The URL can be used to link to this page

06-04-19 CC Agenda Packet (entire) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages B. Roll Call 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. City Council Meeting – May 21, 2019 3‐5 B. Approval of City Check Register 6 C. Licenses: 1. 2019‐2020 Liquor License Renewals 7‐8 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission – May 13, 2019 10‐15 2. Environmental Commission – April 22, 2019 16‐18 3. Open Space & Recreation Commission – March 25 and April 22, 2019 19‐24 4. Board of Zoning Appeals Commission – April 23, 2019 25‐30 5. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission – April 18, 2019 31‐37 E. Resignation from the Human Rights Commission 38 F. Board/Commission Reappointment 39 G. Support Application by West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for Community Homeownership Impact Funds 19‐30 40‐41 H. Receipt of April 2019 Financial Reports 42‐55 I. Authorize Extension of Hours for Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street Dance 56 J. Board/Commission Appointments 57 4. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing – MS4 General Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, 2018 Annual Report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 19‐31 58‐60 B. Public Hearing – Lot Consolidation and Transfer of Remnant Right of Way to Adjacent Owner at 1345 Natchez Avenue South 61‐73 C. Public Hearing – Ordinance #664 – Zoning Code Text Amend – Architectural and Material Standards 74‐95 June 4, 2019 – 6:30 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting June 4, 2019 – 6:30 pm 2 5. Old Business 6. New Business All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input. A. Planning for Golden Valley Downtown Area 1. Authorize Contract for Phase II of the Downtown Study 96‐132 2. Authorize Work Plan for Active Technical Assistance with Hennepin County 133‐135 B. Approve Emergency Repairs to Trunk Sanitary Sewer at Natchez Park 136‐138 C. Second Consideration – Ordinance #663 – Amend 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Certain Permit Fees 139‐144 D. Review of Council Calendar E. Mayor and Council Communications 7. Adjournment REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Mayor Harris. 1A.Pledge of Allegiance 1B.Roll Call Present:Mayor Shep Harris,Council Members Joanie Clausen,Larry Fonnest,Gillian Rosenquist and Steve Schmidgall Staff present:City Manager Cruikshank,City Attorney Cisneros and City Clerk Luedke 2.Additions and Corrections to Agenda MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist,seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of May 21,2019,as submitted and the motion carried. 3.Approval of Consent Agenda MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest,seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the consent agenda of May 21,2019,as submitted and the motion carried. 3A1.Approve Minutes of Council/Manager Meeting April 9,2019. 3A2.Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting May 7,2019. 3B.Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C.Minutes of the Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission Minutes April 22,2019 2. Human Services Commission Minutes February 11,2019 3. Human Rights Commission Minutes March 26,2019 4. Rising TIDES Task Force Minutes March 12 and April 9,2019 3D.Bids and Quotes: 1.Accept bids and award a contract to Central Roofing Company in the amount of 105,320 for the 2019 Gearty Roof Replacement Project No.19 06. 2.Approve Bobcat Equipment Annual Trade Out of a 5600 Toolcat Utility Work Machine in the amount of 4,500 and a Bobcat T650 Compact Track Loader in the amount of 5,000 from Tri State Bobcat Inc. 3.Approve purchase of a new Bobcat skid loader from Tri State Bobcat through the State contract 149595 for in the amount of 37,299.38. 3E.Approve the following Board Commission reappointment: Human Service Commission Sophia Vento Student)1 year term expires May 1,2020 4.Public Hearing May 21,2019 6:30 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 21,2019 6:30 pm 2 5.Old Business 6.New Business 6A.Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of 1,970,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds,Series 2019A 19 28 and 19 29 Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the general improvement bonds and they thanked staff for their efforts in reducing the City’s debt. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall,seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 19 28,reallocating the Expenditures of Certain Proceeds of the General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds,Series 2004A and General Obligation Bonds,Series 2013A.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. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest,seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 19 29,providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of 1,970,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds,Series 2019A.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. 6B.First Consideration Ordinance 663 Amend 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Certain Permit Fees Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest,seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt first consideration,Ordinance 663,amending the 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Certain Permit Fees.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. 6C.Review of Council Calendar Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Business Council meeting on May 23, 2019,from 7:30 to 9 am at TwinWest Chambers located at 1600 Utica Avenue,St.Louis Park. The City offices will be closed on Monday,May 27,2019,in observance of Memorial Day. Some Council Members may attend the Vehicle Fair on June 1,2019,from 10 am to noon at the Crystal Community Center located at 4800 Douglas Drive. Some Council Members may attend the Run MeadowBrook Run on June 1,2019,at 7 pm at Brookview Park located at 200 Brookview Parkway. City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 21,2019 6:30 pm 3 6C.Review of Council Calendar continued A Concert in the Park featuring the Golden Valley Orchestra will be held on June 3,2019,at 7 pm at Brookview Park located at 200 Brookview Parkway. A Board/Commission Interview will be held on June 4,2019,at 6 pm. The next City Council Meeting will be held on June 4,2019,at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Pride Festival on June 9,2019,from noon to 6 pm at Brookview Park located at 200 Brookview Parkway. 6D.Mayor and Council Communication Council Member Clausen said she attended an event honoring Golden Valley resident,Phillip Brunelle,for his 50 years of service as the Plymouth Congressional Church organist and added that the church created a hymn for him called Golden Valley. Mayor Harris thanked Council Member Schmidgall,staff and Golden Valley resident,Billy Binder, for the successful Bike to Walk event.He also wished all of the veterans and Golden Valley residents a happy and safe Memorial Day. 7.Adjourn MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall,seconded by Council Member Clausen and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 6:56 pm. Shepard M.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A.Luedke,City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 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 is located on city website at the following location: http://weblink.ci.golden- valley.mn.us/Public/Browse.aspx?startid=717279&dbid=2. The check register for approval: o 05/31/2019 Check Register Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. 2019-2020 Liquor License Renewals Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary The following establishments have applied for renewal of their liquor license for the 2019-2020 license term. The applicants listed below have met City Code and State requirements for the renewal of their licenses. Staff is recommending approval of the following license renewals: Licensee Address License Type Benihana 850 Louisiana Avenue N. On-Sale and Sunday Brookview Golf Course 200 Brookview Parkway On-Sale and Sunday Cajun Twist 1221 Theodore Wirth Pky. On-Sale Beer and Wine Cedar Lake Wine 7702 Olson Memorial Hwy. Off-Sale Chester Bird American Legion Post 523 200 Lilac Drive N. Club On-Sale and Sunday Chipotle Mexican Grill 515 Winnetka Avenue N. On-Sale and Sunday D'Amico and Sons, Inc. 7804 Olson Memorial Hwy. On-Sale Beer and Wine Davanni's Pizza & Hoagies 663 Winnetka Avenue N. On-Sale Beer and Wine Doolittles Woodfire 550 Winnetka Avenue N. On-Sale and Sunday Golden Valley Country Club 7001 Golden Valley Road On-Sale and Sunday Golden Valley Liquor Barrel 7890 Olson Memorial Hwy. Off-Sale Good Day Cafe 5410 Wayzata Blvd. On-Sale and Sunday Holiday Inn Express 6051 Golden Valley Drive 3.2 Off-Sale J.J's Clubhouse 6400 Wayzata Blvd. On-Sale and Sunday JLD Group 1301 Theodore Wirth Pky On-Sale Beer and Wine Lakeridge Wine & Spirits 2580 Hillsboro Avenue N. Off-Sale LAT 14 Asian Eatery 8815 7th Avenue N. On-Sale and Sunday Lunds & Byerlys Wine & Spirits 5719 Duluth Street Off-Sale Metropolitan Ballroom & Clubroom 5418 Wayzata Blvd. On-Sale and Sunday Licenses Address License Type New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus 8020 Olson Memorial Hwy. On-Sale Beer and Wine Ramada Minneapolis West 6300 Wayzata Blvd. On-Sale Beer and Wine Red Lobster #157 8900 Golden Valley Road On-Sale and Sunday Schuller's Tavern 7345 Country Club Drive On-Sale; Sunday and Off-Sale Smashburger 509 Winnetka Avenue N. On-Sale Beer and Wine Sodexo America One General Mills Blvd. On-Sale Speedway #4443 1930 Douglas Drive N. 3.2 Off-Sale Speedway #4497 6955 Market Street 3.2 Off-Sale Teresa's Mexican Restaurant 5621 Duluth Street On-Sale and Sunday The Early Bird Café - Mort's Deli 525 Winnetka Avenue N. On-Sale Beer and Wine Under Pressure Brewer 8806 7th Avenue N. Brewer Taproom, Brewer Off- Sale and Sunday Attachments Memo from Golden Valley Police Department (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve the renewal of the liquor licenses for the applicants listed above for the license period of July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020. To: Kris Luedke From: Dave Kuhnly Date: May 24, 2018 Re: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2019-2020 licensing period. The below listed establishments and clubs meet City licensing guidelines. On-Sale Club and Sunday Sale American Legion Chester Bird Post #523 On-Sale Intoxicating Sodexo America LLC On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale Benihana Brookview Golf Course Chipotle Mexican Grill #774 Doolittle’s Woodfire Grill Golden Valley Country Club Good Day Café J.J.’s Clubhouse LAT 14 Asian Eatery Metropolitan Ballroom and Clubroom Red Lobster #0157 Teresa’s Mexican Restaurant Off-Sale/On-Sale and Sunday Sale Schuller’s Tavern Off-Sale Intoxicating Cedar Lake Wine Company Golden Valley Liquor Barrel Lakeridge Wine & Spirits Lunds & Byerly’s Wine & Spirits On-Sale Beer and Wine D’Amico and Sons Davanni’s Pizza & Hoagies JLD Group New Bohemia Golden Valley Ramada Minneapolis West Smashburger #1024 The Early Bird Café - Mort’s Deli Off-Sale 3.2 % Malt Liquor Speedway #4443 Speedway #4497 Holiday Inn Express Brewer Taproom, Brewer Off-Sale and Sunday Under Pressure Brewer REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Baker. Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Council Liaison present: None Baker introduced and welcomed new Commissioner, Ryan Sadeghi. Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum to approve the agenda of May 13, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes April 22, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Johnson asked that the following sentence be added to page six of the April 22 minutes: Johnson questioned if a combination of no parking and wide sidewalks would encourage cars to speed, which would not create a pedestrian friendly environment. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Blum to approve the April 22, 2019, minutes with the above noted amendment and the motion carried unanimously. Discussion – Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman gave a brief summary of the Planning Commission’s last discussion regarding the Mixed Use Zoning District and discussed the changes made to the proposed code language since then. These changes include the addition of descriptions of the three subdistricts, removal of the minimum façade buildout requirement, removal of façade types, a change from live-work units to home occupations, and the revision of setbacks in front, side, and rear yards and for parking and storage. Zimmerman stated that at this meeting he would like to discuss the impervious surface, building/lot coverage, and open space requirements and would also like input about what the Commission thinks about the definition of the three subdistricts. May 13, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2019 – 7 pm 2 Zimmerman explained that Subdistrict A is a neighborhood, smaller scale subdistrict which allows residential uses, institutional uses, restricted office uses, and many commercial uses. However, gasoline sales, automotive repair, self-storage, and outdoor storage would not be permitted. Subdistricts B and C are community scale subdistricts along larger transit corridors and would allow high density residential (in Subdistrict B), hotels, and larger scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. Subdistrict C is similar to Subdistrict B but would not allow residential uses and is focused on employment. Blum referred to the draft code language and said that when he read the descriptions of the subdistricts he wasn’t sure if he was reading hard rules of the subdistricts or a description of what’s to come. He questioned if these districts would always be tied to one neighborhood and if they will always have businesses that exclusively serve that neighborhood. He suggested the language in the description of Subdistrict A be changed to say “…surrounding neighborhoods which are typically a small, moderate, or medium scale.” Baker referred to the definition of Subdistrict A and said he doesn’t find the words “small” or moderate” or “medium” meaningful. He questioned where the subdistrict definition language came from and if it is a reflection of reality or taken from other places. Zimmerman explained that the language came from many of the Planning Commission discussions over the past several years and wanting the ability to create neighborhood nodes with a mix of uses that weren’t allowed in the current zoning – things like restaurants and commercial services next to homes which is very different than the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Segelbaum said that a lot of the motivation was to have neighborhood businesses such as a small restaurant or dry cleaners and questioned if there is anything in the proposed language to stop a whole area from being townhomes. Zimmerman stated that the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance and target points of what the City wants in these areas. Segelbaum questioned uses that would be allowed by a matter of right. Blum suggested putting a hard cap of different types of uses to prevent having one hundred percent of the same use in an area. Segelbaum said it would be hard to dictate the uses and he is worried about being too proscriptive. He added that the language in Subdistrict B does a nice job describing what’s allowed and said that might be a good way to handle Subdistricts A and C as well. Baker referred to the staff report and noted that is specifically called out auto repair and gasoline sales as being allowed in Subdistrict B. He suggested that transit oriented uses be included as well. Johnson noted that Subdistrict A allows buildings that are four stories which take a lot more money and lot more time but are advantageous and what they are envisioning, but the risk is that someone will build a one story building because it is cheaper and he questions who would build a four story building next to a one story building. Zimmerman said another issue that has been discussed and staff is testing is setbacks. He showed the Commission examples of setbacks with smaller setbacks in Subdistrict A and larger setbacks in City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2019 – 7 pm 3 Subdistricts B and C. Segelbaum asked if there should be larger setbacks in Subdistrict B than there are in Subdistrict A because Subdistrict B would have larger developments that could be close to residential. Zimmerman said staff will continue to test different setbacks in different areas. Goellner referred to the current and proposed impervious surface requirements and stated that the TOD consultants are recommending allowing 90% maximum in Subdistrict A, 90% maximum in Subdistrict B, and 80% maximum in Subdistrict C. She explained that there needs to be some limits so that 100% of a lot isn’t paved, but the requirement can’t be so low that the City won’t get the kind of buildings it wants to see. Baker noted that the current limit is 65% and with a PUD it is 90%. He asked what the downside would be of keeping the 65% requirement and allowing 80% with a PUD. Zimmerman said it encourages more use of PUDs and staff is trying to get away from that and allow more things by right. Also, PUDs require two acres so small lots would be excluded. He added that some of the recent projects done in the City have been in the 75% to 80% impervious surface range. Segelbaum said Subdistrict A is looking for small businesses and there are small lots in that subdistrict, so he is okay with the proposed higher impervious surface requirements in that subdistrict, but he feels differently about Subdistricts B and C. Blum said it makes a big difference to him whether the impervious surface is a parking lot or a building. He said he thinks not having a lot of parking space and having more building space will help reach the goal of walkability. Goellner referred to the open space requirements and said the current requirement is for lots over one acre, there has to be 15% minimum open space. She said she thinks it would be appropriate to have a minimum requirement for all lots and she thinks there needs be discussion about how open space is defined. She said the goal of open space for this district is to bring people to it and not have it just be turf or lawn without anywhere to sit or anything to do and is not really serving a purpose. She said the TOD consultants recommend that there be a choice of one of three open space types on a property: a square, plaza, or pocket park. She said she thinks what they are really looking for is a space with defined edges that feels like a person could go into it and use, landscaping, and walkways or connections to buildings or streets. She noted that the City of St. Louis Park’s code states that a percentage of the lot has to be “designed outdoor space.” Baker said he would rather require paved walkways, landscaping, seating, etc. that are open to the public and not say that there has to be either a square, plaza, or pocket park. Zimmerman said it is hard to require private property owners to dedicate space for public use. Segelbaum suggested adding language stating that open space plans are subject to staff approval. Zimmerman stated that there could be a site plan review process with the Planning Commission. Blum suggested adding “and any other plan approved by the approval body” to deal with things like City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2019 – 7 pm 4 swimming pools and tot lots which may not contribute to the flow and character of the districts as they are trying to design them. Baker questioned how to encourage synergy to get owners to do something with neighboring property owners. Zimmerman said that comes with the principles put into the code and in guiding and encouraging developers. Segelbaum said it seems difficult to legislate these types of things because developments rarely occurs simultaneously. Zimmerman said the districts could have a plan with pedestrian connections and other things laid out so as development occurs there are approved plans that developers have to adhere to. Brookins referred to the side yard setback requirement of 50 feet and said he thinks in order to maximize the facades at the street front that should be reduced because parking would have a 15 foot setback so it is not unreasonable to have a building at a similar setback. He said in regard to the impervious surface requirements he doesn’t see a lot of value in proscribing the amount that could be building. He said he would like to consider putting the front façade percentage requirement language back in the code to maximize walkability and the percentage of frontage at the street. He added that he would encourage using the designed outdoor space language and said if a majority of that space is private he is fine with that and does not expect developers to include a space for him to use, but he would like to require a walkable street area for people to walk by. Baker said he loves the idea of these districts having spaces for the public to linger. Zimmerman said there may be opportunities for developments to provide public spaces. Pockl referred to the designed outdoor space language in the staff report and asked how a minimum of 12% was chosen. Goellner said she did not know. Zimmerman added that St. Louis Park staff said it works well. Pockl asked if there was a recommended percentage for a square, plaza, or pocket park. Goellner said no. Blum said he is thinking of pedestrian passage and asked if there is a way to achieve enhanced sidewalks. Johnson said he doesn’t want to make this too complicated. He said they don’t know if the 65% maximum impervious surface allowed in the current Mixed Use Zoning district works and yet now they are discussing 80%. He said maybe if they just kept it at 65% then by definition there will be open space. He referred to the screening requirement and said he wants to make sure it’s relatable to other parts of the City and to not forget what they are trying to accomplish as opposed to working really hard to refine the numbers. Baker said if they overly constrain each lot then there will be problems and no one will be attracted to that and if they only define the entire district the City won’t get what it wants mixed around. He said he really likes the idea of a plan within each district and encouraged going in that direction. Segelbaum agreed and said they shouldn’t overcomplicate things. He said they can’t achieve all of the goals in one set of parameters and they have to encourage the things that are most important. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2019 – 7 pm 5 Zimmerman referred to current uses permitted by right and uses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and in the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District language. He noted that the proposed new language also includes restricted and prohibited uses. Blum noted that some neighboring cities are looking to minimize drive-thrus and gas stations and asked staff how they feel about those uses being a good fit in the Mixed Use Zoning District they are trying to design. Zimmerman said he would not want gas stations in the neighborhood districts, and would be comfortable not allowing them in Subdistrict B, but he doesn’t see a problem with allowing them in Subdistrict C. Blum stated that when gas stations go out of business they can become a brown site and be undevelopable. He said in regard to drive-thrus he thinks they have a substantial negative effect on the kind of vehicle traffic they want to see in a pedestrian focused area and it goes against the feel they’ve been talking about wanting for these districts. Zimmerman said he has a different opinion about drive-thrus. He said he thinks allowing them is key for restaurants, and other drive-thrus such as Starbucks, Walgreens and banks so he is cautious about not allowing any drive- thrus. He added that they need to be designed well, not be in front of the building, and have the queuing away from pedestrians. He added that he would be comfortable removing gasoline and automotive uses from Subdistrict B, but keeping drive-thrus as a conditional use. Zimmerman stated that the next step is to bring this item to the City Council for some feedback at a Council/Manager and then back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Short Recess-- Annual Commission Orientation Zimmerman gave the Commission the annual orientation presentation. He discussed, the City’s organizational chart, board and commission structure, the City’s current boards and commissions, roles and responsibilities, expectations, guiding principles, and core values. Pockl asked about the mission statement the boards and commissions created. Zimmerman said he would talk to the HR Director about that and let the Commission know how it is being used. Election of Officers Johnson nominated Blum for Chair. Blum accepted the nomination. Segelbaum nominated Johnson for Chair. Johnson accepted. Segelbaum said he thought both Commissioners would make an excellent Chair, he just likes the idea of commissioners rotating from Secretary to Vice Chair to Chair. Blum said he would focus on creating a good legal record for someone to be able to look back on and see that the Commission is doing the right thing. He said he sees the Chair as being a deferential one and that everyone else’s comments would come before his. He said being a facilitator would be his focus as Chair. Segelbaum called for a vote for Chair. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2019 – 7 pm 6 Blum, Pockl, and Sadeghi and Johnson voted for Blum. Brookins, Baker, and Segelbaum voted for Johnson. Blum nominated Johnson as Vice Chair. Johnson accepted. Segelbaum nominated Brookins as Secretary. Brookins accepted. Blum nominated Pockl as Secretary. Pockl accepted. Johnson, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum, and Baker voted for Brookins. Blum and Brookins voted for Pockl. The new slate of officers is Blum-Chair, Johnson-Vice Chair, Brookins-Secretary. Council Liaison Report No report was given. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings No reports were given. Other Business No other business was discussed. Adjournment MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Hill. 2. Roll Call Commissioners present: Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Dawn Hill, Joseph Ramlet, Scott Seys and Jim Stremel Commissioners absent: Lynn Gitelis and Debra Yahle Staff present: Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director, Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor and Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist 3. Approval of Agenda MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Galonska to approve the agenda of April 22, 2019 as submitted and the motion carried. 4. Approval of Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Stremel, seconded by Commissioner Galonska to approve the minutes of March 25, 2019 as submitted and the motion carried. 5A. Solid Waste Collection Update Marc Nevinski presented an update to the Commission regarding solid waste collection in the city. He stated that the Council decided to pursue an enhanced licensing process for waste collection instead of going with an organized hauling program. This would include capping the number of licenses to an amount lower than what we have now which is around 10 haulers. The goal is to present a revised plan for the enhanced licensing process by July 2019 to the Commission for their review and comment, and then back to the Council for final adoption of the revised ordinance in November. New Licensing cycle will begin April 1, 2020. The Council was split 3 to 2 against organized hauling. 5B. Pollinator Protection Resolution MOTION by Commissioner Seys, seconded by Commissioner Ramlet to approve and to forward the Pollinator Protection Resolution with the suggested amendments to the City Council for their consideration and approval and the motion carried. The amendments included removing the word public” on page 8, within letter m and adding “and other Governmental agencies” on page 9, within letter k. April 22, 2019 – 6:30 pm Council Conference Room Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 22, 2019 – 6:30 pm 2 5C. Annual Report and 2019 Work Plan Eckman presented the final draft version of the Annual Report and 2019 Work Plan for the Commissions review before presenting it to the Council/Manager meeting next month. One comment made was to define the word “environment” on page 13 within the Purpose and Mission statement of the Environmental Commission that was quoted in the annual report. It was advised to wait until next month’s meeting when the Commission will have an opportunity to review their bylaws and make any revisions at that time. 5D. Removing Barriers to Local Food Production (38:00) MOTION by Commissioner Stremel, seconded by Commissioner Seys to allow Greenhouses in Industrial and Light Industrial Zones by right as primary structures and to allow indoor food production operations by right in Industrial and Light Industrial Zones and to explore adding indoor food production operations to Mixed Use and Commercial Zones with Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Also, request to define what is meant by “food growing”. The motion carried. 6A. Program/Projects Update (1:51:00) The complete Program/Project Update is on file. Topics briefly discussed included: Lime Bikes/Scooters – additional scooters to be added from last year. The City is currently revising the Micro-Mobility Ordinance. WasteZero Recycling Program to begin May 31st. Bassett Creek Native Area Restoration Project will begin this fall. The City will be addressing encroachment into public spaces through education, outreach and signage to inform residents that there is public land adjoining their property. DeCola Ponds B & C Project design is 90% complete. Public hearings were held to review the 90% plan as well as another public hearing was held for the temporary dewatering plan. Flood Mitigation Cost Share Reimbursement Program was approved by Council to help eligible property owners in the floodplain protect their homes from flooding. The City will be notified in May by the MPCA whether the city will be selected to receive the assistance of a GreenCorp member full time for one year. 6B. Council Updates - None 6C. Other Business Board and Commissioners dinner to be held at Brookview next Monday, April 29th, 2019. Next month elections for chair and vice-chair. The City is looking for people to adopt a storm drain. Commissioner asked if the city was seeing any new flooding that hadn’t occurred in the past. Eckman stated that there was higher ground water and more water in wetlands and lower areas than usual this spring but no new areas of flooding were reported. City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 22, 2019 – 6:30 pm 3 7. Adjournment MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Stremel to adjourn the meeting at 8:40pm and the motion carried. ATTEST: Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-512-2347 I TTY 763-593-3968 I 763-512-2344 (fax} I www.goldenvalleymn.gov 0 Open Space & Recreation Commission V I March 25, 2019 -6:30 pm Valley Room North Brookview Golden Valley 316 Brookview Parkway S REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Speltz. Roll Call Commissioners present: Roger Bergman, Cindy Carow-Schiebe, Max Hyberger, Bob Mattison, Matthew Sanders, and Della Dami. Commissioners absent: John Cornelius, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Kimberly Sanberg, and Dawn Speltz. Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation; John Stutzman, Recreation Supervisor; Heidi Weiler, Recreation Coordinator; Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer; and Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant. Staffpresent: Approval of Minutes MOTION moved by Bergman and seconded by Hyberger to approve the February 25, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. New Trail Connection Grant for Laurel and Colorado -Letter of Support (Emily Goellner) Goellner explained the City's request for a letter of support from the OSRC for the DNR Trail Connection Grant Program. She explained the scope of the project and how it would benefit the City and its residents. If the City is selected for the grant, construction would take place in 2020. MOTION moved by Bergman and seconded by Sanders to submit a letter of support for the DNR Trail Connection Grant Program. Motion carried unanimously. Introduce Heidi Weiler, Recreation Coordinator Weiler gave a brief summary of her experience prior to Golden Valley, which included Summer Staff Coordinator for Golden Valley in the summer of 2018. She added in her current role, she assisted Brian Erickson, Recreation Coordinator, with warming house staff and the Step To It program. She also assisted John Stutzman, Recreation Coordinator, with the youth basketball program, and will be assisting him with the summer programs this year. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call IJ763-593-8006 (ITT: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternateformatsmayincludelargeprint, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 2 March 25, 2019 -6:30 pm 2019 Summer Park Program Update (John Stutzman) Stutzman discussed the upcoming 2019 summer programs. He said registration numbers are really good this year. He shared information on new programs and changes to existing programs, which included: New Playground Adventure 2.0 program for ages 7-12 at Hampshire Playground Adventure Van now available on Fridays at Hampshire A third week was added to Camp Valley- A new Junior Playground Leader program for ages 14-15 New discount for registering for multiple Field Trips at once New Junior Rangers bike program for ages 7-9 2019 Parks, Recreation, Brookview, and Golf Fee Review Birno shared 2019 fees with the OSRC. He said the fees are set by staffand approved by the City Council. He said one of the goals when setting fees is to be family budget friendly and stay close to surrounding communities. Birno added that there are three separate budgets for Brookview. They include Brookview building revenue budget, Parks and Recreation general budget, and an enterprise budget which includes the golf operations. 2019 Resolution to Approve Recognized Golden Valley Youth Athletic Associations Birno presented a list of potential recognized Golden Valley Youth Athletic Associations. They include: Golden Valley Little League, Golden Valley Girls' Softball, Park Valley United FC, Armstrong- Cooper Youth Baseball, Armstrong-Cooper Youth Hockey, Hopkins Youth Hockey, Cooper-Armstron g Girls' Fast Pitch, and Armstrong-Cooper Youth Lacrosse. Mattison asked if the City received insurance information and by-laws for each organization. Birno noted they are requested annually. He also said Greg Simmons, Recreation and Facilities Supervisor, works with each association to obtain the necessary documentation. MOTION moved by Sanders and seconded by Hyberger to approve the resolution recognizing the Golden Valley Youth Athletic Associations. Motion carried unanimously. Commission and Staff Updates A.Commission Updates Carow-Schiebe said there is a large amount of garbage and junk at Sochacki Park. Birno said back in the 60s, the site was used as a disposal area for street reconstruction. He said adding the Blue Line and other amenities could help with some dean-up of specific areas. B.Scheid Park Play Structure Birno said 40-50 people attended the final selection for the play structure at Scheid Park. He said they are in the process of fine tuning details, which includes adding two more benches. C.Sota Clothing SK Birno said the event was a success with around 150 participants. City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 3 March 25, 2019 -6:30 pm D.Goose and Turkey Removal Plans Approved by City Council Birno said the plans were approved by City Council and they are moving forward. E.Updated Park Policy Signage Birno displayed a sample of the new signs to the OSRC. F.Medley Park Public Input Meeting (April 2) Birno said a public input meeting is scheduled for April 2 to discuss the proposed removal of tennis courts, and the potential addition of a community garden and off-leash pet exercise area. Dami said the area gets very wet. Birno said drain tile could possibly be added if the project comes to fruition. G.Run The Valley (April 13) Birno said the annual run will take place April 13 starting at Brookview. H.Board and Commission Dinner (April 29, 5:30 pm) Birno reminded the OSRC about the April 29 Board and Commission dinner. I.Proposal for Field/Dugout Improvements Birno said they received three quotes for the project, which consists of 14 new dugouts and field improvements within various parks, and new backstops at Schaper. Adjourn MOTION moved by Bergman and seconded by Carow-Schiebe to adjourn at 8:30 pm. r iJWI; . Bob Mattison, Chair A --tmmIstrat1vessIsant 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-512-2347 I TTY763-593-3968 I 763-512-2344 (fax) I www.goldenvalleymn.gov Open Space & Recreation Commission April 22, 2019 -6:30 pm Valley Room North Brookview Golden Valley 316 Brookview Parkway S REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Mattison. Roll Call Commissioners present: John Cornelius, Max Hyberger, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison; Kimberly Sanberg, Matthew Sanders, Dawn Speltz, and Della Dami. Commissioners absent: Roger Bergman and Cindy Carow-Schiebe. Staffpresent: Others present: Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation; Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director; and Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant. Jeremy Driver and Craig Greening. Approval of Minutes MOTION moved by Cornelius and seconded by Hyberger to approve the March 22, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Park Valley United FC Update (Jeremy Driver) Driver said Park Valley United FC has competitive and recreational soccer levels for boys and girls. The competitive level is for ages 9-19 with a total of 496 participants, which 137 are Golden Valley residents. The recreational level is for grades pre-K-6 with a total of 500 participants, which 256 are Golden Valley residents. Driver said the association uses fields in St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, and at Breck School. Driver thanked the Commission and stafffor their continued support and partnership. Discussion and Update (Marc Nevinski) · Nevinksi discussed issues with the crosswalks on Winnetka Ave at Western Ave and Harold Ave. He said the current crosswalk system in these locations is in need of improvement. Commissioners shared suggestions. Nevinski said he would take the suggestions into consideration, as well as discuss alternative measures and options at a future Traffic Safety Committee meeting. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call IJ763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternateformatsmayincludelargeprint, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 2 April 22, 2019-6:30 pm Nevinski shared information on the Glenwood Ave Overlay Project, which includes plans for Hennepin County to pave Glenwood Ave between Hwy 100 and Thomas Ave in Minneapolis. The project may also include improvements to walkways and crosswalks. Construction is expected to begin summer 2020. 2019 Park Improvement Project Update Birno shared a list of 2019 park improvement projects: Improvements to seven ballfields and dugouts Scheid play structure Medley parking lot New park ordinance signs Gearty tennis court resurfacing Lights on volleyball courts at Brookview Isaacson field #1 scoreboard replacement Gearty Park shelter building roof replacement Medley Park Neighborhood Public Input Meeting Update Birno said the April 2nd meeting had a great turn out with 70-80 residents present. He gave an overview of the presentation and noted there wasn't consensus on the proposed changes to the park. Birno said he would be organizing all the submitted input from residents to present for discussion at the October meeting. Hyberger and Sanders were also in attendance at the meeting. Medley Park Resident (Craig Greening) Greening has been a resident living next to Medley for 27 years. He shared his observations and concerns on the proposed off-leash pet exercise area at Medley, specifically, the area identified at the presentation, went too far north. Birno noted the area shown was all public land available for the proposed off-leash pet exercise area and not a final boundary design. Birno said they would continue to collect information over the summer for Commission review on October. Commission and Staff Updates A.Commission Updates Mattison said Pickleball at Davis is a fun group and game. B.Pavement Improvement Project Impacts at Medley Park Birno said Engineering has asked that the Medley Park area be avoided for summer programming if possible, and to be aware of the road construction in that area. C.Brookview 50th Anniversary Golf Pass Birno said for the 50th Anniversary, golf will be offering a twelve round golf pass for the price of 10, and many activities July 26-28. D.Run The Valley Birno said the event was a success, even with the weather. There were 408 participants. E.Perpich Center for the Arts Student Display Birno said Brian Erickson, staff liaison to the Golden Valley Arts Committee, has been working with Perpich to display student art on an annual basis. City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 3 April 22, 2019 -6:30 pm F.Partnership with SLPFOA and GV Arts Birno said he was contacted by the SLPFOA about a possible partnership with the Golden Valley Arts Committee. G.Annual Board and Commission Dinner airno said the annual dinner will be held Monday, April 29 at 5:30 pm at Brookview. H.May 27 OSRC Meeting Due to Memorial Day, Commissioners agreed to move the next meeting date to Monday, May 20. Adjourn MOTION moved by Hyberger and seconded by Sanders to adjourn at 8:45 pm. Bob Mattison, Chair eila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson. Roll Call Board Members present: Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, David Perich, Andy Snope and Planning Commissioner Adam Brookins Board Members absent: None Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Approval of Agenda Goellner added discussion of the Council Chambers remodel to the agenda. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to approve the minutes of March 26, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried. Member Nelson abstained. Agenda Items 4240 Bassett Creek Drive Paul and Dawn Speltz, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements 14.52 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.48 ft. at its closest point to the front yard west) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage and mudroom addition. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant’s proposal to construct a new garage, mudroom and storage addition on the west side of the existing home. She stated that an existing gazebo on the property and the existing driveway on Bassett Creek Drive would be removed and that there would be a new driveway access on Kyle Avenue. Snope referred to the survey and asked for clarification about the floodplain lines shown on the survey. Goellner explained that there is a line where flood insurance is required. She explained that this proposal was tabled at last month’s meeting in order to include floodplain data and to Apr 23, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Apr 23, 2019 – 7 pm 2 confirm the shoreland setback. Zimmerman added that the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission also uses the different lines in their floodplain data. Goellner explained that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include that the existing garage supported by a spancrete floor is in need of repair; the room below the garage is used as a playroom, the existing 20-foot wide garage is not wide enough; there are floodplain issues, shoreland setbacks, and retaining walls on the east side of the home; and the two front yards limit the buildable area on the west and south sides of the property. Goellner stated that the staff analysis of this variance request is that the proposed garage, mudroom and storage area are reasonable uses of the property and the buildable area is limited by the fact that this is a corner lot that has shoreland and floodplain setback requirements. However, the location of the new garage, mudroom, and storage in the front setback area would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and there are other options that would reduce or eliminate the need for a variance. She added that relocation of the existing non-conforming gazebo is encouraged. Goellner referred to a sketch of the property which showed a different configuration of the proposed addition with a driveway on Bassett Creek Drive. She explained that this option isn’t preferred because the proposed location of the driveway is not a safe distance away from the intersection. Goellner stated that there have been concerns from nearby property owners which include: tree preservation, stormwater drainage, intersection visibility and congestion, property values, and inconsistency with other front yard setbacks. Nelson asked if the setback requirement on the west side of the property would be 15 feet if this wasn’t a corner lot. Goellner said yes. Orenstein asked about the size of the existing garage. Goellner said the existing garage is approximately 20 ft. wide and 24 ft. deep Snope asked if the current house is non-conforming. Goellner said no, it is grandfathered in. Nelson asked if the applicants built on the east side of their home if they would need flood insurance. Goellner said regulations wouldn’t allow anything to be built in the floodplain area. Perich asked what would happen with the current garage space if a new garage was built. Goellner said it would become living space. Snope asked if a variance would be needed to tear down and replace the existing garage in the same place. Goellner said the existing garage could be torn down and rebuilt, but it could not be expanded without a variance from the rear yard (east) setback requirement. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Apr 23, 2019 – 7 pm 3 Snope asked about the setback from the shoreland. Goellner said the shoreland setback requirement is 50 feet. Dawn Speltz, Applicant, said they have been struggling with the plans since September. She said they have had many contractors reject working on the garage because of the spancrete. She stated that the problem with fixing the existing garage is that they would still only have a 20-foot wide garage. She said she doesn’t want to change the character of the house and she wants the roof lines to flow and tie into the existing structure. Nelson asked when they purchased this home. Ms. Speltz said they purchased the home in 2012. Nelson asked if the garage has always been a problem. Paul Speltz, Applicant, said they didn’t know the garage was a problem until leaking started in the space below. Orenstein asked how the costs of converting the existing garage into living space and building the proposed new garage compare to just replacing the existing garage. Mr. Speltz said it would be about $50,000 more, plus they would have to find someone willing to fix the spancrete. Ms. Speltz stated that it would cost approximately $70,000 to $75,000 to fix the garage and not be able to park in it and approximately $125,000 to build a new garage and convert the existing garage to living space. Orenstein asked if a garage could fit within the buildable area. Ms. Speltz explained that there is a slope, there are two trees that would not likely survive, and she doesn’t want it to look like a house attached to a garage. Nelson asked if there is enough room to the east to build a larger garage. Goellner said there would be enough space to build a larger garage to the east right up to the setback line and the floodplain and shoreland setback lines, however there are currently retaining walls in that area. Nelson asked the applicants how it would impact their decision if they didn’t add the proposed mudroom part of the addition. Ms. Speltz said they have two kids in hockey so they’d like a mudroom area. She added that without the mudroom as proposed they would have to change the interior space of the home to get some sort of transition space. Orenstein asked if changing the proposed storage area space would help. Speltz said it would help a little but they need the proposed storage area for their Jet Ski, lawn tractor, and garbage. Snope questioned why spancrete couldn’t span the identical span. Mr. Speltz said it could if they remove the entire garage with a forklift or a crane. Ms. Speltz added that the electrical panel is on the east corner of the garage as well. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Apr 23, 2019 – 7 pm 4 Brookins asked the applicants if they’ve had their architect look at building in the buildable area. Ms. Speltz said they haven’t invested in plans yet and they are concerned about the slope. She added that this is the first time she has seen a diagram of the buildable area. Orenstein noted that all of the other homes along Kyle Avenue appear to meet the 35-foot front setback requirement so he is concerned about the character of the neighborhood if this house with the proposed addition would be 20 feet from the front property line. Ms. Speltz said she is concerned about the character of the house and noted that just a small portion of the proposed new addition would be within the setback area. She added that the area they are proposing for the addition is a side yard in their minds. Snope referred to the sketch shown earlier with a garage addition and access on Bassett Creek Drive. He asked if the City just doesn’t like the proposed driveway location or if it isn’t allowed. Zimmerman said the City would not issue a permit for a driveway in that location because it is too close to the intersection. Nelson opened the public hearing. Jeff Carson, 1601 Kelly Drive, said he works with Ms. Speltz and for the past 40 years he has worked with cities. He said he thinks several cities allow homeowners to select their front yard. He said the unique thing in this case is that if the west side of the property was a side yard they wouldn’t need a variance. He said he fails to see how the essential character of the neighborhood would be damaged and he thinks it would be fair to allow them to do what they want. Tom Theiringer, 2340 Kyle Avenue North, said he submitted a list of his concerns. He said he has had to make repairs to his home too, they were expensive but they had to make them. He said other homeowners in the area have also had problems and they have all made repairs without significantly changing the footprint of their homes or the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He said he is concerned that a second story could be added to the garage addition in the future and stated that decisions like this have an impact on him and future residents. Julie Theiringer, 2340 Kyle Avenue North, said when they moved into their house they found out they had a leaking garage and that a contractor installed a rubber membrane with a thin layer of cement over it. She said she knows the previous owners of the applicant’s house had issues and that many of the neighbors have had huge problems with storage areas under garages. It’s not just the applicants who have had problems, they all have and they’ve all had to correct them. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Orenstein said that the Board has been sympathetic with corner lots in the past but in this case they haven’t seen any alternatives and to grant a variance without seeing any alternatives is a concern. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Apr 23, 2019 – 7 pm 5 Nelson said she feels the same way but the applicants have addressed the issues with a number of other options. She said having two front yards is always tough and she is sympathetic to allowing a two-stall garage. Snope said he agrees, and he doesn’t like the two front yard language in the Zoning Code but he also doesn’t know if all of the options have been exercised in this case. He said the existing garage could be torn down and rebuilt with a smaller variance request. Perich said the Board hasn’t seen an option in the buildable area and all of the other houses in the area are 35 feet away from the front property line. Ms. Speltz referred to the suggestion of tearing down the existing garage and rebuilding it and said she doesn’t want to continue to have the same problems with an elevated garage. She said they could give up the space underneath the garage and fill it in, but then they would lose the area where their kids go. She reiterated that the property also has a significant slope. Mr. Speltz added that moving the proposed garage to a conforming location would give ugly sight lines and would make it worse for the neighborhood. Ms. Speltz said it is not financially feasible to take down the existing garage and rebuild a new one. Brookins said he struggles with allowing the garage to be 20 feet from the front property line because he sees that really changing the character of the neighborhood and more importantly, there are ways to make it work that will still look good. He said the applicants haven’t considered all of the options to reduce the impact to the neighborhood and that he may be more supportive of a smaller variance request. MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Snope and the motion carried 4 to 1 to deny the applicant’s requested variance. Nelson voted no. Other Business Goellner stated that the City Council approved a budget to improve the Council Chambers including the audio/visual and the room layout. The ceiling, windows, and HVAC won’t change. She told the Board Members to let her know if they have any ideas for the remodel and discussed having paperless agenda packets. Orenstein asked staff if applicants are urged to come up with written alternative plans when they submit their variance applications. Goellner said there is not a requirement in state statute or in City Code that requires an applicant to show all their other options and that it is ultimately the applicant’s choice what variance request they bring to the Board. Orenstein said it would show that they’ve considered other options. Goellner said it would be appropriate to deny a request if the Board is not comfortable with what they’ve been shown. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Apr 23, 2019 – 7 pm 6 Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 pm. Nancy Nelson, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant 1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Conference Room at Golden Valley City Hall (7800 Golden Valley Rd.), Chair Prom called the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) to order. Commissioners and city staff present: City Commissioner Alternate Commissioner Technical Advisory Committee Members (City Staff) Crystal Dave Anderson Vacant Position Mark Ray Golden Valley Stacy Harwell Jane McDonald Black Eric Eckman, Jeff Oliver Medicine Lake Clint Carlson Gary Holter Susan Wiese Minneapolis Michael Welch Vacant Position Absent Minnetonka Mike Fruen Absent Sarah Schweiger New Hope Absent Pat Crough Megan Hedstrom Plymouth Jim Prom Catherine Cesnik Vanessa Strong Robbinsdale Michael Scanlan Absent Marta Roser, Richard McCoy St. Louis Park Absent Patrick Noon Erick Francis Administrator Laura Jester, Keystone Waters Engineer Karen Chandler and Kurt Leuthold, Barr Engineering Recorder Dawn Pape, Lawn Chair Gardener Creative Services Legal Counsel David Anderson, Kennedy & Graven Presenters/ Guests/Public Erik Miller, Sambetek Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting Thursday, April 18, 2019 8:30 a.m. Golden Valley City Hall, Golden Valley MN BCWMC April 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No citizens present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to approve the agenda. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Welch pulled 4I off of the consent agenda and moved it ahead of 5A of business agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda: March 21, 2019 Commission meeting minutes, acceptance of the April 2019 financial report, payment of invoices, approval to reimburse Commissioner Carlson for Land Development Conference, Approval of Agreement with Hennepin County for 2019 River Watch Program, approval of contract with Lake Restoration, Inc. for curly-leaf pondweed treatment, approval not to waive monetary limits on municipal tort liability, and approval of agreement with Met Council for 2019 Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program. The general and construction account balances reported in the April 2019 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance $ 761,710.97 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $ 761,710.97 TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON-HAND (04/09/19) $ 3,608,908.04 CIP Projects Levied – Budget Remaining $ (4,681,126.33) Closed Projects Remaining Balance $363,781.71 2012-2017 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $7,045.36 2018 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $10,316.57 Anticipated Closed Project Balance $381,143.64 5. BUSINESS 4I (from consent agenda) Approval of Marsh Run Apartments Project, Minnetonka Commissioner Welch asked about one of the Commission Engineer’s conditions for approval – the performance of the Jellyfish Filter. Commission Engineer Chandler noted that the Jellyfish Filter is a proprietary stormwater treatment device and an example of the types of devices they are reviewing more frequently in proposed projects. She noted that later in the BCWMC April 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 agenda, staff is requesting TAC input on proprietary devices but she is not recommending holding up this project. Commissioner Welch noted that permit approval rests on the functioning of the proprietary device. He noted that a possible future agenda item may be a discussion on why projects are using flexible treatment options so frequently, rather than infiltrating or abstracting stormwater. He expressed concern that the “jellyfish” device installed for a project in a different watershed didn’t treat runoff nearly as well as it stated it would. MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the project with the condition that the Commission Engineer work with the City of Minnetonka to develop appropriate monitoring protocol and that the Commission receives a report one year after implementation to understand how well the device functions in situ. Commissioner Prom seconded the motion. There was some discussion regarding how challenging it may be to monitor the effectiveness of the device due to treatment happening throughout the treatment train that includes the device. Vanessa Strong mentioned that she has experience maintaining devices and she would be happy to discuss what she knows at a future time because there are a lot of variables and it will be a lengthy discussion. Welch likes Oliver’s suggestion to direct the Engineer to work with the city of Minnetonka to develop the testing protocol on performance of system and device. VOTE: Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. A. Approval of DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project 90% Design Plans Commission Engineer Chandler introduced Kurt Leuthold with Barr Engineering, who developed the 90% project plans on behalf of the City of Golden Valley. Engineer Leuthold reminded the Commission that 50% plans for this project were approved at the February meeting. Engineer Leuthold noted the goals of this project are to reduce flooding and improve water quality. He noted that in comparing the 50% to 90% plans, there isn’t much change. He reported that the project will create 24 acre-ft. flood storage volume, will lower the flood elevation at Medicine Lake Road by 1.3 feet, will expand open water by 2.0 acres, will restore 3.0 acres of wetland and upland habitat, and will reduce phosphorus removal by 10.8 lb./year. He noted the estimated construction costs are $4.1 million and he reviewed project components included in the BCWMC portion of the funding including benches along the trail. There was some discussion about whether the Commission should pay for park benches or whether they could be incorporated into the educational components. There was consensus that the benches themselves should be funded by a different source. Engineer Leuthold discussed the dewatering plan and construction schedule, which meet the DNR requirements to protect bats and turtles. There was discussion about the trail surface options that were evaluated: bituminous asphalt, permeable pavers, decomposed granite, decomposed granite with stabilizer, and crushed lime rock. Bituminous asphalt was the clear preferred alternative from a maintenance and ADA perspective, especially since the runoff from the trail would be filtered before reaching the ponds. Commissioner Welch asked why permeable pavers weren’t a good option. Engineer Leuthold indicated that because of the tree canopy, there would be organic matter clogging porous areas of the pavers. Engineer Leuthold reported that the restoration plan includes native trees, shrubs, and tamaracks and that adjacent neighbors are supportive and engaged. He noted the permitting and schedule are both on track and construction will start this fall with vegetation establishment and maintenance under a separate contract. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to approve the DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project 90% Design Plans. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. BCWMC April 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 B. Review Draft Feasibility Study for Jevne Park Water Quality Improvement Project Engineer Chandler informed the Commission that Engineer Jen Koehler is currently on maternity leave, which is why Jen wasn’t presenting. Engineer Chandler continued with a presentation of the Jevne Park Water Quality Improvement Project Feasibility Study. She noted that the park is connected to Medicine Lake by a channel and that the lake floods the park during 10-year events or higher. Engineer Chandler reported that they initially considered an additional concept to expand water quality and flood storage volume using of low areas on the private property on the south side of the road, but those areas are already providing high levels of phosphorus removal and flood storage. She reported that the pond within the park currently removes about 2.9 lbs. of phosphorus per year. She noted that because this is an existing wetland and a public water, there are considerable permitting considerations such as preserving wetlands, providing optimum habitat, etc. She noted that the Commission’s wetland buffer requirements wouldn’t be triggered, but the plans call for a 25-ft. buffer; there isn’t room for a 50-ft. buffer due to the road and existing park courts and uses. Engineer Chandler described concepts 1 and 2, noting that they are similar, except that concept 2 has a larger pond footprint. She compared the outcomes of concepts 1 and 2 to existing conditions and noted the benefits of the project include less flooding of the road, water quality improvements, habitat improvements, and educational opportunities. Next, Engineer Chandler reviewed input from the public and the City of Medicine Lake. She noted that not many people were worried about the temporary flooding on the road and were more worried about the open water area within the park. She noted that Concept 1 was recommended by the public, the city, and Commission staff. Commissioner Carlson added that the project has improved engagement and “good feelings” within the city. He recommended that the Commission implement Concept 1. Alternate Commissioner Cesnik asked about project maintenance. Engineer Chandler replied the city would be responsible for maintenance of the project. Commissioner Harwell asked about the back flow into the park from the lake, about erosion around the proposed sheet pile, and groundwater elevations. Engineer Chandler noted that it’s unlawful to prevent back flow into the park from the lake. MOTION: Commissioner Carlson moved to approve the feasibility study for the Jevne Park Water Quality Improvement Project and to move forward with implementing Concept 1. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Welch questioned the necessity of this project given its minimal water quality and flood reduction benefits. He wondered if the new CIP scoring matrix was used to evaluate the project. It was pointed out that the matrix wasn’t meant to be retroactive. Administrator Jester quickly scored it and informed the commission that it ranked on the low side, at 6.5. She also noted multiple benefits of the project including: wildlife improvement, wetland improvement, education, and the fact that it addresses a TMDL on a priority waterbody. There was also discussion about buffer requirements. Commissioner Welch asked why, since the wetland is considered Manage 1,” a 50-foot buffer wasn’t incorporated into the project. Engineer Chandler reminded the Commission that this project doesn’t actually trigger buffer requirements and the study worked to incorporate buffers as much as possible. She noted that cost and space were considerations regarding buffers. Commissioner Welch indicated that he would not vote to approve the project without 50-foot buffers because that would indicate a discrepancy between what the Commission requires of other project proposers, but is not willing to install for their own projects. MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to amend the original motion to require 50-ft. wetland buffers. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Carlson explained that from the city’s perspective, it’s important to keep park space, but they can still consider specifications of buffers during final design. Commissioner Scanlan asked if parkland counts as a buffer. Engineer Chandler said the BCWMC has a definition of what constitutes a buffer and that turf grass is not considered a buffer. BCWMC April 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 Susan Wiese (TAC member from Medicine Lake) added to Commissioner Carlson’s point that this park is widely used by city residents. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black wondered if it was appropriate to move forward on this project if the city hasn’t yet amended its ordinances for compliance with the BCWMC Plan, including wetland buffer ordinances. Administrator Jester noted that most cities have not yet adopted updated ordinances and the Commission is moving forward on several CIP projects in different cities. VOTE: Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried 8-1 with Minneapolis voting against the motion and all other cities voting for the motion. Commissioner Welch explained that he finds it appropriate for the city to have significant input into the project, but he doesn’t agree with putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into the project and not adhering to the BCWMC buffer rule. Chair Prom said buffers are being put in to the extent possible, so it is appropriate, and Commissioner Harwell reiterated that the project is in compliance with the buffer rule because it wasn’t triggered by the project. C. Update on 319 Grant for Sweeney Lake Alum Treatment and Carp Management Administrator Jester shared the good news that the BCWMC’s $330,000 Federal 319 grant application for the Sweeney Lake Alum Treatment and Carp Management Project was approved and the MPCA is recommending that the EPA fund the project. She noted that she and Commission Engineer Greg Wilson worked together on the Nine Element Review and submitted that to the MPCA for review and approval by EPA. She noted that the next steps include executing grant agreements, and discussing the project and expected future lake conditions with lake residents. She reported that the local match of $220,000 for the $550,000 project is included in 2020/2021 in the 5-year CIP in Item 5D below and that the grant funding would be available next spring and needs to be spent by August 2023. D. Review Technical Advisory Committee Recommendations for 5-year CIP Mark Ray, TAC Chair, reported that the BCWMC TAC met on March 8th and 26th to discuss possible projects to include in the 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and to score projects using the new CIP Project Scoring Matrix. He reviewed the TAC recommendations on the 2021 – 2025 CIP list, results of the scoring, and project fact sheets. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to approve Technical Advisory Committee Recommendations for the 5-year CIP. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Welch asking the reason behind performing a creek restoration project rather than dredging Bassett Creek Park Pond. Mr. Ray explained that the pond’s life is still pretty long and could be even further extended by installing a forebay along with upstream creek restoration. It was noted that neither of those projects are slated for the current 5-year CIP but were included in the 6th year (2026) as a possible placeholder. VOTE: Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. E. Consider Directing TAC to Provide Guidance on Reviewing Proprietary Stormwater Treatment Devices Commission Engineer Chandler reported that (as noted during discussion of Item 4I), the Commission has seen an increase in the use of proprietary stormwater treatment devices for development and redevelopment projects. She noted there are not widely accepted levels of treatment or pollutant removal efficiencies associated with these devices and that while most proprietary devices undergo third party testing, not all testing is the same and not all devices receive the same level of approval from third party testing organizations. She noted the BCWMC Engineer requests that the Commission direct the TAC to provide guidance for BCWMC review and acceptance of proprietary stormwater treatment devices. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to direct TAC to provide guidance on reviewing proprietary stormwater treatment devices. Commissioner Harwell seconded the motion. BCWMC April 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 Discussion: Commissioner Welch stated that he is interested in innovative technologies, but results vary widely among different devices. Commissioner Harwell noted she was curious about the scope of the devices to review. Engineer Chandler replied that what they really want guidance on is the type of testing that is needed. Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. F. Discuss Report on Winter Maintenance Classes and Recommendations from Fortin Consulting Commissioner Harwell requested that the Commission review and discuss the recommendations resulting from 39 Winter Maintenance Trainings performed by Fortin Consulting. She said she talked with Brooke Asleson at the MPCA who mentioned that there are classes coming up (by Fortin Consulting) through a grant and she is wondering if cities would like to participate. The new class is aimed specifically at property managers and will be held on May 15 and June 5, 2019. Chair Prom noted he was in favor of interacting more with property managers. Administrator Jester explained that the Hennepin County Chloride Consortium is still trying to understand barriers to getting people to stop using so much salt. She mentioned it would be really nice to have consistent efforts across the Metro and that salt education is currently very scattershot.” Dawn Pape brought up that she is working to unite efforts with a “SaltSmart.info” website—a one-stop shop where the public can find the information they need. Information is currently scattered across many watershed district websites. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black suggested handing out business cards with information about reducing salt use. She thought animal shelters would be a good host for educational information because salt is harmful to paws. G. Discuss Plans for 50th Anniversary Event Administrator Jester updated the Commission on the progress made for planning the event, but noted that she is still looking for a keynote speaker. She asked commissioners to reach out to their city councils and city commissions and invite them to the event. Chair Prom mentioned he’s hoping to get drone footage of the creek and that other cities can join that effort. 6. COMMUNICATIONS A.Administrator’s Report i. Administrator Jester noted Hennepin County Commissioner Fernando from District 2 wants to meet with Commission leadership and that a meeting is being arranged. B.Chair i. Chair Prom reported that the old Four Season’s Mall area may be redeveloped and that a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for April 23rd at Beautiful Savior at 5:30 p.m. Chair Prom encouraged commissioners to attend the meeting to give input. C.Commissioners i. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black thanked Ms. Jester and Ms. Chandler for helping the Commission receive over $2 million in grant funds over the last 6 years. ii. Commissioner Harwell reported she recently learned that the dumping of aquatic exotic pets is a big problem. She noted she saw a presentation that might be good for a future Commission meeting and that aquatic pet surrender events are being held around the Metro. iii. Commissioner Welch asked that Administrator Jester send information on the Four Seasons Mall area neighborhood meeting. iv. Commissioner Scanlan brought up an interesting newspaper article regarding Winnetka Pond. v. Alternate Commissioner Cesnik noted the AMLAC annual meeting on May 15th at the Plymouth Creek Center at 7 p.m. vi. Chair Prom mentioned that the Plymouth boat launch on the west side of Medicine Lake is closed. D.TAC Members – no comments BCWMC April 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 E.Committees - Budget meeting on Monday April 22 F.Legal Counsel – no comments G.Engineer - no comments 7. INFORMATION ONLY (Information online only) A. Administrative Calendar B. CIP Project Updates http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/projects C. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet D. Met Council Water Resources Overview with Quotes from BCWMC E. 2018 River Watch Report F. River Watch Interactive Map 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. Signature/Title Date Signature/Title Date Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 3. E. Resignation from Human Rights Commission Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary A resignation email has been received from Gloria Peck, Human Rights Commission. Recommended Action Motion to accept the resignation of Gloria Peck. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 3. F. Board/Commission Reappointment Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Each year staff contacts board and/or commission members whose term is expiring to find out if they are interested in reappointment. Listed below is a youth commissioner that would like to be considered for reappointment. Recommended Action Motion to make the following reappointments: Human Service Commission Eve Clarkson (Student) 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 3. G. Support Application by West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for Community Homeownership Impact Funds Prepared By Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Summary West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT), doing business as Homes Within Reach, is a community-based non-profit organization with a mission to use the Community Land Trust model to create and preserve affordable homeownership opportunities for families in suburban Hennepin County. WHAHLT has developed a proposal for the use of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Community Homeownership Impact Funds for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and sale of entry-level single-family homes to income-qualified families and individuals who otherwise would be unable to buy a home in Golden Valley. WHAHLT has requested a letter of support from the City of Golden Valley for their funding application in the MHFA Consolidated Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The attached resolution authorizes the submittal of a letter of support from City staff. Since WHALHT’s work is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City has consistently supported WHAHLT’s applications for this fund as well as funding from Hennepin County’s HOME program, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Affordable Housing Incentive (AHIF) Funds. WHAHLT recently purchased another home for the land trust with and plans to purchase another home in 2020 with these funds. Attachments Resolution Supporting Application by WHAHLT to MHFA for Community Homeownership Impact Funds (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Supporting Application by WHAHLT to MHFA for Community Homeownership Impact Funds. RESOLUTION NO. 19-30 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPLICATION BY WEST HENNEPIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND TRUST (WHAHLT) TO MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY MHFA) FOR COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERSHIP IMPACT FUNDS WHEREAS, WHAHLT is a community-based non-profit organization, doing business as Homes Within Reach, with a mission to use the Community Land Trust model to create and preserve affordable homeownership opportunities for families in suburban Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, WHAHLT has developed a proposal for the use of Community Homeownership Impact Funds from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Single Family Consolidated Request for Proposals (RFP) process; and WHEREAS, the proposal requests funding to implement the Community Land Trust Program with the acquisition, rehabilitation, and sale of entry-level properties to income- qualified families and individuals; and WHEREAS, the City has consistently supported WHAHLT’s contribution to the preservation and creation of affordable homeownership opportunities in Golden Valley, which is consistent with the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Golden Valley that the Council supports the application for funding from MHFA and authorizes submittal of a letter of support. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on this 4th day of June 2019. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 3. H. Receipt of April 2019 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 Commission (Special Revenue Fund) Building Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) Park Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) General Fund Operations: As of April 2019, the City has used $5,722,121 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments April 2019 General Fund (2 pages) April 2019 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) April 2019 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) April 2019 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) April 2019 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) April 2019 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) April 2019 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) April 2019 Brookview Center Fund (1 page) April 2019 Human Services Commission (1 page) April 2019 Building Improvement Fund (1 page) April 2019 Park Improvement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the April 2019 Financial Reports. Over % 2019 April YTD (Under)Of Budget Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 001 Council $384,145 47,429 117,954 ($266,191)30.71% 003 City Manager 921,015 55,637 229,780 (691,235)24.95% 004 Transfers Out 2,207,580 0 882,580 (1,325,000)39.98%(1) 005 Admin. Services 2,076,945 179,394 840,154 (1,236,791)40.45%(3) 006 Legal 183,340 14,576 57,178 (126,162)31.19% 007 Risk Management 310,000 155,900 157,424 (152,576)50.78%(4) 011 General Gov't. Bldgs.728,980 56,832 227,120 (501,860)31.16% 016 Planning 421,025 29,078 112,433 (308,592)26.70%(3) 018 Inspections 917,925 55,884 327,471 (590,454)35.68% 022 Police 6,545,850 476,213 1,876,787 (4,669,063)28.67% 023 Fire 1,579,315 123,564 437,374 (1,141,941)27.69%(2) 035 Physical Dev Admin 316,110 21,505 96,371 (219,739)30.49% 036 Engineering 774,905 64,268 216,437 (558,468)27.93% 037 Streets 1,849,530 93,720 587,771 (1,261,759)31.78%(2) 066 Park & Rec. Admin.815,695 61,976 253,889 (561,806)31.13% 067 Park Maintenance 1,312,805 122,088 363,816 (948,989)27.71%(2) 068 Recreation Programs 404,850 10,855 69,073 (335,777)17.06% TOTAL Expenditures $21,750,015 $1,568,919 $6,853,612 ($14,896,403)31.51% 1) Transfers will be made in June, 2019 except for Equipment Transfer of $882,580. 2) 2019 Budget Adjustment-$13,440-Fire $5,440; Street-$4,000; Park-$4,000 3-19-19 3) 2018 Positive Performance Amended -$35,000 Planning- Downtown Study Scope; IT-$10,000 Scanning 4) Dividend will be sent in December. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures April, 2019 (unaudited) Division 33.00% Over % 2019 April YTD (Under)of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $18,450,845 8,541 8,541 ($18,442,304)0.05%(1) Licenses 212,030 85,930 136,440 ($75,590)64.35% Permits 887,960 77,773 385,810 ($502,150)43.45% State Aid 15,190 3,539 3,539 ($11,651)23.30%(2) County Aid 0 1,319 $1,319 Charges For Services: General Government 25,250 1,311 2,238 ($23,012)8.86% Public Safety 163,500 8,450 65,462 ($98,038)40.04% Public Works 167,300 14,046 66,449 ($100,851)39.72% Park & Rec 416,500 17,265 88,949 ($327,551)21.36% Other Funds 691,500 53,458 222,719 ($468,781)32.21% Fines & Forfeitures 340,000 24,476 75,343 ($264,657)22.16%(3) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000)0.00%(4) Miscellaneous Revenue 191,500 11,661 64,682 ($126,818)33.78% Transfers In 30,000 2,500 10,000 ($20,000)33.33%(5) TOTAL Revenue $21,691,575 $308,950 $1,131,491 ($20,560,084)5.22% 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. No LGA in 2019. 3) Fines/Forfeitures are thru for March 2019. 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 April 2019 (unaudited) Over 2019 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 41,545 0 0 (41,545)0.00%(4) Recycling Charges 409,105 36,717 100,686 (308,419)24.61%(2) Miscellaneous Revenues 8,000 0 0 (8,000) Interest on Investments 4,000 0 0 (4,000)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 462,650 36,717 100,686 (361,964)21.76% Expenses: Recycling 501,695 38,160 110,603 (391,092)22.05%(3) Total Expenses 501,695 38,160 110,603 (391,092)22.05% 1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. 2) Includes utility billings thru April 2019. 3) This includes the recycling services thru March 2019. 4) Grant reduced due to no compost program. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2019-2023 CIP and 2019-2020 Budget. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund April 2019 (unaudited) Over 2019 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 5,081,725 397,174 1,109,232 (3,972,493)21.83% Emergency Water Supply 183,080 16,886 48,274 (134,806)26.37% Sewer Charges 3,910,000 396,171 1,173,133 (2,736,867)30.00% Meter Sales 20,000 1,765 3,726 (16,274)18.63% Penalties 130,000 14,739 48,501 (81,499)37.31% Charges for Other Services 100,000 10,483 38,046 (61,954)38.05% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 46,000 4,183 15,765 (30,235)34.27% Sale of Assets 10,000 0 0 (10,000)0.00% Franchise Fees 1,500,000 0 0 (1,500,000)0.00% Certificate of Compliance 75,000 5,200 21,000 (54,000)28.00% Interest Earnings 25,000 0 0 (25,000)0.00% Total Revenue 11,080,805 846,601 2,457,677 (8,623,128)22.18% Expenses: Utility Administration 3,260,675 80,041 401,628 (2,859,047)12.32%(1) Sewer Maintenance 3,340,720 251,289 1,055,277 (2,285,443)31.59% Water Maintenance 4,799,400 244,497 1,312,808 (3,486,592)27.35% Total Expenses 11,400,795 575,827 2,769,713 (8,631,082)24.29% 1) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2019-2023 CIP and 2019-2020 Budget. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund April 2019 (unaudited) Over 2019 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 900,000 54,416 54,572 (845,428)6.06% Driving Range Fees 170,000 17,416 17,416 (152,584)10.24% Par 3 Fees 155,000 9,421 9,421 (145,579)6.08% Lawn Bowling 80,000 2,578 2,578 (77,422)3.22% Pro Shop Sales 80,000 9,407 9,869 (70,131)12.34% Pro Shop Rentals 300,000 14,110 19,860 (280,140)6.62% Concession Sales 1,570,000 103,399 279,601 (1,290,399)17.81% Other Revenue 122,000 18,937 51,220 (70,780)41.98% Interest Earnings 5,000 0 0 (5,000)0.00%(1) Less: Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax 0 (4,425)(4,425)#DIV/0! Total Revenue 3,382,000 229,684 440,112 (2,941,888)13.01% Expenses: Golf Operations 755,010 54,700 187,735 (567,275)24.87%(2) Course Maintenance 850,740 57,647 207,005 (643,735)24.33% Pro Shop 122,500 16,832 54,425 (68,075)44.43% Grill 1,349,800 96,636 305,873 (1,043,927)22.66% Driving Range 51,590 1,728 18,948 (32,642)36.73% Par 3 Course 35,710 992 2,443 (33,267)6.84% Lawn Bowling 15,400 2,000 2,041 (13,359)13.25% Total Expenses 3,180,750 230,535 778,470 (2,402,280)24.47% 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 2019-2023 CIP and 2019-2020 Budget. Fund Balance should be a minimum of $1,060,000 (4 months reserve). City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund April 2019 (unaudited) Course opened April 4 Over 2019 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 3,000 0 0 (3,000)0.00%(1) Charges for Services 464,515 43,375 159,279 (305,236)34.29% Total Revenue 467,515 43,375 159,279 (308,236)34.07% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 446,080 34,334 137,154 (308,926)30.75% Total Expenses 446,080 34,334 137,154 (308,926)30.75% 1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund April 2019 (unaudited) Over 2019 April 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 State DNR Grant 2,300,000 0 0 (2,300,000)(6) Storm Sewer Charges 2,475,000 214,827 765,450 (1,709,550)30.93% Hennepin County 500,000 Bassett Creek Watershed 1,031,500 0 0 (1,031,500) (5) Miscellaneous Receipts 330,830 0 0 (330,830) Sale or Loss of Assets 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 6,687,330 214,827 765,450 (5,921,880)11.45% Expenses: Storm Utility 5,913,815 226,733 516,365 (5,397,450)8.73%(2) (3) Street Cleaning 130,815 26,215 34,138 (96,677)26.10% Environmental Control 402,605 28,183 93,018 (309,587)23.10% Debt Service Payments 63,950 0 31,750 (32,200)0.00%(3) Total Expenses 6,511,185 281,131 675,271 (5,835,914)10.37%(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. 5) Bassett Creek Watershed Coomission reimbursed the City for a 2019 projects. 6) DNR Grant for Decola Ponds B/C. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2019-2023 CIP and 2019-2020 Budget. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Storm Utility Enterprise Fund April 2019 (unaudited) 2019 Equipment Replacement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5700 2019 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Sale of Assets 35,000 0 51,694 16,694 General Fund Transfer 100,000 0 0 (100,000) VOTF Transfer 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 (2) Miscellaneous Receipts 2,749 13,498 13,498 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)23,538 0 0 (23,538) Total Revenues 168,538 12,749 75,192 (93,346) Expenditures: Program #Project Number Project Name 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars (Police)80,000 0 0 80,000 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers (Finance)95,000 9,752 19,443 75,557 (1) 5703 V&E-003 Drone (Police)10,000 0 10,449 (449) V&E-009 Skylift 40,000 0 0 40,000 V&E-022 Pickup Truck (Fire)40,000 0 0 40,000 V&E-037 Polaris 6 X 6 (Fire)15,000 0 0 15,000 V&E-060 Bobcat Truckster (park)55,000 0 0 55,000 V&E-109 Single Axle Dump Truck (Street)230,000 0 0 230,000 V&E-116 Bobcat Toolcat 4,500 0 0 4,500 5741 V&E-133 800 MHZ Radios (Public Works Maintenance)100,000 103,189 115,285 (15,285) V&E-135 Body Cameras/Dash Cams/Software (Police)24,070 0 0 24,070 V&E-141 Pickup Truck (Park)35,000 0 0 35,000 V&E-145 Skid Steer Loader (Street)5,000 0 0 5,000 V&E-156 Trailer (Fire)5,000 0 0 5,000 Total Expenditures 738,570 112,941 145,177 583,393 1) Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. 2) In 2019, monies were transferred for a purchase of a drone from the VOTF Fund. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2019-2023 CIP and 2019-2020 Budget. Over 2019 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Brookview CC Rentals 158,000 16,110 50,342 (107,658)31.86% Backyard Play Area 230,000 21,381 99,016 (130,984)43.05% Miscellaneous Revenues 1,500 0 0 (1,500)0.00% Interest on Investments 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!(1) Total Revenue 389,500 37,491 149,358 (240,142)38.35% Expenses: General Area Rooms 327,780 23,523 99,180 (228,600)30.26%(2) Indoor Play Area 74,620 4,592 15,656 (58,964)20.98% Total Expenses 402,400 28,115 114,836 (287,564)28.54% 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 April 2019 (unaudited) Over 2019 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Pull Tab (10%) Revenues 30,000 5,490 11,290 (18,710)37.63%(3) Fundraisers 30,000 9,440 21,111 (8,889)70.37%(4) Interest on Investments 700 0 0 (700)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 60,700 14,930 32,401 (28,299)53.38% Expenses: Supplies 17,100 7,224 7,224 (9,876)42.25%(4) Allocations 75,000 3,079 15,579 (59,421)20.77%(2) Total Expenses 92,100 10,303 22,803 (69,297)24.76% 1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. 2) Allocations in 2019 are $75,000. 3) Pull Tab revenues are thru March. 4) Solicitation Letters -$4,841-YTD; should be allocated to designation 4) Run/Walk -9,045 YTD (net) 4) Golf Tourney/Lawn Bowling -September Fund Balance at 12/31/18 was $213,624. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Human Services Commission April, 2019 (unaudited) 2019 Building Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5200 2019 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Transfer from General Fund 400,000 0 0 (400,000)(1) Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)7,754 0 0 (7,754) Total Revenues 407,754 0 0 (407,754) Expenditures: Project Name Replace Co-Vac Heating 175,000 0 0 175,000 Installation of Building Security Systems 10,000 333 333 9,667 Council Chambers Remodeling 300,000 0 0 300,000 Public Buildings Roof Replacement 150,000 1,204 1,204 148,796 Total Expenditures 635,000 1,537 1,537 633,463 1)Transfer will be made in June. 2019 Park Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5600 2019 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Transfer from General Fund 325,000 0 0 (325,000) Park Dedication Fee 0 10,044 20,844 0 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant 96,000 0 0 (96,000) Little League/Youth Associations/Play Eq Grants 20,000 0 0 (20,000) Other Donations 0 0 0 0 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)2,832 0 0 (2,832) Total Revenues 443,832 10,044 20,844 (443,832) Expenditures: Project Name 5601 Bleacher, Etc Replacement 25,000 11,648 25,688 (688) 5602 Park Trail and Parking Lot Improvements 90,000 0 0 90,000 5603 Play Structure Replacement 60,000 0 0 60,000 5614 Ball Field Lighting 0 0 0 0 5615 Outdoor Basketball and Hoop Replacement 23,000 8,070 8,070 14,930 5620 Park Signage Replacement 10,000 0 360 9,640 5621 Tennis & Pickle Ball Court Resurfacing 15,000 0 0 15,000 Community Gardens 30,000 0 0 30,000 5608 Relamp Athletic Field and Rink Lights 25,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 5607 Dugout, Fence and Field Replacement 55,000 0 13,886 41,114 Scoreboard Update/Replacement 25,000 8,500 8,500 16,500 Total Expenditures 358,000 38,218 66,504 291,496 Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2019-2023 CIP. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 3. I. Authorization to Extend Fire Relief Association Street Dance Hours Prepared By John Crelly, Fire Chief Dominique Guzman, President Fire Relief Association Summary The Golden Valley Fire Relief Association is requesting permission to extend the street dance hours until midnight on Saturday, June 22, 2019. The street dance will be held at the Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive. Recommended Action Motion to approve the extension of hours for the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street Dance to midnight on Saturday, June 22, 2019, at the Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2018 Agenda Item 3. J. Board/Commission Appointments Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary As opening in board and/or commissions arise, the City Council conducts interviews with individuals who have applied to serve on them. After tonight’s interviews are conducted, the Council may decide to make appointments. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - MS4 General Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, 2018 Annual Report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Prepared By Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist Summary As authorized by the Clean Water Act of 1972 and its amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which regulates point and non-point sources of pollution into our nation’s waterways. Point sources include pipes and ditches, and non-point sources include overland precipitation runoff. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) manages the permit program for EPA in Minnesota. Cities like Golden Valley, which operate their own storm sewer systems, are required to obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit from the MPCA. The permit allows Golden Valley to discharge stormwater into public receiving waters. It also requires that the City develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges. Golden Valley’s SWPPP addresses the six minimum control measures outlined in the MS4 permit requirements: 1. Public Education and Outreach 2. Public Involvement and Participation 3. Illicit Discharge, Detection, and Elimination 4. Construction Site Runoff Control 5. Post Construction Runoff Control 6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping The holding of an annual public meeting and preparation of an annual report are requirements of the MS4 permit. The meeting has been advertised for June 4, 2019, at 6:30 pm. The City must create a record of the public comments received, either written or oral. The public input must be considered and a record of decision must be added to the annual report to MPCA. Attachments Resolution Issuing a Negative Declaration of Need for Revisions to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (1 page) Recommendation Motion to adopt Resolution Issuing a Negative Declaration of Need for Revisions to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. RESOLUTION NO. 19-31 RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED FOR REVISIONS TO THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) its permit application for operation of the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) on March 10, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City was reissued coverage by MPCA for its current MS4 permit on April 14, 2014; and WHEREAS, the permit requires that the City develop and implement a plan for regulating and improving stormwater discharge, commonly referred to as the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP); and WHEREAS, staff has been working to meet the objectives set forth in the SWPPP and is required to report to the MPCA on the status of the plan’s implementation on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, the City has placed notification of a public hearing in the City’s official newspaper and has held a public hearing to report on progress made in implementation of the SWPPP and to take public testimony; and WHEREAS, comments made during the public hearing will be incorporated into the City Council record. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Golden Valley has determined that no revisions to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program are required and staff is hereby directed to file the annual report with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on this 4th day of June, 2019. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 120-day Deadline: July 24, 2019 Agenda Item 4. B. Lot Consolidation and Transfer of Remnant Right of Way to Adjacent Owner at 1345 Natchez Avenue South 1. Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Remnant Right of Way to the Adjacent Property Owner at 1345 Natchez Avenue South 2. Public Hearing – Preliminary Plat Approval – Anderson Addition – 1345 Natchez Avenue South Prepared By Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Maria Cisneros, City Attorney Summary The owners of 1345 Natchez Avenue South (“1345 Natchez”), Paul and Jessica Anderson (the Andersons”) would like to acquire excess city-owned right-of-way (the “Excess Right of Way”) next to their home. If the City agrees to transfer the Excess Right of Way to the Andersons, they will combine the two parcels into one lot through a lot combination. Remnant Land Transfer The City has a long-term goal of returning remnant City-owned land back to adjacent owners and has determined that it is in the public interest to transfer excess right of way. The owners of 1345 Natchez would like to acquire the Excess Right of Way next to their house. The Excess Right of Way was owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for several years for the construction of I-394 and the interchange with Hwy 100. The adjacent frontage road was turned back to the City in 2013 and the excess land was deeded to the City in 2016. If the transfer takes place, there will be no cost to the City. The Anderson’s submitted a deposit to the City to cover the cost of all professional services required for the transfer (also called a conveyance). Additionally, the Anderson’s have agreed, at staff’s request, to consolidate the Excess Right of Way with 1345 Natchez. A resolution approving the transfer of this land is attached. The resolution authorizes the transfer of the Excess Right of Way to the Andersons. Lot Consolidation The Anderson’s have applied to consolidate 1345 Natchez and the Excess Right of Way. The Andersons own an existing single-family home at 1345 Natchez. Under the Anderson’s proposal, this house will remain after the lot consolidation. 1345 Natchez is 11,594 square feet. It is guided for Low Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1). The lot is surrounded by single-family homes, I-394, and Hwy 100. The Excess Right of Way is 12,145 square feet, but it is not wide enough to be buildable under the City’s R-1 Zoning District standards or Subdivision standards. When combined, the total lot size will be 23,739 square feet. The Engineering Division does not have any concerns with the proposal and recommends approval of the lot consolidation. The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval (6-0) at its meeting on April 22, 2019. Since the meeting, MnDOT has submitted a letter stating that their review is complete and there are no concerns. A letter describing the proposed lot consolidation was sent to property owners within 500 feet. To date, staff has not received any comments or concerns regarding this proposal. Findings According to City Code, section 109-121, the following regulations govern approval of Minor Subdivisions (lot consolidations are considered Minor Subdivisions in City Code): Factor/Finding 1. A minor subdivision shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular access is not provided from an abutting improved street. Standard met. The proposed lot meets the requirements of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Vehicular access is provided. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied upon the City’s determination that a resulting new lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. Standard met. The proposed lot is buildable and not encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if sewer and water connections are not directly accessible by each proposed lot. Standard met. Sewer and water connections are available. The lot consolidation will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval shall be conditioned on the granting of easements for necessary public purposes. Standard met. Drainage and utility easements are required along all property lines. The preliminary plat submitted by the applicant meets this requirement. 5. Approval may be conditioned on the requirements of outside public agencies with jurisdiction. Standard met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns. 6. Approval shall be conditioned on the resolution of any title issues raised by the City Attorney. Standard met. The City Attorney has performed the title review and all relevant title issues have been addressed. 7. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied if new development will cause undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent uses. Not applicable. 8. Approval shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee, sewer and water access charge, and pending or levied deferred assessments. Standard met. A park dedication fee is not required on land that was previously platted. 9. 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. Standard met. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Planning Commission Minutes dated April 22, 2019 (2 pages) Memo to the Planning Commission dated April 22, 2019 (3 pages) Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Remnant Right of Way to the Adjacent Property Owner at 1345 Natchez Avenue South (2 pages) Survey dated March 25, 2019 (1 page) Preliminary Plat, Anderson Addition, dated April 11, 2019 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Remnant Right of Way to the Adjacent Property Owner at 1345 Natchez Avenue South. Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Anderson Addition. Subject Properties: 1345 Natchez Ave S & Parcel to the North 1345 1400 1405 1415 1420 1425 1435 1430 1435 1450 1445 1450 1445 1510 1505 15 10 15 05 1515 1520 1525 1520 1515 1525 1530 : 151915351530I 1535 1540 tf, I 1535 '1545 1540 u; 1545 480 0 1549 1550 < 463 0 N < i.l 1315 1325 1320 1345 13 40 1410 1415 142 0 ,:ry 4520 45001430 :TJ Cr. 444 0 441 0 4400 433 0 Tyto/ 4450 c,,f,' 4435 4420 440 0 4415 ,4335 432 4320 4330 4340 0 e'+· 43 1440 IJ, 4350 v 1500 151 0 152 0 1530 46 00 f\ i,-,-i , 4515 1445 15 05 1529 41, 4501 Ot/q 4417 le 4401 C/ 4349 4343 4530 4520451044304420 4410 4335 4345 4336 4324 4321 ti i.f>cy 4545453545254515 4445 4435 44254415 4335\) 4555 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 t t l if o 763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1763-593-8109(fax)1 www.goldenvalleymn.gov go lden w" Planning Commission11 Apr 22, 2019—7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at pm by Chair Baker. Ro II Comm ' ners present: Rich Ba r, Ron Blum, Adam Br s, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Chuck Segelb m Commissione sent: None Staff present: Plannin Manage on Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellne Council Liaison present: e S gall Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Johns , second by B ns to approve the agenda of April 22, 2019, as submitted and the motion carri Approval of ' les Apr118, 201l8, 20 egular Planning Com sion Meeting MOT made by Brookins, seconde y Segelbaum to approve the April 8, 2019, minutes as submitted a he motion carried. Public Hearing Applicant: Paul and Jessica Anderson Address: 1345 Natchez Avenue South Purpose: Lot Consolidation to join 1345 Natchez Ave S with a vacant parcel of land to the north Goellner referred to a location map of the subject properties and explained the applicant's proposal to consolidate 1345 Natchez Avenue South with vacant land to the north which is excess land from MnDOT highway construction. She noted that the excess land is not wide enough to be buildable on its own and that the existing single family home would remain. Goellner stated that the remnant land used to be a larger parcel with a house on it in the 1970s and that MnDOT purchased it along with others along Wayzata Blvd. in order to expand the freeway. Goellner explained that the lot, after consolidation, will meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. It will be more than 10,000 square feet in area and it will have more than 100 feet of width at the front yard setback line along both Wayzata Blvd. and Natchez Avenue. She stated that it is a goal of the City Council to return excess land to the tax roll so this is the best option for this property rather than to grant the necessary variances to make the remnant parcel buildable on its own. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2 Apr 22, 2019—7 pm She stated that because the proposal meets all of the conditions listed in the City Code for approval staff is recommending approval. Segelbaum said he remembers past discussions about this intersection and the ability to merge onto the service lane in this area on the south side of 1-394. Goellner referred to a map of the area and discussed the addition of a stop sign and a turn lane at the Wayzata Blvd./TH 100 intersection as part of the Central Park West Development. Segelbaum asked if the City watches that area and if there are concerns about the owners of this property maintaining visibility. Goellner said the site lines and speeds on Wayzata Blvd. were discussed during the Central Park West development process in 2015. Since then,the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan has shown a multi-use off-street trail on the south side of the roadway and that part of this lot consolidation proposal includes enough right-of-way in order to build that trail. She added that corner visibility would come into play if the property owner ever wanted to build closer to the north corner of the lot. Segelbaum asked about the width of the right-of-way for the trail. Goellner said it is 20 ft. from the curb. Baker asked if driveways would be allowed on Wayzata Blvd. Goellner said that there aren't strict code requirements regarding driveway access on Wayzata Blvd. so it would have to be determined at the time of the design of a proposed driveway. Johnson asked if the lot could be subdivided in the future. Goellner said no because there would not be enough lot width along Natchez Ave. S. Baker asked if the City is conveying or selling the property to the applicant. Goellner said the City is transferring the property to the applicant for one dollar and that the applicant has paid for all of the costs for preparing it for sale. Baker referred to the staff report and noted that it said the applicant is not planning any additions. He asked what "additions" means. Goellner stated that the proposed lot consolidation will create a larger buildable area but that the applicants aren't planning to utilize it at this time. Paul Anderson, 1345 Natchez Avenue South, said he'd answer any questions. Segelbaum asked Anderson if he intends to keep the site line open looking east. Anderson said there is a slight curve to the east and that there is no restriction of the site lines. He said the hardest site line is to the west where there is also a lot of acceleration from the stop sign. He added that they plan to build a fence and plant some shrubs to help with freeway noise. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Pockl to recommend approval of a Lot Consolidation to join 1345 Natchez Ave S with a vacant parcel of land to the north and the motion carried unanimously. city 0f golden * ey MEMORANDUM va.Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: April 22, 2019 To:Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Lot Consolidation -Anderson Addition Preliminary Plat- 1345 Natchez Avenue South Summary The owners of 1345 Natchez Avenue South are proposing to consolidate excess city-owned right-of- way with their property located at the corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Natchez Avenue South. The excess land was owned by MnDOT for several years for the construction of 1-394 and the interchange with Hwy 100. The adjacent frontage road was turned back to the City in 2013 and the excess land was deeded to the City in 2016. The City is in the process of transferring the land to the Anderson's for consolidation. There is one existing single-family home at 1345 Natchez Avenue South, which would remain under this proposal. This lot is 11,594 square feet. It is guided for Low Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1). The excess right-of-way is 12,145 square feet in size, but it is not wide enough to be buildable under R-1 Zoning District standards or Subdivision standards. Corner lots must be a minimum of 100 feet wide along each street. The remnant lot is approximately 155 feet wide along Wayzata Boulevard, but only 36 feet wide along Natchez Avenue. When MnDOT acquired it for highway development in 1985, this lot was larger and a home was located there. When combined, the total lot size will be 23,739 square feet. The applicant is not planning any additions to the property at this time, but may build a fence in the future. The lot is surrounded by single-family homes, 1-394, and Hwy 100. A letter describing the proposed lot consolidation was sent to property owners within 500 feet. To date, staff has not received any comments or concerns regarding this proposal. The Engineering Division does not have any concerns with the proposal and recommends approval of the lot consolidation. The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns. City staff is in the process of preparing the city-owned vacant land for transfer to the owners of 1345 Natchez Avenue South. A resolution approving the transfer of this land will be reviewed by the City Council at the same meeting in which this lot consolidation is reviewed. Evaluation According to Section 109-121 of the City Code, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions (lot consolidations are considered minor subdivisions): Factor /Finding 1.A minor subdivision shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular access is not provided from an abutting improved street. Standard met. The proposed lot meets the requirements of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Vehicular access is provided. 2.A minor subdivision may be denied upon the City's determination that a resulting new lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. Standard met. The proposed lot is buildable and not encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. 3.A minor subdivision may be denied if sewer and water connections are not directly accessible by each proposed lot. Standard met. Sewer and water connections are available. The lot consolidation will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4.Approval shall be conditioned on the granting of easements for necessary public purposes. Standard met. Drainage and utility easements are required along all property lines. The preliminary plat submitted by the applicant meets this requirement. 5.Approval may be conditioned on the requirements of outside public agencies with jurisdiction. Standard conditionally met. The proposed development is adjacent to 1-394 and therefore is subject to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 6.Approval shall be conditioned on the resolution of any title issues raised by the City Attorney. Standard met. The City Attorney has performed the title review and there are not any outstanding issues to resolve. 7.Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied if new development will cause undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent uses. Not applicable. 8. Approval shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee, sewer and water access charge, and pending or levied deferred assessments. Standard met. A park dedication fee is not required on land that was previously platted. 9.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. Standard met. Recommended Action Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the proposed lot consolidation at 1345 Natchez Avenue South, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development is adjacent to 1-394 and therefore is subject to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Survey, dated March 25, 2019 (1 page) Preliminary Plat, Anderson Addition, dated April 11, 2019 (1 page) RESOLUTION NO. 19-32 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF REMNANT PROPERTY TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AT 1345 NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City owns a remnant parcel (the “Property”) legally described as follows: That part of Lots 25 and 26, Block 2, KENNEDY’S SOUTH TYROL HILLS, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 25; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 57 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Lot 25, a distance of 35.99 feet; thence northeasterly 9.57 feet on tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 10.00 feet and a central angle of 54 degrees 48 minutes 13 seconds; thence North 55 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East 154.94 feet to a point on the east line of said Lot 26, said point being the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, NELSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence South 04 degrees 17 minutes 18 seconds East along the east line of said Lots 25 and 26, a distance of 133.90 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 25; thence North 89 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West along the south line of said Lot 25, a distance of 141.68 feet to the point of beginning. and, WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation conveyed the Property to the City in 2016; and, WHEREAS, the Property is not buildable under the City’s existing Zoning and Subdivision regulations; and WHEREAS, the City has no other use for the Property; and WHEREAS, The City has a long-term goal of returning remnant City-owned land back to adjacent owners and has determined it is in the public interest to do so; and WHEREAS, the adjacent land owner at 1345 Natchez Avenue South (Legally described as Lot 24, Block 2, Kennedy’s South Tyrol Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota) 1345 Natchez”) have provided the financial support necessary to prepare the land for transfer; and WHEREAS, all necessary due diligence has been performed and the land is prepared for transfer; and WHEREAS, upon transfer, the Property and 1345 Natchez will be platted as one combined lot for residential use. Resolution No. 19-32 -2- June 4, 2019 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Golden Valley that the Council approves the transfer of the Property to the adjacent property owner at 1345 Natchez Avenue South. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on this 4th day of June, 2019. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk 30 0 30 60 scale 15 feet ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING N SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83 (1996 ADJ); WHEREIN THE EAST LINE OF NATCHEZ AVE BEARS N 00020'57" E. CURVE A L = 9.57 R = 10.00 A = 54°48'13" Q 10 oc G y G\ V1 fl 0 C'0 ?: 500 P I Q 14' SHE I JD P" CH. = 9.20 CH. BRG. = N 27°45'04" E \ pQ I SAN MH -' o I 36'0"i t-_ rnvl i vl _ Lll L CURVE FND IRON g O A L L L=9.57 rn n L R = 10.00 ,°n' ' t/ EXIST. ELECTRIC EASEMENTIROB. ` OVER EAST 5 FEET. SW COR. (`\J DOC. NO. 592295 L V i LOT 25 \ J S. LINE N89039'03"W 141.68 LOT 25 1 HYD. N w N L _ U) - FND IRON U V I r7IL T- 34.8 t / LU I— Q F- LU IZz = GAR. L LIf i Q o U) DRAWN BY: MJH SURVEYED BY: PH / JS CHECKED BY: n N O CD O 66'R/W-- ---Z CD ODV WAT SERV. gIT pRNE SAN ry H - SAN ERV. FND IRON 27.8' F -F r EXIST. U I'NIHOUSEWFNDIRON- CDr L_ WOOD FENCE I I N 89°39'03" W V II EXIST. fjHOUSE I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 148.17 I r7 / L_ L_ iii000 J PHONE: 651.490.2000 MARK J. HASELIUS, PLS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE S EH ST, PAUL, MN 55110-5196 Lic. No. 47034 www.sehinc.com DENOTES IRON PIPE FOUND Q DENOTES IRON PIPE SET AREAS AS SHOWN L. L_ / I EXISTING LOT 24 = 1 1 ,594 SQ. FT. PROPOSED CONVEYANCE = 12,145 SQ. FT. n l TOTAL = 231739 SQ. FT. 7-I LJ Loll l/ v l y PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CONVEYANCE FROM CITY That part thereof of Lots 25 and 26, Block 2, KENNEDY'S SOUTH TYROL HILLS, according to the plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 25; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 57 seconds East assumed bearing, along the west line of said Lot 25, a distance of 35.99 feet thence northeasterly 9.57 feet on tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 10.00 feet and a central angle of 54 degrees 48 minutes 13 seconds; thence North 55 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East 154.94 feet to a point on the east line of said Lot 26, said point being the northwest corner of at 1, Block 1, NELSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence South 04 degrees 17 minutes 18 seconds East along the east line of said Lots 25 and 26, a distance of 133.91 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 25; thence North 89 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West along the south line of said Lot 25, a distance of 141.68 feet to the point of beginning. NOTES: 1. SITE ADDRESS: 1345 NATCHEZ AVENUE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 2, NO TITLE OPINION WAS FURNISHED. 3. UTILITIES ARE SHOWN BASED ON OBSERVED EVIDENCE AND/OR AVAILABLE MAPS. I 4. NO WETLAND DELINIATION WAS PERFORMED 5, HEAVY SNOW COVER WAS PRESENT AT TIME OF SURVEY, SOME SITE FEATURES MAY HAVE BEEN OBSCURED, FILE NO, GOLD FOR: PAUL & JESSICA ANDERSON 1345 NATCHEZ AVE. IGCLDENVALLEY, MINNESC A V 149871 CERTIFICATEOFSURVEY01 3888. 40CPT: PK4894. 82CPT: PK895.01894.9289447893.81894.35894.82895.56895. 39894.94891.16891.30892. 50 895. 55897.09896.12889.46889.83887.98890. 76890.16896. 85891.32897.15897.15897.80897.67 897.88897.89897.12895.53894.84894.43892.84892.00892.06 897. 94897. 86898. 77899. 22894.5336"8"12"10"10"10"3X6GROUP"10"6"10"14"900.79895.74898.75898.69897.35896.62899.20 899.41897.37893.88895.07897.24 899.41897.71 898.42898.49898.46897. 90890. 95890.52 891.76892. 21893.36892.88893.84894.32890.07889.72890.36890. 70892.25891.82892.96893. 43893. 92893.43894. 09894. 52894. 98894.49895. 02894.77895. 03895.51895.53895. 06895. 55>> IIIII I I I I I I P- OHP- OHP- OHP-OHP- Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing - Amending the Zoning Code to Include Architectural and Material Standards Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary In 2018, Planning staff was directed to research the guidelines of cities in the metro area that provide architectural standards and that regulate exterior building materials in their zoning codes. These standards are typically adopted in order to establish minimum acceptable levels of design or to ensure minimum levels of quality and appearance in materials. The Planning Commission considered this topic at five of their regular meetings: July 9, 2018 – introduction to architectural and material standards February 11, 2019 – discussion of material standards February 25, 2019 – discussion of architectural standards March 25, 2019 – review of draft zoning text April 22, 2019 – public hearing to consider text amendment Architectural standards The Planning Commission recommended the inclusion of many aspects of architectural standards in a revised code, including requirements around façades, openings, entrances, and screening. They preferred that these standards be tailored to specific zoning districts, and that additions or expansions to existing buildings be required to conform to the new regulations. Material standards After considering a handful of ways to regulate exterior materials, the Commission recommended the City incorporate a system of material classes and require that each façade utilize a minimum percentage of the highest class of materials. Commissioners felt that different zoning districts should be held to different standards, and that additions or expansions should generally consist of the highest class of materials unless or until the overall building meets the new standards. The new standards are proposed to be included in the zoning code as one section of text, not dispersed throughout each of the zoning districts. The Commission recommended approval of the new zoning language (6-0) on April 22. Background Development is typically subject to up to three types of aesthetic controls. The first is site design, which regulates where site elements (structures, access points, parking, landscaping, etc.) can be located on a property. Golden Valley controls some elements of site design through setbacks and limitations on the location of accessory structures, driveways, etc. More extensive site planning regulations are in place in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. The second type of aesthetic control is architectural standards. These usually dictate building elements that must be included (or may be prohibited) in the design of new buildings, such as variations in wall depth, the presence of windows, doors, and other openings, or massing and screening standards. Historically, Golden Valley has not provided much oversight of architectural features. In the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, the side wall articulation requirement is one of the only architectural controls. The I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District does establish standards for building design, transparency, and building colors. Finally, the type and amount of various exterior materials used in construction may be regulated by a third type of architectural control. The current City Code does provide some minimal protection from exterior building materials which “tend to rapidly deteriorate or which for any reason are, or tend to quickly become, unsightly.” In addition, the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District requires exterior walls to be faced with “glass, exterior cement plaster (stucco), natural stone, brick, architectural concrete, non-corrugated metal, or an equivalent or better.” At least 20 percent of the façade facing a primary street must be faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone, and up to 15 percent of the exterior wall surface may be wood, metal, EIFS, or other equivalent materials. As Golden Valley continues to face redevelopment pressure, staff is recommending that additional architectural and material standards be developed for most zoning districts. Proposed Standards Initially, staff gathered information from 15 neighboring cities that had some form of architectural or material regulations. The Planning Commission compared the various approaches and provided feedback to staff on specific aspects of zoning language for consideration. After additional discussions on these two topics, staff then brought forward a draft version of zoning text for review. A slightly revised version of this new section of code was recommended for approval in April. The proposed standards include the following elements: Purpose – The purpose of the new regulations is to hold development to a high standard, to utilize various structural and ornamental elements to maximize variety and architectural interest, to ensure building façades are active and engaging, and to maintain the built environment in good condition. General Standards – Generally, architectural standards are focused on massing, roof lines, consistent treatment of façades, and focal features. Exterior building materials are divided into four classes, with Class I being the highest quality and Class III being the lowest quality. Medium Density and High Density Residential Zoning Districts – In these districts, an emphasis is placed on providing physical and visual breaks in façades, requiring views into and out of the building – especially on the ground floor, creating well-defined entrances, and using screening to hide utilities and other unattractive building elements. High quality building materials are focused on façades visible from the public rights-of-way. Commercial, Office, and Institutional Zoning Districts – In these districts, an emphasis is placed on providing physical and visual breaks in façades, requiring even greater ground floor transparency, creating well-defined entrances, and using screening to hide utilities and other unattractive building elements. High quality building materials are focused on façades visible from the public rights-of-way. Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts – In these districts, an emphasis is placed on providing physical and visual breaks in façades, requiring ground floor transparency, creating well-defined entrances, and using screening to hide utilities and other unattractive building elements. High quality building materials are focused on façades visible from the public rights-of- way; façades that face other Light Industrial or Industrial properties are allowed to utilize a slightly higher percentage of lower class materials. Additions and Expansions – Additions and expansions must follow the same architectural standards observed in the construction of new buildings. The utilization of greater percentages of Class I exterior materials may be required if the existing building is non-conforming with respect to the minimum material standards of the zoning district. Analysis The expectation is that the adoption of these standards would help elevate the lowest common denominator when new buildings are being constructed. An analysis by staff of many of the recent developments in the city suggested that most would meet all of the requirements being considered for adoption in the new section of code. Any building with unique circumstances that cause it to fall short of these standards would be eligible to apply for a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals. It should be noted that new standards are not being proposed for the R-1 or R-2 zoning districts in order to allow for architectural variety and creativity on a site by site basis. Similarly, no new standards are being proposed for the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district until the revisions currently being studied for that district are finalized. It is anticipated that Mixed Use architectural and material standards would be adopted following the approval of an updated Mixed Use zoning district. During the final consideration of the proposed language by the Planning Commission, a minor concern was raised about the spacing of windows along the ground floor of buildings in the Commercial, Office, and Institutional zoning districts. It was suggested that an additional requirement be considered by the City Council that would ensure a minimum length of the façade contain windows and doors to prevent a concentration in one area leaving another as a blank wall. Staff is comfortable adding the following language to the proposed text in Section 113-157 (d)(1)(c): Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 60 percent of the length of the front façade and 30 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 20 percent of the façade area. Summary Staff is recommending the approval of a new section of the zoning code which would regulate architectural features and the exterior materials used on most new structures and building additions within the City. Attachments Memo to Planning Commission dated April 22, 2019 (4 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated April 22, 2019 (2 pages) Section 113-157: Architectural and Material Standards (5 pages) Ordinance #664, amending Chapter 113 Zoning, Section 113-157 Architectural and Material Standard (6 pages) Summary of Ordinance #664 for Publication (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #664 - Adding Section 113-157: Architectural and Material Standards to the Zoning Code. Motion to adopt Summary of Ordinance #664 for Publication. a ' j? Adew_ ' k MEMORANDUM iep7... fna v a, Rey Physical Development Department 763--593-8095 1763-593-8109(fax) Date: April 22, 2019 To:Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending the Zoning Code to Include Architectural and Material Standards Summary Continuing conversations held with the Planning Commission in 2018 and early 2019, staff is bringing forward draft standards for architectural features and exterior materials for consideration for adoption into the zoning code. Background In 2018, Planning staff was directed to research the guidelines of comparable cities that provide architectural standards and that regulate exterior building materials in their zoning codes. These standards are typically adopted in order to establish minimum acceptable levels of design or to ensure minimum levels of quality and appearance in materials. Four previous discussions on this topic have taken place with the Planning Commission: July 9, 2018— introduction to architectural and material standards February 11, 2019—discussion of material standards February 25, 2019—discussion of architectural standards March 25, 2019— review of draft zoning text Architectural standards Earlier in 2019, the Planning Commission provided feedback and recommended the inclusion of many aspects of architectural standards in a revised code, including requirements around facades, openings, entrances, and screening. They preferred that these standards be tailored to specific zoning districts, and that additions or expansions to existing buildings would be required to conform to the new regulations. 1 Material standards After considering a handful of ways to regulate exterior materials, the Commission recommended the City incorporate a system of material classes and require that each facade utilize a minimum percentage of the highest class of materials. Commissioners felt that different zoning districts should be held to different standards, and that additions or expansions should generally consist of the highest class of materials unless or until the overall building meets the new standards. Proposed Standards The new standards are proposed to be included in the zoning code as one section of text, not dispersed throughout each of the zoning districts. Each piece of the proposed code is outlined in more detail below. Purpose This new section consists of a purpose statement, similar to other sections of code, that focuses on visual quality of development and redevelopment, variety and architectural interest, active and engaging building facades, and the maintenance of the built environment. General Standards Following the purpose statement, general architectural standards are listed that would apply to all structures regardless of zoning district: Varied massing to provide visual interest Interesting roof lines Consistent fagade treatments on all sides of a building Focal features to add interest General material standards list types of exterior materials divided into three classes plus four prohibited materials. While specific materials are included, some flexibility to approve new or innovative materials is reserved for staff or the Planning Commission. Following the General Standards, more specific standards for various zoning districts are outlined: Architectural This section of code requires fa4ades be broken up once they exceed 40 feet in length and that buildings have elements that differentiate the facades vertically (creating the appearance of a base, middle, and top). Windows and doors must comprise a minimum percentage of the front facade area and slightly less on the sides and rear. At least one entrance would need to be provided onto the primary street, and screening would be required for utility equipment, refuse and recycling containers, and other equipment. PERCENTAGE OF FACADE COMPRISED OF WINDOWS AND DOORS R-3 and R-4 20 percent of area of the ground floor of the front facade 15 percent of area of the ground floor of the side and rear facades 2 15 percent of area of upper stories If nonresidential uses on the ground floor: 30 percent of area of the ground floor of the front facade 20 percent of area of the ground floor of the side and rear facades Commercial, Office, Institutional 30 percent of area of the ground floor of the front facade 20 percent of area of the ground floor of the side and rear fagades 20 percent of area of upper stories Light Industrial, Industrial 30 percent of area of the ground floor of the front fagade 15 percent of the area of the ground floor of the side and rear fagades 20 percent of area of upper stories Materials This section of code sets minimum percentages for Class I material use for front fagades as well as side and rear fagades visible from the public right-of-way. It also establishes maximum percentages for Class III material use. At least two types of Class I materials must be incorporated into each fagade. FRONT FACADES AND SIDE AND REAR FACADES VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY R-3 and R-4 At least 50 percent Class I No more than 10 percent Class III Commercial, Office, Institutional At least 50 percent Class I No more than 10 percent Class III Light Industrial, Industrial For fagades that face Residential, Commercial, Office, Institutional, or Mixed Use zoning districts—at least 50 percent Class I All other front fagades—at least 40 percent Class I No more than 10 percent Class III SIDE AND REAR FACADES NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY R-3 and R-4 At least 40 percent Class I No more than 10 percent Class III Commercial, Office, Institutional At least 40 percent Class I No more than 10 percent Class III 3 Light Industrial, Industrial At least 30 percent Class I No more than 10 percent Class III Additions and Expansions Architectural Any additions would need to comply with the architectural standards of the zoning district. Materials All additions would need to be made up of at least 90 percent Class I materials until the minimum standards for Class I materials for the building were met. Other Information These new standards are not being proposed for the R-1 or R-2 zoning districts in order to allow for architectural variety and creativity on a site by site basis. The Commissioners have indicated that should row homes be added to the list of allowed uses in the R-2 zoning district, architectural standards may be appropriate for consideration. Similarly, no new standards are being proposed for the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district until the revisions currently being studied for that district are finalized. It is anticipated that Mixed Use architectural and material standards will be adopted following the approval of new Mixed Use regulations. As part of a final analysis, Commissioners asked staff for a summary of recent development projects and if the plans as approved by the City would have been consistent with the proposed standards. Staff will prepare this information for discussion at the meeting. Recommendation Staff recommends adding Section 113-157: Architectural and Material Standards to the zoning code. Attachments Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 2019 (6 pages) Draft Code Language for Sec. 113-157: Architectural and Material Standards (5 pages) 4 City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Alar 22, 2019—7 Orn Public Hearing Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: Zoning Code Text Amendment to consider adding architectural and material standards to the Zoning Code Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they have discussed this item several times over the past few months and now staff has prepared new Zoning Code text language for consideration. Zimmerman reviewed the proposed language which will be a new section of the Zoning Code and will include a purpose statement, general standards that apply to all zoning districts, specific regulations that apply to the R-3, R-4, Commercial, Office, Institutional, Light Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts, and a section that applies to building additions and expansions. Zimmerman referred to the proposed purpose statement which addresses the following goals: development and redevelopment is held to a high standard with respect to visual quality, structural and ornamental elements are utilized to maximize variety and architectural interest, building facades facing the public realm are active and engaging, and the built environment is maintained in good condition. Zimmerman reviewed the proposed language for the general standards section which include both architectural and materials standards. He stated per the Planning Commission's last discussion stucco was moved down from the Class I materials list to the Class II materials list. Zimmerman next reviewed the proposed language for architectural and material standards in the specific zoning districts. He showed the Commission several photos of different architectural techniques and materials. He stated per the Planning Commission's last discussion that the percentage of Class I materials required on front facades and side and rear facades visible from the public right-of-way was reduced from 60%to 50%. Zimmerman showed the Commission examples of how some of the more recently constructed buildings would have met these proposed new standards. Johnson referred to the percentages required on various facades and asked about the intent of the proposed new language, where the proposed percentages came from and what they are trying to accomplish. Zimmerman stated that discussions started with considering a higher class of materials only on front facades and that 60%was chosen initially because that is similar to what adjoining communities require. He explained that during the discussions it was determined that for facades that aren't as visible from the public realm it isn't as important so the percentages were reduced. He added that much of the proposed language came from the existing language in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Baker referred to the language about windows and transparency and asked how the code deals with windows that aren't completely transparent. Zimmerman stated that the proposed language says windows shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting j Blum said he thought they had discussed the value of any pedestrian walkway being substantially next to a transparent facade. Zimmerman said there was some more complicated language included in past discussions that focused on mixed use areas which also calculated the length of a wall as well as the area of required transparency. He stated that in order to simplify the language that was taken out. Blum said there could be a massing of glass (30%) along one part of a building on a street facade and the rest of building could be brick or a different material. He said he was imagining that the entire length of a ground floor would be transparent. Zimmerman agreed that the transparency could be concentrated in one area and said they could require transparency every so many feet. Baker said it would then be less likely to get an area of solid window. Brookins said he doesn't have concerns about the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts because developers will actively try to work to bring light into the units. He said he is comfortable with the currently proposed language. Blum agreed with that in regard to residential uses, but he would like to see more transparency required on a ground level of a commercial type of use. Zimmerman said language could be added to state that a minimum of 60% of the length of a front facade has to have windows in it, or there can be only so many feet of a facade before a window is required. Brookins noted that the proposed language doesn't yet include requirements for the Mixed Use Zoning District so he feels comfortable with the proposed language as it is but adding additional language about the amount of transparency required to the Mixed Use Zoning District when it is considered in the future. Pockl noted that the architectural standards have a pedestrian appeal requirement and asked if there is a way to make that same requirement in regard to materials. She asked if the proposals would come before the Planning Commission for review. Zimmerman said proposals that are by right would not have to seek any additional approvals. Blum said it would be worth noting that the language about the length of facades and window requirements was dropped from the final proposed language. Zimmerman agreed and said staff could offer some additional language to the City Council. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he thinks the proposed code language reflects the Commission's intent. The Commissioners agreed. Johnson asked if there is a section of the code that grandfathers properties where this language doesn't apply. Zimmerman said there is a section of code dealing with non-conforming properties. Brookins asked how this language would apply to PUDs. Zimmerman said it wouldn't be treated any differently than any other regulation in the Zoning Code. MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Blum to recommend approval of adding Section 113-157. - Architectural and Material standards to the Zoning Code and the motion carried unanimously. DRAFT Sec. 113-157. -Architectural and Material Standards. a) Purpose.The purpose of these standards is to ensure that: 1) Development and redevelopment within the city is held to a high standard with respect to visual quality. 2) Structural and ornamental elements are utilized to maximize variety and architectural interest. 3) Building facades facing the public realm are active and engaging. 4) The built environment is maintained in good condition. b) General Standards. 1) Architectural. a. Massing shall be varied to incorporate staggered building components, recessed doorways, and other elements that provide visual interest. b. Roof lines shall include pitched roofs, dormers, gable or hip roof accents, parapets, cornices, and other interesting profiles. c. Buildings shall include consistent architectural treatment on all facades and all sides of a building shall include compatible materials. d. Focal features shall add interest or distinction to a building. 2) Materials. Exterior materials shall be divided into Class I, Class II, Class III, and Prohibited categories as follows: Class I Brick Natural stone Glass Copper Porcelain Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission Class II Masonry/textured cement stucco Specialty concrete block Architecturally textured concrete precast panels Artificial stone Artificial stucco Fiber reinforced cement board siding Prefinished metal Cast-in-place concrete Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission Class III Unpainted or surface painted concrete block Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels Unfinished or surface painted metal Wood Glass block Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission 1 DRAFT Prohibited Sand lime brick Concrete brick Unfinished structural clay tile Exposed unfinished concrete c) Medium Density Residential(R-3) and High Density Residential(R-4)Zoning Districts. 1) Architectural. a. Fagades. Facades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by: 1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade 2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color 3. Placement of doors,windows, and balconies Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one-story building. a. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the ground floor fagade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor facades. Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level,window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor fagade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the areas of the side and rear ground floor fagades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 15 percent of the fagade area. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building fagade. b. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. c. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be screened from off-site views. Overhead doors shall be located on side or rear fagades that do not front a public right-of-way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which 2 DRAFT extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials and architectural features of the building. 2) Materials. a. Front facades, and side and rear facades visible from the public right-of-way, shall be composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10%Class III materials. b. Side and rear fagades not visible from the public right-of-way shall be composed of at least 40%Class I materials and no more than 10%Class III materials. c. Each fagade must utilize a minimum of two types of Class I materials. d) Commercial, Office, and Institutional Zoning Districts. 1) Architectural. b. Fagades. Fagades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by: 1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade 2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color 3. Placement of doors,windows, and balconies Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one-story building. c. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor facade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor fagades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 20 percent of the fagade area. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked by storage, shelving, mechanical equipment, or other visual barriers. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building fagade. d. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. e. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be screened from off-site views. Overhead doors shall be located on side or rear facades that do 3 DRAFT not front a public right-of-way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials and architectural features of the building. 2) Materials. a. Front facades, and side and rear facades visible from the public right-of-way, shall be composed of at least 50%Class I materials and no more than 10%Class III materials. b. Side and rear fagades not visible from the public right-of-way shall be composed of at least 40%Class I materials and no more than 10%Class III materials. c. Each fagade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials. e) Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. 1) Architectural. a. Facades. Fagades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by: 1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade 2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color 3. Placement of doors and windows Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one-story building. b. Openings.Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor fagade facing the primary street. Window and door opening shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor fagades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 20 percent of the fagade area. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked by storage, shelving, mechanical equipment, or other visual barriers. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building fagade. c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance 4 DRAFT structures, and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be screened from off-site views. Overhead doors shall be located on side or rear facades that do not front a public right-of-way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials and architectural features of the building. 2) Materials. a. Front, side, and rear fagades adjacent to or facing a property zoned Residential, Commercial, Office, Institutional, or Mixed Use across a public right-of-way shall be composed of at least 50%Class I materials and no more than 10%Class III materials. b. All other front fagades shall be composed of at least 40%Class I materials and not more than 10% Class III materials. c. All other side and rear fagades shall be composed of at least 30%Class I materials and no more than 10%Class III materials. d. Each fagade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials. f) Additions and Expansions. 1) Architectural. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors, textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character, including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, and exterior alterations shall address and respect the original architectural design and general appearance of the principal building on the site and shall comply with the requirements of this section. 2) Materials. All fagades of a building addition or expansion shall be composed of at least 90% Class I materials until the appropriate minimum Class I percentage standards for the building are met. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 664 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Chapter 113 Zoning, Section 113-157 Architectural and Material Standards The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 113, Zoning is hereby amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 113-157. - Architectural and Material Standards. a) Purpose. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that: 1) Development and redevelopment within the city is held to a high standard with respect to visual quality. 2) Structural and ornamental elements are utilized to maximize variety and architectural interest. 3) Building façades facing the public realm are active and engaging. 4) The built environment is maintained in good condition. b) General Standards. 1) Architectural. a. Massing shall be varied to incorporate staggered building components, recessed doorways, and other elements that provide visual interest. b. Roof lines shall include pitched roofs, dormers, gable or hip roof accents, parapets, cornices, and other interesting profiles. c. Buildings shall include consistent architectural treatment on all façades and all sides of a building shall include compatible materials. d. Focal features shall add interest or distinction to a building. 2) Materials. Exterior materials shall be divided into Class I, Class II, Class III, and Prohibited categories as follows: Class I Brick Natural stone Glass Copper Porcelain Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission Class II Masonry/textured cement stucco Specialty concrete block Architecturally textured concrete precast panels Artificial stone Artificial stucco Fiber reinforced cement board siding Prefinished metal Cast-in-place concrete Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission Ordinance No. 664 -2- June 4, 2019 Class III Unpainted or surface painted concrete block Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels Unfinished or surface painted metal Wood Glass block Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission Prohibited Sand lime brick Concrete brick Unfinished structural clay tile Exposed unfinished concrete c) Medium Density Residential (R-3) and High Density Residential (R-4) Zoning Districts. 1) Architectural. a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by: 1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade 2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color 3. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one-story building. b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades. Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the areas of the side and rear ground floor façades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 15 percent of the façade area. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade. c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Ordinance No. 664 -3- June 4, 2019 Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be screened from off-site views. Overhead doors shall be located on side or rear façades that do not front a public right-of-way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials and architectural features of the building. 2) Materials. a. Front façades, and side and rear façades visible from the public right-of-way, shall be composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right-of-way shall be composed of at least 40% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. c. Each façade must utilize a minimum of two types of Class I materials. d) Commercial, Office, and Institutional Zoning Districts. 1) Architectural. a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by: 1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade 2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color 3. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one-story building. b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 20 percent of the façade area. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked by storage, shelving, mechanical equipment, or other visual barriers. Spandrel glass may be used in Ordinance No. 664 -4- June 4, 2019 service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade. c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be screened from off-site views. Overhead doors shall be located on side or rear façades that do not front a public right-of-way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials and architectural features of the building. 2) Materials. a. Front façades, and side and rear façades visible from the public right-of-way, shall be composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right-of-way shall be composed of at least 40% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. c. Each façade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials. e) Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. 1) Architectural. a. Façades. Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by: 1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade 2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color 3. Placement of doors and windows Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and canopies. A middle is not required on a one-story building. b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. Window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door opening shall comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades. On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 20 percent of the façade area. Ordinance No. 664 -5- June 4, 2019 Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked by storage, shelving, mechanical equipment, or other visual barriers. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade. c. Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. d. Screening. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse and recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be screened from off-site views. Overhead doors shall be located on side or rear façades that do not front a public right-of-way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials and architectural features of the building. 2) Materials. a. Front, side, and rear façades adjacent to or facing a property zoned Residential, Commercial, Office, Institutional, or Mixed Use across a public right-of-way shall be composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. b. All other front façades shall be composed of at least 40% Class I materials and not more than 10% Class III materials. c. All other side and rear façades shall be composed of at least 30% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. d. Each façade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials. f) Additions and Expansions. 1) Architectural. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors, textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character, including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, and exterior alterations shall address and respect the original architectural design and general appearance of the principal building on the site and shall comply with the requirements of this section. 2) Materials. All façades of a building addition or expansion shall be composed of at least 90% Class I materials until the appropriate minimum Class I percentage standards for the building are met. Ordinance No. 664 -6- June 4, 2019 Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8 entitled General Penalty; Continuing Violations” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 4th day of June, 2019. s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 664 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Chapter 113 Zoning - Adding Section 113-157: Architectural and Material Standards This is a summary of the provisions of the above Ordinance which has been approved for publication by the City Council. This Ordinance adds language to the Zoning Code to require compliance with newly established architectural and material standards. This language applies to the Medium Density Residential (R-3), High Density Residential (R-4), Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, Industrial, and Institutional Zoning Districts. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk’s Office. Adopted by the City Council this 4th day of June 2019. 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 June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 6. A. 1. Authorize Contract for Phase II of the Downtown Study Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the direction of the City Council, staff has worked to prepare for consideration a contract with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) to preform Phase II of the Downtown Study over the summer and into the fall in 2019. Building on the work that was done by the Technical Assistance Panel of the Urban Land Institute in 2018, HKGi would develop an overall vision and guiding principles for preferred redevelopment and placemaking in the downtown core, redevelopment concepts for each quadrant of the downtown core, and a more detailed bicycle/pedestrian network plan that includes consideration of an improved bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Olson Memorial Highway at Winnetka Avenue. Phase II work will identify preferred site concepts that will then provide the basis for more detailed planning, design, and implementation approaches in Phase III in 2020. The work scope anticipates roles for City staff, Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, property owners/stakeholders, and the general public. The agreement includes a not to exceed amount of $35,000 which is the amount budgeted by the City Council for this study. Coordination between HKGi and staff would begin in June and completion of the study is estimated for December. A sample of work by HKGi for a similar type of project in Plymouth, covering all of Phase II and Phase III, is included as an attachment. Attachments Agreement for services to carry out a Downtown Study Phase II (10 pages) Exhibit: Four Seasons Mall Site Redevelopment Study, City of Plymouth (26 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize an agreement to conduct Phase II of the Downtown Study with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PROFFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT This professional services agreement (this “Agreement”) for preparation of a Downtown Study Phase II (the “PROJECT”) is made by and between the City of Golden Valley (“CLIENT”), and Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., (“CONSULTANT”). The CLIENT and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below: A. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The attachments listed below are hereby incorporated into this Agreement and mad a part hereof. If there is any conflict between such exhibits or addenda and the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1. Attachment A—Work Scope 2. Attachment B—Hourly Rates 3. Attachment C—Golden Valley Downtown Study Schedule B. BASIC SERVICES The CONSULTANT’S basic services for the PROJECT are as provided in Attachment A - Work Scope and shall result in a final report in a format acceptable to CLIENT. C. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT and the CLIENT may agree in writing to amend this Contract for additional services related to the PROJECT and compensation for such services. The following services have not been requested by the CLIENT but are available upon written authorization. 1. Meetings in addition to those specified in Paragraph B above and Attachment A. 2. Services or Deliverables not specifically identified in Paragraph B above or Attachment A. D. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT agrees to complete the scope of work contained in Paragraph A in exchange for professional fee compensation as noted below. The CLIENT agrees to pay the CONSULTANT for PROJECT services rendered as follows: 1. For the CONSULTANT’S Basic Services described in Paragraph A above, a fee based on the CONSULTANT’S current hourly rate schedule (see Attachment B) not- to-exceed thirty-five thousand dollars including all eligible expenses. 2. For the CONSULTANT’S Additional Services described in Paragraph B, a fee based on the CONSULTANT’S current hourly rate schedule plus incidental expenses or a negotiated fee. 3. Statements will be submitted to the CLIENT on a monthly basis as work is completed and shall be payable within 30 days in accordance with this Agreement. 4. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to suspend services if the CLIENT is delinquent in making payments in accordance with this Agreement. E. CLIENT’S RESPONSIBILITY The CLIENT shall be responsible for the following: 1. Assembly of background information including, but not limited to digital copies of all files, pertinent plans, aerial photographs, base maps, inventory data, available GIS mapping, limited to those that are reasonably available. 2. Arrangements and notification for public meetings. 3. Reproduction and distribution of Project reports as deemed necessary and not otherwise specified in paragraph A. F. INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall maintain insurance of the kind and in the amounts shown below for the life of the contract. Certificates reflecting such insurance shall be provided. In addition, an endorsement to the general liability insurance policy shall be provided which includes CLIENT, its elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives as Additional Insureds. CONSULTANT’S policies shall be primary and non-contributory to any other valid and collectible insurance available to CLIENT with respect to any claim arising out of CONSULTANT’S performance under this Agreement. CONSULTANT’S policies and certificates shall state the coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least 30 days’ advanced written notice to CLIENT. 1. Commercial General Liability Insurance 2,000,000 per occurrence 4,000,000 general aggregate 1,000,000 damage to rented premises 10,000 medical expenses 2. Umbrella Liability 1,000,000 per occurrence 1,000,000 general aggregate 10,000 self-insured retention 3. Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability a. Worker’s Compensation per Minnesota Statutes b. Employer’s Liability 1,000,000 per accident; 1,000,000 per employee; 1,000,000 per disease policy limit. 4. Professional Liability Insurance 2,000,000 per claim 4,000,000 annual aggregate G. INDEMNIFICATION CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CLIENT, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents from any liability, claims, demands, suits, penalties, personal injury, judgments and costs of any kind whatsoever, arising out of or resulting from CONSULTANT’S negligent acts or omissions with respect to CONSULTANT’S provision of services under or breach of this Agreement. This provision shall survive any termination of this Agreement. H. COMPLETION SCHEDULE The services of the CONSULTANT will begin upon CLIENT approval and will, absent of causes beyond the control of the CONSULTANT, be completed by December 31, 2019. I. SUB-CONSULTANTS To complete aspects of the PROJECT as described in the Attachment A, the CONSULTANT does not anticipate the need for any Sub-Consultants for this PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall not add any Sub-Consultants without written consent from the CLIENT. J. DATA PRACTICES CONSULTANT acknowledges that, to the extent this Agreement requires CONSULTANT to perform a government function, all of the data created collected, received, stored, used, maintained or disseminated by CONSULTANT in performing government functions is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Data Practices Act (the “Act”) and that CONSULTANT must comply with the Act as if CONSULTANT were a government entity, including the remedies in Minn. Stat. § 13.08. CONSULTANT agrees to promptly notify CLIENT of any request for data that CONSULTANT receives related to this Agreement and will not release any data pursuant to any such request without first consulting with CLIENT. K. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate by reason of age, race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or handicap unrelated to the duties of a position, of applicants for employment or employees as to terms of employment, promotion, demotion or transfer, recruitment, layoff or termination, compensation, selection for training, or participation in recreational and educational activities. L. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY During the performance of this Contract, the CONSULTANT, in compliance with Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 and Department of Labor regulations 41 CFR Part 60, shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants for employment are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT shall post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment notices to be provided by the Government setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The CONSULTANT shall state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. M. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CLIENT and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CLIENT. CONSULTANT shall retain the sole and exclusive right to control the manner and means of CONSULTANT’S work under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and the acts of its employees, agents, volunteers and subcontractors in connection with CONSULTANT’S provision of services. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the compensation and benefits of CONSULTANT’S employees and for payment of all federal, state and local taxes payable with respect to any amounts paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement. N. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS 1. The Term of this Agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized and shall be in accordance with the schedule to be established between the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT. 2. CLIENT may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party to the person listed in section O below at least 30 days prior to the date of termination; provided; however, that if CLIENT terminates the Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to its reasonable fees earned through the effective date of termination. CONSULTANT may only terminate this Agreement for cause and with 30 days written notice. 3. Neither the CLIENT nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. 4. The time schedule shall not apply and/or time extensions will be allowed for any circumstances beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. 5. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with Minnesota law and any suit or litigation between the parties arising out of this Agreement shall be filed, tried and litigated only in Hennepin County District Court in the state of Minnesota. O. NOTICES Any notices or communications required or permitted by this Agreement must be (i) given in writing; and (ii) personally delivered, mailed, by prepaid certified mail, or transmitted by facsimile or electronic mail transmission (including email or PDF), to the intended party at the mailing address or email address of such party as follows: To CLIENT: To CONSULTANT: City of Golden Valley Attn: Jason Zimmerman 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 jzimmerman@goldenvalleymn.gov Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) Attn: Jeff Miller 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 jmiller@hkgi.com P. REVOCATION If this agreement is not signed and accepted by both parties within 90 days of the contract date, it shall become null and void. Q. ELECTONIC SIGNATURES & COUNTERPARTS Documents executed, scanned and transmitted electronically and electronic signatures shall be deemed original signatures for purposes of this Agreement and all related matters. All scanned and electronic signatures shall have the same legal effect as original signatures. This Agreement, any other document necessary for the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement may be accepted, executed or agreed to through the use of an electronic signature in accordance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325L. Any document accepted, executed or agreed to in conformity with such laws will be binding on each party as if it were physically executed. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, including electronically. Each counterpart constitutes an original and all counterparts collectively constitute one and the same instrument. The signatures of the parties need not appear on the same counterpart. Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature page follows.] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The CLIENT and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement for Professional Services, This day of , 2019 CLIENT City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager CONSULTANT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Name: Title Name: Title ATTACHMENT A WORK SCOPE Our work scope for the Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II consists of the following tasks, deliverables, and estimated hours and fees by task. The intent of this work scope is to converge on an overall vision and guiding principles for preferred redevelopment and placemaking in the downtown core, redevelopment concepts for each quadrant of the downtown core, and a more detailed bike/walk network plan. It is intended that Phase II will identify preferred site concepts as a foundation for more detailed planning, design, and implementation approaches work in Phase III that results in a Downtown Redevelopment Framework Plan document. This planning process will involve meetings with the City Staff Team, Planning Commission/City Council, property owners/stakeholders, and the general public. Tasks Our work scope consists of the following four (4) tasks and related sub-tasks: Task 1 Understand Potential Change Areas 1.1 Conduct kick off meeting with staff 1.2 Review relevant plans and studies 1.3 Assemble base data and mapping 1.4 Analyze current land use utilization 1.5 Develop downtown core bike/pedestrian network alternatives 1.6 Summarize issues and opportunities 1.7 Meeting with staff to identify potential change areas 1.8 Develop potential change areas diagram Task 2 Explore Site Redevelopment Scenarios 2.1 Create preliminary downtown core vision and guiding principles 2.2 Conduct a design charrette with staff 2.3 Develop alternative redevelopment and placemaking site concepts for SW quadrant 2.4 Develop alternative redevelopment and placemaking site concepts for NE municipal quadrant 2.5 Develop high level redevelopment site concepts for NW quadrant north of Bassett Creek 2.6 Develop alternative infill/parking and placemaking site concepts for SE quadrant 2.7 Develop refined downtown core bike/ped network concepts 2.8 Meeting with staff to review alternative site concepts Task 3 Seek Community Input 3.1 Conduct meetings (up to 3) with property owners/stakeholders 3.2 Conduct community engagement for input on alternative concepts 3.3 Meeting with PC or CC Task 4 Prepare Preferred Site Concepts 4.1 Meeting with staff to identify preferred directions 4.2 Refine downtown core vision and guiding principles 4.3 Prepare preferred downtown core redevelopment and placemaking site concepts 4.4 Prepare a preferred downtown core bike/walk network plan 4.5 Meeting with PC or CC 4.6 Prepare final downtown core site concepts, vision and guiding principles Project Deliverables Our work scope consists of the following deliverables: A professionally prepared final redevelopment study document, in both physical and electronic format, that include the following: o Summary of Downtown Core Redevelopment Issues & Opportunities, including a detailed potential change areas diagram o Vision and Guiding Principles for the Downtown Core o Redevelopment Site Concepts for all four quadrants – alternative and preferred concepts o Detailed Circulation Plan for each mode of transportation: bicycles, pedestrian, transit, and automobiles – showing connections and types of facilities, considering the potential Hwy 55 BRT stops and new pedestrian bridge Meetings with City Staff Team, Planning Commission/City Council, property owners/stakeholders, and the general public to explore potential change areas and to gather feedback on alternative site concepts Estimated Hours and Fees by Task Hours Fees Task 1 55 $6,900 Task 2 115 $13,500 Task 3 40 $4,200 Task 4 90 $10,000 Reimbursable Expenses $400 Total 300 $35,000 ATTACHMENT B HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. 2019 HOURLY RATES Principal ....................................................... $170-225/hr Associate ...................................................... $115-165/hr Senior Professional ....................................... $90–165/hr Professional II ................................................ $80-105/hr Professional I .................................................. $50–85/hr Technical ......................................................... $40-65/hr Secretarial ............................................................. $60/hr Litigation Services .............................................. $200/hr Testimony .................................................................. $285/hr Incidental Expenses: Mileage ..................................... current federal rate/mile Photocopying BW ............................................. 15¢/page Photocopying Color ....................................... $1.00/page Outside Printing ............................................ Actual Cost Large Format Scanning ................................ Actual Cost B/W Bond Plots ..............................................$5.00 each Color Bond Plots ..........................................$20.00 each Photo Paper Color Plots ................................