces). c. With our modified site plan,we show 74 spaces,which we believe is sufficient to accommodate all guests,employees and seasonal patio seating. Some families of 4 will drive together,some tables of 4 will all drive separately.We believe a count of 1 space per 2 guests is reasonable,plus 15 spaces for employees, and not counting the patio because it is seasonal-that would give us 69 required spaces and our 74 spaces would be enough. What will we do if there is not enough parking and we have a very busy night?We believe that we should have sufficient parking for all of our guests and employees based on the reasoning above, based on our occupant load/number of seats and based on the owners experience at their other restaurant.7t'Avenue street parking could be our overflow parking if ever needed. At Lemon Grass,which is the owner's other restaurant location in Brooklyn Park,they share 69 parking spaces with a 11,000 sf grocery store and there is sufficient parking for all of their guests on a daily basis. On some Friday and Saturday nights during dinner service when they are very busy,guests park on the street for short periods of time until the grocery store closes at 7pm.After 7pm when the grocery store is closed, Lemon Grass has never had any problems not having enough parking spaces. Lemon Grass has a total seat count of 105 including 10 bar seats,so it would be very similar to what we will have here at Latitude 14 but we have over 69 spaces just to ourselves at all times. Is Perkins using all of the parking that they have and are there ever any parking shortages?Not that we have ever seen. The owners and I have been there several times and we have never seen the Perkins lot full,so there appears to be plenty of parking within the 71 spaces that they currently have to serve their 164 seat restaurant. We look forward to discussing any comments or concerns you may have.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Erica Freeman, Project Architect Shea, Inc. R:M00-7899\7833.00 LAT 14-NEW RESTAURANT CONCEPT\PLOTS\01-19-18 Planning and liquor license plans102-19-18 ALTERNATE OPTIONSVetter to planning board 02-20- 18.docx city of -'' goldc' nF .III y All Department valley, Ph sisal Development De Y P P 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: February 26, 2018 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Conditional Use Permit (CUP-160) to Allow a Class III Restaurant at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway— Latitude 14, Inc., Applicant Proposed Use Latitude 14, Inc., represented by Ann &Tarique Ahmed, are proposing a new restaurant at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway. They have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a Class III Restaurant. A Class III Restaurant is defined as "any type of night club, tavern, restaurant or other facility providing entertainment, food and/or beverage that provides sit-down service but may also provide standup bar service and standup tables within the premises." This would replace the existing Perkins Restaurant, which is considered a Class I Restaurant. A Class I Restaurant is defined as "any traditional type restaurant where food is served to a customer and consumed while seated at a counter or table, including cafeterias where food is selected by a customer while going through a service line and taken to a table for consumption." Class I Restaurants are permitted in the Commercial Zoning District, so a CUP was not required for Perkins. Location This property is zoned Commercial and guided for Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. It is surrounded by Commercial zoned properties to the east and west. Properties to the north are zoned for Light Industrial use. The lot is 48,654 square feet in size. The applicants intend on utilizing the existing building, which is 4,713 square feet in size. They are planning to add a 500 square foot outdoor patio space to the west side of the building. This will require the closure of the existing fire lane. The Deputy Fire Chief has provided a memo recommending approval of this change. Hours of Operation The proposed hours of operation for the Latitude 14 restaurant are 11 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and 11 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday. This is standard for restaurants in the City. Perkins Restaurant is open 6 am to 12 am, 7 days a week. Employees & Customers The applicant expects to employ 40 people at this site. They estimate an average of 350 visitors per day. Parking The site currently has a parking lot containing 71 spaces, but code requires 94 spaces for this proposal. Based on the proposed layout, the applicant would need: 4,438 sq. ft. dining room space @ 1 space per 60 sq. ft. 74 500 sq. ft patio dining space @ 1 space per 60 sq. ft. 9 272 sq. ft. bar area @ 1 space per 25 sq. ft. 11 94 spaces required 71 spaces existing 74 spaces proposed The existing parking lot has 71 spaces. The Perkins restaurant received variances in the early 1990s to build the parking lot into the front setbacks on the north and south sides of the property. The applicant is proposing to remove the flag pole in the parking lot make room for an additional handicapped-accessible space. They are also planning on moving the trash enclosure to make room for 3 additional spaces, bringing the proposed parking count to 74 spaces. This requires a variance to the minimum parking requirement. In the attached letter dated February 20, 2018, the applicant provides an explanation for this parking proposal. The plans that they originally submitted on January 25, 2018, included a much larger patio, larger bar area, more seating, and the removal of 11 parking spaces on the south side of the building. The applicant inquired with Red Lobster at 8900 Golden Valley Road and TruStone Financial at 605 Boone Avenue, but these property owners were not interested in entering into a shared parking agreement. Therefore, the applicant has decided to apply for a variance to the City Code, which will be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 27, 2018. The applicant is requesting a variance of 20 parking spaces off the required 94 spaces to a total of 74 spaces. Staff has evaluated the parking plan and agrees that there is validity in several points of the applicant's assessment. The assessment is provided in the attached letter dated February 20, 2018. The points from the letter include: • Outdoor seating will be used for approximately 4 months out of the year. The applicant expects that it will be rare that the entire restaurant (indoor and outdoor seating) is fully occupied at any given time. The Metropolitan Council calculates sewer and water access charges (SAC and WAC) for outdoor patios at a lower ratio than regular indoor seating, which provides some precedence for the City. • The City of St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and Edina do not count outdoor patio seating in the parking calculation, so the applicant is requesting that Golden Valley consider a similar exception. It is true that the City has very few restaurants with outdoor patios, all of which were approved in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and variances did not need to be considered. • It is very difficult to meet the parking requirement while revitalizing this existing restaurant into a new restaurant with a liquor license. The applicant notes that this is because the bar area of the restaurant requires a higher parking ratio, the existing restaurant does not currently include an outdoor patio, and there is not any space to expand the parking lot. • The existing seat count at Perkins Restaurant is 164. With 71 parking spaces, the City has not received any complaints of parking shortages. The proposed seat count for the new restaurant is 144 including the outdoor seating. Staff has concluded that 1 parking space for every 1.94 seats in the restaurant will be sufficient. Planning staff intends on reviewing all off-street parking requirements in 2019, including a methodology for calculating outdoor seating, as an implementation step to the Comprehensive Plan update process. A reassessment of these regulations has not be completed in many years. Before recommending approval of this plan, staff is interested in understanding the Planning Commission's assessment of the parking plan and variance request. Bicycle Parking The City Code requires that this property contain 5 bicycle parking spaces, which is 5% of the required 94 car parking spaces. The applicant has included 10 bicycle parking spaces on the plan. Engineering Staff Review Engineering staff has reviewed the proposal and there are no outstanding issues or corrections that must be addressed. Staff has provided the applicant with notes on the various permits that must be obtained as well as other general notes on the development process, which are detailed in an attached email. Neighborhood Mailing A mailing was sent to property owners within 500 feet of this site by the applicant on February 2, 2018. The City received questions from TruStone Financial Federal Credit Union (605 Boone Avenue) about signage and landscaping. The applicant has addressed their questions and staff is not aware of any further concerns from neighboring property owners at this time. Liquor License As a proposed Class III Restaurant serving alcohol, the applicant must apply for a Liquor License. That process remains separate from the CUP approval process. The Liquor License will also address hours of operation, noise violations, type of alcohol served, and the required food-to liquor-sales ratio. Liquor License applications are reviewed and approved by the City Council and administered by the City Clerk. Snow Removal Staff has instructed the applicant to include a plan for the removal or storage of snow on the property prior to the issuance of the building permit. Evaluation The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the following factors: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Based on the success of other restaurants in the community, there is evidence that the proposed Class III Restaurant use is appropriate. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Class III Restaurants are consistent with the Retail/Service designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its own estimated value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the proposed restaurant are minimal. The current restaurant generate a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting conversion from a Class I Restaurant to a Class III Restaurant. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of employees will be limited based on the size of the building. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed uses will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. The outdoor patio dining space is relatively small and is immediately adjacent to other businesses that generate similar 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: With the interior and exterior remodeling, staff anticipates an improvement in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the Golden Valley City Code. 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff finds that the parking plan submitted on February 20, 2018 will be sufficient for the proposed restaurant, but a variance to the City Code must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for this Conditional Use Permit approval to be valid. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of CUP 160 only if a variance for 20 parking spaces is received. If additional interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space is added in the future, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to April 9, 2018 for Conditional Use Permit 160 allowing a Class III Restaurant at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway. This allows adequate time for the Board of Zoning Appeals for review the variance application at their next meeting on March 27, 2018. If approval is recommended by the Planning Commission, staff recommends that the approval of the Conditional Use Permit be subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by Shea Design on February 20, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. A variance of 20 spaces off the required 94 spaces to a total of 74 spaces must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed to be significant by the City Manager or his/her designee, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the days or hours of operation or the use of a shared parking agreement with adjacent property owner(s) in order to address parking concerns. 3. A Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City in order to expand interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space in the future. 4. Hours of operation for the restaurant are limited to 11 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and 11 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise further limited by an approved City Liquor License. 5. 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 dated January 23, 2018 (2 pages) Plans submitted by Shea Design on January 25, 2018 (2 pages) Letter from Applicant dated February 20, 2018 (2 pages) Plans submitted by Shea Design on February 20, 2018 (2 pages) Memo from Ted Massicotte, Fire Department, dated February 22, 2018 (1 page) Email from Eric Eckman, Engineering Division, dated February 21, 2018 (1 page) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 2 J nson opened the public hearing. eeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Joh closed the public hearing. 00 Blum said the osal seems reaso able and meets the quirements. Segelbaum agreed that the pro meets the ht condition proval. MOVED by Blum, seconded by and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Minor S n (lot consolidation) at 700 Meadow Lane North subject to the following con ' ' s: 1. The City Engi s memorandu , dated Februa 2018, shall become part of this approval 2. The Attorney will determine ' a title review is necessary p approval of the Final P required, a park dedication fee hall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — 8806 Olson Memorial Highway — Class III Restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District Applicant: Latitude 14 Inc. (Ann & Tarique Ahmed) Address: 8806 Olson Memorial Highway Purpose: To allow a Class III restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District Goellner stated that the property at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway is guided and zoned Commercial. She explained that the existing Perkins restaurant is a Class I restaurant that doesn't serve liquor and therefore did not require a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed new restaurant will be a Class III restaurant that does serve liquor and requires a Conditional Use Permit. Goellner referred to an aerial photo of the site and discussed the existing site conditions which includes: two entrances on 7 1 Avenue, a 164-seat, 4,713 square foot restaurant, and 71 parking spaces. She stated that the applicant is proposing to use the existing building with the addition of a 500 square foot patio on the west side of the building, 74 parking spaces, and will have 144 seats. Goellner discussed the parking and reiterated that there are currently 71 existing parking spaces and 74 proposed parking spaces. She stated that the applicant is required to have 94 parking spaces because of the additional patio and bar areas. She noted that the applicant has considered a number of changes to their plans in order to accommodate additional parking spaces including eliminating 1,500 square feet of patio space, reducing the size of the bar area, and adding 11 existing parking spaces back into the plan, but they want to apply for a variance to allow 20 fewer parking spaces than required. Goellner added that the applicant spoke with neighboring property owners TruStone Financial and Red Lobster but were unable to come to a parking arrangement with either of them. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 3 Goellner explained that the applicant's noted reasons for requesting a parking variance include: there is no room to expand the parking lot without a variance, the outdoor seating will only be used four months of the year, the Met Council counts patios at a lower ratio for sewer and water charges, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and Edina count outdoor patio seating differently, other restaurants in Golden Valley with patios are in PUDs, it is difficult to add a liquor license and reinvest in the building without a variance, and the overall seat count will be reduced from the existing Perkins. Goellner stated that staff is recommending that this application be continued to the April 9, 2018, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant time to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals with their variance request. However, if the Planning Commission wants to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit at this time, staff recommends that a condition of approval be added to state that a variance of 20 parking spaces must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Waldhauser stated that the Planning Commission doesn't typically recommend approval of anything that they know is going to require a variance in the future. Goellner stated that the only reason to move forward is if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the parking count as it stands today. Blum questioned if the variance process should take place before the Planning Commission process. He stated that he doesn't want to recommend approval for this applicant if the Planning Commission isn't willing to do the same thing for all applicants. He said he thinks the Planning Commission should discuss specific parking requirements in order to benefit this and other applications, but he wants the process to be fair to everyone. Goellner reiterated that staff is recommending continuing this item to the April 9 Planning Commission meeting. Waldhauser noted that the existing restaurant received variances when it was originally built and asked what type of variances were granted. Goellner stated that Perkins was granted variances from the parking lot setback requirements along Highway 55 and 7th Avenue, and that the building was conforming and did not require any variances. Segelbaum asked if the patio were not being proposed if that space could be used for parking. Goellner said she isn't sure how usable the space along the west property line would be. Segelbaum asked if parking is allowed on 7th Avenue. Goellner said yes, parking is available on the north side of 7th Avenue until bike lanes are added in the future, but those parking spaces don't count toward the applicant's parking requirement. Segelbaum asked what the City would do if parking was deemed to be a problem on this site. Goellner said the City would work with the applicant regarding adjusting their hours of operation or ask them to pursue a shared parking agreement with neighboring property owners. Segelbaum asked if the City approves the proposal and it turns out that the parking is insufficient if the City can require anything of the applicant. Zimmerman said that the Conditional Use Permit could not be rescinded if the parking is insufficient so the City should be comfortable with what is being proposed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 4 Black asked if there have been problems with parking variances issued in the past. Goellner said that to her knowledge, there haven't been any issues, but that she would do further research. Zimmerman added that parking requirements change over time and that staff has been considering looking at the parking requirements again especially for patios. Blum asked if the applicant has said they are planning to invest less in the project in order to meet the City's requirements. Goellner said yes, the applicant has reduced the patio by 1,500 square feet, thereby reducing their seating count and capacity as well. Blum asked if the applicant is still interested in their original plan if a variance for parking is granted. Goellner said she thinks the applicant would still be interested in their original plans. Johnson asked if it is physically impossible to get 94 parking spaces on this site. Goellner said yes, and explained that any restaurant with a bar area would not be able to meet the parking requirements. Blum asked if this parcel is within one of the City's upcoming proposed area plans that are looking to make the area more walkable. Goellner said yes, this street is being considered as part of a future pedestrian or transit oriented overlay in order to encourage shared parking, buildings closer to the street, more walkable neighborhoods, and shared uses. Blum asked Goellner if she is aware of terms that leave open the possibility for the City to come back and modify Conditional Use Permits to match future plans of public transportation or overlay districts. Goellner stated that any conditions written into a Conditional Use Permit need to be very closely tied to the factors of consideration used when approving a Conditional Use Permit. Waldhauser asked if the City knows TruStone Financial's objection to shared parking. Goellner said she doesn't know, but the applicant could speak to that. Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, stated that when they initially started the project the floor plan was much different because they didn't realize that the parking requirements are based on gross square footage so when they submitted their plans they were told they did the parking calculations wrong. She stated that there is no way they could get 94 parking spaces even if they didn't have a patio. She gave some parking requirement examples from other cities and stated that the area they are proposing for the patio is of no use for parking and is only good for drive aisle space. She added that they are not expecting there to be a problem with the 74 parking spaces they are proposing. Waldhauser asked about TruStone's objection to shared parking. Tarique Ahmed, Applicant, stated that when they initially talked to TruStone they were not interested in shared parking because they feel they don't have enough parking spaces. He stated that the bar area requires 11 parking spaces but the bar only has 10 seats. The restaurant has 108 seats and the patio is seasonal so he believes they will have more than enough parking. Waldhauser asked if the 108 restaurant seats includes the patio space. Ahmed said there are 144 seats total with the patio. Freeman added that they have never seen the existing Perkins parking lot full either. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 5 Blum asked Ahmed if he has spoken to the property owners across the street. Ahmed said there is a brewery proposed for that location so parking there is not an option. He stated that he also talked to Red Lobster but they weren't interested in shared parking either. Blum noted that there is a discrepancy between the plans and the staff report regarding the dumpster enclosure. Freeman stated that they are going to move the dumpster location in order to get three more parking spaces. Johnson asked if the hours of operation are determined by the City. Ahmed said no, they are standard restaurant hours and they won't stay open later for the bar. Angell referred to the proposed patio storage structure and asked if it would be a temporary or a permanent structure. Freeman said she is thinking it will be a temporary storage structure. Johnson opened the public hearing. Wyck Linder, Property Manager, TruStone Financial, said they want to be a good neighbor they just don't feel like they have enough information regarding a shared parking agreement. He asked how many parking spaces the applicant needs and if it would be a perpetual easement or agreement. He reiterated that they want to work with the applicant, they just need more information. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Zimmerman stated that the crux of the problem is that this proposed restaurant serves liquor. The parking requirements are almost double for restaurants that serve liquor. He stated that maybe the parking ratios aren't right for just a restaurant with a bar, but they may make sense for other types of bars. Waldhauser said she is sure that residents want the nicest facility possible and that it makes sense to reconsider some of the City's parking requirements. Segelbaum said he doesn't see a need to table the proposal and make the applicant wait for the Board of Zoning Appeals consideration. He said he feels the Planning Commission can make a recommendation on this proposal with the condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals grants the variance for parking. Blum questioned if the Planning Commission would be comfortable with that process for everyone in a similar situation. Zimmerman said it has been the practice in the past to add a condition relying on the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum said he can see in other situations where it would be important to hear from the Board of Zoning Appeals first, but this proposal is a little more straightforward. Waldhauser said she would like to wait because there seems to be a lot of moving parts with this proposal. She added that the applicant might get more of what they want if they wait which would also give them more time to talk to TruStone. Black stated that if the Planning Commission recommends approval it makes it seem like they are approving a variance and that is not their job. Segelbaum stated he is in favor of recommending approval for a restaurant in this area and he hopes the application moves forward. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 6 Blum questioned if it is not part of the Planning Commission's purview to come up with a condition that helps obtain a benefit of some kind for the City such as water quality. He questioned if the Planning Commission could require something different because they know there are future plans for the area. Zimmerman stated that the City is limited by state statute. He said if a condition of approval solves a problem that is great, but the City can't use conditions to do something further afield, they have to look at the impacts of the proposal. Blum suggested making space for public transportation and not adding more parking spaces in a place that provides alcohol. Segelbaum said he doesn't think this is the place to discuss the larger issues and it comes down to if the Planning Commission thinks the number of parking spaces are sufficient. Johnson questioned what would happen if the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for 19 fewer parking spaces instead of 20. Segelbaum said the application would then come back to the Planning Commission. Waldhauser questioned if the applicant wants to wait. Goellner said the applicant would like to move as quickly as possible. Waldhauser noted that there are relatively few modifications needed and questioned if the patio could be considered in a second phase. Johnson said this is the plan they were presented with and if the Planning Commission votes on it now, it goes forward with 20 fewer parking spaces. Goellner said it would be helpful if the Planning Commission said what they are comfortable with and if they want a patio on the south side of the building or not. Johnson said this an opportunity to do a novel thing and stated that this proposal is a restaurant that is not focused on the bar. Waldhauser stated that if the proposal is tabled the City isn't locked into anything. Black asked when the City Council will hear this proposal. Goellner stated that if the item is tabled it would go to the May 1 City Council meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval it would go to the April 17 City Council meeting. Angell said he'd be comfortable recommending approval of the proposal with the condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a parking variance. He added that the regional trends show the number of required parking spaces going down. Segelbaum agreed and stated that the applicant wants to have sufficient parking or their business won't be successful. Waldhauser stated that if the surrounding area can absorb the parking on the street and this area is industrial it really isn't hurting anybody. Johnson asked the Commissioners if they had any objections to tabling the proposal and moving it on to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum said he'd like to vote on the proposal now, Brookins said he would feel comfortable voting on it now as well. Zimmerman stated that there would need to either be a motion to vote on the proposal or to table it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 7 Johnson asked the applicant if they would like to move forward or wait. Ann Ahmed, Applicant stated there are future pedestrian plans for this area and that they are proposing a bike rack and that people will want to run and walk in the area and they are prepared for that. She said she would like to move forward with their proposal and not table it. Freeman added that they are required to provide five bicycle parking spaces but they are proposing 10. She said they would also like to know if they can have the larger patio on the south side of the building, if they can lose 11 parking spaces, and what kind of agreement they would have to have with TruStone. Goellner stated that if the larger patio is put back in the plans the variance request will be really big. Zimmerman stated that if the patio was done as a second phase that may give the applicant time to work on getting a shared parking agreement. Segelbaum said it seems that the applicant wants to move forward and how the parking agreement looks is up to them. Blum said the timeframe they are considering is two weeks. He said he wants to see development happen but he wants the best benefit to the City. MOVED by Blum, seconded Waldhauser and motion failed five to one to table this proposal. Commissioner Blum voted yes. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried five to one to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #160 subject to the following findings and conditions. Commissioner Blum voted no. Findings: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Based on the success of other restaurants in the community, there is evidence that the proposed Class III Restaurant use is appropriate. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Class III Restaurants are consistent with the Retail/Service designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its own estimated value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the proposed restaurant are minimal. The current restaurant generates a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting conversion from a Class I Restaurant to a Class III Restaurant. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of employees will be limited based on the size of the building. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed uses will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. The outdoor patio dining space is relatively small and is immediately adjacent to other businesses that generate similar noise levels. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2018 Page 8 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: With the interior and exterior remodeling, staff anticipates an improvement in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the Golden Valley City Code. 10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff finds that the parking plan submitted on February 20, 2018, will be sufficient for the proposed restaurant, but a variance to the City Code must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for this Conditional Use Permit approval to be valid. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of CUP 160 only if a variance for 20 parking spaces is received. If additional interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space is added in the future, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. Conditions- 1. onditions:1. The plans submitted by Shea Design on February 20, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. A variance of 20 spaces off the required 94 spaces for a total of 74 spaces must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed to be significant by the City Manager or his/her designee, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the days or hours of operation or the use of a shared parking agreement with adjacent property owner(s) in order to address parking concerns. 3. A Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City in order to expand interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space in the future. 4. Hours of operation for the restaurant are limited to 11 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and 11 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise further limited by an approved City Liquor License. 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 4. eports on Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City cil, Board of Z ing Appeals and other Meetings No reports we iven. 5. Other Busines • Council Liaison Schmidgal rted that the ity is g to have pilot program of Lime Bikes and stated that t ill be a meeting out it on ednesday night. z }} �o = iJJ ep zy a 'J W ~ 00 ^rte cc M ,9` u J Q uj C%4 = 05 =�J W UA Lu cn z Z W N m E Q a U w cc C) « I WJZ U U W C70 Z l� WLAJ ,O C NI NI 8 OD O U- En-LL e 0 d p m in 2 coo CCDLU C 4 3 C7 Z m N N '3AV HiJ OL VN0 z � Qo w -j � � mama- o xU ) ww 00 I X " ui o T LUWQ I C, LU LU ° CLa— IctIr w U) U) r- . . 0 ZU) Q � wCrw Q cr < nQ < z Lij LU Ir 0 C/) CD U~n U) � z0LUw QLO CLQ OxoC LU a_ w D- cc Un QI I w cn U cn w a- �\ r- U) U) Iz U- „ m T w Cl) C) II II Q0 Lo �.✓ I T— Lij � LCL Un CO N z or QU) QU- U- (DowU) Un CP I �- W -j O Un o o� cr O Q Z w O LL Ir w ® L O Q O � cr Q.. a-. l U z a m wo �, I o I Cf) _ D ' ^ T ° z U) O Q C,) (�o � U LU 0CY) w . . J Q Q o0Q ccN1GH�N P� 55 a- � z ? } Z W cD ~ — 1 J J w F— ro CD O J O 2 v O u Y G CV OJ � N $ O w Wiz o > Zo w C - 2 1 9 =Z- a c)�1 w w o o N W o a�a� c W yj5 CD> ¢ ►L V O m Q V O CI N� y a Lu ax �M . LL 2- N � �o a `s' LU F- 12 o _ Z z � WLL 041 Z Q C4 Z U cr w rz F U W � � ac7� , (0 Ljj M) 1 (n TCO a VOJLL, Q w 0 ¢w� f - I (� LLJ Z — - xl Z LL \ O \`\ ` \` \ ` \ \ `,`\ `,`\ \ , \ \` `\ w F- LL, `` r Z-- Im J I LU 15 DL \ T � o o CIQ = a co U- co 0 N Q d.n®�-z�-manr��ew..ammms ororoawuawixwn.sr..n.��nmavzws�msnu ma��czs�ocwz,uw Cl of r l d�:' 11 valley Fire Department 763-593-8057/ 763-593-8098 (fax) Date: February 22, 2018 To: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer From: Ted Massicotte, Deputy Fire Chief Subject: CUP 160, Latitude 14 restaurant proposal, 8806 Olson Memorial Highway The updated site plans have been reviewed by the Fire Department and are acceptable as proposed. The elimination of the fire access road on the west side of the building is acceptable due to the building being fully sprinkled. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 763-593-8080. Ted Massicotte Deputy Fire Chief— City of Golden Valley Subject: RE: Latitude 14 CUP Plans From: Eckman, Eric To:Goellner, Emily<EGoellner@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Massicotte,Ted <TMassicotte@goldenvalleymn.gov> Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:46 AM Emily, Engineering staff has reviewed the CUP application and plans and has the following comments: 1. 1/1 Deposit Agreement has been executed.This inspection and any repairs must be completed before occupancy of building. Records show the possibility of two sewer service stubs that could serve the property—one from 7th Ave and one from Olson Memorial. Staff will work with applicant to determine which is active and what the requirements might be. 2. A sanitary sewer grease collection device may be required according to the city's fats, oils, and grease code and state plumbing code. 3. The site plan shows parking spaces being increased from 71 to 74 and seating decreasing from 164 to 144. Bike parking is proposed at 10 spaces.These changes are acceptable. Please note that on-street parking is only allowed on the north side of 7t'Ave at present, and that on-street bike lanes are planned for 7th Avenue in the future. 4. The building appears to be outside of the FEMA, BCWMC, and local floodplain near the intersection of Boone and Golden Valley Road.A small portion of the property in the northeast corner appears to be in the floodplain. According to city code no fill shall be placed in the floodplain area. 5. The existing parking lot appears to drain toward the curb cut and swale in the northeast corner of the lot, then into Trustone Financials storm sewer system. If parking lot work or substantial underground utility work is proposed, modifications must be made to improve drainage and redirect stormwater runoff away from the abutting property and into the City's storm system under 7th Avenue. If more than one-half acre of impervious surface is disturbed or reconstructed, permanent stormwater best management practices for water quality and rate control will be required as specified in city code. If parking lot modifications are proposed,they must meet city code to the extent feasible. 6. The City has plans to construct public improvements in this corridor(including sidewalk, pedestrian, and lighting improvements along 7th Avenue adjacent to this property) in summer of 2018. Special assessments have been levied for this project.Staff recommends that any infrastructure improvements proposed as part of this CUP be completed before the City's project begins.Questions about the City's project or the coordination of construction activities can be directed to Engineering staff at 763-593-8030. 7. Civil plans must be completed and submitted for review by Engineering staff for any proposed stormwater, grading, and utility work. Domestic water service appears to connect to the main within Olson Memorial Highway. 8. The following permits may be required by Engineering, depending on the scope of work: a. Stormwater Management-$100 plus financial security b. Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration Compliance-$750 per building for inspection c. Right-of-Way Management-$100-200 per excavation/obstruction plus$5,000 license and permit bond d. Sewer permit-$100+for any sewer work within the property e. Met Council SAC fees, and City fees for SAC and WAC as determined by Met Council SAC units f. Other permits as may be required by other departments and governmental entities 9. A Tree and Landscape Permit is not required unless the impervious area footprint increases by 10%. In general, the plan appears to show a reduction in impervious surface area and an increase in landscaping plant materials. Please feel free to pass these comments along to the applicant. Eric Eric Eckman I Development and Assets Coordinator I City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 1 763-593-8084(direct) 1 763-593-3988(Fax) 1 763-593-3968(TTY) I Y eeckman@Roldenvalleymn.Rov . Id' e, �'� ���� �"� �� �J� �=� �^� �� �J0 0�� � � 0���� � n��' ���� �~ ���� �'� �� ��. ��� ��� �J0 ����go valLe vPhysical eveu pment Department � 763'503-8095/763'693'8109 (fau) Date: March 37, 3U1Q To: Golden Valley Board ofZoning Appeals From: Erni|yGoe/|ner, Associate P|anner/GrantVVriter Subject: 8805 Olson Memorial Highway Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, Applicant Introduction Erica Freeman of Shea Architects, on behalf of the property owner at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway, is seeking a variance from the City Code as part of their plan to open a new restaurant in place of the existing Perkins Restaurant. The applicant is seeking the following variance from City Code: Variance Request ' City Code Requirement � Section 11.7[\ Off-Street Parking and Loading � ' Regu|ations, Subd. 3, K4ininournNunnberof Theapp|\cantisrequestin� avarianceof � ZOparking spaces off the required 94 Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Requirenoentfor � | | Class ||| Restaurants' 1 space per � spa�esforatota| of74parkin� spaces� � � � floor area plus lspace per 35square feet ofbar | � � | area. Background * The lot is4Q,6S4square feet and zoned for Commercial use. m The applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit in order to operate a Class III Restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District. A Class III Restaurant is defined in City Code as "any type of night dub' tavern, restaurant orother facility providing entertainment, food and/or beverage that provides sit-down service but may also provide standup bar service and standup tables within the premises." Perkins Restaurant is considered a Class | Restaurant in the Zoning Code. Parking requirements are different for each restaurant class. * The applicant would like to utilize the existing building to operate a restaurant with a liquor license. The building is 4,713 square feet in size. The lot is 48,654 square feet in size. w They are planning to add a 500 square foot outdoor patio space to the west side of the building. The plan also includes 272 square foot bar area within the interior of the restaurant. These two components of the plan require higher minimum parking requirements than the rest of the building. • There are 71 parking spaces on the existing lot. • The applicant intends on moving the trash enclosure in order to make room for 3 additional parking spaces on the site, totaling 74 proposed parking spaces. • The Code requires that the new restaurant have 1 parking space for every 60 square feet of floor area plus an additional 1 parking space for every 25 square feet of bar area (as a Class III Restaurant serving liquor). This requires 94 parking spaces with the outdoor patio and 85 spaces without the outdoor patio. It requires 79 spaces without the bar area or outdoor patio. • The Code requires that the existing Perkins Restaurant have 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area (as a Class I Restaurant). This requires at least 48 parking spaces on site. • Since the existing site has 71 parking spaces, a Class III Restaurant cannot operate in this building without a variance of at least 8 spaces. With the 3 additional spaces added by moving the trash enclosure, this would still require a variance of 5 spaces. • The applicant notes that it is very difficult if not impossible to meet the parking requirement while revitalizing this existing restaurant into a new restaurant with a liquor license because the bar area of the restaurant requires a higher parking ratio, the existing restaurant does not currently include an outdoor patio, and there is not any space to expand the parking lot. • The existing seat count at Perkins Restaurant is 164. The proposed seat count for the new restaurant is 144 including the outdoor seating. • The City has not received any complaints of parking shortages at the Perkins Restaurant in the past. • The applicant notes that some surrounding municipalities count outdoor patio seating differently than regular indoor seating for minimum parking requirements. • Planning staff intends on reviewing all off-street parking requirements in 2019, including a methodology for calculating outdoor seating, as an implementation step to the Comprehensive Plan update process. • This area has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area for future growth and change due to its proximity to new development to the west and commerce in the town center to the east. • The area has also been identified for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. A sidewalk will be constructed on this property (along 7th Avenue) in 2018 and on-street bicycle lanes will be constructed on 7th Avenue in the future. • Variances were received for this property in the 1970s to build the parking lot within the front yard setbacks along 7th Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway. Analysis In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner The utilization of this existing restaurant building for a Class III Restaurant constitutes a reasonable use of the property. 2. The landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner Staff finds that the City parking requirement for Class III Restaurants (particularly concerning outdoor patios and bar areas) in conjunction with site conditions constitute a practical difficulty that is unique to the property and not caused by the landowner. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality The proposal would not alter the essential character of the locality since the existing building is being utilized for another restaurant use. This area is comprised of mostly commercial properties in an area currently under transition to a more walkable and bikeable area of the city. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant's needs without requiring a variance. Staff worked with the applicant to explore ways to provide proof of parking, but there is not sufficient green space on the lot for this option. The applicant could open a Class I Restaurant (no liquor license), but this is not a practical option for their business plan. The plans that the applicant originally submitted to the City included a much larger patio, larger bar area, more seating, and the removal of 11 parking spaces on the south side of the building. The applicant inquired with Red Lobster at 8900 Golden Valley Road and TruStone Financial Credit Union at 605 Boone Avenue, but these property owners were not interested in entering into a shared parking agreement at this time. Lastly, staff assesses whether the applicant has requested the smallest variance necessary to meet their needs. The applicant could operate as a Class III Restaurant in this location without a bar area or outdoor patio, but this would still require a variance of 8 spaces even if the bar area and patio were removed from the plans. However, the applicant intends on moving the trash enclosure in order to make room for 3 additional spaces. With this improvement, a variance of 5 spaces would still be necessary. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Conditional Use Permit for this proposal on February 26, 2018. The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the proposal. That approval is conditioned upon the BZA's decision about the parking variance. If the parking variance is approved by the BZA, the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit will occur with City Council on April 17, 2018. If a variance is not approved by the BZA, the applicant will be asked to return to Planning Commission in April with an alternative proposal. Recommendation • Staff recommends approval for a variance of 20 parking spaces off the required 94 spaces to a total of 74 parking spaces. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 A regular meeting of the Golden Vall Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, rr.h 27, 2018, at City Hall, 7800 G Iden Valley Road, Golden Valley innesota. Chair Peric he meeting to order at pm. Those present were rs Max w I, Orenstei ch and Planning Commission Representatives Blum and au r. A esent were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Admini ssistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approva inutes— Janu 23, 2018, Regular MOV Perich, seconded by Or stein and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the es as submitted. Waldhauser a Blum abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 8806 Olson Memorial Highway Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Subdivision 3, Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces for Class III Restaurants • 20 parking spaces off the required 94 parking spaces for a total of 74 parking spaces Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new restaurant. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's proposal to replace the existing Perkins restaurant with a new restaurant. She noted that the existing building will be used however, Perkins was considered at Class I restaurant which means they did not have a liquor license and the proposed new restaurant will be a Class III restaurant with a liquor license. She added that the proposed new restaurant will also have a bar area and a patio on the west corner of the building which adds to the amount of required parking. Goellner discussed the parking requirements and explained that the proposed new restaurant is required to have 94 parking spaces and that they are proposing to have 74 parking spaces. Maxwell asked about the rationale behind requiring more parking with the addition of a liquor license. Goellner stated that generally Class III restaurants include a bar where people might come individually so more parking spaces would likely be needed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 2 Goellner noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include the following: there is no room to expand the parking lot, the outdoor seating is only used four months of the year, other communities count outdoor patio seating differently, operating a Class III restaurant without a patio or bar would still require a variance of five parking spaces, the City Code requires about twice as much parking for a restaurant serving liquor, and they are proposing to reduce the overall seat count from the existing Perkins. Blum stated that the building already exists and operates as a business. He added that the applicants are proposing to add the new patio and bar area and that both of these things are circumstances being created by the applicant. Goellner agreed and reiterated that in order to have any type of Class III restaurant at this property, a variance of five parking spaces would be needed. Orenstein asked if there is any on-street parking available. Goellner said there is some on-street parking available now, but that sidewalk and bike lanes are planned on 7th Avenue in the near future. She added that on-street parking doesn't count toward the required number of off-street parking spaces. Orenstein asked where overflow parking would go. Goellner said it would most likely go to neighboring properties. Waldhauser added that a brewery is proposed for the property across the street and that they will probably need all of the available parking for their business. Goellner stated that the applicant has contacted TruStone Financial and Red Lobster about shared parking, but it hasn't worked out. She stated that the applicant did adjust their plans to reduce the parking demand by eliminating 1,500 square feet of patio space, reducing the size of the bar area, and adding 11 existing parking spaces back into their plans. The applicant is also including bicycle racks in their plans. Blum asked if the proposed patio area could be used for parking instead. Goellner said no, parking spaces would not work in that area. Blum asked about the dimensions of the patio. Goellner said it is approximately 500 square feet. Blum asked about the dimensions of an average parking space. Goellner said an average parking space is 9 feet in width and 18.5 feet in depth. Blum asked if the dumpster will be located in the northwest corner. Goellner said yes. Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, representing the applicants, stated that they are currently remodeling the restaurant to be a Thai restaurant and it has been difficult changing the use. She stated that the patio is 18 ft. x 36 ft. and that a sidewalk wraps around the building so the west side of the building is not wide enough to add parking spaces and a drive aisle. She stated that the applicants also own a restaurant in Brooklyn Park that shares parking with a grocery store and has adequate parking so they don't think the number of spaces in this proposal will be an issue. She said they know a brewery is going in across the street but they have hundreds of parking spaces and they are still talking with TruStone Financial about shared parking. She stated that this proposal has quite a few less seats than Perkins and they don't think the bar calculations make sense for this use because they won't have a bar that will be three people deep, it will just be a bar to serve the restaurant. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 3 Maxwell asked Freeman if the bar area could be made smaller. Freeman stated that it is a relatively small bar with 10 seats. If it were too much smaller there wouldn't be adequate space for the things needed in a bar. Ann Ahmed, Applicant, stated that it doesn't make sense that the bar only seats 10, but that 11 parking spaces are required. Freeman noted that the patio is only used three or four months out of the year, but the parking is counted the same as the interior space. Perich opened the public hearing. Rob Smolund, Open to Business, stated that there is a bike trail near this property and that he will bike to eat at this restaurant. He stated that he supports this proposal and that the parking requirements should be lowered to encourage people to find alternate ways to get to places. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Waldhauser stated that there is logic to the arguments for less parking. She stated the City doesn't want a lot of excess parking, but right now the Zoning Code doesn't support that. She said she thinks the proposed 74 parking spaces is probably adequate because the bar is basically used by people waiting for tables so the bar shouldn't add a lot of parking demand. She said that there will be some on-street parking available and that the proposed patio is too small to add big crowds. She said it is a little more problematic when they look at the criteria used to grant variances because the circumstances are being created by the landowner but there is logic to what is being requested and it is hard to stay in business without a bar. Perich stated that the parking lot is too small and the City's parking requirements are too large. He noted that the patio will only be used when the weather is nice, they've exhausted their options, and they are asking for a reasonable option. Orenstein agreed and said he thinks this is a reasonable request. Maxwell also agreed and said the applicant has tried to ameliorate their issues and the property has been a restaurant in the past so he is in favor of the requested variance. Blum said many people are excited to see new business in Golden Valley but he is struggling with the matter of equity and fairness. He said he thinks the BZA is more restricted in how they interpret things rather than pushing an outcome and it is ok for the BZA to be objectively following the rules and that there is an appeals process. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a variance for 20 parking spaces off the required 94 parking spaces for a total of 74 parking spaces to allow for the construction of a new restaurant. Commissioner Blum abstained. ORDINANCE NO. 632, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 160 8806 Olson Memorial Highway Latitude 14, Inc., 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 11.30, by approving a Conditional Use Permit for a certain tract of land at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway, thereby allowing a Class III Restaurant in the Commercial 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. Based on the success of other restaurants in the community, there is evidence that the proposed Class III Restaurant use is appropriate. 2. Class III Restaurants are consistent with the Retail/Service designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its own estimated value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. The number of trips generated by the proposed restaurant are minimal. The current restaurant generate a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting conversion from a Class I Restaurant to a Class III Restaurant. 5. The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of employees will be limited based on the size of the building. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed uses will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. The outdoor patio dining space is relatively small and is immediately adjacent to other businesses that generate similar 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. With the interior and exterior remodeling, staff anticipates an improvement in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the Golden Valley City Code. 10. Staff finds that the parking plan submitted on February 20, 2018 will be sufficient for the proposed restaurant, but a variance to the City Code must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for this Conditional Use Permit approval to be valid. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of CUP 160 only if a variance for 20 parking spaces is received. If additional interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space is added in Ordinance No. 632 -2- April 17, 2018 the future, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. 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 Shea Design on February 20, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. A variance of 20 spaces off the required 94 spaces to a total of 74 spaces must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed to be significant by the City Manager or his/her designee, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the days or hours of operation or the use of a shared parking agreement with adjacent property owner(s) in order to address parking concerns. 3. A Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City in order to expand interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space in the future. 4. Hours of operation for the restaurant are limited to 11 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and 11 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise further limited by an approved City Liquor License. 5. 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: The East 150 feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Golden Valley Industrial Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota 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 17th day of April, 2018. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 120 day deadline: May 26, 2018 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Marie Estates - 7040 Glenwood Avenue Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary Dennis Mlachnik, represented by Peter Knaeble, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue into three lots. There is one existing single-family home on this lot, which would remain, and two new lots are proposed to be created. In order to allow the existing home to remain, the applicant is requesting two variances. The property is guided for Low Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Single Family Residential (R-1). It sits southeast of the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway, but is adjacent to the frontage road that parallels the highway on its south side. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 13 and one resident attended. Staff received communication in the form of emails from this resident and two other nearby properties. All three opposed the subdivision. These three emails are included as attachments. Evaluation The layout of the proposed subdivision would create two new lots—one with access onto the frontage road and one that would share access onto Glenwood Avenue via the driveway of the existing home. Hennepin County has expressed safety concerns about this driveway given its location close to the intersection with Olson Memorial Highway, and has requested that if the property is subdivided then vehicular access be relocated to the frontage road to the north. The City’s Engineering staff concurs with these concerns and the proposed solution. Doing so would eliminate the proposed driveway for the third lot, leaving it without access and therefore causing the lot to fail to meet one of the requirements necessary to grant approval. The dimensions of both Lots 1 and 3 would provide sufficient building envelopes for development. Lot 2 would have a building envelope that is narrower than what is required by City Code. The applicant is requesting a variance from the lot width requirements of the Subdivision Code for Lot 2 in order to gain approval of the proposal. The City, through its Planning Commission and City Council, may grant variances from the Subdivision Code if all of the conditions outlined in Section 12.54 of the City Code exist. At its meeting held on March 26, 2018, the Planning Commission evaluated the conditions necessary to approve a variance, determined they were not met, and recommended (5-1) that the variance from the lot width requirement be denied. As a part of the proposal, the applicant would like to preserve the existing house and has drawn the new lot lines to accommodate its current location. In doing so, the new side yard setback of Lot 3 would be less that what is required by the City’s Zoning Code. If the subdivision were to be approved, a variance from the side yard setback would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals or the existing structure would need to be altered to remain outside of the required 15 feet of setback area. The Planning Commission also discussed the concerns regarding access onto Glenwood Avenue. There was consideration of other options for subdivision that might allow a proposal to be approved without the need for a variance and/or without maintaining access onto Glenwood. Based on the evaluation of the requirements for a minor subdivision, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Marie Estates subdivision (6-0). Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated March 26, 2018 (6 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated March 26, 2018 (5 pages) • Memo from the Engineering Division dated March 22, 2018 (5 pages) • Applicant’s Narrative (1 page) • Tree Inventory (1 page) • Emails from residents (3 pages) • Plans submitted January 26, 2018 (8 pages) Recommended Action Motion to deny the requested variance from Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A)(2) of the City Code for Lot 2— 17 feet off of the required 80 feet of minimum lot width to a width of 63 feet—based on the following findings: 1. There are no special circumstances that would create a hardship for the applicant and deprive him of reasonable use of the land. The desire to preserve the existing home—which dictates the reduced lot width—is voluntary and not the result of any conditions affecting the property. The existing home on Lot 3 could be demolished, which would allow lots of conforming width to be approved without the granting of the variance. 2. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the petitioner. If the existing home were to be demolished, the proposed property lines could be adjusted to be consistent with the requirements of the City’s Subdivision Code. Similarly, the applicant could choose not to subdivide and continue to utilize the property in its current configuration without necessitating a variance. 3. The granting of the variance could be injurious to other property in the neighborhood, as it would reduce the size of the building envelope on Lot 2 and could thereby reduce the distance between homes. Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat for Marie Estates, 7040 Glenwood Avenue, based on the following finding: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area and dimension requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular access is not provided from an abutting improved street. Lot 2 does not meet the lot width requirement of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. If driveway access onto Glenwood Avenue were to be relocated, as advocated by Hennepin County and City staff, Lot 1 would fail to have access to the street on which it abuts and would therefore fail to meet the access requirement. Country Club Dr 7245 7Y25 7205 7111 7055 7035 7001 6931 6909 6839 7021 7240 268236809 6745 7220 555 550 545 r•i s?"'f 6701 r '�c 7200 . 540 7140 7028 7030 545 540 537 e` 7215 _ 7120 521 _ 525 530 7031 7201 lk c 6930 7151 7100 7040 7020 501 , Subject Property 66 66 450 6820 6810 6800 683 7 440 7040 7001 6931 6921 7045 6830 435 430 6827 6817 8807 72107202 7031 6860 68506840 425 420 6 7236 7218 7182 7025 6900 `r 6830 6820 415 7156 7146 6895 410 6855 6845 8885 6835 6810 350 6875 340 6920 8825 6945 6815 6910 6900 6805 340 3306838 6929 •40 C/@riw 6820 3C,0 320 6941 °°O,gys 6925 6905 6736 310 6935 300 8716 242 6706 300 240 232 230 225 230 6809 6741 220 221 215 151 245 225 220 Lions Park z � 6701 WSB 200 205f 200 131 > 200 205 66 z 200 c� 150 155 150 125 a 130 145 1 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 egular meeting of the Planning Co ission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Co it Conference Room, 7800 Gold Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monda arch 26, 2018. Chair Baker alled the meeting to order Those present we ning Commis loners Baker , Brookins, Johnson, Segelbaum and Waldha Iso pre nt wer sical Development Director Marc Nevinski, and Planning Manage o rman. Commissioners Angell and Black were absent. 1. Approval of Minut February , 018, Regular Plan ng Commission Mee MOV y Waldhauser, seconded by hnson and motion carried unanimo sly to a ove the February 26, 2018, minute as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 7040 Glenwood Avenue — Marie Estates — SU17-15 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7040 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a map of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the lot at 7040 Glenwood Avenue into three new lots. The existing single family home would remain and two new lots would be created that could accommodate two new single family homes. He stated that in addition to the subdivision request the applicant is requesting two variances; one from the Subdivision Code and one from the Zoning Code. He clarified that the Planning Commission and City Council can consider the Subdivision Code variance, however the Zoning Code variance would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He added that a neighborhood meeting was held on March 13 and that the City received three letters from residents opposed to the proposed subdivision. Zimmerman referred to the proposed site plan and stated that the proposal shows a shared driveway between Lots 1 and 3 with access on Glenwood Avenue and access on the Olson Memorial Highway frontage road for Lot 2. Zimmerman discussed the standards when considering subdivisions and stated that each of the proposed new lots meet the minimum required lot area size of 10,000 square feet. He referred to the width of the proposed new lots and noted that the applicant is asking for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 2 a Subdivision Code variance to allow Lot 3 to be 63 feet wide 70 feet into lot rather than the required 80 feet of width. He added that the applicant is also proposing a 10-foot side yard (east) setback rather than the required 15 feet on Lot 3 in order to keep the existing house. He reiterated that this request would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the property and stated that Hennepin County and the City are recommending removing the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and prefer that all future access be off of the frontage road to the north. He noted that the restriction on the Glenwood access would limit the subdivision to two lots. Zimmerman referred to the requested variance regarding the minimum lot width of Lot 2 and stated that in order to keep the existing home, the applicant would still need this variance even if the subdivision was limited to two lots. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of this proposed subdivision because while there is enough lot area for three lots, access for Lot 1 is not acceptable to the County or the City, there is not enough width for a conforming Lot 2, and the findings necessary for a variance are not met because there is no unusual hardship, and the applicant is not being deprived of reasonable use of the land, the variance requested is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights, and the variance requested could be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood. He added that if the subdivision is approved a condition should be added that requires a variance to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to keep the existing house, or the existing house should be modified to meet the side yard setback requirements. Waldhauser referred to the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and asked if the County's comment about removing the driveway is a request or a requirement. Zimmerman said his understanding is that the County's recommendation is that the driveway be removed, but they don't have the ability to require it. Baker asked if there are consequences in ignoring the County's recommendation. Zimmerman said he doesn't think there would be legal consequences, but it would be an improved public safety situation if the driveway was removed and staff supports it. Segelbaum said there has been City Council discussion regarding the granting of subdivision variances and that it is his understanding that they rarely if ever grant subdivision variances. Zimmerman said he is aware of a subdivision further south on Glenwood where a subdivision variance was granted in order to keep driveways off of Glenwood Avenue and in that case it didn't shrink the building envelopes. He added that in general it is hard to make a case for a subdivision variance when it is a matter of choice in order to subdivide and create the conditions that are calling for a variance. Johnson asked if Glenwood Avenue could be considered a special circumstance or be considered differently than the safety concerns of any other road. Zimmerman explained that the variance request is in regard to the proposed width of Lot 2 and that removing the driveway from Glenwood is a County recommendation, but not a variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 3 Blum asked if the previous subdivision south of this proposal mentioned earlier pre-dates any of the recently adopted Code changes regarding lot width requirements. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked what the distance from the Lot 2 building envelope to the house to the east would be. Zimmerman said the existing house to the east is approximately 15 feet from the side yard property line of Lot 2 and that the proposed house on Lot 2 could be approximately 12.5 feet from the same property line so there could be approximately 27.5 feet between the two homes. Baker referred to the hardship requirements and asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Subdivision Code variance if it would create a hardship in regard to the Zoning Code variance. Zimmerman said it would likely have some influence but the two variances would be viewed separately. Baker questioned why the two lot subdivision option includes a sub-standard lot rather than a standard lot. Zimmerman suggested asking the applicant and stated that the property could be split down the middle in order to avoid access problems and would contain two conforming lots without the need for variances. Baker stated that the property could also be split from east to west if the access on Glenwood Avenue remained the same. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, said he's been involved in 12 small infill developments in the City that have added approximately 20 million dollars in value. He referred to the existing house in this proposal and noted that it is about 2,000 square feet in size with no basement. It was built in 1950 and could use some remodeling, or it could be torn down. He stated that if the house was removed it would be easy to do a two or three lot subdivision depending on the Glenwood Avenue access issue. He noted that the City is looking at affordable housing issues and recently passed an affordable housing policy so he started considering keeping the existing house because it could be maintained as an affordable house. He stated that since the City has a strict policy about affordable housing and strict tree preservation requirements he doesn't think taking down the existing house is the right thing to do. He said there are 21 significant trees on the site and to remove the house to do the subdivision 8 significant trees would have to be removed. He said keeping the affordable house and the trees is worth the City granting the variances he is requesting. He referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and read the goals regarding preserving existing single family homes and encouraging the affordability of the existing housing stock. He reiterated that he designed this project to save the existing home and trees. He said he understands that staff doesn't support the variances required to save the existing home and he also understands the access issue on Glenwood Avenue, but they would design the driveways with a turnaround so nobody would be backing out onto Glenwood Avenue. He referred to the recommendation in the staff report regarding staffs preference of having the frontage road dead-end at Glenwood with the construction of a cul-de-sac to facilitate turn arounds. He stated that he understands that plan is in the draft transportation plan but it hasn't been approved by the City Council and there are approximately 115 homes in this neighborhood that would be affected by a cul-de-sac. He said he agrees with the Engineering Division about the cul-de-sac idea but it brings up the issue of where that cul-de-sac is going to be if Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 4 it is ever built. He said he has come up with an alternative concept and handed out a proposed site plan that shows a two lot subdivision that saves the existing house, moves the driveways to the north instead of having access on Glenwood Avenue, and preserves room for a cul-de-sac in the future. He added that this new proposal would still require the variances for the lot width and the side yard setback requirement. He stated that if there is positive consensus for this new proposal he would come back to the Planning Commission in the future with a new application and set of plans. Waldhauser referred to the proposed new drawing and asked why the proposed cul-de-sac is shown so far to the east of the property. Knaeble said a cul-de-sac wouldn't fit further to the west without taking down the existing house. Segelbaum asked if the proposed new houses would be built as spec homes. Knaeble said he wouldn't build any of them, he is just involved in the subdivision of the property and would sell the property to a builder in the future. Baker referred to the originally proposed three lot subdivision and asked why a two lot design splitting the lots from east to west wouldn't work. Knaeble said it is because the County doesn't want the driveway access on Glenwood. Baker opened the public hearing. Steve Pesavento, 1701 Valders Avenue North, said he thinks the 2040 Comprehensive Plan needs to be seriously taken into consideration when looking into ordinances. Tom Hegblom, 6501 Olson Memorial Highway, said his biggest concern is the cul-de-sac and he can guarantee that residents from Windsor Woods and Westchester will fight it because diverting traffic to Douglas Drive would really impact a lot of people. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she went through the tree preservation list and it looks like neither of the proposals would remove very many important trees. Baker asked for clarification about the cul-de-sac issue. Zimmerman said the cul-de-sac hasn't been put on any plans, but it is a known concern and a situation that needs to be addressed. He added that when this property is re-platted there is an opportunity for the City to get some of the required land needed to address the concerns rather than trying to purchase property for a cul-de-sac in the future. Waldhauser agreed that this intersection has been a problem for years so closing the frontage seems logical. She questioned why the City is being "wishy-washy' if there is a strong reason to do it. Baker said it isn't the City's call so he is reluctant to base his decision on the cul-de-sac issue. Baker referred to the issue of removing the driveway on Glenwood. He said he knows of a subdivision that was required to have a long narrow driveway parallel to Glenwood rather Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 5 than a driveway directly on Glenwood so that suggests the County is trying to avoid adding driveways on Glenwood where they can. Segelbaum asked how the location of the driveway is germane to the subdivision variance request. Baker said he doesn't see how the location of the driveway on Glenwood has any bearing on the requested variances so the driveway issue should be left up to the County. Zimmerman stated that the County relies on the City's approval of subdivisions so if the only option for access is on Glenwood they would allow it. Baker asked if it would be possible to create a flag lot that would retain the existing driveway on Glenwood and create new access for the other lots on the frontage road. Zimmerman said the Zoning Code does not allow flag lots and requires the entire front of a lot to abut street right-of-way and have access to and from the street from that lot. Segelbaum stated that the City has been very hesitant to grant subdivision variances so he doesn't feel comfortable supporting this proposal unless the City Council is comfortable doing so. Blum referred to the Zoning Code variance request and said he is hesitant to say that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. He referred to the County's recommendation regarding the driveway access on Glenwood and said he values the County's opinion in regards to public safety, etc. He added that it seems like there has been a lot of discussion on how to make this proposal work and suggested that this might be more of a PUD type of discussion rather than the subdivision process. Zimmerman stated that PUDs do allow flexibility but this property does not meet the minimum size to do a PUD proposal. Waldhauser said there are some conforming options if the Glenwood access issue is set aside and if this property is divided into two lots, not three. Baker agreed and said he thinks the rationale for keeping the existing house has been overstated and he is not convinced it will be retained as an affordable house. Zimmerman agreed that there is nothing to stop a buyer from removing the house and building a new one. Baker stated that when the City has had discussions about affordable housing it isn't about retaining one house it is about developing affordable housing in the City at a much larger scale. Waldhauser added that the City has supported retaining single family homes, but she doesn't think this particular property is a good fit. Blum referred to the affordable housing policy plan and asked if that is a statute. Zimmerman stated that there is a mixed-income housing policy and that he thinks the applicant was referring to the draft housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan which represents the City's view on affordable housing. Blum asked if the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is in place right now. Zimmerman said no. Blum referred to recently approved Zoning Code text amendments regarding affordable housing and asked if any of those amendments were related specifically to granting variances for lot subdivision. Zimmerman said no, the amendments were to support the mixed-income housing policy and this proposal is not to a scale that triggers that policy. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 6 Johnson said there are some unintended consequences here. He said the homeowner could cut down every tree on the lot if they want to and then subdivide the property. He referred to the requested variances and said the applicant makes some good points about maintaining the character of the area, following the tree preservation plan, and adding another home to the tax base which are all good things. Baker referred to the subdivision variance request and the requirements that must be met in order to grant a variance. He said he doesn't think the applicant is meeting the requirements and he doesn't think they've heard a hardship in this case. The variance isn't required to preserve the property rights of the applicant, and the variance could be considered to be injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Segelbaum agreed that the hardship requirements have not been met. He added that he is concerned about setting a precedent with granting subdivision variances. Johnson said he would argue the special circumstance in this case is that the City has put things in place that make it difficult such as observing the tree preservation plan, observing the safety concerns of the County, and trying to maintain the nature of the original home. Baker said he thinks there are more unintended consequences with approving the subdivision variance. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval of a variance from Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A)(2) Minimum Dimension Requirements to allow proposed Lot 2 to be 17 feet off of the required 80 feet to a width of 63 feet and the motion failed 5 to 1. Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser voted no. Commissioner Johnson voted yes. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the subdivision request for the property located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue. Douglas Drive Redevelopm t Area Plan Expansion Nevin ' ave some background in rmation about the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan stated that the plan' urpose is to outline existing conditions along Douglas Drive identify a vision help guide the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's activitie . ®► Nevinski showed a map o origi I plan tha one in 2009-2010 that identified three areas along the east side ugl a as potential redevelopment/reinvestment areas. He then showed a map of p ed modifications that were done in 2017 in order to expand the areas in the C r I include the area south of Golden Valley Road and the Tennant campu Nevinski stat t the current pr osed revised p uts the Tennant campus in its own area (A- e said the vision hasn changed and that i expected to remain an ind area with corporate office a noted that area A- ould be an 8-acre, mixed use that would allow residential and ommercial uses. He ad ed that area A-5 would cite of Q : golden MEMORANDUM valley Planning P I Department ae 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: March 26, 2018 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Marie Estates—7040 Glenwood Avenue— Peter Knaeble, Applicant Summary of Request Dennis Mlachnik, represented by Peter Knaeble, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue into three lots. There is one existing single-family home on this lot, which would remain, and two new lots are proposed to be created. In order to allow the existing home to remain, the applicant is requesting two variances. The applicant has submitted a survey of the existing lot prior to the proposed subdivision, as well as a preliminary plat displaying the three lots after the subdivision. Two lots would have access off Glenwood Avenue via a shared driveway currently utilized by the existing home. The third lot would have access to the frontage road. The property is guided for Low Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Single Family Residential (R-1). It sits southeast of the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway, but is adjacent to the frontage road that parallels the highway on its south side. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 13 and one resident attended. The resident, who owns the property directly to the east, asked questions about driveway access and potential tree removal. Staff also received communication from another resident within the notification area and that email is included as an attachment. Staff Review The layout of the proposed subdivision would create two new lots—one with access onto the frontage road and one that would share access onto Glenwood Avenue via the driveway of the existing home. Hennepin County has expressed safety concerns about this driveway given its location close to the intersection with Olson Memorial Highway, and has requested that if the property is subdivided then vehicular access be relocated to the frontage road to the north. Doing so would eliminate the proposed driveway for the third lot, leaving it without access. The applicant has asked 1 that this driveway be considered an existing condition and be allowed to remain in place. Staff notes that even as an existing condition, any new home built on Lot 1 would mean additional vehicles entering from and exiting onto Glenwood Avenue, thereby exacerbating the concerns Hennepin County has today. Changes to the minimum lot area requirement of the Subdivision Code made in 2015 require a calculation of the average lot size of all residential lots within 250 feet of the subject property in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. If the average is greater than 18,000 square feet, the new required minimum lot size becomes 15,000 square feet. If the average is less than 18,000 square feet, the required minimum lot size remains at 10,000 square feet. For 7040 Glenwood Avenue, the average size of the lots within 250 feet is approximately 15,279 square feet. Therefore, the required minimum lot size of each new lot is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot is 37,897 square feet. The proposed Lot 1, to the south, would be 11,524 square feet. The proposed Lot 2, to the east, would be 10,115 square feet. The proposed Lot 3, to the northwest, would be 14,933 square feet. City Code requires that each non-corner lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback line and maintain 80 feet of width for 70 feet of depth. Lots 1 and 2, both non-corner lots, would have over 80 feet of width at the 35 foot setback line. Lot 1 would maintain sufficient width 70 feet back from the front lot line, but Lot 2 would have a width of only 63 feet at a point 70 feet back from the front lot line. City Code requires that any corner lot have a minimum of 100 feet of width at the front setback line and maintain 100 feet of width for 70 feet of depth. Lot 3, a corner lot, would have over 100 feet of width at the 35 foot setback line and would maintain sufficient width 70 feet back from the front lot line. The dimensions of both Lots 1 and 3 would provide sufficient building envelopes for development. Lot 2 would have a building envelope that is narrower than what is required by City Code. The applicant is requesting a variance from the lot width requirements of the Subdivision Code for Lot 2 in order to gain approval of the proposal (see Evaluation of Variance Request below). As a part of the proposal, the applicant would like to preserve the existing house and has drawn the new lot lines to accommodate its current location. In doing so, the new side yard setback of Lot 3 would be less that what is required by the City's Zoning Code. If the subdivision were to be approved, a variance from the side yard setback would be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals or the existing structure would need to be altered to remain outside of the required 15 feet of setback area. The one existing sanitary sewer service is compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration requirements. As required by the Subdivision Code, a tree inventory was performed in order to document all existing trees. This inventory will be reviewed by the City Forester and used to calculate any required tree replacement if additional lots are developed. 2 The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has provided permitting information and technical comments regarding the preliminary plat, utilities, stormwater management, the Natural Resources Management Plan, and trees and landscaping (see attached memo). The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns. There is a deferred street assessment of$4,900. If approved, a park dedication fee of$5,000 would also be required for a three lot subdivision prior to release of the Final Plat. Evaluation of Minor Subdivision The proposed three-lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and the action will not create the need for public improvements. According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Code, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area and dimension requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular access is not provided from an abutting improved street. Two of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 2 does not meet the lot width requirement. If the access onto Glenwood Avenue were to be relocated, as advocated by Hennepin County, Lot 1 would fail to have access to the street on which it abuts and would therefore also fail to meet this requirement. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. The addition of the new lots would not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the granting of certain easements to the City. As documented in the City Engineer's memo, a walkway easement would be required along Glenwood Avenue to provide space for a future sidewalk. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunity to comment and approval may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency. Hennepin County has requested that the existing driveway access to Glenwood Avenue be relocated to the frontage road to the north in order to address public safety concerns. 3 6. The City may ask for a review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of $5,000 (6% of the estimated land value with 1/3 credit for one unit) would be required for this three lot subdivision. 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. Condition one has not been met. Evaluation of Variance Requests The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: • Section 11.12, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements The City's Zoning Code requires a side yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is requesting 5 feet off of the required 15 feet to a distance of 10 feet for the east side yard of Lot 3. • Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A)(2) Minimum Dimension Requirements The City's Subdivision Code requires a minimum lot width of 80 feet at the 35 foot setback line and at a point 70 feet from the front lot line. The applicant is requesting 17 feet off of the required 80 feet to a width of 63 feet on Lot 2. The City, through its Board of Zoning Appeals, may grant a variance from the Zoning Code if the petitioner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the City's zoning requirements, as outlined in Section 11.90, Subd. 4(B) of the City Code. If the proposed minor subdivision is approved in its current configuration, the approval should be conditioned on receiving a variance from the side yard setback requirements or the existing home should be required to be modified to comply with the City's setback requirements. The City, through its Planning Commission and City Council, may grant variances from the Subdivision Code if all of the following conditions outlined in Section 12.54 of the City Code exist: 1. There are special circumstances so that the strict application of the requirements would create unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship. There are no special circumstances that would create a hardship for the applicant and deprive him of reasonable use of the land. The desire to preserve the existing home—which dictates the reduced lot width—is a choice and not the result of any conditions affecting the property. The existing home on Lot 3 could be demolished, which would allow lots of conforming width to be approved without the granting of the variance. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the petitioner. If the existing home were to be demolished, the property lines could be 4 adjusted to be consistent with the requirements of the City's Subdivision Code. Similarly, the applicant could choose not to subdivide and continue to utilize the property in its current configuration without necessitating a variance. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance could be injurious to other property in the neighborhood, as it would reduce the size of the building envelope on Lot 2 and could thereby reduce the potential distance between homes. Recommended Action Due to the recommendation by Hennepin County that access to Glenwood Avenue be relocated to the frontage road, staff is unable to recommend approval of the proposed Lot 1. As the requested variance from the lot width requirement for Lot 2 fails to meet all of the listed conditions necessary for approval, staff is unable to recommend approval of the proposed Lot 2. As the proposal does not comply with all of the requirements governing minor subdivisions, staff recommends denial. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from the Engineering Division dated March 22, 2018 (4 pages) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Tree Inventory (1 page) Email from resident at 7156 Harold Avenue (1 page) Plans submitted January 26, 2018 (8 pages) 5 c'ifyof olden MEMORANDUM valley, Ph Department Physical Development y P 763-593-80301763-593-3988(fax) Date: March 22, 2018 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Coordinator Subject: Minor Subdivision - Marie Estates - 7040 Glenwood Avenue Engineering staff has reviewed the plans submitted for the subdivision called Marie Estates, located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue. The subject property is located east of Glenwood Avenue and south of Trunk Highway 55. The property is currently occupied by a single family home. The plans submitted for review include splitting the property into three single family lots, with the existing home remaining on one of the lots. The comments contained in this review are based upon plans submitted to the City on January 25, 2018. Engineering comments are as follows: Site Plan and Access The existing home, which is proposed to remain, has an existing driveway onto Glenwood Avenue, which is a Hennepin County roadway (County State Aid Highway 40). Therefore, the proposed subdivision is subject to review and comment by the Hennepin County Transportation Department. As part of its review Hennepin County identified the need for an additional 12 feet of right-of-way on the east side of Glenwood Avenue. The additional right-of-way will accommodate the roadway, bike lanes, and a planned sidewalk. Both the City and Hennepin County show bike and pedestrian facilities along the east side of Glenwood Avenue in their plans. The City may explore the possibility of requesting that the County reduce the width of the required additional right-of-way if the applicant dedicates an adequate walkway easement to the City as part of this subdivision. Hennepin County also commented on the location of the driveway to the existing home, which is proposed to be combined with the driveway to the new south lot on Glenwood Avenue. The driveway is located in the right turn lane of Glenwood Avenue, is very close to Trunk Highway 55 (TH 55) and is frequently blocked by queuing traffic, resulting in additional traffic safety concerns due to vehicles attempting to access the driveway. Therefore, when the lot is re-platted Hennepin County will require that the driveway be eliminated and all new driveways be located on the TH 55 south frontage road. City staff supports the Hennepin County recommendation to relocate the driveways onto the frontage road. Each lot must have its own driveway and the new driveways must meet city code and engineering standards including the installation of a concrete apron. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. A County permit is required for the removal of the existing driveway on Glenwood Avenue. The City of Golden Valley's draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies the elimination of the TH 55 south frontage road intersection with Glenwood Avenue and TH 55 as a priority project. Currently, there is only approximately 20 feet separating the frontage road and TH 55. The closure would be achieved by the construction of a cul-de-sac on the frontage road and would eliminate congestion and safety concerns on TH 55 and Glenwood Avenue related to traffic entering and exiting the frontage road. The preliminary plat must be revised to include the dedication of right-of-way for the future cul-de-sac. The minimum dimensions for the cul-de-sac are: 30 feet radius to back of curb, and 40 feet radius to the right-of-way line. The TH 55 south frontage road was reconstructed by the City as part of its 2010 street reconstruction project. Records show there is one deferred special assessment of$4,900 that was attributed to the vacant, developable portion of the property. Deferred assessments become due at the time of development and therefore must be paid before final plat approval. Preliminary Plat The existing property proposed for development is part of Auditor's Subdivision Number 322. City records indicate there are no platted easements across this property. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and interior lot lines. The preliminary plat appears to meet the requirements of the code. Utility Plan The City's water and sanitary sewer systems that provide service to this property have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan showing the extension of water and sanitary sewer services. The services to the new south lot are proposed to come from Glenwood Avenue. Hennepin County overlaid Glenwood with new pavement and the City constructed new C:\Users\lwittmanWppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\00B177H3\MarieEstates 032118.docx sidewalk on the west side of Glenwood within the past 5 years. To avoid the higher level of pavement restoration and the disruption to Glenwood now and in the future, staff recommends that all new utility services, and relocated existing services, come from the mains under TH 55 south frontage road to the extent feasible. The frontage road will need to be restored in accordance with City standards. The final utility plans for each property will be reviewed by the City at the time of permitting. Permits required for this work include Water and Sewer permits, and City and County Right-of- Way Management permits. As a reminder, in order to protect the City's investment in its infrastructure, no pavement excavations are allowed between November 1st and the date that spring load restrictions are lifted by MnDOT, typically in April or May. The City has a Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction Ordinance. City records indicate that the property at 7040 Glenwood Avenue has obtained a Certificate of Compliance with the 1/1 Ordinance. However, all new sewer services in this development must be televised by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, which treats all sanitary sewage from Golden Valley, charges a sewer access fee ($2,485 per unit) for all new connections to the sanitary sewer system. In addition, the City has its own sewer access charge ($650 per unit) and water access charge ($1,700 per unit) which is based upon the number of units determined by Metropolitan Council. These fees must be paid as part of the building permit application process. All private utilities serving the new home, such as electric, cable, and telecommunications, must be buried underground. Grading Plan (Stormwater Management) The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake subwatershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. However, due to the size of the development, the project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Sweeney Lake, which is impaired for nutrients and chloride levels, is downstream of this development. The applicant and building contractors are encouraged to consider and incorporate stormwater volume reduction and green stormwater practices in their site design and construction to protect and improve water quality in this subwatershed. The applicant submitted a preliminary grading plan for the development. The plan indicates that each lot will be custom graded at the time of construction. No mass grading is proposed. The contractor will be required to obtain a City Stormwater Management Permit for each lot before construction. A stormwater management plan meeting City standards is required as part C:\Users\lwittman\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\00B177H3\MarieEstates 032118.docx of the permit submittal. In general, existing drainage patterns in the area must be maintained and stormwater runoff from each property must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Staff will review the individual stormwater plans in more detail when permit applications are submitted. Natural Resources Management Plan Staff consulted the natural resources management plan. No ecologically significant communities or land covers were identified on this property in the 2013 natural resource inventory. This property is not located within a "green corridor" as identified in the Natural Resources Management Plan. However, consistent with the City's plan staff recommends removing buckthorn and any other exotic, invasive, or noxious vegetation species located on the property as part of this development and in accordance with state and local laws. Tree and Landscape Plan The Developer has submitted a tree survey and inventory consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The inventory shows significant and legacy trees present on this site. Staff encourages site design that retains existing healthy trees and vegetation whenever feasible. Tree and landscape permits for each lot will need to be obtained before beginning any work onsite. Permit submittals include a tabular inventory of significant trees and a plan showing trees to be removed, protected, and planted. The City Forester will review the inventory and plan in more detail at the time of permitting. Contact Tim Teynor at teynor@goldenvalleymn.gov to apply for this permit. The Developer must obtain all permits required by the City and other governmental entities for development of this property. Recommendation Engineering staff concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Planning divisions with respect to this minor subdivision. If approval is granted, it shall be subject to the comments contained in this report. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other governmental entities. Please feel free to call me or Eric Eckman if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Sue Virnig, Finance Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Joe Kauth, Building Official Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager C:\Users\lwittman\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\00B177H3\MarieEstates 032118.docx Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Eorester Marshall Beugen, Street & Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Joe Hansen, Utilities Supervisor RJ Kakach, Assistant City Engineer Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician C:\Users\Iwittman\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\00B177H3\MarieEstates 032118.docx MARIES ESTATES 7040 GLENWOOD AVE.,GOLDEN VALLEY 1/25/18 PROJECT NARRATIVE This 0.84 acre site is located at the southeast corner of Hwy. 55 and Glenwood Ave. in Golden Valley. There is an existing 2200 sf 1.5 story home that sits on the northwest portion of the property. The existing home has a two car garage, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths,and no basement. The property is fairly heavily wooded on the northern part of the site, and it contains 19"significant"trees and 2 "legend"trees. We are proposing a minor subdivision to subdivide this property into three lots: two vacant lots, and one lot with the existing home. This proposed subdivision meets all of the City's requirements for the R-1 Residential Zoning Standards, except for two minor variances that are being requested. The first variance is for a 10'side setback on Lot 3 (vs. 15')to accommodate the existing home. This "point" variance only affects one corner of the existing home. The second variance is for the lot width for Lot 2 as measured 70'from the front lot line. This measurement is 63'vs. the required 80'. The lot width at the 35' front setback line is at the required 80'. This variance would not affect the buildability of Lot 2. As shown on the submitted Conforming Plan,this property could legally be subdivided into three lots that meet all the R-1 Zoning standards,and would not require any variances. But this Conforming Plan would require the removal of the existing home. The proposed three lot subdivision (keeping the existing home) is preferred over the three lot Conforming Plan (removing the existing home)for the following reasons: 1. There would be an additional loss of up to 8 significant trees and 1 legacy tree with the Conforming Plan. Saving the existing house saves the existing trees around the house. The City's Tree Ordinance (4.32)was enacted to promote"incentives for creative land use and environmentally compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal." 2. The proposed subdivision would save an existing affordable home in Golden Valley. According to the City's Housing Policy in the Comprehensive Plan, "the City has identified the need for affordable housing as a high priority." The Comp Plan also states that removing existing single family homes "has been a concern for existing residents due to concerns about preservation of existing architectural and natural assets." One of the stated goals in the Comp Plan is to"preserve the affordability of the existing housing stock," and to "adopt policies and create incentives that encourages the preservation of affordable housing." 3. There would be an additional site disturbance of at least 14,100 sf(0.32 ac.) with the Conforming Plan. This additional site disturbance would be due to removing the existing home and trees, and construction of a new home on the lot. 4. There would be no additional adverse impact on the immediate neighbors to the east and south. The locations of the proposed new homes on Lots 1 and 2 would be the same under both subdivision options. The proposed three lot subdivision,that saves the existing home,would be an asset to this neighborhood and to the City of Golden Valley. It would preserve a modest affordable home and also allow the construction two new homes for families looking for that opportunity in Golden Valley. 2018-117040 Glenwood Ave Golden Valley Tree ID Date:1-2S-2018 Signed MN DNR Tree Inspector#20W270 SWSR/U of M Wetland Delineator#1019____ Tag Number dbhipecies Condition 1-9 Species Key 548 11 ws 4 AE=American Elm 547 14 WS 4 WS=White Spruce 545 13 WS 4 BF=Balsam Fir 542 17 WS 4 SM=Silver Maple 541 10 4 BE=Box Elder __ S37 18 WS 3 BO=Bur Oak 529 15 ws 2 BC=Black Cherry 526 10 ws 3 CT=Cottonwood 525 10 ws 1 RP=Red Pine 523 -24 WS._ 3 AP=Apple 524 18 BE 4 521 16 WS 2 533 19 BE 3 556 ___ 32 BO 5 231 24 BO 5 230 24 BO----. 5 267 12 WS 4 305 16 BC Z 304 10 BE I 4 287 Stump 299 38 BO 4 Condition Key 298 17 BF 3 1= dead 297 is ws 3 2= bad Stump 3= poor 295 48 CT 4 4= okay 310--_ 54 SM 4 5= good 100 -13 WS 4 6= very good 101 16 RP -3 -7= excellent 102 9 ws4..---- .8= outstanding---. 103 26 AE 3 9= exemplary 110 iO —WS 4 104 46 CT 5 105 10 ws 3 106 13 WS 4 107 13 WS 108 11 WS 4 109 18 RP 3 ill 23 CT 4 F 112 '--12 AV 2, Wed 3/14/2018 11:15 AM Subject: 7040 Glenwood Jason, Tom and I were unable to attend the neighborhood meeting for the 7040 Glenwood Ave minor Subdivision We are against this. The best part about living in Golden is the lot size and the privacy that it provides. Mr. Knaeble is constantly buying up property and subdividing as he did on our block on Harold Ave. When is this going to stop! Shared driveways and squeezing in homes for the sake of a paycheck Is ruining our neighborhoods. He had his daughter and son in law try to build a cul-de-sac, and put in 6 or more houses. And now we are getting 2 homes Squished together, in a neighborhood, where they just don't fit. Does he or a family member own the home at 7040 Glenwood? There are 2 lots available on Glenwood right where Glenwood and Harold Ave meet . Build home there Thank you for your time Tom and Sharon Ruble 7156 Harold Ave 7040 Glenwood subdivision Mon 3/26/2018 5:07 PM I live at 6840 Harold Avenue and I wish to voice my reservations against these proposed subdivision of the 7040 Glenwood property. 1. Congestion on Olson Memorial Hwy. frontage road With the addition of a driveway, the new resident will desire street parking for guests on an already narrow street. Even with No Parking signs for the first 20-30' on the south side of the frontage road, this area will become too crowded to navigate, especially with westbound vehicles waiting to turn onto Glenwood or Hwy 55. 2. School bus routes on Olson Memorial Hwy. frontage road Hopkins schools, including Meadowbrook Elementary, North Junior High, and Hopkins High School, pick up and drop off students at the corner of the frontage road and Idaho Avenue. With additional residents and visitors, traffic increases and puts students at risk. If the western end of the Olson Memorial Hwy. frontage road is to be closed off, school buses would be required to turn around in the Kingston or Harold Avenue cul de sac, also increasing risk to student pedestrians. Thank you, Steven Parks Fri 3/23/2018 5:55 PM Opposition to variance request for 7040 Glenwood Ave Jason Zimmerman Planning Manager City of Golden Valley Dear Jason, I live at 7001 Olson Memorial Highway in Golden Valley, which is next to the property (7040 Glenwood Ave) that a variance is being considered. My wife and I object to the variance to allow a narrower than code lot between our house and the existing structure at 7040 Glenwood Ave. Such an allowance would make for an unbalanced look and inadequate green space to keep the harmony of the look of the neighborhood. The odd shape we feel would encourage an odd structure to make the most of the carve out. In addition, we feel there could be unintended consequences with traffic at the busy intersection that is made up of Glenwood Ave and Highway 55. Thank you, Daniel and Kimberly Browdie 7001 Olson Memorial Highway Golden Valley, MN 55427 woo liow6©algaou�ja}ad "e" •O" *6oil�T7r—:Om NW 'A311VA N3=0 pp 5126-60�—Z19 3-d ATJOWd V1S 318VA � o ZZ-V99 NN '4911oA u9plo0 010"UUM n.0 any poo^^ua10 1009 g Wo 0 OAC' . "°"nDW Ivm 00 3d 'algaou�{ as}ad & �o.,o ,d:o:,oa.; 133HS 3111E �� amsr ua tl ,o F 3 pF C7 Wa`j}0 } P + ggggtuowne- 0000000000 A� 0 i I � ( 1 Zf J z OLO z O F - Q z � Q O LL- �- O z Q F — Q Q � z > � � w � aQV) wzw a N W =,, o �= WQ ,� �+ m � � _ W b � JWQ —IWF— Z s ~� X � tz � l- CEw O � r a WF- a- oDF - o uu) C — •N •any AaeJOr �. :s J. ~ N N d LO (D I-- 00 W J •N .and, Caajor W W i (ncnUl cn0U) V) m (n CL z A O Q O V �slrt ,. a w 0 P&�foMa6Ptb WOa•IIOiu60algaOu>lja}ad "8Y 'O" •6°a---Vr7U7T °'°0 NW 'Jl3llVA N3a'10`J pp '3'd 19 H 'r Joud +r S �GI—60U—Z l9 — v S V1S3 31HVW ,,, V pp ZZ•bSS NW IIOn uaPIO9 � .o,,,,Wu, "DIS \ O any POOMua10 L009 ""w..w a "Pato) 00 % •«w� �- I ;Ma 00 3d 'algapu>{ JaJvo•• 1Vld A8VNl14n3Nd a ad P" o Au�aowl \ �P o g i` =NN `w# yl yW �q �Q W 0 WU Of 0: MO ZZ N g~ �` o° �� CJ C, _ � VZIj1�cYi nz =_ °° a 33 WMA tiff Z U) _ >a <ev MN F-H(n V1 t9 LO WW WOU yN Li NWO WO �� C ZS r rc M04N ¢ N JI DLW KI-n 3w F-li v�+ �� Zo MIS O\\ �Ji rJi s VI U)V)N In N NVI VI Q M =N O"" •NrN N\0 fE J Q s k'wk'WOPOk' air) �y (no ao. i va�> L)<ID ,T,T LL J 0000000 Z0�07�oj y to 0 60 06 OOGd 2U QF `uz W.Z.N vWH"Li f� JJ c f Q N ..O cQ W-~¢w� Q¢y ZyNti �Z •5 N J O Wa �o HNN�gi I�j Y�7.*Lr V NN N W N 7 CL C) d' n 1 ^ �N� Na Hy tUQ WJ40 �oNri��.^� �� I� E Z E N m1 1 11.1 00{�Q{Q�� 0p �.�(�2 J�1!)\ ¢ jm U Z '� V °� �O NCn O lit IxXW HOY Qv=J'0�•Nto ¢ �. QZ O WW >Z •� OI OIA EQ. j� U o^ac.''x�¢w�3v, ¢ N t� Wsvxu� E 5aa. E U) 0� o ca L Lon J=°�°POwo¢a'"��D 0 y`''y� maw �0LJ D w ZE 0 OF U aL 0 ,;�'� ow 2ZLo E > m:"2�2 NgNWyW2�a��Op� _W¢V)I.�fY7 ON O O m I V �CJ) 0 O S�Of U Wu Oa N(p C p N to Z p=er .~.. 5: N >-.— O O I E W O C O I Q' C��•' l - C3Z�gwL]O'UQ�'U Nw~ZWf'N-' I-W ��2�1' �� O OY 0)�jO C OW dM� Z 0� 70N C FOQ... JF pm I-O Q W V_) C'd' E 5 U' a+ LN•> N = O O I SOL Of(AglpN/�WY�� NNJOM'-' ZW1,�O d COQ I y O NM.L 17m N�00 W� OC Y�� to W.J I H O.d Kn. O C�_M m+ O�N:% C a'r ENM W O TN O O Z. In• ><X>.+X W DC 0 1- ♦- 00 O'O R' N O O t0 O 0)O O a) O •p O O N LA Y OD('')NN.'�-. 00 2SWAZdZ U)zazwaa Ud a01�C'J f� 0) U)a.co C�tO a (7)it(i m0)'E �-Oi'1'to M,L0 11 � 11 It 11 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 It � 11 I 11 � 11 I 11 ( 11 1 11 I 11 I 11 1 11 11 I 11 1 11 I ;; j W 1 O w 1 It w n O La 1 w� in P;; p� CD z 1 i >� Qo 1 = 11 >v it OT'Z>rZ '1 OD '1; d P I It w;; OT'ZSi 100'08 tis Wit '3SV n'8a .01 3SV3 n'sa .al -- o 1 )I1 -------_---- v" � �-----:I_—: — . _ .HSS �� I i -l ------------� a, l M. v. I ffS?J ,SZ ------, IN i C6I �— 1 ;; I i I Q0 N i 1 11 I O 1' II' I m l O ' n ffSS ,S'ZT m ILi oN gg 1w,C5 1 Ike � �1 �I � ./ .• 1SV3 flti .9 Q �;; al / / /- ' HSS ,Oi� W I g5 I� Ln S N �$ ?� ,� La. IWit C ,1 tl it (X) N r N g 0% 3 I I- o _ in _ in 5' 11 0 0 I �iLD X35, F� I a: 1 � 11 it ; '-1' •. -�_ 1\ --- -- � 'C�R�-- W 1 u ✓ Cl) 9 It ' I 11 I /0, w 11 B 1 7 > GV - 1 I;� L /��• 2555' , �\ - 9, sPA+ I - =' • 1 it co c') M ' � M 1 1 O N _ - o I� v CD °D �W a �w r ` S 3 0 wipow6®algaou�ja}ad "g" 'ON NW 'Jl3�lVA N3(T10`J '3"d IQ�+N T�°i°d O r 5126-602—Z l9 — W V S3jVlS3 318V" 1, ZZ*,99 NW "(;DIIOn uapIOO .w w..q.1,10 w�M ;sem •any POOMua10 1009 Go 3d 'ajgapu�{ �a;ad PM '"p p A, ^ NVId `JNIO HO �� ' °- a odw P g W �1,3 N z �Z _ �qj >a O O Z p 9 U8, HIE 3 V/N Vl VI 4! IA N N N 000 00 000000 N 000000oo00 n , A� ID o xX� ; ;;11 11 1 II 11 1 jj 11 11 11 11 1 " F- It I-I It it I-. W i 111, —i U Z L7 W n I� it y� p� Z LL- It N11 e It : _j �I; ems OT'Z£Z l7 V)Put , '` �t° 1 - _ 00'08 tis It CD SCD O I rO J U S a) m-Ja LOo iooa 1 �6�OIN yssw' F u 1 U- I rn ,'D �4 1 N in It 0's LD of�i� cu SSS >oT 1 I N Pi 8y 8 0 ca"" 1 Ir? LO (U n y 1 ' S X 3 J it rs / +n 1 11, it LL- 0 5 p ry � 85 3`„ I �O 1 � 11 1n �.I �, 'PA cn� x r- 1 H 11 r+I L7It 1 ❑Lj 1 11 S � _-' -•- v Z 11 f i o --------- Q) �n 1 u � , as-"' co a '6°i '�• moi,% 0� 'i u O J CLOS°� �r /�'� J� M 10 II it 11 f°r LOn 211 p5 GCQ;EZ� zt M �� l Ln m I I ,'I- O C) fl- woo•Ilouab@algaou�.la}ad Y8Y1 'ON 'bGa---U7U7r-'VJ°o NW 'Jl3llVA N3a10`J ap C '3'd PW-)i 'f 51 —Z 19 — j-►�� S d1S3 318814 1, ZZVSS NW ba9llon11DA UaPlo0wnn °,°>s \ O •any pooMualO 1009 w+w"At° ,SIM...yw3 � � � 3d `algaou�{ �a}ad $ '�,�, ,; ^, NVId JILIILLfI r� OD a P g z U) O V Z=5, QQq{U o -11- $ W K n n W R •� WO IA VINN V7 0000000000 0000000000 N it 11 1 11 ; 11 I1 , 11 11 � 11 � I I ; 11 , 11 ; 11 1 11 I 11 I 11 1 11 1 11 11 1 / it O � It �' 11 OI'ZEZ 1 1 It i ID i Wii Oi'ZSiys ,00'08 �u '3SV3 ma .01 '3SV3 na ,ol __.__... O i Uii iu -_- _-------per-� FL�l O 1 11 -. r----�—.r_— gSS ,S'zi �c� I �----------- G, It all 1� no dsi, ------i i cU 0' 6l F W n I : I� cll ass ,S'Zi _J•••� :� W DC 'I ,1 QI_ / i/ '-- `"��d�LS'S9�..I�I�I IIwo HA (Ld W) 'Z-' CD I �' j �_.. isv3 nba ,yy • N i v' 51 !� ^ 3 Q W 1 oI, / ,/ -------� I A > "tU, o' / /•/ / ass xi w�N 8 SB �� N A Z W NII /2/•• Z¢ (� z '�" �./8�•' � �� v� 0 Cie cu 0 m H HH E a = _ _ _ _ __ v x o C) 05 3 N a W J Z¢ It � o - r - l Oh rri d'W � zd cz it L) LLI it35' _ �, $- D IX 0-W ; Z 11 a. 1 it it ui W l/1 •���/ 21555' ; a' SOL =-- �� a I PJE - = to s�<< - oon ;;;- o W gp) ''rte z r =r I Ci . 1 14- O CD r- LLJ � m � - - u > z U3 W � O W F- 0 o W J woo•Ilow6®algaou�,ja}ad 11.101 'ON 'Bow--vr7grn—.o,co NW `A3llVA N34lOJ ap .— .3.d paouH p„4,d 5 LZ6-602—Z l9 - _ dls3 3iadw O ZZJV99 NN ballon uaP100 wws O •any Pooenual0 1009 °w JO'YO'° „o'"w;"; � 1 �W) 3d 'aigaou�{ as}ad s P.:;�"��o� NVId NOLLVAMS38d 33UL '° �„poda 14 WW O w w w w w o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w $ o wo v�3v u4v"� u�i �v`S mu`�i v`�i� m QR � u�r �i �f vQiu`tiu� ualu<Svasu`� 9;9W,`� v�S W Cas (n oN C C IM fp _$ ,c Fc c rnc c c crnc c a O" 91 N VN N to N 2 � N 00 O ONg O En 4: N 1� ) in in in cc c g J =_ N V)HN in W W N 0000000000 W 19 tyZ`� yZW yZW W W yy l�� QQ Q7 sQ OQ pQQ �qQ7 8Q sry [p� (Q} �Q1 sp yq oQ Qv xq QQ p N Q 1 o A cp -.24 V)a Xw 1 i 1 L)Q J 0- N y y y y N y y y N 49 �1 m y m y y m y y y y m y N y y y O m m n -1 7 7 7 m 7 7"U 'O D 'f S7 9 7 7 '�(JJ 7 7 7 --3 7 O : 7 7 7 y+ y Ly Ltyy t O L o m O O o O tO O aO O . C O O p 0 U ¢Z aE` mm .m W,V) �888 $ 088888880 a 8888 L c i O �N QI 5p N� � rw � 806 B CLIn 8mmtLLc � � n � m d0 � o �� 0 NN a 01 N U7 to V) Va) N Vl U41 W CL N W V) W E C £-2 U)a ( W N N N UI V) W E C N C ON cc�c m m m m -�m —0c m < > t3 c �S px 2 0 0 m g c m � m m m m g o � z o� � o 0 5 S S 5 5 S S S m m m pp m m S ¢ 3 5 5 O �N O N O 0 0 M- Q AS A us ul 63 1 , F-- 1 1 , ii I U Z l7 W it 11 O Z LL- Phys 11 O it ►\ A 1- 1 �J-, it it `S r� ,01'2£2 it N o 1 " � P� It 11 ISS I d��O ���� ����, .00 08 kv O + _ 1 0 1 =11 9 J .. c)111 � ASO — � HSS IrS'a �� ( `I r.�...�� r 1It 1�1 s 1 6° �+ t 1 111 CI 1 16"0 1cu y C61 — — — 111 O 'o , � ; (U 1 1 .n V) 1 1 x;11 `'�� � 5o d° 1 F—.-a i1 s . I _ —1 D o i 1 HSS '21 Ii 0.r 0 , �;1 ^ �. Q v", 13 2 1 t Z N it �Z �s ja /�' m y 1 ( S n �1 � •• Wr ©� cu '1 = U l; i 35 (U s Q 1 c� 11 `dO I Q' X10\ cy- � Q .1 Q LD as In CX TS 11 -� o " --, Osor s v 1 C3 1 it r° j n r o I ,� Off! �.�, •/.•�• I ,, CVR$�;;, „ I 0. it PIN It Lr) it II �N�Q� �0� = o n � , in Cl) f Ci Ln V O CD r- ' r- *C U WOO'IioW6palgaou�aa}ad 00901 '°N '°°a '3'd w•DUX 'P J°2°d NW �l3llVA N3a�oa OD g 1 alIDA UPI l9 -.�� s vls3 3iadW 137YA� � o ZZbSS a^NW ooMua uaplo0 00 v d P 10 1009 ""w.rot 41)"0°,,,, I"6uwpp PUG:PS-00p AM 3d 'QlqaDU>f Ja4ad po=p1mm wi3a 3 W 'SObY0NV1S NOILV100SSV N31tlM lVbflb V10S3NNIW 210 NMOHS SY 31VA 830V&/M (9£19 OltlN003W AV 183SN1 SS .1/M 311Stl1d)0063 b0 N 3dAl 213ddOJ -33TF93S-UXW 3100V5 331A835 13315 5531NIV15 ZL£ 531!135 81tl16-H11W5 ,l -TdWi ZK (CC-61OZ*4 OLLSVId) 210 BIOLbL OlVN000N AV ,t - dOI'S-'NQIIVb8-d$O3 '".. NOISN31X3 ON -011 MLICZ99/M 3131dW00 X06 6bnO 9 VZZ99 S31b3S OIYNOOOW AV -X09-A&1'iS (£C-6019L 311SVId)SO Y019L OIVNOOOW AV dO1S Bbf10 ,l -Ua -9$1T$ 3 d W n yi NMOHS SV 03?JinO3b S30ONV U NOpIB 313b3NO3,Zy,B",8 Ni0NnOSD WOIS3NOV w 5 L tr a Ar 80133NN03ly AVM C 03AOMddV HLN1 30Vn SI 1.11 2133tl211 Q r NOLLJ3NNO3 ONV 1N3S321d SI 3bM 3NIl .09 09 3 •e NIVW Al NOLL03NNOJ NIYW IV 03033N 77 ,9 008 0Nf1pb0 WnIS3N.11.ON 310N 311 1331S,Z/1 t 3d1d 13315 .Z/1 1 ` o 30Vb0 03NSIN2! _ N � 1332115 b31tlM c9 > w < b33f103b 030NVId ONY 3AIVA 31V0,V HIVA 3NI1 z A183dObd 01 (91115.o 210 L 2105 006-3 „Z/„S'l 30 01 .1 NVHl b30HVl 301A213S ANV <, Z i 30N835 b3A0 b3A03 j0,8.i0 Wf1WINIW tl NItl1NItlW W 1N3W31113S NOJ MO11V 01 dVl 3A06V „9 )133N3S000 W803 a 310N a u a its I 'i BM y qY8 dbw Ir Rog 3 v 913@ �&a�i lacy 1 UO WO / p- m2W g h4bb I -i x WN w W I� ~Z dU <W � `� mfn 7w O U0� & � W _ pp go �a^ I 5a z Z bbyY� mJ< 2 3 K �t �'- ^ Rdi, g � igd � 1-4) mm o oW v Ng z �: 7 �� xffo I « s z�5 w TI � [ a y a6: y m F� _��.; o boa m mi - L �f Cobb a- tlb? 9 ' 8 �9 �o°d r k'� rY bl .e aab. N'^ �y Z �va V w x �s�&3�,�dm W VF O rcazo< bT�iik�i p r j�z m z /J --..._.._.. - & W f 3 < `\ U GO (/ D2yQ1 Z U U V a W ” - Z� n -10 ' w o a o u..:.. 44 95 Z a L U O W V N U N V)Z z }J� � ZZ�^ zw3a im � opo <o ry 0 o n 3 oV0 WWJZ `� ��'�a"o a rSm rt 2 �a U < < N Qnp a.11< I<- <a 41m<Q U �RW w Z N W 2 4 3 yW� p U N V�fF 3N A. LL �< � � $ � 9 Z � a<WO5 1llUJ Oi04 d4 VyMy//p<oF p-. m � O �( O w H o O�W ZV�1W �a-'N< m 0 'x - f a'�<O W0 U < c!� evil oV d✓ �¢�ZN �ma i�rc�< aW z. •i ,� x9��wm aaw / I Z 3 atw W ZWJWKK aN O� � O; aII Gia=ao Ix zn° .- 3 m S a x r Z 4 U U o< O d U 2U < woa•j!Dw6®ajgaou�.ja}ad "Q" •°" NW 'Jl3IIb�A N30I09 S 26-602—Z l9 I'd �H r'°'°' 00 ZZ*SS NW 'AalloA uaplo9 V1S3 318VW � 8 any pooMua10 1009 "A w S" 00 3d 'algaou>{ ja�ad FOCI '�AM D WO I°.�,, (JlINO NOLLVW210dNi) Go � a NVId ONIw210dNO3 s g � z J2 i3 �WW 2S N 0 Z V) Z VI V/N VI 41 N VI VI w 000 U I Q m nl ggl�A� N oZ Z) Z q ID W � Q �I I I XX � C� 0 Q W Z E- W Z N W I� J0ZQ � J0 O ZOpL- U z cow O 0 -1 0 ~ O Q 00 — N � 11 � 1 " � 1 1 1-4 w 1 J U Z L:) WIt Q 1 11 N O Z LA_ vs� 1 Q 1 111 : h-1 � 11 i l7 L7 11 x'11 r`*O , X00 08 �yf v'1. �� 9� HSS ,S'ZT — o 1 sO @ Q1 1 � ; ffs8 ,Sz `6c�O •{�_ I � � .SS I 6 1� 1111 N S°d°t^ � � / I 1 111 p s� 1 1 uo I /1 111 m I N /, . w HSS ,g 2 A I.-�I "Cu 0.•i1 ' fu u^i 1 Q d \ J.r l n r.I •y _.._.._.._.. 1 08-oti III y rli © \ '1 'il a _.HSS ,St '1 III s, p�rn ° l g5' Cd r o (4 '!�� H Lo Y ,/ CD 1 J � iiol i 11 t pl 11 I •/•• I1 Q�l �1' It It it �E. - ;- 1 ; - tf7 o ;� CU - L � 1 ai I^ 1 1 U I ' Q O I� 'M I�- ° m " � WE w�E_P' �75 VW ° O N — W � mO wt: U Oi2ZuOQ NL 2 N C O a o _ m v y o nr� d L 6 f� L c c u 3 E iN�,L '` c w rn " ^ c � c° u o f ri '»' a L V 3o E N 3 �? '� o m : o n �2 Eno - v m O �° CS T O =m E m 0 Ciii VI N U '� '� >• O z �- o a o 'N o 3 m v a'Oi w e r 2 �9te Q W p 4 x L ni 9 o �0 o so T"-,y= 0 v o Zm y o n vi v N 2 c a y Y m C) v' M — _ N V c U0 CL a y o p -w v v w on U L O p = E 7 0 d of L N N tN+l ~ (O V1 p .Z .2 ob U T -wW i Z O v I p`1 w Z O 2 r N 2 _� uj u CSl v v . gg Z o �^ ^ ¢ Y m o c v t ? o g m e Q v v Z 3 . €o ° o E > v ^ L u J L Z c c v Q > o o LL J Q o a v = 'oo ,v v 9 o Z 3 c L d O Z � v@i ar �' O D O ~ M c .n Wo m N y _ c O V w N 3 �n Vn = N Z -�-� L r O Z �n ° y c� W �O _ �- D O W u 3 C C C 0r+1 ;D O V w U7 'Z5 13 p H g N ], m Co m o CL, m 3 5 5 °' w m v a a € S a H N °n v°i a a i c °0 u � (D z Q O wcn QO V) Ln w O z 07 LINE WHICH INTERSECTS THE NORTH LINE OF THE [\ALJ) NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER / / z .-c Ln DISTANT 258.8 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER o // w r� OF IHE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER ' // O O I — Z N o z_ /�� // Q L Ln IO J �� // // / m m T I cVO = w ELf�00'20'04"W 00.00 Nb s -y — I O06— I / I N / / O i \\\ V CD D Il J y m m u n- O ro I Chain LRk anc �`\k, \ / \ \ W L W LLLJ F- 1 / m u o 0) LLJ --�-J �\ p00 z O Ln a I I o �� NII VV \ (D;n \�1 O ov>, 1\ z Ou O _ r�, I adl �� Q I / o 1 O z F- coI Q J < Q n ti r a6o�o� _ I 1 Q ~ J --I = Cy / m 1 w c� m �I w,, � IIQ) pI / I a 1Q So O a / �n to2Of Ld Q Ln z / =o w LL a LLJclq o al tV Ou ��^Jf N�9' Li in z O f I go No 4 Was OR: Ld L, (n III �0�ed 2�1 0 u O Of I ( �GENjER�\2�1•Z�r O6 0w- �ct / wQ `NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER LINE OF SECTION 32 i                     Executive Summary For Action  Golden Valley City Council Meeting  April 17, 2018    Agenda Item   4. D. Public Hearings ‐ Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Amendments to the General Land  Use Plan Map and the Official Zoning Map ‐ 5508 Olson Memorial Highway (Damascus Way)    Prepared By  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager    Summary  These applications were tabled at the February 20, 2018, City Council meeting. The applicant has  asked that they be postponed again to the May 1, 2018, City Council meeting.    Recommended Actions  Motion to postpone the public hearings regarding a Conditional Use Permit and Amendments to  the General Land Use Plan Map and the Official Zoning Map for 5508 Olson Memorial Highway to  the May 1, 2018, City Council meeting.    Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 6. A. Authorize Entering into Agreements with Verizon Wireless for • Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement • Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement Supplement Prepared By Jeff Oliver PE, City Engineer Summary In recent years the wireless communication industry has been implementing new technology called small wireless facilities (small cell) to improve communications coverage. These small cell facilities are replacing large cellular communication towers and are typically located on light poles, power poles and occasionally buildings. During the 2017 legislative session, the State of Minnesota passed legislation that requires that local units of government to allow installation of small cell facilities within public rights of way, and prescribes the fees that can be charged for these installations. The League of Minnesota Cities incorporated these new requirements into its Model Right of Way Management Ordinance, and these requirements will also be incorporated in the Golden Valley ordinance during the ongoing recodification process. Verizon Wireless has requested the installation of a small cell facility on a City owned street light located in the northwest quadrant of Wisconsin Avenue North and Trunk Highway 55. Because the Golden Valley Right of Way Management Ordinance does not currently address the small wireless facility requirements, approval of the Verizon is being processed by a Collocation Agreement. This agreement outlines fees and lease amounts, maintenance requirements, electric costs, size limits of the facilities and legal requirements for each small cell facility that Verizon may install within Golden Valley. The Supplement to the Collocation Agreement is a site specific agreement which incorporates the terms of the overall agreement, and effectively serves as a Right of Way permit. These agreements have been reviewed by the City Attorney and are consistent with state law. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement (13 pages) • Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement Supplement (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize entering into Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement with Verizon Wireless; and a Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement for installation of facilities at Wisconsin Avenue North and Trunk Highway 55. N � Q RLL x� d 0 Sil Oa Vd N� IN AO ALJ SliodVBNNIw do Alm . ° �` Y4W�foZ .,/T • � it •� � 'm @ I � an E Sll t) •3NNIW d0 Alli O d y / USa 11 0 4 - — o / J 1-4u� T N�ejqoX Im 91 MIX set noQ ! • � _ 1i splio S°. O ewe _ s { p N t ,_L S eY ° e°�ang aps � i� G a � �°a �� 1 -- - O s-H iii - , X•A4 -- po. D `N N�f I "T 139 Pnuyb S wY on 1 ,' I� d e PATE Slum IVIGUOD go 1nOW Ala'30 A110 �. r xln O/Y Al I.11W5100'1 do AIla'� do CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY COLLOCATION AGREEMENT This Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement (the "Agreement") is made this day of 2018, between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation, with its principal offices located at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 ("LESSOR"), and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal offices located at One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920("LESSEE"). LESSOR and LESSEE shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Parties" or individually as a "Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, LESSOR is the owner of certain utility poles and/or similar facilities, which are located within the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, in which the LESSEE is authorized to provide wireless services by the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC License"); and WHEREAS, LESSOR has elected to manage its rights-of-way as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and 237.163 and LESSOR'S municipal code of ordinances (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, LESSEE desires to install, maintain and operate a small wireless facility on certain of LESSOR's utility poles and/or similar facilities; and WHEREAS, a "Small Wireless Facility" means: (1) a wireless facility, as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, subd. 13, that meets both of the following qualifications: (i) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six (6) cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six (6) cubic feet; and (ii) all other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility, excluding electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, and any equipment concealed from public view within or behind and existing structure or concealments, is in the aggregate no more than twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume; or (2) a micro wireless facility as defined by Minnesota Statutes,Section 237.162, subd. 14; and WHEREAS, LESSOR and LESSEE desire to enter into this Agreement to define the general terms and conditions which would govern their relationship with respect to particular sites at which LESSOR may wish to permit LESSEE to install, maintain, and operate Small Wireless Facilities; and WHEREAS, LESSOR and LESSEE will enter into an agreement supplement ("Supplement"), in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with respect to each utility pole or similar facility on which the LESSOR agrees to allow LESSEE to install, maintain, and operate Small Wireless Facilities and/or equipment; and City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 1 WHEREAS, this Agreement is not exclusive and LESSOR reserves the right to grant permission to other eligible and qualified entities to collocate Small Wireless Facilities in LESSOR's rights-of-way. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby,the Parties agree as follows: 1. PREMISES. Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the attached Supplement, LESSOR agrees to lease to LESSEE certain space upon LESSOR's utility poles (the "Poles") and/or surrounding real and/or personal property (LESSOR's Poles, personal property and surrounding real property are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Premises"), for the installation, operation and maintenance of a Small Wireless Facility of the type, size and configuration generally depicted and described in the Supplement and Exhibit 1 attached thereto. The Premises shall include certain space on the ground (the "Equipment Space") on the Premises, and space on the Poles sufficient for the installation, operation and maintenance of the Small Wireless Facility (the "Antenna Space"), as described in the Supplement. In addition, LESSOR grants to LESSEE a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress for necessary vehicle access to the Premises, and such additional space necessary for the installation, operation and maintenance of wires, cables, conduits, and pipes (the "Cabling Space") running between and among the various portions of the Premises and to all necessary electrical and telephone utility, cable, and fiber sources located therein. Said easement does not grant LESSEE the right to disturb any existing utility or cable lines or other improvements without LESSOR's consent. 2. GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS. LESSEE's right to use the Premises is expressly made contingent upon LESSEE obtaining all permits, certificates, zoning and approvals that may be required by any federal, state or local governmental authority (the "Governmental Approvals"), including but not limited to a right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit, as applicable, from LESSOR pursuant to the Code, as the same may be amended from time to time, in addition to the requirements described in Paragraph 6, that will permit LESSEE's proposed use of the Premises as set forth in this Agreement. LESSEE shall have the right to terminate the applicable Supplement if: (i) any of the applications for Governmental Approvals is finally rejected; (ii) any Governmental Approval issued to LESSEE is canceled, expires, lapses, or is otherwise withdrawn or terminated by a governmental authority; (iii) LESSEE determines that the Governmental Approvals may not be obtained in a timely manner; (iv) LESSEE determines that the Premises are no longer technically compatible for its use; or (v) LESSEE, in its sole discretion, determines that the use of the Premises is unnecessary. If termination is based on the reasons described in Paragraphs 2(iv)or 2(v), LESSEE shall provide LESSOR with at least one hundred fifty (150) days' written notice. Notice of LESSEE's exercise of its right to terminate for any reason shall be given to LESSOR in accordance with the notice provisions set forth in Paragraph 17. All Annual Rent (as defined in Paragraph 5) payments paid for the period prior to the termination date shall be retained by LESSOR. Upon such termination, the applicable Supplement shall be of no further force or effect, except to the extent of the representations, warranties, and indemnities made by each Party to the other thereunder. Otherwise, LESSEE shall have no further obligations for the payment of Annual Rent to LESSOR for the terminated Supplement. 3. USE. LESSEE shall use the Premises for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, repairing and operating a Small Wireless Facility, as such term is defined in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162, as the same may be amended from time to time, and uses incidental thereto. LESSEE shall have City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 2 the right, without any increase in Annual Rent, to replace (provided the replacement is within the size limitations for a small wireless facility in Minnesota Statutes Section 237.162 ) or repair utilities, fiber or cable, equipment, antennas and/or conduits or any portion thereof, and to add to or modify the frequencies over which the Small Wireless Facility operates. LESSEE agrees that the following priorities of use, in descending order, shall apply in the event of communication interference or other conflict while this Agreement is in effect and LESSEE's use shall be subordinated accordingly: (i) the use of the public right-of-way for travel; (ii) public safety agencies, including law enforcement,fire and ambulance services that are not part of LESSOR; (iii) any equipment or facilities that predate LESSEE's installation. 4. CONDITION OF PREMISES. LESSOR represents and warrants to LESSEE that as of the Effective Date of each Supplement,and continuing throughout the Term (as hereinafter defined)of each Supplement: (a) the Premises are in compliance with all Laws (as defined in Paragraph 23 below), including any applicable building codes, regulations, or ordinances that may exist with regard to the Poles, or any part thereof; and (b) LESSOR will facilitate LESSEE's investigation of the Premises to determine whether or not lead-based paint, asbestos, or other hazardous substances (as that term may be defined under any applicable federal, state or local law)are present on the Premises and whether the Pole is suitable for LESSEE's use. LESSOR makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, except those expressly set forth in this Agreement. 5. TERM; RENT. This Agreement shall take effect as of the date of execution by both Parties (the "Effective Date"). The term of each Supplement shall commence on the date of execution by both Parties (the "Commencement Date"), at which time rental payments shall commence and be due at a total annual rental of One Hundred and Seventy-Five and No/100 Dollars ($175.00) (the "Annual Rental"). Consistent with Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162-.163,this Annual Rental includes the rental fee to occupy the Premises, the maintenance fee associated with the space occupied and all other right-of-way management costs. Also consistent with Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162-.163, the term of each Supplement shall be equal to the length of time that the small wireless facility is in use (the "Supplement Term"), unless the Supplement is terminated pursuant to this Agreement. Prior to the execution of a Supplement and on each fifth (5th) anniversary of the Commencement Date of each Supplement, each party shall have the right to adjust the Annual Rent due under each Supplement to the maximum annual rental rate allowed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 237, and such adjusted Annual Rent rate shall stay in effect for the duration of the Supplement Term. The adjusted Annual Rent shall be documented in the Supplement or in an amendment to the Supplement. The Annual Rent shall be paid in advance annually on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary of the Commencement Date, in advance, to the payee designated by LESSOR in the Supplement, or to such other person, firm or place as LESSOR may designate, from time to time, at least thirty (30) days in advance of any Annual Rent payment date by written notice given in accordance with Paragraph 17 below. LESSOR and LESSEE acknowledge and agree that the initial Annual Rent payment for each Supplement may not actually be sent by LESSEE until sixty (60) days after the Commencement Date of each Supplement. LESSEE further agrees to pay LESSOR a non-refundable application fee in the amount of $1,000.00 or such amount as is required under the Code at the time LESSEE applies for each Supplement, in addition to any applicable permitting fees pursuant to Paragraph 2. Upon agreement of the Parties, LESSEE may make Annual Rent payments by electronic funds transfer, and in that event, LESSOR agrees to provide to LESSEE bank routing information for that purpose upon request of LESSEE. LESSOR hereby agrees to provide to LESSEE certain documentation (the "Rent Documentation") including without limitation: a completed, most current version of Internal Revenue Service Form W-9, City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 3 or equivalent, and applicable state or local withholding forms, for any party to whom Annual Rent payments are to be made pursuant to this Agreement or a Supplement and other documentation reasonably requested by LESSEE to comply with the requirement of any applicable laws, rules, regulations,ordinances,directives,or covenants now in effect,or which may hereafter come into effect. 6. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; ENGINEERING STUDY AND COSTS. a. Before receiving approval from LESSOR to collocate the Small Wireless Facility on LESSOR'S Pole pursuant to this Agreement, LESSEE shall submit to the City Engineer or the City Engineer's designee, detailed construction plans and specifications depicting each individual location, together with maps showing the specific Pole to be used for collocation, the number and character of the attachments to be placed thereon and any equipment, installations or appurtenances comprising, related to or necessary for the proposed Small Wireless Facility. The City Engineer or the City Engineer's designee shall determine whether to provide permission to LESSEE to proceed with the work proposed by LESSEE. LESSEE shall perform all work at its own expense and make installations and attachments in such manner as to not interfere with the services of LESSOR. b. Any expenses necessary to make the Premises ready for LESSEE'S construction or installation of the Small Wireless Facility shall be the sole responsibility of LESSEE. LESSEE shall obtain and submit to LESSOR a structural engineering study performed by a qualified structural engineer showing the Pole and its foundation are able to support the proposed Small Wireless Facility. C. The Parties acknowledge and agree that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162 and 237.163, LESSOR may charge the actual costs of the initial engineering and preparatory construction work associated with LESSEE'S collocation in the form of a one-time nonrecurring, commercially reasonable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral charge. LESSEE shall pay such reasonable costs within sixty (60) days of receipt of an itemized invoice detailing the costs. 7. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. 8. ELECTRICAL SERVICE. LESSOR shall, at all times during each Supplement Term, permit access to electrical service and telephone service access within the Premises. If permitted by the local utility company servicing the Premises, LESSEE shall furnish and install an electrical meter at the Premises for the measurement of electrical power used by LESSEE's installation. If LESSEE is obtaining electrical service directly from LESSOR, then as provided by Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 and 237.163, an annual fee (the "Electricity Fee") for the electricity used to operate the Small Wireless Facility shall be paid with the annual rent due under each Supplement at the rate of: a. $73.00 per radio node less than or equal to 100 maximum watts; b. $182.00 per radio node over 100 maximum watts; or C. The actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in Section 8(a)or 8(b). The amount of the Electricity Fee shall be set forth in each Supplement. LESSEE shall be permitted at any time during the Term of each Supplement, to install, maintain, and/or provide access to and use of, City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 4 as necessary (during any power interruption at the Premises), a temporary power source and a temporary installation of any other services and equipment required to keep LESSEE's Small Wireless Facility operational, along with all related equipment and appurtenances within the Premises or elsewhere in such locations as reasonably approved by LESSOR. LESSEE shall have the right to install conduits connecting the temporary power source, and the temporary installation of any other services and equipment required to keep LESSEE'S Small Wireless Facility operational, and related appurtenances to the Premises. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, LESSEE agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless LESSOR, and its employees, officials and agents from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out LESSEE's negligence, misconduct, wrongful acts or omissions or breach of this Agreement. LESSEE'S indemnification obligation shall apply to LESSEE'S contractors, subcontractors or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by LESSEE, or anyone for whose acts LESSEE may be liable. LESSEE is not required to indemnify LESSOR to the extent such losses or claims are caused by the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission of LESSOR or its employees, officials and agents, except in the case of LESSOR's wrongful acts or omissions occurring in connection with LESSOR's issuance of any right-of- way or small wireless permit to LESSEE or in failing to property or adequately inspect or enforce compliance with such permit, in which case LESSEE's indemnification obligations shall apply. LESSOR will provide LESSEE with prompt written notice of any claim covered by this indemnification provision; provided that any failure of LESSOR to provide any such notice, or to provide it promptly, shall not relieve LESSEE from its indemnification obligations in respect of such claim, except to the extent LESSEE can establish actual prejudice and direct damages as a result thereof. LESSEE shall not settle or compromise any such claim or consent to the entry of judgment without the prior written consent of LESSOR and without an unconditional release of all claims by each claimant or plaintiff in favor of LESSOR. LESSEE'S indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall waive, limit or restrict the limitations on LESSOR's liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or any governmental immunities from liability available to LESSOR. LESSEE in defending any action on behalf of LESSOR is entitled to assert every defense or immunity that the LESSOR could assert in its own behalf. 10. INSURANCE. a. To the extent allowed by law, the Parties hereby waive and release any and all rights of action for negligence against the other which may hereafter arise on account of damage to the Premises, resulting from any fire, or other casualty of the kind covered by standard fire insurance policies with extended coverage, regardless of whether or not, or in what amounts, such insurance is now or hereafter carried by the Parties, or either of them. These waivers and releases shall apply between the Parties and they shall also apply to any claims under or through either Party as a result of any asserted right of subrogation. All such policies of insurance obtained by either Party concerning the Premises shall waive the insurer's right of subrogation against the other Party. b. LESSEE agrees to maintain, at its own expense, commercial general liability insurance, or its equivalent, with limits not less than $2,000,000.00 per occurrence; $4,000,000 annual aggregate, for bodily injury(including death) and for damage or destruction to property. C. LESSEE further agrees to obtain and maintain, at its own expense: City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 5 (i) workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota and employer's liability with a limit of$1,000,000 each accident/disease/policy limit; (ii) commercial automobile liability covering owned, hired and non-owned vehicles with limits of $2,000,000 combined single limit each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. d. The policies of insurance required under this Paragraph 10 shall remain in force for the entire duration of the Term. LESSEE shall provide, prior to tenancy, evidence of the required insurance in the form of a Certificate of Insurance issued by a company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, which includes the coverages required in this Paragraph 10. LESSOR shall be included as an additional insured as their interest may appear under this Agreement on Tenant's commercial general liability and commercial automobile liability policies. Within thirty(30) days' of the effective date of the new policy, LESSEE shall provide a new Certificate of Insurance if LESSEE's existing policy is cancelled or not renewed. LESSEE agrees to use its commercially reasonable best efforts to provide at least thirty (30) days' notice to LESSOR in the event that LESSEE becomes aware that the coverage may be canceled, non-renewed or materially changed. 11. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Except for third-party indemnification claims, neither Party shall be liable to the other, or any of their respective agents, representatives, employees for any lost revenue, lost profits, loss of technology, rights or services, incidental, punitive, indirect, special or consequential damages, loss of data, or interruption or loss of use of service, even if advised of the possibility of such damages, whether under theory of contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise. 12. INTERFERENCE. LESSEE agrees that the Small Wireless Facility will not cause harmful interference which is measurable in accordance with then existing industry standards with any equipment of LESSOR or other tenants of the Premises which existed on the Premises prior to the date the applicable Supplement is executed by the Parties. In the event any after-installed LESSEE's equipment causes such interference, and after LESSOR has notified LESSEE of such interference by a written communication and a telephone call to LESSEE's Network Operations Center at (800) 224-6620. LESSEE will take all commercially reasonable steps necessary to correct and eliminate the interference, including but not limited to, at LESSEE's option, powering down such interfering equipment and later powering up such interfering equipment for intermittent testing. If the interference continues for a period in excess of forty-eight (48) hours following such notification, LESSOR shall have the right to require LESSEE to reduce power, and/or cease operations until such time LESSEE can effect repairs to the interfering equipment. LESSOR agrees that LESSOR and/or any other users of the Premises who currently have or in the future take possession of the Premises will be permitted to install only such equipment that is of the type and frequency which will not cause harmful interference which is measurable in accordance with then existing industry standards to the then existing Small Wireless Facility of LESSEE. The Parties acknowledge that there will not be an adequate remedy at law for noncompliance with the provisions of this Paragraph 12 and therefore, either Party shall have the right to equitable remedies, such as, without limitation, injunctive relief and specific performance. 13. REMOVAL AT END OF TERM. LESSEE shall, within ninety(90) days after expiration of the Term, or any earlier termination of a Supplement, remove its Small Wireless Facility and restore the City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 6 Premises to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear and casualty damage excepted. LESSOR agrees and acknowledges that all of the Small Wireless Facility shall remain the personal property of LESSEE and LESSEE shall have the right to remove the same at any time during the Term, whether or not said items are considered fixtures and attachments to real property under applicable laws. If the time for removal causes LESSEE to remain on the Premises after termination of the Supplement, LESSEE shall pay rent at the then-existing monthly rate, or on the existing monthly pro-rata basis if based upon a longer payment term, until such time as the removal of the antenna structure, fixtures and all personal property are completed. 14. RIGHTS UPON SALE. If, at any time during the Term of any Supplement, LESSOR decides: (i) to sell or transfer all or any part of the Premises or the Poles thereon to a purchaser other than LESSEE, or(ii) to grant to a third party by easement or other legal instrument an interest in that portion of the Premises occupied by LESSEE, or a larger portion thereof, for the purpose of operating and maintaining telecommunications facilities or the management thereof,that sale or grant of an easement or interest therein shall be subject to the Supplement, and any such purchaser or transferee must recognize LESSEE's rights hereunder and under the terms of the affected Supplement(s). If LESSOR completes any such sale, transfer, or grant described in this Paragraph 14 without executing an assignment of the Supplement in which the third party agrees in writing to assume all obligations of LESSOR under the Supplement, then LESSOR shall not be released from its obligations to LESSEE under the Supplement, and LESSEE shall have the right to look to LESSOR and the third party for the full performance of the Supplement. 15. QUIET ENJOYMENT AND REPRESENTATIONS. LESSOR covenants that LESSEE, on paying the rent and performing the covenants herein and in a Supplement, shall peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the Premises. LESSOR represents and warrants to LESSEE as of the execution date of each Supplement, and covenants during the Term, that LESSOR is seized of good and sufficient title and interest to the Premises, and has full authority to enter into and execute the Supplement. LESSOR further represents that there are no covenants, easements or restrictions that prevent or adversely affect the use or occupancy of the Premises by LESSEE as provided in this Agreement and in the applicable Supplement(s). 16. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement and all Supplements under it may be sold, assigned or transferred collectively by LESSEE without any approval or consent of LESSOR to LESSEE's principal, affiliates, subsidiaries of its principal, or to any entity which acquires all or substantially all of LESSEE's assets in the market defined by the FCC in which the Premises are located by reason of a merger, acquisition or other business reorganization ("LESSEE Affiliate"). As to other parties, this Agreement and each Supplement may not be sold, assigned or transferred without the written consent of LESSOR, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. No change of stock ownership, partnership interest or control of LESSEE or transfer upon partnership or corporate dissolution of LESSEE shall constitute an assignment hereunder. 17. NOTICES. All notices hereunder must be in writing and are validly given if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested or by commercial courier, provided the courier's regular business is delivery service and provided further that it guarantees delivery to the addressee by the end of the next business day following the courier's receipt from the sender, addressed as follows (or to any other address that the Party to be notified may have designated to the sender by like notice): City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 7 LESSOR: City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 LESSEE: Verizon Wireless(VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless Attention: Network Real Estate 180 Washington Valley Road Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 Notice shall be effective upon actual receipt or refusal as shown on the receipt obtained pursuant to the foregoing. 18. RECORDING. LESSOR agrees to execute a memorandum of each Supplement which LESSEE may record with the appropriate recording officer. The date set forth in the memorandum of lease is for recording purposes only and bears no reference to commencement of either the Term or rental payments. 19. DEFAULT. If there is a breach by a Party with respect to any of the provisions of this Agreement, or under the provisions of an individual Supplement, the non-breaching Party shall give the breaching Party written notice of that breach. After receipt of the written notice, the breaching Party shall have thirty (30) days in which to cure the breach, provided the breaching Party shall have such extended period as may be required beyond the thirty (30) days if the breaching Party commences the cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter continuously and diligently pursues the cure to completion, but in no event more than sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of written notice. The non- breaching Party may not maintain any action or effect any remedies for default against the breaching Party unless and until the breaching Party has failed to cure the breach within the time periods provided in this Paragraph 19. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall be a default under this Agreement, or under an individual Supplement if LESSOR fails, within five (5) business days after receipt of written notice of such breach, to perform an obligation required to be performed by LESSOR, and if the failure to perform that obligation interferes with LESSEE's ability to conduct its business in the Premises; provided, however,that if the nature of LESSOR's obligation is such that more than five (5) business days after notice is reasonably required for its performance, then it shall not be a default under this Agreement or the applicable Supplement if performance is commenced within such five (5) business day period and thereafter diligently pursued to completion, but in no event more than fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of written notice. LESSOR and LESSEE agree that a default under an individual Supplement does not constitute a default under this Agreement 20. REMEDIES. In the event of a default by either Party of this Agreement, without limiting the non-defaulting Party in the exercise of any right or remedy which the non-defaulting Party may have by reason of that default, the non-defaulting Party may terminate the applicable Supplement and/or pursue any remedy now or hereafter available to the non-defaulting Party under the Applicable Laws or judicial decisions of the State of Minnesota. City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 8 21. ENVIRONMENTAL. a. LESSOR will be responsible for all obligations of compliance with any and all environmental and industrial hygiene laws, including any regulations, guidelines, standards, or policies of any governmental authorities regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct with regard to any environmental or industrial hygiene conditions or concerns as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect, that are or were in any way related to activity now conducted in, on, or in any way related to the Poles or the Premises, unless such conditions or concerns are caused by the specific activities of LESSEE in the Premises. b. LESSOR shall hold LESSEE harmless and indemnify LESSEE from and assume all duties, responsibility and liability at LESSOR's sole cost and expense, for all duties, responsibilities, and liability (for payment of penalties, sanctions, forfeitures, losses, costs, or damages) and for responding to any action, notice, claim, order, summons, citation, directive, litigation, investigation or proceeding which is in any way related to: (a) failure to comply with any environmental or industrial hygiene law, including without limitation any regulations, guidelines, standards, or policies of any governmental authorities regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct with regard to any environmental or industrial hygiene concerns or conditions as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect, unless such non-compliance results from conditions caused by LESSEE; and (b) any environmental or industrial hygiene conditions arising out of or in any way related to the condition of the Premises or activities conducted thereon, unless such environmental conditions are caused by LESSEE. C. LESSEE shall hold LESSOR harmless and indemnify LESSOR from and assume all duties, responsibility and liability at LESSEE's sole cost and expense, for all duties, responsibilities, and liability (for payment of penalties, sanctions, forfeitures, losses, costs, or damages) and for responding to any action, notice, claim, order, summons, citation, directive, litigation, investigation or proceeding which is in any way related to: (a) failure to comply with any environmental or industrial hygiene law, including without limitation any regulations, guidelines, standards, or policies of any governmental authorities regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct with regard to any environmental or industrial hygiene concerns or conditions as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect, to the extent that such non-compliance results from conditions caused by LESSEE; and (b) any environmental or industrial hygiene conditions arising out of or in any way related to the condition of the Premises or activities conducted thereon, to the extent that such environmental conditions are caused by LESSEE. 22. CASUALTY. In the event of damage by fire or other casualty to the Building or Premises that cannot reasonably be expected to be repaired within forty-five (45) days following same or, if the Premises are damaged by fire or other casualty so that such damage may reasonably be expected to disrupt LESSEE's operations at the Premises for more than forty-five (45) days, then LESSEE may, at any time following such fire or other casualty, provided LESSOR has not completed the restoration required to permit LESSEE to resume its operation at the Premises, terminate the Supplement upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to LESSOR. Any such notice of termination shall cause the Supplement to expire with the same force and effect as though the date set forth in such notice were the date originally set as the expiration date of the Supplement and the Parties shall make an appropriate adjustment, as of such termination date, with respect to payments due to the other under the Supplement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the rent shall abate during the period of repair following such fire or other casualty in proportion to the degree to which LESSEE's use of the Premises is impaired. City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 9 23. APPLICABLE LAWS. Laws means any and all laws, regulations, ordinances, resolutions, judicial decisions, rules, permits and approvals applicable to the subject of this Agreement or LESSEE's use that are in force during the term of this Agreement, as lawfully amended including, without limitation, LESSOR's Code, LESSOR's Annual Fee Resolution and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 237. LESSOR's Code and LESSOR's Annual Fee Resolution shall comply with Minnesota Statutes §§ 237.162-3 including, but not limited to, the maximum charges for maintenance and rent to occupy space on LESSOR's poles/wireless support structures. LESSEE and LESSOR shall comply with all applicable Laws. This Agreement does not limit any rights LESSEE may have in accordance with Laws to install its own poles in the right of way or to attach LESSEE's equipment to third-party poles located in the right of way. 24. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. a. LESSOR hereby grants to LESSEE the right to use the municipal public right-of-way for the installation, maintenance and operation of LESSEE's communications equipment in and on Poles located within the public right-of-way subject to all applicable laws and regulations. b. The Small Wireless Facility shall be installed and maintained in accordance with applicable Laws and LESSEE shall comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations adopted by LESSOR. Within the public right-of-way, the location of the Small Wireless Facility shall be subject to the reasonable and proper regulation, direction and control of the LESSOR, or the official to whom such duties have been delegated by LESSOR. LESSEE shall have no ownership interest in any Poles owned by LESSOR. C. LESSEE and its contractors shall give LESSOR at least thirty (30) days' notice of the dates, location, and nature of construction work to be performed on its communications equipment within the public right-of-way. In the event of emergency repairs or maintenance work that requires excavation or obstruction of the public right-of-way, LESSEE shall provide reasonable notice thereof. 25. STRUCTURE RECONDITIONING, REPAIR REPLACEMENT. a. From time to time, LESSOR paints, reconditions, or otherwise improves or repairs the Poles in a substantial way("Reconditioning Work"). LESSOR shall reasonably cooperate with LESSEE to carry out Reconditioning Work activities in a manner that minimizes interference with LESSEE's approved use of the Premises. b. Prior to commencing Reconditioning Work, LESSOR shall provide LESSEE with not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice. Upon receiving that notice, it shall be LESSEE's sole responsibility to provide adequate measures to cover or otherwise protect LESSEE's equipment from the consequences of the Reconditioning Work, including but not limited to paint and debris fallout. LESSOR reserves the right to require LESSEE to remove all of LESSEE's equipment from the Poles and Premises during Reconditioning Work, provided the requirement to remove LESSEE's equipment is contained in the written notice required by this Section. C. During LESSOR's Reconditioning Work, LESSEE may maintain a temporary Small Wireless Facility on the Premises, or after approval by LESSOR, on any land owned or controlled by LESSOR in the vicinity of the Premises. If the Premises will not accommodate LESSEE's temporary Small Wireless Facility, or if the Parties cannot agree on a temporary location, the LESSEE, at its sole option, City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 10 shall have the right to terminate the applicable Supplement upon thirty (30) days written notice to LESSOR. d. LESSEE may request a modification of LESSOR's procedures for carrying out Reconditioning Work in order to reduce the interference with LESSEE's use of the Premises. If LESSOR agrees to the modification, LESSEE shall be responsible for all reasonable incremental cost related to the modification. e. If the Poles need to be replaced ("Replacement Work"), LESSOR shall provide LESSEE with at least ninety (90) days' written notice to remove its equipment. LESSOR shall also promptly notify LESSEE when the Poles have been replaced and LESSEE may re-install its equipment. During LESSOR's Replacement Work, LESSEE may maintain a temporary Small Wireless Facility on the Premises, or after approval by LESSOR, on any land owned or controlled by LESSOR in the vicinity of the Premises. If the Premises will not accommodate LESSEE's temporary Small Wireless Facility or if the Parties cannot agree on a temporary location, the LESSEE, at its sole option, shall have the right to terminate the applicable Supplement upon thirty(30)days'written notice to LESSOR. f. If the Poles need to be repaired due to storm or other damage ("Repair Work"), LESSOR shall notify LESSEE to remove its equipment as soon as possible. In the event of an emergency, LESSOR shall contact LESSEE by telephone at LESSEE's Network Operations Center at (800) 224-6620 prior to removing LESSEE's Equipment. Once the Poles have been replaced or repaired, LESSOR will promptly notify LESSEE it can reinstall its equipment. During LESSOR's Repair Work, LESSEE may maintain a temporary Small Wireless Facility on the Premises, or after approval by LESSOR, on any land owned or controlled by LESSOR in the vicinity of the Premises. If the Premises will not accommodate LESSEE's temporary Small Wireless Facility, or if the Parties cannot agree on a temporary location, or if the Pole(s) cannot be repaired or replaced within thirty (30) days, LESSEE, at its sole discretion, shall have the right to terminate the applicable Supplement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to LESSOR. However, at LESSEE's sole option, within thirty (30) days after the casualty damage, LESSOR must provide LESSEE with a replacement Supplement to lease space at a new location upon which the Parties mutually agree. The Annual Rent payable under the new replacement Supplement will not be greater than the Annual Rent payable under the terminated Supplement. g. If LESSEE's installation requires a new Pole to be constructed or an existing Pole to be replaced by LESSEE (the "New Pole") then, any such New Pole, shall be deemed to be a fixture on the Premises and the New Pole shall be and remain the property of LESSOR, without further consideration to or from LESSOR. The installation of a New Pole shall conform to LESSOR's requirements in all respects. LESSOR accepts the pole AS IS and WHERE IS. Upon completion of LESSEE's installation, LESSOR shall be solely responsible for any and all costs relating to the operation, maintenance, repair and disposal of the New Pole. If the New Pole replaces an existing Pole, then also as part of LESSEE's installation, LESSEE shall remove, dispose, salvage and or discard such newly replaced Pole at LESSEE's sole discretion. 26. GOVERNMENT DATA. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is considered public data not on individuals and is accessible to the public under Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03. The Parties agrees to abide by the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other applicable state or federal rules, regulations or orders pertaining to privacy or confidentiality. City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 11 27. FORCE MAJEURE. Except for payment of sums due, neither Party shall be liable to the other or deemed in default under this Agreement, if and to the extent that a Party's performance is prevented by reason of force majeure. "Force majeure" includes war, an act of terrorism, fire, earthquake, flood or other circumstances which are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Party affected and which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the Party affected was unable to prevent. 28. NONDISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees or contractors to perform work under this Agreement, LESSEE shall not discriminate against any person by reason of any characteristic or classification protected by State or Federal law. 29. MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement and the Supplements that may be executed from time to time hereunder contain all agreements, promises and understandings between LESSOR and LESSEE regarding this transaction, and no oral agreement, promises or understandings shall be binding upon either LESSOR or LESSEE in any dispute, controversy or proceeding. This Agreement may not be amended or varied except in a writing signed by all Parties. This Agreement shall extend to and bind the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns hereto. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any of its rights hereunder shall not waive such rights and such party shall have the right to enforce such rights at any time. The performance of this Agreement via each Supplement shall be governed interpreted, construed and regulated by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The venue for all proceedings related to this Agreement shall be in Hennepin County, Minnesota. From and after the execution of this Agreement, the parties shall fully cooperate with each other and perform any further acts and execute and deliver any further documents which may be necessary in order to carry out the purposes and intentions of this Agreement. If any court finds any portion of this Agreement to be contrary to law, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and which taken together shall be deemed to be one and the same document. 30. MN PUC CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. LESSEE hereby certifies and warrants to LESSOR that it has obtained any necessary Certificate of Authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("Certificate of Authority"). LESSEE hereby agrees that shall hold LESSOR harmless for any claim that the LESSEE failed to obtain necessary approval and or certificates of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or any other state or federal governmental agency. If it is later determined that LESSEE is required to obtain any additional governmental approval, license, permit, it shall immediately do so at sole cost and expense. Failure to do so shall amount to a default under this Agreement. [Balance of page intentionally left blank] City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be approved effective the day and year first above written. LESSOR: City of Golden Valley,a municipal corporation By: Name: Its: Date: LESSEE: Verizon Wireless(VAW)LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless By: Name: Its: Date: City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 13 EXHIBIT A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY COLLOCATION AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENT This Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement Supplement ("Supplement'), is made this day of , 20 between City of Golden Valley, a municipal corporation, whose principal place of business is 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427, ("Lessor"), and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, a Delaware limited liability company, whose principal place of business is One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 ("Lessee"). 1. Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement This Supplement is a Supplement as referenced in that certain Master Lease Agreement between City of Golden Valley and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, dated , 20 (the "Agreement'). All of the terms and conditions of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof without the necessity of repeating or attaching the Agreement. In the event of a contradiction, modification or inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and this Supplement, the terms of this Supplement shall govern. Capitalized terms used in this Supplement shall have the same meaning described for them in the Agreement unless otherwise indicated herein. 2. Premises. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee certain spaces on and within the Premises owned by LESSOR and located at <INSERT SITE ADDRESS>, including, without limitation, approximately ( ) square feet of Equipment Space, and Antenna Space on the Poles. The Small Wireless Facility, Equipment Space, Antenna Space and Cabling Space are as shown on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Term. The Commencement Date and the Term of this Supplement shall be as set forth in the Agreement. 4. Consideration. Annual rent under this Supplement shall be $175.00; the annual Electricity Fee shall be $ both payable to City of Golden Valley at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427. 5. Site Specific Terms. (Include any site-specific terms) City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Supplement to be approved effective the day and year first above written. LESSOR: City of Golden Valley,a municipal corporation By: Name: Its: Date: LESSEE: Verizon Wireless(VAW)LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless By: Name: Its: Date: City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 15 EXHIBIT 1 TO LEASE SUPPLEMENT DEPICTION OF PREMISES City of Golden Valley,MN Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement 16 SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY COLLOCATION AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENT This Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement Supplement ("Supplement"), is made this day of , 2018, between City of Golden Valley, a municipal corporation, whose principal place of business is 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427, ("Lessor"), and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, a Delaware limited liability company, whose principal place of business is One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 ("Lessee"). 1. Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement This Supplement is a Supplement as referenced in that certain Master Lease Agreement between City of Golden Valley and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, dated 20 (the "Agreement"). All of the terms and conditions of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof without the necessity of repeating or attaching the Agreement. In the event of a contradiction, modification or inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and this Supplement, the terms of this Supplement shall govern. Capitalized terms used in this Supplement shall have the same meaning described for them in the Agreement unless otherwise indicated herein. 2. Premises. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee certain spaces on and within the Premises owned by LESSOR and located in the public right-of-way at the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue North and Highway 55, including, without limitation, Antenna Space on the Pole. The Small Wireless Facility, Antenna Space and Cabling Space are as shown on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Term. The Commencement Date and the Term of this Supplement shall be as set forth in the Agreement. 4. Consideration. Annual rent under this Supplement shall be $175.00 payable to City of Golden Valley at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427. 5. Site Specific Terms. Lessee shall furnish and install an electrical meter at the Premises for the measurement of electrical power used by LESSEE'S installation as shown on Exhibit 1. Lessee shall pay the utility directly for its electrical power use. Lessee shall furnish and install the Lessor light pole and Lessor light as shown on Exhibit 1. MIN Olson SCI Supplement 3998996vl 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Supplement to be approved effective the day and year first above written. LESSOR: City of Golden Valley,a municipal corporation By: Name: Its: Date: LESSEE: Verizon Wireless(VAW)LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless By: Name: Its: Date: MIN Olson Scl Supplement 3998996v1 2 EXHIBIT 1 TO LEASE SUPPLEMENT DEPICTION OF PREMISES See Attached Drawings (two pages) MIN Olson SCl Supplement 3998996v1 3 --------------------- - -----------, 1 I I I , i , 1 i 1 I I 1 I I 1 4 R2 , 1 1 =b 1 I I I I I 1 1 , 4 I 1 , I � 1 I , y i 1 1 1 1 I I I � 1 I i I , Q I ....:.:.:. N MAW NISNOOSIM I " � 1 � 1 I — — -AVM AO 1Held onend'XOUddV I I i I I I ; W , � I I 1 1 I ® I — I 1 1 , C ! ' 1 I 1 ��' `'f..•Jj Rn 1 � j cil�{{ryJ�6 I i 1 , I , 1 , 1 I 1 I i I , ------------------------------------------------ 1 II i I I I I I alumwlnnowu.e„r.ron,. � I I 1 I I PROPOSED LESSOR LIGHT 1 1 I � 1 I i I I 1 I I PROPOSED LESSEE PANEL ANTENNA I I I 1 I I 1 I PROPOSED LESSEE RADIO UNITS i 1 I 1 1 1 J PROPOSED LESSEE POWER CONVERTERS 0 i d d 9 d PROPOSED LESSEE LOAD CENTER N Q M 0 N QLu U I u ZZ' c I Z Q w i z J U 1 c Z Q a JO Q w 0 Z D Q I � W I I W (� f I W i I J 1 ' U ' I a PROPOSED LESSEE O ELECTRIC METER I J 1 ' U ' I i 1 1 I I t I I EXISTING GRADE ; I � I I i 1 1 1 I I I I 1 PROPOSED/REPLACEMENT LESSOR FOUNDATION I 1 I I 1 I i I , i � 1 I I 1 1 I LIGHT POLE ELEVATION 1 I /% SCAtE: Nis I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 6QJR; ' 0 jjQf 4 A f j� < Q fix a I , s > 3 p e I _ 1 1 b I I i.. _ .__.. _.. _ _...._._.. I Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting April 17, 2018 Agenda Item 6. B. Authorize a Master Funding Agreement with Metropolitan Council for Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer Summary The Metropolitan Council is requesting that the City of Golden Valley enter into a Master Funding Agreement for its proposed Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit (BLRT) project. This agreement outlines the process of transferring funds between the City and Metropolitan Council for work that is performed, or materials provided, by one of the parties on behalf of the other. Transfer of funds between the parties will be via Subordinate Funding Agreements that will be processed as costs are established. At this time, it is anticipated that a Subordinate Funding Agreement will be needed for sanitary sewer and watermain work in locations near the Plymouth Avenue station, the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Wirth Parkway, the Golden Valley Road station and at the north City Limits. These improvements have been requested by the City and are beyond the scope of the BLRT. The costs will be included in the pending 2019 to 2023 Capital Improvement Plan. Other work on City Utilities that are in conflict with the BLRT will be performed and paid for by the Metropolitan Council. This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney who is recommending approval of the agreement. Attachments • Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Project Master Funding Agreement (20 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize entering into Master Funding Agreement with Metropolitan Council for the Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit. PROJECT: METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT AGREEMENT NAME: Master Funding Agreement – City of Golden Valley PARTIES: • Metropolitan Council • City of Golden Valley, Minnesota This Master Funding Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Metropolitan Council (“Council”), a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, and the City of Golden Valley (“City”), a Minnesota municipal corporation, herein collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party”. This Agreement pertains to the Council’s proposed Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit (“BLRT”) Project, referred to hereafter as the “Project”. WHEREAS: 1. The Council, metropolitan area cities, public agencies, and transit funders are engaged in activities to develop the Project. The planned METRO Blue Line Extension would operate on approximately 13.5 miles of new double track from downtown Minneapolis to the northwest serving the communities of Minneapolis, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal and Brooklyn Park. 2. The Council anticipates receiving grants from the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) for engineering and construction of the Project under a Full Funding Grant Agreement (“FFGA”) with the FTA. 3. The Council is a party to a Cooperative Funding Agreement for project development, project development continuation, and engineering with the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (“HCRRA”) for the Project. The Council expects to enter a future Cooperative Funding Agreement with HCRRA for construction of the Project. 4. The Council has received grants from the Counties Transit Improvement Board (“CTIB”) for work through April 2018 for the project development and engineering phases for the Project. 5. The City may be involved in certain activities or provide materials in connection with and in support of the Project, and the Council may desire to pass through federal, CTIB, or local funds to the City for costs associated with such Project activities and/or materials. 6. The City may provide funding for certain non-FFGA components which may be installed as part of, or during, construction of the Project. The details of any such future actions will be negotiated at a later date and memorialized in one or more Subordinate Funding Agreements to this Agreement. 7. This Agreement is entered into between the Parties to provide a mechanism for the transfer of Project funds from the Council to the City for activities undertaken by the City for the Project (Part One), and for the transfer of City funds to the Council for components related to, but not currently part of, the Project (Part Two) and which will be negotiated by the City and the Council at a later date. In addition, this Agreement establishes general provisions applicable to all transfers from either Party to the other (Part Three). NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: PART ONE ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Part One of this Agreement is to provide: a. A method for the transfer of funds from the Council to the City for activities performed or materials supplied by the City in connection with and in support of the Project; and b. Contractual provisions that address compliance with federal and state laws and regulations as well as Council procedures including, without limitation, federal requirements for the monitoring of the City's Project activities using federal grant funds. ARTICLE 2. SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENTS TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM COUNCIL TO CITY 2.01 Transfer of Funds from Council to City. The Council will transfer Project funds to the City for the Project activities performed by the City. The transfer of funds from the Council to the City shall be in accordance with Subordinate Funding Agreements executed pursuant to this Article 2, each of which shall state the specific purpose for the funds, the City’s responsibility with respect to those funds, and establish who will own any assets constructed or remaining upon completion of the work. Each such Subordinate Funding Agreement, in conjunction with this Agreement, shall be determined by the Council to constitute a subrecipient or vendor agreement with the Council for the purposes of any federal grant funds transferred to the City. The Council shall bear no responsibility for any costs incurred by the City for the Project that exceeds the amounts committed by Subordinate Funding Agreements as such agreements may from time to time be amended. 2.02 Subordinate Funding Agreements. In accordance with Section 2.01, the Parties shall enter into Subordinate Funding Agreements to facilitate the funding by the Council of Project activities to be performed by the City. The Parties anticipate that there may be multiple such Subordinate Funding Agreements between them in connection with the Project. Each Subordinate Funding Agreement shall be in a form substantially similar to that attached as Exhibit A and shall follow and be subject to the terms of Part One and Part Three of this Agreement, unless otherwise expressly agreed to in writing. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement itself is not intended to create a specific financial obligation for either Party or to require either Party to enter into any specific Subordinate Funding Agreements, and no liability shall attach to either Party under this Agreement for refusing to enter into one or more subsequent Subordinate Funding Agreements. 2.03 Implementation of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The Council will only reimburse the City for Project activities that are the subject of a Subordinate Funding Agreement. Prior to entering a contract with any third party (including for the acquisition of property rights) to accomplish the City’s reimbursable activities, or prior to authorizing any City employees to proceed with any reimbursable activities, the City shall present a work scope (including a work schedule), staffing plan, and detailed budget for such services or expenditures to the Council for review and approval (the “Scope and Schedule”). This Scope and Schedule will form the basis of the Council’s Subordinate Funding Agreement. 2.04 Council Determination of Vendor or Subrecipient Relationship. The Council shall determine whether each Subordinate Funding Agreement is a subrecipient or vendor agreement. The Council shall state its determination in the Subordinate Funding Agreement. For subrecipient agreements, the City will be responsible to FTA for compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and deliverables. For vendor agreements, the Council will be responsible for compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and deliverables. 2.05 Modifications of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The following provisions apply to modifications of any Subordinate Funding Agreement: a. Re-budgeting within an approved budget is allowable without further amendment of this Agreement or any subsequent Subordinate Financing Agreement, as long as the budget is within the maximum amount of authorized funding. b. Modifications in work scope, if within the approved budget, are authorized when approved in writing by the Project Directors, as defined in Section 6.12 herein. c. Any other modifications to a Subordinate Funding Agreement shall require a written amendment of the Subordinate Funding Agreement executed by the Parties. d. Modification requests should be sent to the Project Directors. 2.06 Transfer of Project Funds to the City Under Subordinate Funding Agreements. The Council shall pay the City under Subordinate Funding Agreements as follows: a. Unless specifically agreed to by the Parties in and for a particular Subordinate Funding Agreement, payment to the City for Project costs under each Subordinate Funding Agreement shall be on a reimbursement basis based upon the submittal of invoices satisfactorily evidencing the expenditure of funds by the City for the Project. b. Unless specifically agreed to otherwise by the Parties in and for a particular Subordinate Funding Agreement, the City shall submit separate monthly invoices for each outstanding Subordinate Funding Agreement to the following address: Attn: Accounts Payable Blue Line Extension LRT Project Office 5514 West Broadway, Suite 200 Crystal, MN 55428 or to such other address or person as the Council may designate by notice in writing. c. Each invoice shall reference the sequential number of the Subordinate Funding Agreement under which the invoice is to be paid. d. Each invoice shall include the following if the corresponding Subordinate Funding Agreement was determined by the Council to create a subrecipient relationship: i. Subrecipient Payment Request Form (Form C-22A-BPO) as shown in Exhibit B, ii. Subrecipient Monthly Progress Report (Form BPO P1) as shown in Exhibit B, and iii. Itemization of the expenditures for which payment is requested using the Subrecipient Invoice Detail (Form BPO F1) as shown in Exhibit B, along with supporting documentation. e. Each invoice shall include the following if the corresponding Subordinate Funding Agreement was determined by the Council to create a vendor relationship: i. BPO Payment Request Form (either Engineering-Consultant or Construction) 1) Engineering-Consultant Payment Request Form (Form C22A) as shown in Exhibit B for engineering related expenses, or 2) Construction Payment Request Form (Form C21A) as shown in Exhibit B for construction related expenses, ii. A description of activities undertaken in accordance with the Subordinate Funding Agreement, and iii. An itemized list of the expenditures for which payment is requested, along with any supporting documentation. f. If a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) goal applies to the work performed under a Subordinate Funding Agreement, invoices shall include a DBE Reporting Form as shown in Exhibit B, or such other format as may be prescribed by the Council, and shall include the information required by Section 4.06(e) of this Agreement. g. After receipt of an invoice, the Council may request additional information from the City regarding the invoice in order to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of the expenditures for which reimbursement is requested or as required by the FTA for reporting purposes. h. Upon receipt of an invoice, the Council will make prompt payment of undisputed amounts as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.425. Under either 49 C.F.R. § 18.22 or Minnesota State Statutes Section 471.425, the Council may dispute or deny part or all of any invoice payment request if it reasonably believes that the requested payment does not conform to the terms of this Agreement and the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. The Parties will promptly meet to review and discuss any disputed or denied payment requests and the dispute resolution process outlined in Section 6.11 of this Agreement will ensue if the Parties cannot agree. If the Council does not pay the invoiced amount within 35 days of its receipt, the Council shall pay interest on the non-disputed amount at the rate of 1-1/2 percent per month. i. No invoice payment shall be made by the Council without prior amendment to the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement, if such invoice payment would cause distribution of Project funds to exceed, cumulatively through such payment, the maximum amount of authorized funding under the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. j. Distribution of any funds to the City pursuant to an invoice, or approval of any report, shall not be construed as a Council waiver of any City noncompliance with this Agreement or the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. 2.07 Repayment of Unauthorized Use of Project Funds. Upon a finding by the Council, following an audit, that the City has made an unauthorized or undocumented use of Project funds, and upon a demand for repayment issued by the Council and supported by the reason for the finding, if the City agrees, the City shall promptly repay such amounts to the Council. If the City disputes any amounts for which the Council seeks repayment, the Parties will promptly meet to review and discuss any challenged use of funds already paid and the dispute resolution process outlined in Section 6.11 will ensue if the Parties cannot agree. Neither Party shall be deemed to have waived any rights or remedies available under state law, federal law, common law, or otherwise. 2.08 Prompt Payment to Subcontractors. Where the Parties have agreed to compensation on terms other than a reimbursement basis, as provided in Section 2.06(a) of this Agreement, the terms of this Section shall apply. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.142(f), if the City subcontracts any portion of the work under this Agreement or Subordinate Funding Agreements, the City shall pay such subcontractor within 10 Days of City's receipt of payment from the Council for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The City shall not, by reason of said payments, be relieved from responsibility for work done by the subcontractor and shall be responsible for the entire work under this Agreement or Subordinate Funding Agreement until the same is finally accepted by Council. ARTICLE 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT FUNDED WORK 3.01 Allowable Costs; Unspent Funds. The City is authorized to use funds provided by the Council pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and per the terms of the Subordinate Funding Agreements only for allowable costs directly incurred for the Project. Allowable costs will be determined in accordance with the documents referenced in Section 4.05. Funds provided by the Council in Subordinate Funding Agreements may only be used for costs directly incurred: a. within the authorized work scope, b. during the project activity period, and c. in accordance with the approved budget for the funds. Any funds provided to the City under this Agreement and applicable Subordinate Funding Agreements which remain unspent after completion of the relevant Project activity shall be promptly repaid to the Council. 3.02 Documentation of Project Costs. All costs charged to the Project by the City must be supported by proper documentation, including properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, receipts for expenses, or vouchers, evidencing in detail the nature and propriety of the charges per the requirements of Section 4.02 of this Agreement. 3.03 Establishment of Capital Assets. If Capital Assets, as defined by FTA and determined by the Council in a Subordinate Funding Agreement, are procured by or provided to the City under a Subordinate Funding Agreement, invoices shall include an Asset Tracking Log as shown in Exhibit B, or such other format as may be prescribed, in writing, by the Council. 3.04 Establishment and Maintenance of Project Information. The City agrees to establish and maintain accurate, detailed, complete, and separate books, accounts, financial records, documentation, and inspection and quality assurance reports produced by City staff and/or contractors, and other evidence relating to the receipt and expenditure of all Project funds. All such Project information shall be established and maintained in accordance with generally accepted government accounting principles and practices and shall be retained intact by the City until the latest of: a. complete performance of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant thereto; b. six years following the term of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant thereto; c. six years following the close out of the Project by the Council and the FTA; or d. if any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced during any such periods, when all such litigation, claims or audits have been fully resolved, including all opportunities for appeal or further review. If the City engages any contractors to perform any part of the Project activities, the City agrees that the contract for such services shall include provisions requiring the contractor to establish and maintain Project information in accordance with the provisions of this Article and to allow audit of such information in the same manner provided with respect to the City in Section 3.05. The provisions of this Section 3.04 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 3.05 Reimbursed Costs Audit. The accounts and records of the City relating to the reimbursable costs for the Project shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the City are audited. During the time of maintenance of information under Section 3.04, authorized representatives of the Council, the Legislative Auditor and/or State Auditor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the United States Secretary of Transportation, the FTA Administrator, and the United States Comptroller General in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Section 5325(g) will have access to all such books, records, documents, accounting practices and procedures, and other information for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying during normal business hours. Proper facilities for such access and inspection shall be provided by the City. The provisions of this Section 3.05 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 3.06 Contract Information. The City shall, in connection with any contract entered into for the Project: a. Keep the Council informed as to the progress of such contract; b. Allow authorized representatives of the Council access to all meetings and documentation related to such contract, pursuant to applicable law; and c. Upon request, promptly provide the Council with copies of correspondence between the City and the contractor related to such contract. For purposes of this requirement, the Council shall designate, in writing, the appropriate contact person who shall be copied on all electronic correspondence related to the contract administration by the City. ARTICLE 4. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS 4.01 Federal Requirements. Monies that may be provided to the City by the Council pursuant to this Agreement may be funded in whole or in part by the FTA. The requirements in this Article 4 are in addition to and, unless inconsistent and irreconcilable, do not supplant requirements found elsewhere in this Agreement. If any requirement in this article is inconsistent with a provision found elsewhere in this Agreement and is irreconcilable with such provision, the requirement in this Article 4 shall prevail. 4.02 Incorporation of Federal Grant. As the Council receives federal grants, including a potential Full Funding Grant Agreement, with respect to the Project, the Council will provide the City with a copy of each grant. The terms of each grant and any amendments shall be automatically incorporated by reference into this Agreement without further action by the Parties. These grants are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the “Federal Grants.” When performing work or expending funds for Project activities, the City agrees to comply with all applicable terms and conditions of the Federal Grants received by the Council with respect to the Project. 4.03 Incorporation of Specific Federal Requirements. Specifically, and without limitation, the City agrees to comply with the federal requirements set forth in Exhibit C and agrees to require, unless specifically exempted, third party contractors at every tier to comply with the same. 4.04 Federal Certifications and Assurances; Execution and Incorporation. The City agrees to comply with and to certify compliance with the most recent version of the federal Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for Federal Transit Administration Grants and Cooperative Agreements if determined by the Council to be a subrecipient in a Subordinate Funding Agreement. The City must certify compliance with the applicable provisions by signing the appropriate certification(s) and returning the signed certification(s) as part of the execution of the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. During the term of the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement, the Council shall provide to the City the annual Federal Certifications and Assurances document, which the City shall execute and return to the Council. 4.05 Compliance with Federal Requirements; Incorporation of Specific Documents by Reference. The City agrees to comply with all federal statutes, rules, FTA Circulars, and Executive Orders which may be applicable to the Federal Grants. In particular, the City agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the current version of the following documents when performing work or expending funds for Project activities under this Agreement or any Subordinate Funding Agreement: a. FTA Master Agreement b. Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, 49 C.F.R. Part 18 c. Grant Management Requirements, FTA Circular 5010.1D d. Full-Funding Grant Agreements Guidance, FTA Circular 5200.1A e. Third Party Contracting Requirements, FTA Circular 4220.1F f. Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments, OMB Circular A-87 g. Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, OMB Circular A-133 as such statutes, rules, circulars, and executive orders may hereafter be amended or modified. The listed documents are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Copies of these documents are available on the FTA website or, upon request by the City, from the Council. 4.06 Third Party Contracts. If the City decides to fulfill any of its obligations or duties under a Subordinate Funding Agreement through a third-party contract to be paid for by funds received under this Agreement, the City agrees to the following provisions. These requirements are in addition to other requirements for such contracts set forth in this Agreement. a. Compliance with Federal Procurement Requirements. The City will comply with all applicable federal law, rules, and guidance relating to such procurement including, without limitation, the provisions of the most current version of the Third Party Contracting Requirements, FTA Circular 4220.1F, which document is incorporated by reference into this Agreement. A copy of this document is available on the FTA website or, upon request by the City, from the Council. b. Certification of City’s Procurement System. The City certifies that its procurement system complies with the standards described in the previous paragraph. c. Council Approval of Contracts. The City shall not execute any third-party contract or otherwise enter into a binding agreement until it has first received written approval from the Council. The Council’s approval of any such third-party contract is solely for the benefit of the Council and shall not relieve the City of the responsibility to ensure that such contracts are in the proper form and include all state and federal requirements. Additionally, a Subrecipient Contract Initiation Memo, as shown in Exhibit B, is required to be executed prior to any procurement over $50,000. Requests to enter into agreements should be sent to the Project Director. d. Inclusion of Provisions in Lower Tier Contracts. The City agrees to include adequate provisions to ensure compliance with applicable federal requirements in each lower tier subcontract financed in whole or in part with monies from the Project provided under this Agreement including all applicable provisions of this Agreement. Provisions to be included in such subcontracts include the provisions in Exhibit C. e. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Requirements. For all work performed under Part One of this Agreement, the City will comply with the Council's DBE Program. In particular, the City agrees to comply with the requirements of the Council's "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Pass Through Agreement and Program" document which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit D. For the purpose of Exhibit D, the following provisions apply: i. The Metropolitan Council DBE Liaison Officer, or designated staff, shall act as the City DBE Liaison Officer for the purposes of work under Part One of this funding Agreement. ii. The City agrees to submit to the Council for review, approval, and establishment of the appropriate DBE goal a Subrecipient Contract Initiation Memo, as shown in Exhibit B, for all procurements in excess of $50,000. Noncompliance with DBE requirements may result in sanctions, including ineligibility for reimbursement pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 18.22. iii. The City will provide reports to the Council reflecting all invoices paid on procurements for which a DBE goal has been established and identifying all DBE activity on such procurements. iv. The City will report DBE activity, on the Disadvantage Business Enterprise Reporting Form, to the Council on other purchase orders and invoices not included above with each Request for Payment. v. DBE eligibility will be based on the most recent DBE Directory from the Minnesota Unified Certification Program. f. Federal Procurement Basics. The City remains responsible for conforming its procurement processes to all applicable federal requirements for funds received from the Council under this Agreement and any Subordinate Funding Agreement. 4.07 Provisions Subject to Change. The City acknowledges that federal requirements in this Article 4 are subject to change and agrees that the most recent of these requirements shall govern this Agreement at any particular time. 4.08 No Federal Obligation. Monies provided under this Agreement may be financed in whole or in part by federal funds. However, payments to the City will be made by the Council. Pursuant to the Federal Transit Administration Master Agreement Section 2(f), the United States is not a party to this Agreement and no reference in this Agreement to the United States, the United States Department of Transportation, the FTA, or any representatives of the federal government makes the United States a party to this Agreement. The City shall include this clause in any contracts or Agreements entered into pursuant to this Agreement. 4.09 Special Reporting Requirements. The Council is required to report to the FTA regarding the Project activities. Accordingly, the City agrees to provide the Council with any additional or follow-up information reasonably requested by the Council, in order to meet the Council’s FTA reporting requirements. PART TWO ARTICLE 5. SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM CITY TO COUNCIL 5.01 Purpose. The purpose of Part Two of this Agreement is to provide a method for the transfer of City funds to the Council for components related to but currently not part of the Project, should any such payment be authorized by the City. 5.02 Transfer of Funds Requires Subordinate Funding Agreement. The City may provide funding for components related to but not part of the Project through the transfer of funds to the Council. Each such transfer of funds to the Council from the City shall be in accordance with one or more duly executed Subordinate Funding Agreements, each of which shall define the amount of funds committed by the City to the Council, specify the purpose for the funds, and establish who will own the asset constructed or remaining upon completion of the work. 5.03 Subordinate Funding Agreements. To facilitate funding by the City in accordance with Section 5.01, the Parties shall enter into Subordinate Funding Agreements. Subordinate Funding Agreements shall be in a form similar to Exhibit A and shall follow and be subject to the terms of Parts Two and Three of this Agreement, unless expressly agreed to in writing otherwise. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement itself is not intended to create a specific financial obligation for either Party or to require either Party to enter into any specific Subordinate Funding Agreements, and no liability shall attach to either Party under this Agreement for refusing to enter into one or more subsequent Subordinate Funding Agreements. 5.04 Implementation of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The City will only reimburse the Council for components related to the Project that are the subject of a Subordinate Funding Agreement. Prior to entering into a contractual obligation with any third party (including for the acquisition of property rights) to accomplish the Council’s obligations reimbursable by the City, or prior to authorizing any Council employees to proceed with any reimbursable actions, the Council shall present a work scope (including a work schedule), staffing plan, and detailed budget for such services or expenditures to the City for review and approval. 5.05 Modifications of Subordinate Funding Agreements. The following provisions apply to any modifications in a particular Subordinate Funding Agreement: a. Re-budgeting within an approved budget is allowable, as long as the budget is within the maximum amount of authorized funding. b. Modifications in work scope, if within the approved budget, are authorized when approved in writing by the City’s Finance Director, or such other person as the City may designate by notice to the Council. c. Any other modifications in a particular Subordinate Funding Agreement, including any increase in the maximum amount of authorized funding or changes in the applicable activity period, shall require a formal amendment of the Subordinate Funding Agreement executed by the Parties. 5.06 Transfer of Funds to the Council Under Subordinate Funding Agreements. The City shall pay the Council under Subordinate Funding Agreements as follows: a. Unless specifically agreed to otherwise by the Parties in and for a particular Subordinate Funding Agreement, payment to the Council for costs under each Subordinate Funding Agreement shall be on a reimbursement basis after the submittal of invoices evidencing the expenditure of funds by the Council. b. The Council shall submit separate monthly invoices for each outstanding Subordinate Funding Agreement to the following address: or to such other City address or person as the City may designate in writing. c. Unless the Parties otherwise agree, the Council shall submit each invoice to the City in the standard Council format and shall reference the sequential number of the Subordinate Funding Agreement under which the invoice is to be funded. d. Each invoice must include: i. A description of activities undertaken in accordance with the Subordinate Funding Agreement; ii. An itemized list of the expenditures for which payment is requested; and iii. Any supporting documentation. e. The Council shall add a 3% administrative fee to each invoice to be paid by the City. The Council shall prepare an itemized accounting of the expenditure of all portions of such administrative fee, and shall provide such itemization to the City upon request. The Council reserves the right to adjust the fee percentages on an annual basis as amended in a Subordinate Funding Agreement. In the event that this Agreement or the Subordinate Funding Agreement is terminated, the City shall be entitled to reimbursement of any unused portions of the above fee, based on the itemized accounting required herein. f. After receipt of an invoice, the City may request additional information from the Council regarding the invoice to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of the expenditures for which reimbursement is requested. g. The City shall pay the Council the undisputed invoice amount within 35 days of its receipt. The City may dispute all of or any part of an invoice if it reasonably believes that the requested payment does not conform to the terms of this Agreement or the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. If disputed, the Parties will promptly meet to review and discuss the disputed or denied payment requests and the dispute resolution process outlined in Section 6.11 of this Agreement will ensue if the Parties cannot agree. Unless the City has disputed the payment of an invoice, if the City does not pay the invoiced amount within 35 days of its receipt, the Council shall charge and the City shall pay interest on the non-disputed amount at the rate of 1-1/2 percent per month. The City shall not withhold the payment of any amount that is not in dispute. h. No invoice payment shall be made by the City without prior amendment to the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement, which would cause the distribution of funds to exceed, cumulatively through such payment, the maximum amount of authorized funding under the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. i. The City’s payment of any invoices or approval of any reports shall not constitute a waiver of any Council noncompliance with this Agreement or the applicable Subordinate Funding Agreement. City of Golden Valley Accounts Payable 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 5.07 Repayment of Unauthorized Use of Funds. Upon a finding by the City that the Council has made an unauthorized or undocumented use of City funds, and upon a demand for repayment issued by the City and supported by the reason for the finding, if the Council agrees, the Council shall promptly repay such amounts to the City. If the Council disagrees, the Parties will promptly meet to review and discuss any challenged use of funds already paid and dispute resolution pursuant to Section 6.11 will ensue if the Parties cannot agree. Neither Party shall be deemed to have waived any rights or remedies available under state law, federal law, common law or otherwise. 5.08 Use of Funds; Allowable Costs. The Council is authorized to use funds provided by the City under this Agreement only for costs directly incurred under a specific Subordinate Funding Agreement. Funds provided by the City under Subordinate Funding Agreements may only be used for costs directly incurred: a. Within the authorized work scope; b. During the specified activity period; and c. In accordance with the approved budget for the funds. 5.09 Documentation of Costs. All reimbursable costs charged to the City by the Council must be supported by proper documentation, including properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, receipts for expenses, or vouchers, evidencing in detail the nature and propriety of the charges. 5.10 Establishment and Maintenance of Information. The Council agrees to establish and maintain accurate, detailed, complete, and separate books, accounts, financial records, documentation, and other evidence relating to the receipt and expenditure of all funds from the City. All such information shall be established and maintained in accordance with generally accepted government accounting principles and practices and shall be retained intact by the Council until the latest of: a. Complete performance of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant thereto; b. Six years following the term of this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant thereto; c. Six years following the close out of the Project by the Council and the FTA; or d. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced during any such periods, when all such litigation, claims or audits have been fully resolved, including all opportunities for appeal or further review. If the Council engages any contractors to perform any part of the activities reimbursable by the City, the Council agrees that the contract for such services shall include provisions requiring the contractor to establish and maintain information in accordance with the provisions of this Article and to allow audit of such information in the same manner provided with respect to the Council in this Section 5.10. The provisions of this Section 5.10 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 5.11 Audit. The accounts and records of the Council relating to costs reimbursable by the City shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Council are audited. During the time of maintenance of information under Section 5.10, authorized representatives of the City; the Legislative Auditor and/or State Auditor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, subdivision 5; the United States Secretary of Transportation; the FTA Administrator, and the United States Comptroller General in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Section 5325(g); will have access to all such books, records, documents, accounting practices and procedures, and other information for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying during normal business hours. Proper facilities for such access and inspection shall be provided by the Council. The provisions of this Section 5.11 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 5.12 Use of Contractors. If the Council engages any contractors to perform any activities reimbursable by the City under Part Two of this Agreement, the Council agrees that the contract for such services shall include all of the following provisions. These requirements are in addition to other requirements for such contracts set forth in this Agreement. a. The contractor must maintain all records and provide all reporting as required by this Agreement. b. The contractor must defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City from all claims, suits, demands, damages, judgments, costs, interest, and expenses arising out of or by reason of the performance of the contracted work, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the contractor, including negligent acts or omissions of its employees, subcontractors, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. c. The contractor must provide and maintain insurance in amounts and types of coverage appropriate to the contracted work and naming the City as an additional insured, and provide to the Council a certificate of insurance evidencing such insurance coverage. d. The contractor must be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the contracted work. e. The contractor must acknowledge that the contract between the Council and the contractor does not create any contractual relationship between the City and the contractor. f. The contractor shall perform and complete the contracted work in full compliance with this Agreement and all applicable laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state, or local political subdivisions having jurisdiction over the contracted work. 5.13 Contract Information. The Council shall, in connection with any contract entered into for reimbursable work under Part Two of this Agreement: a. Keep the City informed as to the progress of such contract; b. Allow authorized representatives of the City access to all meetings and documentation related to such contract; c. Upon request, promptly provide the City with copies of correspondence between the Council and the contractor related to any such contract. For purposes of this requirement, the City shall designate, in writing, the appropriate contact person who shall be copied on all electronic correspondence related to the contract administration by the Council; and d. In addition to terms specified in this Agreement, include within the Contract Documents with the contractor appropriate insurance, indemnification, and liability provisions as negotiated and accepted by the Council and the contractor. The City expects the Contract Documents will include the following: the contractor’s insurance will list the City as an additional insured under the contractor’s policy with a minimum 30 day cancellation period; the contractor will defend and indemnify the City; the City will be a beneficiary of the performance and payment bonds; all warranties will extend to the City; and the City will be a third party beneficiary to the contract with the contractor with the authority to enforce the provisions of the contract. PART THREE ARTICLE 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.01 Purpose. The purpose of Part Three of this Agreement is to establish the general provisions that apply to this Agreement and each Subordinate Funding Agreement executed by the Parties hereafter. 6.02 Independent Contractors. The Parties agree that any and all persons employed by or on behalf of a Party to perform any work or duties as an agent of a Party under this Agreement shall not be considered employees of the other Party. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third person as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees or persons while so engaged in any of the work contemplated in this Agreement, shall not be the obligation or responsibility of the other Party. This Agreement is not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.51, et seq. 6.03 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. As stated herein, this Agreement depends upon one or more Subordinate Funding Agreements for the actual authorization of work or transfer of any reimbursements and the terms of any subsequent Subordinate Funding Agreements shall be considered together with this Agreement. 6.04 Non-Waiver of Immunity and Limits. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive the immunities or liability limits as applied to each Party hereto, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 3.736, or Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or any other applicable state or federal law. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, subdivision 1a, specifically apply to this Agreement. 6.05 Amendments. The terms of this Agreement may be changed only by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such changes shall be effective only upon the execution of written amendments signed by authorized officers of the Parties to this Agreement. 6.06 Non-Waiver. The failure of either Party at any time to insist upon the strict performance of any or all of the terms, conditions, and covenants in this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver by that Party of any subsequent breach or default in the said terms, conditions, or covenants by the other Party. 6.07 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts which are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either Party. 6.08 Assignment Prohibited. Neither Party shall assign their obligations under this Agreement without receiving the express written consent of the other Party. 6.09 Time. The Parties agree that all obligations undertaken under this Agreement, and with respect to any subsequent Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into by the Parties, will be diligently performed in a manner consistent with the proper exercise of professional care and with due consideration to project timelines and constraints. 6.10 Notices. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, all requests, notices, demands, authorizations, directions, consents, waivers or other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be: a. Delivered in person; b. Deposited postage prepaid in the certified mails of the United States, return receipt requested; c. Delivered by a nationally recognized overnight or same-day courier service that obtains receipts; or d. Delivered via email attachment, however such method of notice shall only be effective upon proof of receipt or acknowledgment of such email. Such communications shall be directed to the individuals specified below or to such other persons and at such other addresses as either Party may at any time or from time to time designate for itself by notice in accordance with this section. Each such request, notice, demand, authorization, direction, consent, waiver or other document shall be deemed to be delivered to a Party when received at its address set forth or designated as above provided. For the Council: Project Director METRO Blue Line Extension Project Office 5514 West Broadway, Suite 200 Crystal MN 55428 Phone: 612-373-5301 For the City: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Phone: 763-593-8034 6.11 Dispute Resolution. A dispute resolution process shall be used for any unresolved issue, dispute or controversy between the Parties before any legal remedies are exercised. The dispute resolution process contains a three-level dispute resolution ladder that escalates a dispute from the project management level through the executive management level. The City is represented from Level 1 to 3 in the following order: Public Works Director, Finance Director, and the City Manager. The Council is represented from Level 1 to 3 in the following order: Deputy General Manager, General Manager, and Regional Administrator. At each level, representatives of the parties shall meet and continue to explore resolution until either party determines, in good faith, that effective resolution is not possible at the current level, and notifies the other party that the process is elevated to the next level. If either or both parties make such a determination at any point during issue resolution at Level 3, then the dispute resolution process has been exhausted. 6.12 Project Director. The Council's Project Director for purposes of administration of this Agreement, and any Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant to this Agreement, is the person whose title is listed in Section 6.12, or such other person designated in writing by the Council's Regional Administrator. The City's Project Director for purposes of administration of this Agreement and any Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant to this Agreement is the person whose title is listed in Section 6.10, or such other person designated in writing by the City. The City's Project Director shall: a. Coordinate the carrying out of the City's obligations under this Agreement; b. Coordinate Subordinate Funding Agreement work scope activities with the Council's Project Director; c. Attend meetings called by the Council's Project Director for METRO Blue Line Extension Light Rail Project staff; and d. Complete training to be provided by the Council with respect to Council and federal requirements under this Agreement and any Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant to this Agreement. 6.13 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any associated Subordinate Funding Agreements, or breach thereof, shall be in the state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 6.14 Effective Date and Termination. This Agreement shall be effective upon full signature. This Agreement or a Subordinate Funding Agreement shall terminate upon the earliest of: a. Completion of construction of the Project and reimbursement of all costs provided for in this Agreement and all Subordinate Funding Agreements entered into pursuant thereto; b. A determination by the Council that the Project or Subordinate Funding Agreement cannot proceed; c. A determination by the City that a Subordinate Funding Agreement transferring City funds to the Council cannot proceed, however this Agreement may not be terminated if a Subordinate Funding Agreement is outstanding; or d. A determination by the Council that sufficient funds do not exist, or are not reasonably projected to exist, in order to complete the Project or a Subordinate Funding Agreement. e. The Council providing ninety days (90) advance written to the City that it is terminating this Agreement or any Subordinate Funding Agreement. The City agrees that Project closeout or termination of this Agreement or any particular Subordinate Funding Agreement does not invalidate continuing obligations imposed on the City by this Agreement or such Subordinate Funding Agreements or any agreements entered into pursuant to the MFA or SFA. Project closeout or termination of this Agreement does not alter the Council's authority to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the City's obligation to return any funds determined to be due to the Council. The Council agrees that Project closeout or termination of this Agreement or any particular Subordinate Funding Agreement does not invalidate continuing obligations imposed on the Council by this Agreement or such Subordinate Funding Agreements or any agreements entered into pursuant to the MFA or SFA. Project closeout or termination of this Agreement does not alter the City’s authority to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Council's obligation to return any funds determined to be due to the City. 6.15 Exhibits. All attached exhibits are deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement. 6.16 Breach by City. If City materially breaches the terms, covenants, or conditions which this MFA requires City to perform, Council will notify City of the breach within a reasonable time after Council becomes aware of the breach. City will then be given a reasonable time period to cure the breach. If the breach is not cured within 90 days, then senior management from City and Council will meet in good faith to discuss the breach and the measures taken to remedy it. If the meeting between senior management from Council and City doesn’t result in a cure or a plan to effect a cure that is satisfactory to Council, then Council may terminate this MFA upon 90 days’ written notice to the City. If circumstances dictate that the breach must be cured immediately and Council is forced to cure the breach, City will reimburse Council for the reasonable costs of effecting the remedy. Council retains the right to collect any damages from City that occurred as a result of City’s breach. 6.17 Breach by Council. If Council materially breaches any of the terms, covenants, or conditions which this MFA requires Council to perform, City will immediately notify Council of the breach. Council will then be given a reasonable time period to cure the breach. If the breach is not cured within 90 days, then senior management from City and Council will meet in good faith to discuss the breach and the measures taken to remedy it. If the meeting between senior management from Council and City doesn’t result in a cure or a plan to effect a cure that is satisfactory to City, then City may terminate this MFA upon 90 days’ written notice to Council. If circumstances dictate that the breach must be cured immediately and City is forced to cure the breach, Council will reimburse City for the reasonable costs of effecting the remedy. 6.18 Data Practices. The Parties will comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated in accordance with this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.08, apply to the release of the data referred to in this section by either Party. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK; SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW.] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates indicated below. Furthermore, this Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: ________________________________ Its: Mayor Date: ________________________________ By: ________________________________ Its: City Manager Date: ______________________________ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By: _____________________________ Its: Date: _________________________ LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Description A1 Form of Subordinate Funding Agreement (City to pay Council) A2 Form of Subordinate Funding Agreement (Council to pay City) B Sample Forms C Specific Federal Clauses D Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Pass Through Agreement and Program