$40.00 each City of Plymouth Four Seasons Mall Site Redevelopment Study APPENDIX November 17, 2011 Four Seasons MallSite2RedevelopmentGuidingPrinciples Project Approach Market Study The Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Study began with an investigation into the market potential for the site. A market study was completed in April of 2011 to shed light on the potential future uses for the site and it investigated in detail opportunities for retail, office and housing. After completion of the market study a public open house was held on May 5, 2011 to present the findings. At the conclusion of the market study, the consulting team worked with city staff on the creation of redevelopment guiding principles and conceptual redevelopment scenarios. The four conceptual redevelopment scenarios were outlined from the market study and from feedback and comments from the Planning Commission on May 18, 2011 and City Council on May 24, 2011. The alternative scenarios explored as part of this effort were: 1. Large, single user retail; 2. Predominantly senior housing with mixed use; 3. Mixed use with senior housing; 4. Mixed use with commercial and office. These conceptual development scenarios were further developed and evaluated with the full consultant team and city staff to determine the most appropriate redevelopment plans based on the market feasibility and site characteristics and limitations. City of Plymouth 3 The market study indicates a strong potential for a mix of uses on the site. Uses including retail, office, medical office, and to some extent, senior housing showed the most potential in the next 5-10 years. The high visibility of the site along Highway 169 creates an attractive location for retail, medical office and even some aspects of senior housing, primarily assisted living and memory care. It is anticipated that a range of employment opportunities would be created depending on the scenario and jobs would range from general merchandise or specialty retailing to skilled nursing, medical service and other senior housing and related occupations. A number of professional service and office jobs and medical office jobs could also be created as part of the redevelopment. Market Study Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 SENIOR HOUSING Independent Living 60-80 Units 0 80 0 0 Assisted Living 25-50 Units 0 50 50 0 Memory Care 10-25 Units 0 25 25 0 RETAIL Neighborhood Retail 130,000 sq. ft. now; reduced to 86,000 sq. ft. by 2020 0 24,500 41,200 51,500 Community Retail 44,000 sq. ft. now; reduced to a negative 86,000 sq. ft. by 2020 89,000*0 0 0 OFFICE General Office 30,000 - 100,000 sq. ft. starting in 2014 0 0 0 30,000 Medical Office 10,000 - 50,000 sq. ft.0 12,000 30,000 25,000 Scenario 1 exceeds the market study limits The complete market study and summary sheets on office, retail and senior housing uses are available in the appendix to this report. DevelopMent prograM by IlluStratIve ScenarIo: Four Seasons MallSite4RedevelopmentScenarios Illustrative redevelopment Scenarios An element of the planning study was the creation of illustrative redevelopment site plans or scenarios based on the market study and Planning Commission and City Council feedback. While the illustrative redevelopment scenarios are not actual redevelopment plans, they do provide examples of how each proposed development program would reflect the guiding principles in a site plan. The illustrative plans show the relationships of buildings and uses to parking and the location of storm water treatment areas. They also highlight the range of design principles on pedestrian connectivity, access and circulation, landscaping, site design and architecture. Each of the proposed illustrative redevelopment scenarios was developed based on input from the market study and traffic analysis, and was further examined from a storm water treatment and utility improvement perspective. The collection of the development plan, key site elements and architectural principles and site circulation diagrams, provided later in the appendix, are intended to illustrate how the site could redevelop based on the guiding principles established for the Four Seasons Mall site. These illustrations can also be used to help market the site to local and national developers to expand the interest in the site from a redevelopment perspective. traffic Study SRF Consulting Group, Inc. completed a traffic analysis of each of the illustrative redevelopment scenarios. This work helped establish thresholds for development square footage by analyzing the impact each scenario would create on the existing roadway network during both the morning and evening peak periods. Since upgrading the intersection of Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane was outside the purview of the redevelopment study, illustrative scenarios needed to maintain current operations at this intersection. This factor dictated, for example, that the square footage for the single user scenario not exceed 89,000 square feet. The complete traffic study is found later in the appendix. environmental, Storm Water and utility analysis Bolton and Menk, Inc. provided the analysis of the storm water treatment approach for the site and the necessary utilities (sanitary sewer and water) for the site. One of the primary components of the illustrative redevelopment scenarios was the investigation into the potential “day-lighting” of the north branch of Bassett Creek. However, research of the watershed and investigations into site conditions found that enhanced on-site treatment techniques hold a better possibility for water quality improvement. Based on the limited flows of water into the site there is no real opportunity to City of Plymouth 5 daylight the creek as an amenity through the site. As the guiding principles indicate, there are three potential areas where the opportunity exists to use portions of the site to treat storm water from off-site. The first area is located in the northwest portion of the site and could treat storm water from portions of Lancaster Lane. The second area is near the Lancaster Lane and Pilgrim Lane intersection, where overflow storm water could be directed onto the site and treated before entering the wetland to the south. The third opportunity exists in the southern portion of the site, by potentially directing storm water from the ditch running along Highway 169 into the site by way of a larger detention facility. Overall, the illustrative redevelopment scenarios demonstrate how storm water treatment can be accommodated in various ways on the site. The use of rain gardens or bio-swales combined with enhanced storm water detention ponds could create opportunities for focal elements and site amenities. The storm water and utility analysis, watershed diagrams and details for on-site treatment techniques can be found in the appendix. Financial analysis RMF Group acted as the development advisor to the study. Their extensive knowledge of retail, commercial, housing and mixed use development in the Twin Cities metro area helped shape the illustrative redevelopment scenarios by providing analysis and insight into the proper mix of uses, the configuration of uses, the desired location of tenants, and identifying the challenges for redevelopment on the site. RMF Group looked at the financial side of each of the illustrative scenarios. In rough terms, they identified both soft and hard development and construction costs. Their analysis showed a possible construction premium of as much as $4.7 million due to poor soils on the site. Adding site and building demolition costs in the neighborhood of $400,000, the added costs to redevelop this site compared to a green field site could exceed $5,000,000. However, land pricing, further engineering analysis, site layout and density could reduce this gap. Four Seasons Mall SiteCity of PlymouthBolton & MenkEngineers & Four Four Seasons Mall Four Four Four Seasons Mall SiteCity of PlymouthBolton & MenkEngineers & SurveyorsRMF Four Seasons Mall SiteCity of PlymouthBolton & MenkEngineers & SurveyorsRMF GroupDevelopmentAdvisorHoisington Koegler Four Seasons Mall SiteCity of PlymouthBolton & MenkEngineers & Four Seasons Mall SiteCity of PlymouthBolton & MenkEngineers & SurveyorsRMF GroupDevelopment Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 6. A. 2. Authorize Work Plan for Active Living Technical Assistance with Hennepin County Prepared By Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Summary Hennepin County will collaborate with the City of Golden Valley to pilot one or several strategies to improve biking and walking connectivity in Downtown Golden Valley. The County will contract with planning, transportation, placemaking and/or community engagement experts in the development and implementation of the project. The project will include genuine, meaningful, and productive engagement with community members to understand the effectiveness of the project elements. The project consultant(s) will submit a project report containing findings and recommendations for implementation of future pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects and other active living improvements in Downtown Golden Valley. This work will coincide with the Downtown Study currently underway by Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi), who will be contracted by the City of Golden Valley in June 2019. It will also build on the work that was done by the Technical Assistance Panel of the Urban Land Institute in 2018, which stressed the importance of a bicycle and pedestrian network for the Downtown area. The project is part of the Hennepin County Active Living Partnership project grants. The Active Living Partnership is a collaborative effort between Hennepin County Public Works and Public Health. Funding comes from the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP) from the Minnesota Department of Health. SHIP is working to create healthier communities across Minnesota by expanding opportunities for active living, healthy eating and tobacco-free living, while prioritizing health equity. Attachments Work Plan for Technical Assistance (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve Work Plan for Active Living Technical Assistance with Hennepin County. Active Living Technical Assistance Work Plan For City of Golden Valley Provided in Partnership with Hennepin County Healthy Community Planning (HCP) Last updated: May 30, 2019 Project Goals Make changes to the built environment to support active living Promote active transportation in and around downtown Golden Valley Improve the environment for pedestrians in downtown Golden Valley with a focus on providing safer options for pedestrians at special events Build upon the work that has been done through Golden Valley’s comprehensive plan, Urban Land Institute’s Downtown Study, METRO Blue Line Light Rail Transit Station Area Planning, and other engagement opportunities that occur during the project to advance a vision and identity for downtown Golden Valley Build partnerships between businesses, residents, the City and community organizations to support and encourage biking and walking to and within downtown Golden Valley Project Description Hennepin County will collaborate with the City of Golden Valley to pilot one or several strategies to improve biking and walking connectivity in downtown Golden Valley. The County will contract with planning, transportation, placemaking and/or community engagement experts in the development and implementation of the project. The project will include genuine, meaningful, and productive engagement with community members to understand the effectiveness of the project elements. This project will build on results and recommendations completed by Community Design Group in 2018. This work will coincide with the Downtown Study currently underway by Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. HKGi), who will be contracted by the City of Golden Valley in June 2019. The project is part of the Hennepin County Active Living Partnership project grants. The Active Living Partnership is a collaborative effort between Hennepin County Public Works and Public Health. Funding comes from the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP) from the Minnesota Department of Health. SHIP is working to create healthier communities across Minnesota by expanding opportunities for active living, healthy eating and tobacco-free living, while prioritizing health equity. Project Elements and Deliverables In order to accomplish the project objectives, Hennepin County and the City of Golden Valley will work with project consultant(s) to develop a project with the following elements: Analyze and test bike route alternatives to Winnetka Avenue Develop and test strategies to encourage pedestrian activity and improve safety in conjunction with one or more special events in downtown Golden Valley, such as Market in the Valley or the Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival Cultivate partnerships with businesses and organizations in and near downtown Golden Valley to promote and improve active transportation connections those destinations (including Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County libraries, the Golden Valley Farmers Market, Golden Valley Community Foundation, and organizations serving populations most impacted by health disparities) Identify collaboration opportunities to enhance and support pedestrian and bicycle access and related programming with the Golden Valley Library The project consultant(s) will submit to the City of Golden Valley planning staff and Hennepin County HCP staff, a project report containing findings and recommendations for implementation of future pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects and other active living improvements in downtown Golden Valley. Responsibilities Hennepin County, the City of Golden Valley, and project consultant(s) will collaborate on the design of a more specific work plan. Hennepin County project funds may be used for outreach activities, consulting services, and related activities agreed upon in the specific work plan. Project Costs Hennepin County will provide funds not to exceed $7,500 for this project. The City is not committed to providing funds at this time, but will provide in-kind planning expertise. Timeline All work, including the final project report, must be completed before October 31, 2019. This work is funded by a Statewide Health Improvement Partnership grant from the Minnesota Department of Health Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 6. B. Approve Emergency Repairs to Trunk Sanitary Sewer at Natchez Park Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer Summary The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is currently performing maintenance projects on several of its interceptor sewers within Golden Valley. This project includes reconstruction of a manhole on Natchez Avenue North near Roanoke Road and adjacent to Natchez Park. The City has a 24 inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer that flows into the manhole being reconstructed. Both of these facilities are shown on the attached Location Map. During reconstruction of its manhole, the MCES contractor notified City staff of advanced deterioration of the City’s trunk sewer at the manhole. This degradation includes significant loss of internal pipe wall thickness due to hydrogen sulfide gas within the two large diameter sewers. Hydrogen sulfide gas is common in large diameter sewers where turbulence is present, resulting in sewer gas odor and corrosion of reinforced concrete pipe. There is significant turbulence within the MCES manhole due to the convergence of flows in the two trunk sewer pipes. The corrosion resulted in a hole developing in the top of the City’s sewer pipe during the work. Staff performed a CCTV inspection of the City trunk sanitary sewer line west of Natchez Avenue North. This inspection showed significant deterioration of the pipe walls within the trunk sewer that could result in collapse of the pipe. Therefore, staff has determined that emergency repairs are needed on the City’s trunk sewer between Natchez Avenue North and Ottawa Avenue. The extent of the emergency repairs may change based upon investigation of the pipe that is ongoing. Without immediate action to rehabilitate the pipe, there is a very high risk of pipe failure in the near future, including during completion of the manhole work being performed by the MCES. Because this sewer conveys wastewater from the portion of the City east of Winnetka Avenue and south of Trunk Highway 55, there is a significant risk of property damage, environmental damage and risk to public health and safety if a pipe collapse occurs. Staff has determined that a separate City contract with Minger Construction, the MCES contractor, is the appropriate procedure for performing the emergency work. Minger Construction and its subcontractor have agreed to perform the work at the rates within the MCES contract. With the information currently available, the estimated cost for the emergency sewer repairs will not exceed $250,000. Funding will be provided from the Water and Sewer Utility Fund reserves. Staff is currently preparing a contract with Minger Construction for the emergency repairs and will have additional information available at the June 4th City Council meeting. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion for Mayoral proclamation declaring a local emergency. Motion to adopt Resolution to finding that the emergency will last for more than three days and to enter into an emergency contract with Minger Construction to perform the emergency repairs to the sanitary sewer at Natchez Park. ??????? ???? ??????????????????? ????!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !.!( !( !. !R!(!(!R !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !. !( !( !. City Trunk Sanitary MCES Trunk SanitaryNatchez Park Glenwood Ave Ottawa Ave NL ila c DrN Natchez Ave NL o r i n g L n Roanoke Rd Ottawa Ave NNatchez Ave NI 0 200 400100Feet Sanitary Sewerat Natchez Park Print Date: 5/31/2019Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019) & Aerial Photography (2015).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting June 4, 2019 Agenda Item 6. C. Second Consideration Amending 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Certain Permit Fees Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary On December 18, 2018, City Council approved the purchase of Avolve plan review software called ProjectDox. This software works with the current Permits and Inspections System (PIMS) application from LOGIS and allows applicants to submit construction and building plans electronically. City staff can then review and mark up the plans, easily route plans to other departments, send comments to the applicant and manage plans electronically. The attachment includes the following recommended fees to be changed for building, fire, mechanical, and plumbing permits. It does add a increase for the lessor valued permits but the advantage for all applicants is that they will no longer have to make paper copies which is costly. The previous fee is stricken (A) and followed by the new rates in Bold or B. A new electronic document fee is charged to cover the storage and credit card fees. After testing is finished, the new system will go live in September. This is the second consideration of the permit fees and if approved the rates will be effective starting June 13, 2019. Attachments Recommended New Fees for Certain Permit Fees (Attachment A) (2 pages) Ordinance #663, Amending the 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Permit Fees (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt second consideration, Ordinance #663, amending the 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Certain Permit Fees. 1 2019 Adopted Fee Permits Building Permits A 2004 LMC/AMM Recommendation 150 $500 $25.00 501 $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500 3.25 / additional $100 2,001 $25,000 $73.50 for the first $2,000 14.75 / additional $1,000 25,001 $50,000 $415.75 for the first $25,000 10.75 / additional $1,000 50,001 $100,000 $682.50 for the first $50,000 7.50 / additional $1,000 100,001 $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first $100,000 6.00 / additional $1,000 500,001 $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first $500,000 5.00 / additional $1,000 1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 4.00 / additional $1,000 B 0 $500 $50.00 501 $2,000 $50.00 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for each additional 100 or fraction thereof, up to and including $2000 2,001 $25,000 $95.75 for the first 2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 25,001 $50,000 $417.75 for the first $25,000 plus $10.95 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 50,001 $100,000 $691.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.34 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 100,001 $500,000 $1,058.50 for the first 100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 500,001 $1,000,000 $3,458.50 for the first 500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 1,000,001 and up $5,958.50 for the first 1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarms & Special Fire Suppression Systems (New Installation or Alteration of Existing): Total valuation based on below fee schedule: A 2004 LMC/AMM Recommendation 150 $500 $25.00 501 $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500 3.25 / additional $100 2,001 $25,000 $73.50 for the first $2,000 14.75 / additional $1,000 25,001 $50,000 $415.75 for the first $25,000 10.75 / additional $1,000 50,001 $100,000 $682.50 for the first $50,000 7.50 / additional $1,000 100,001 $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first $100,000 6.00 / additional $1,000 500,001 $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first $500,000 5.00 / additional $1,000 1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 4.00 / additional $1,000 Attachment A Value Range 2019 Permit Fee Schedule Ref. MN Rules 1300.0160,subd. 1, subd. 2) Valuation FROM TO FEES Value Range 2 B 0 $500 $50.00 501 $2,000 $50.00 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for each additional 100 or fraction thereof, up to and including $2000 2,001 $25,000 $95.75 for the first 2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 25,001 $50,000 $417.75 for the first $25,000 plus $10.95 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 50,001 $100,000 $691.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.34 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 100,001 $500,000 $1,058.50 for the first 100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 500,001 $1,000,000 $3,458.50 for the first 500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 1,000,001 and up $5,958.50 for the first 1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof Mechanical: HVAC, Gas Piping, Refrigeration and Fireplace Includes all types of fireplaces - masonry, gas, gas log, gas insert, etc.) Permit charge 0 -$999 25 $50.00 1,001 -$5,000 $31.50 $75.00 + 2.60% over $1000 Plumbing and Piping Fixtures Includes hydraulic sewer valves, rain water leaders, and alteration to existing systems. Permit charge 0 -$999 25$50.00 1,001 -$5,000 $31.50 75.00 + 2.60% over $1000 A Petroleum/Compress Gas Tanks 50.00 Up to the 1st $1,200 in value Over $1,200 in value-use fire suppression fee B Petroleum/Compress Gas Tanks Use Fire Suppression Systems Table Electronic Document Fee Based on Permit Fee 2.85% TO FEES Value Value 2019 Permit Fee Schedule Ref. MN Rules 1300.0160,subd. 1, subd. 2) Valuation FROM ORDINANCE NO. 663 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending the 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Certain Permit Fees The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The 2019 Master Fee Schedule for the Building Permit Fees of the City Code is hereby amended by revising the following: Building Permits: 2019 Permit Fee Schedule Ref. MN Rules 1300.0160,subd. 1, subd. 2) Valuation FROM TO FEES 0 $500 $50.00 501 $2,000 $50.00 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for each additional 100 or fraction thereof, up to and including $2000 2,001 $25,000 $95.75 for the first 2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 25,001 $50,000 $417.75 for the first $25,000 plus $10.95 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 50,001 $100,000 $691.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.34 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including 100,000 100,001 $500,000 $1,058.50 for the first 100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 500,001 $1,000,000 $3,458.50 for the first 500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 1,000,001 and up $5,958.50 for the first 1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Section 2. The 2019 Master Fee Schedule for the Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarms & Special Fire Suppression Systems Fees of the City Code is hereby amended by revising the following: Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarms & Special Fire Suppression Systems (New Installation or Alteration of Existing): Total valuation based on below fee schedule: 2019 Permit Fee Schedule Ref. MN Rules 1300.0160,subd. 1, subd. 2) Valuation FROM TO FEES 0 $500 $50.00 501 $2,000 $50.00 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for each additional 100 or fraction thereof, up to and including $2000 2,001 $25,000 $95.75 for the first 2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 Ordinance No. 663 -2- June 4, 2019 25,001 $50,000 $417.75 for the first $25,000 plus $10.95 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 50,001 $100,000 $691.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.34 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 100,001 $500,000 $1,058.50 for the first 100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 500,001 $1,000,000 $3,458.50 for the first 500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional 1000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 1,000,001 and up $5,958.50 for the first 1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof Section 3. The 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Mechanical Fees of the City Code is hereby amended by revising the following: Mechanical: HVAC, Gas Piping, Refrigeration and Fireplace Includes all types of fireplaces - masonry, gas, gas log, gas insert, etc.) Value Permit charge 0 $999 $50.00 1,001 $5,000 $75 + 2.60% over $1000 Section 4. The 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Plumbing and Piping Fixtures Fees of the City Code is hereby amended by revising the following: Plumbing and Piping Fixtures Includes hydraulic sewer valves, rain water leaders, and alteration to existing systems) Value Permit charge 0 $999 $50.00 1,001 $5,000 $75 + 2.60% over $1000 Section 5. The 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Petroleum/Compress Gas Tanks Fees of the City Code is hereby amended by revising the following: Petroleum/Compress Gas Tanks Use Fire Suppression Systems Table Section 6. The 2019 Master Fee Schedule for Electronic Document Fees of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: Electronic Document Fee Based on Permit Fee 2.85% Section 7. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” is hereby adopted in its entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Ordinance No. 663 -3- June 4, 2019 Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 4th day of June, 2019. s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk