Agenda Packet (entire)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
July 1, 2008
6:30 p.m.
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
PAGES
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - City Council Meeting - June 3, 2008 and
Council/Manager Meeting - June 10, 2008
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Licenses:
1. General Business Licenses
2. Solicitor's License - All Craftsmen Exteriors
3. Solicitor's License - Aspens Exteriors LLC
4. Solicitor's License - CMF Construction
5. Solicitor's License - Diversified Roofing
6. Solicitor's License - Trinity Restoration LTC
7. Solicitor's License - M J Miller Construction
8. Solicitor's License - Neitzell Construction
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - June 9, 2008
2. Open Space and Recreation Commission - April 28, 2008
3. Board of Zoning Appeals - May 27, 2008
4. Environmental Commission - April 28, 2008
5. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - May 12, 2008
E. Bids and Quote:
1. 800 MHz Mobile and Portable Radios - Quotes
F. Authorizing Application to MnDOT Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership
Program for Highway 55 Lilac Planting 08-31
G. Authorization.to Sign Agreement with LHB, Inc. for Douglas Drive Corridor Planning
Services
H. Authorization to Sign Contract with Environmental Process, Inc. for Building
Maintenance Project
I. Receipt of May 2008 General Fund Budget Report
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM
A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #401 - Approval of Conditional Use Permit #08-122-
1985 Douglas Drive - Honeywell, Inc., Applicant
B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #402 - Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit
#03-105 - Amendment #1 - 8300 10th Avenue North - HLM Sports, LLC, Applicant
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Continued Item - Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Calvary Lutheran
Church - PUD #46 - Amendment #6 - 7520 Golden Valley Road
B. Confirmation of Conditional Use Permit #120 Requirement - 1405 Lilac Drive North
C. Continued Item - Multiple Dwelling License - Douglas Drive Apartments
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Declaration of Hazardous Building - 2530 and 2540 Douglas Drive North
B. Authorization to Sign amended PUD Permit - North Lilac Drive Addition PUD #42 -
Amendment #3 - 820 Lilac Drive North
C. Authorization to Sign amended PUD Permit - North Lilac Drive Addition PUD #42-
Amendment #4 - 810 Lilac Drive North
D. Announcements of Meetings
E. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
alley
M orandu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1,2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Hey
M morandu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
alley
Memo ndum
Inspections
763-593-8090 I 763-593-3997 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. General Business Licenses
Prepared By
Kathryn Pepin, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are
the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an
application for approval.
#3387
Ahmed Ali Mussa Retail Tobacco Sales
d/b/a Golden GrocerylTobacco
7722 Olson Memorial Hwy.
$200.00
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff.
Hey
M morandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - All Craftsmen Exteriors LLC
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for All Craftsmen Exteriors LLC.
t
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLlCA TIONO
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: (
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License Requested: r~
Enclose the sum of $ ~'? for ~ (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
--.rl-Il C,-~+ts ~ E~-kr-i 015 fLV
(Business or Individual Name to be Licensed)
2> \ l :) ~ -r:=~ ~ tJub6~
(Address, including City, State and Zip Code)
95L
M~
'6S0~~
L1~Y - y~()O
(Te ephon Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, ::.J;~BY\ t-h,SM~'1
(Applicant Name)
through 6/30/_, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code.
hereby makes application for the
period of
lh AJ 'L<t&11 v),O<?1"3IS
(Photo 10 Verification)
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
LLL
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Pa~nership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indiqate if solicitill9 donations. If l)1ore
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): ~ot)J f'S}~(J 1 w~W5
~+-~......
Define Business
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
,
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
Name of Organization
All (vuF.4-6~ ~Au-~ CL C:-
.
~ 11.5 (~~ T~, l l),cb'b-kr- ,MJV
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Ss 0 ~<(-
Address of Organization
Te~hon.e Nu.mber (lnclud,'ngArea Code)
~5L) l(<X-l! - L!C, W
-
Define Business
(LC..,.
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc,; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
j)f\lJ/ fAS
?;rrl~
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF fhl rv Wez.Sll111
DIJss.
COUNTY OF }t(,N Vtr I,~
I, l"TD6-h'r! ~t> ~
(Officer!1 ndividual)
of --'fIt ~-fl~~ ~-krtors L(,G
(Name of Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his!her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters,
he!she believes them to be true,
orn to before me this
, 200cD
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010
(Signature)
~
Hey
Me orandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. Solicitor's License - Aspens Exteriors
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to godoor-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Aspens Exteriors.
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: ' $. ~3 ~
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: -;;p-
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of license Requested: 5bl1417N5
Enclose the sum of $ 3C:;oJ for d- (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
(B~j Ind~~~b~ lic~ns~d)
97;} 7 ! 6 ~ s fc 5 t' /!pl--. ~D~
(Address, including City, State and Zip Code)
&(;;)~ '"6/0'- ~d0~
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, ~J, ~ I~ '1--+--<1' h~r~by makes application for the
. ' (A licant Name)
period of 7-2-(j 8' through 6/30/e>Of, subject to the conditions and prOVisions of said City Code.
-1t ~O-OI(f6-CYfl{;h-Ob
(Photo 10 Verification)
vJI-
e
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
Applicant (if different from above):
Name
Address SZ> 7 LJ . s--"h, cS I , 3"-Q.... ~ ~ S't I '- L
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (including area code) 76!f;-'?.51f - bP/S-
Date of Birth (if an individual) / ~ -~ ~';;)
Business Name of Applicant A5f~ EX. { eJ'rz> r 5
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Define Business Lc:>~~ :J:f'I Qo{l~
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Pa~nership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) o~ iJ1dicate if soliciting d, onations. If more
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): /-I'^-1 dCL ~-t', 7&.:~'r.
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
Name of Organiza.tion Iba/NI bf:i-ed'b.rj
Address of Organization ~~ 1'1/1/. FUv-i -11o..\)'h
(Include City,' State and liP Code)
Telephone Number Includin Area Code)
S-L -
Define Business (i.,Vl~, d (( de.-1A.$ L fftC ",,-11:5 h
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, et .; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
%J~ (-/J4-<7 g 7 ?- 7
COVlVlOC
! 't-v.. S-t ()", t1o+, 20 ~
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF P,INIVf,~o rlo/)
) ss.
COUNTY OF 1tt1l1ner''\ )
I, /iuJ'j /-;(, U-u-
Officer/Individual)
of /l:~ ~<rR:>r5>
(Name of Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters,
he/she believes them to be true.
~
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
g'3 day of 3........h.L ,20,p 6' .
dJJ: ~U.71C1f~
(Signatur - - .. ::- ()
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
Hey
M 0 ndum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1,2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 4. Solicitor's License - CMF Construction
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for CMF Construction.
,.
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
TO: Golden Valley City Council
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Enclose the sum of $ 50,#{) for /(/ (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
e /'1 F c"" rh,./A '- f-, ~
(Business or Individual Name to be Licensed)
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
. 50 oU
Fee Paid: $ " f:J
Number. of Persons:'
Type of License Requested: ~rh>~
&0lf0 Bass LJe /Jr. ~r&f Ilk ~I J
(Address, including City, State and Zip Code)
uy..r ~l) L'1IV
7~ 3 - '-/So- /1/6
bb~f
'7€-~- ;)'!?f S/)]S .
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, fren f- k e/so hereby makes application for the
(Applicant Name)
period of 7- / -.0 tf through 6/30/!2!l., subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code.
Ignature of Applicant/Principal Officer)
'21-00 - L17 - 5742 - IN
(Photo ID Verification)
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
Applicant (if diff~t fro)11 ap9v~):
Name " 7 rg,.yr/- J<e-ISO
.
Address J f?s V, h dJdY L~ IJa-r.VI/!e I .r 11/ '/6/~ ,;
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (including area code) 76 3 - ,;1</9' -- 5';:J 35
Date of Birth (if an individual) y -/1/ - ?~
Business Name of Applicant .tR0/7re.58n ,/,A I-j'!><L.. C/'1F ~Jj".t:A~
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
CcrJ?CJr;< Ir~
(Corporatiofi, Proprietorship, Pa~nership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific):
~d/,'nQ IS,'dt'1f ~ c;;~/j~
v '
Define Business
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
,
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
Name of Organization
C~F- ~~u~
Address of Organization
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (Including Area Code)
Define Business
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or,in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers' where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
;JU.o/V1 61a/'t':."',,,
DM1J 1'1;11,~
'. j,~
D~J ~rIS
!<fA, in 8 rutJ k ..r
An&81-J /J~,
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE oFtnJNAlfS61f1 )
't/1 n I ) ss.
COUNTY OF IttllJtJfr11V )
I, 3((",,1- Itt {f 0
(Officer/Individual)
of
(In F (bn{ffttcf71 Y\..
(Name of Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters,
he/she believes them to be true. ? ~ M.c-
(Signature of ~ntlPrincipal Officer)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
ay of J tin e..
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESCTTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
alley
Me 0 ndum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 5. Solicitor's License - Diversified Roofing
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Diversified Roofing.
From:CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
763 593 8109
06/0412008 10: 17
1842 P.004/005
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's OffJce the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
.
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 5 0
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: ?-'j
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of license Requested: S" J /r.. i +v /'
Enclose the sum of $ 6 D for ~ {number} peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
. vlll~r s ,. -M'GeL . RoO-h'~ '
(Business or Individual Name to be Li nsed)
3570 t.-u:.iVi7-vn v:. N .::JJ=Joq Sho".e-v/.e...w fJ1Al 55/c:l.l..f/
{Address, including Ci ,State and Zip Code}
I p~/. tJ9j.1 . 6~e0
{Telephone Number, including Area Code}
NOW, THEREFORE,_ Clad Q-v r. -1&111 ([1 w"rtA- hereby makes application for the
,/ J c/ ~pplicaBt Name)' .'.
period of 7;;-; 00 through 6/3010:,fsubject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code.
~ ~ lfjtPO J7M'fh1/
( Ign 0 ~pfi~~iPal Officer) (Photo 10 Verification) . .
..J
..J
Define Business
{Corporation, Proprietorship, Pa~nership, etc.; State of Incorporation}
Description of goods or services for sale {include prices} or indicate if soliciting donations. If more
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): ;-0 CJ-h' ~ . s i'd..A'~. ::J ~s .
VVi~tAJ c;
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
From:CITY OF BOLDEN VALLEY
783 593 8109
08/04/2008 10:17
1842 P.005/005
If the Peddler or Solicitor Is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
Name of Organization '])1 vU ~ I 'r:, .d /2e;" 'h'~
Address of Organization 3570 'UJ(J~~ a>>-e. xl -=#/0 '1
(Inclu City. State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number ~1,ncludin9 Area-.Code)
u:5 I. ':if u . ~ '6 t K
J Iw" €V l'e.<.AJ , /YlV
- 5'5/6l./e
Define Business
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City. of..in the alternative. the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
a"w:n........er't3/~h.<Mr+ :Tos h De~ -:JW Holme(
f,T Ska-11A..t !h.t'!<L S J'~ S 5Je.ve. TN /l-1jtS
Bobh'1 e;~l'\.S t'v1 ..,'K..t. Co.....f-A...eA "Va.-I'\.. 1<.&..( tfts
Ctts-t.-L/ GYCUjbe-a..( G; ~ C ~ J-eYa-(e/.. Gl/d~wJ
~es V"s~ ChI;> r'1/cJ<- JD~ ~r,f:;.,roi-
Ga.hl','e,1 C::la.n:.-te;... &bhV Coa..i-:; Ne.'I'lhicJd1.e.:h:n-
N~ Tl1.tLs+u- CAa..v Eo(: s kr~
.:::r: VV\-VI- Sa.. U1.. z. t;'"~ eX- Kr ~
y",ff wt.>-+-h /...kJ'11- l-on_j
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF rr.nJII)'t15ln1t )
lu;yol1I.1'fD \ } ss.
COUNTY OF 1Tt-IV''''(..f"~jJ )
I.(!,l~~ J-ht~~svvorH-.-
(Officer/lndlvloual)
of
D }. v {L..r S ,...c.. c..eL: N &'/2. ~
(Name of Organization) ~
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief. and as to such matters,
he/she believes them to be true.
om to before me this
, 20(} t
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
alley
M morand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 6. Solicitor's License - Trinity Restoration LTC
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Trinity Restoration LTC.
'.
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
.
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 51J 0 D
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: (0 1 I
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of license Requested: ~1)V( f; tJY'\
Enclose the sum of $ fjJOO for 10 (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
[., rD
r/l.Yln~/~k~ ~ >>Ill!
. r
5'55'c:6
("1
(Business or I ividual Name to be Licensed)
~"'2fs, ~~~nTG: s~~n~iP 1~)~
95-;:L-7~5J~>gf
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THERE, FORE, ~~t""~ ~r-/.aA./51v hereby makes application for the
7/~ (Applicant Name)
period of ~ through 6/30/e!l., ubject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code.
Ie lIt(
~ ( IZ , 110ft{- /''It'! ~~oorl
(~oto 10 Verification)
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
Applicant (if different from above): / / / /
Name ~J.::i.-S"~-/ ~'Jl../'
Address / IO?? /U6: Rf c-~d Dr. /~;, ~~~ -,f; P740 ta/(eJ ~
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (including area code) 952- .2-/7- ~.z.~1
Date of Birth (if an individual)
Business Name of Applicant .
Address
s-s-~
I- L-~j
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific):
~h/1<"J d"r~J /.M~~Jm,5. ~n-~ s-;d~,
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
Define Business
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
.. ~ ---+- i;
I r- I;'l..)~ - ~f/5rd J/ -;;.v
Name of Organization
Address of Organization
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (Including Area Code)
Define Business
L-~/
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
s-s~S" LJ~~~Cf "Sf ~/d~I/4Jft ~Qf/ 5S~~~
I' ,/ ,. ," ,I ,I
~ ,~~~~ S-A.,c/PHUJ~
:iJ~r~ ~:<
e~~, C~~j)b~~
FdLM-f::: C-.r.~y ~ I""~,
:;r;;;~(f C'44....-/::- ~ f{ J,/k",k~'" .&, J ,~....~r- /'-<?~1;r;
4~~l"9:HJ #~~ 1ICfi? A/EB'ir/Lu~P"'~S ~",.,...,~h/~6r~
"
~,
/,
/1
II
"
1/
"
"
"
I'
JI
II
/1
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF rn 1YJ~D1Prt
. ) ss.
COUNTY OF mN7ifi~V)
I, ~~ 4....kI1.t
(Officer/Individual)
of
~* t6&/;rr:v-t-&r7U
(NamVf Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matte ,
he/she believes them to be true. ./
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
I 20 rJ5
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
alley
M mo ndum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1,2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 7. Solicitor's License - M J Miller Construction
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for M J Miller Construction.
.~
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
, 00
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ ~.
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: ? . I
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License Requested: 50 h~S
~
Enclose the sum of $ ~ for --y (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
_~*'~ V\ '\ \ \~ t\f M"\ \Pf (JJtJTr~c-'1JtJ.~
(Business or Individual Name to be Licensed)
\O\L\ Wf\1e.\~ ~1~tJ US-rBl- fMl(Ltrz Jf-.(Al '%BSY
(Address, including City, State and Zip Code)
~l ~. ~6"'32 -qto15
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, ~'f ~ ~ \ 'e~ hereby makes application for the
.'1" lJ>tt (Applicant Name)
period ot,JIJ\11- through 6/30/0'1, subject to the cO~iK1ns and provisions of said City Code.
G b~70~~c,C{07 ;}-(
(Photo 10 Verification)
t--... ~-..a.. ~ ~ c-=;;> '"
(Signature of Applicant/Principal Officer)
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
Applicant (if different from above):
Name
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (including area code)
Date of Birth (if an individual)
Business Name of Applicant
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
c.o~~u..-r t tJ t--l ~ \J\ ~
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Pa~nership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donatiops. If more
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): e..o~n~ 1 ~~~\~} \'u..~\n~S 't
0\.'\ A ~,.....ct\ 'bu..\J\~ ~t\O'\JA..t\;o,,-
Define Business
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
Name of Organization
~ -:) V\l\ll \-e r
Q~\^-~~rv~O n.
Address of Organization
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (Including Area Code)
Define Business
oo./L {?
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
-~YQ(\ 6~4V\~f
_~YOt'" "I\e y
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF mlNNfStrl1t )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HtIUl\J'tPlN )
I, VV\~v \A. \\~
(Officer/Individual)
of \M.~' ",,' ,\ \ r; Ar C (}V\ (! >rru c-f lIV\
(Name of Orgamzatlon)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters,
he/she believes them to be true.
\--.~ Q, r-:-'~~~
(Signature of Applicant/Principal Officer)
rn to before me this
,2oL.
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
!'1 Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 8. Solicitor's License - Neitzel! Construction
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Neitzel! Construction.
k ~ v;- +~ ~ '2- ~~~
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
~ouncil Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
.
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ g~.OO
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: 2-
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License Requested: $b1;GifAft~
Enclose the sum of $ gS- for '2- (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
Ntitz.dl CM.r~
(Business or Individual Name to be Licensed)
Jc> Ro"- Z62.. ~""~ I JttN ~/2-
(Address, including City, State and zip Code)
~ 7 - 2l q - Ot z. b ov- BOO - J{" - O'I.gtJ
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, k ~ ( Nt,., ~kd1 ~d-'1erebY makes 'application for the
.I I (Applicant Name)
period of 07/{)//08 through 6/30/&, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code.
jOj~
(Signature of Applicant/Principal Officer)
f't-J <Slg-G[,er IUL{S7~
(Photo ID Verification)
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
Applicant (if differelj1t from above):
Name ~
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (including area code) 800" 'It, -6910
Date of Birth (if an individual)
Business Name of Applicant p,;,tu.JL CrA. s ~ ~
Address~6't. ~O2-- ~~ (IAN ~12-
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Define Business _1>,. fr-eJN"f"k1p ,
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
Name of Organization
N ~ I t"2,dJ
C~V\~tr~~
Address of Organization
(Include City. State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (Including Area Code)
Define Business
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
N~~ AI~t-uU
La-~
(If more space is needed. attach additional sheets)
STATE OF fMJ )
II ) ss.
COUNTY OF rrc.hnep' Yl )
I k~
,
(Officer/I ndividual)
being first duly sworn. depose and say that all foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on i ormation and belief. and as to such matters,
he/she believes them to be true.
of
1Jt..,c+u.u ~S'~f 'bv-
(Name of Organization)
(Signature of Applicant/Principal Officer)
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June
9, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark
Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
May 28, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to page one and noted that Mark Grimes should have been listed as present.
Eck referred to the second sentence in the fourth paragraph on page two and stated that
the word "than" should be the word "then".
Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on page five and stated that the last
sentence should be changed to read... how significant the grade change will be, rather than
how significant the grade is.
Waldhauser referred to the last sentence in the ninth paragraph on page seven and stated
that the word "existing" should be added before the words "drainage problems".
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the
May 28, 2008 minutes with the above noted changes.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Honeywell - 1985 Douglas
Drive - CU-122
Applicant: Honeywell
Address: 1985 Douglas Drive
Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit will allow for the construction of 92' tall
communications tower
Hogeboom stated that Honeywell is proposing to construct a 92-foot tall communications
tower on their property located at 1985 Douglas Drive which is zoned Industrial. He
explained that communications towers are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the
Industrial zoning district.
Hogeboom explained that the applicant has stated that the proposed tower will be used for
GPS fixed positioning testing and video camera research. The tower will be a lattice design
because of the need to climb it for maintenance and research-related tasks. He referred to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 2
the City's design and performance standards and noted that these standards require
telecommunications towers over 60 feet to be designed to accommodate additional
antennas from at least one other user. He added that City Code states that landowners
must allow the shared use of telecommunication towers with other comparable uses if an
agreement is reached which binds additional users to provisions described in the Code.
Hogeboom referred to his staff report and reviewed the ten factors the Planning
Commission must use to make findings when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit
application. He noted that Honeywell has demonstrated a need for this use, the proposal is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and staff does not believe there will be an
adverse effect on property values in the area. He added that staff is recommending
approval of the proposal with the conditions listed in his staff report.
Keysser asked if there will be a security fence around the base of the tower. Hogeboom
said he wasn't sure and suggested the applicant address that issue.
Keysser asked about illumination of the tower. Hogeboom referred to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and noted that most of the requirements apply to towers
that are 100 feet or taller.
Cera asked the height of the tower in relation to the height of the building. Hogeboom said
he wasn't sure how tall the building is but the existing water tower on the Honeywell site is
approximately 120 feet in height.
Kluchka referred to the staff report regarding landscaping and asked what "adequately
landscaped" means. Hogeboom stated that it basically means that any current trees or
landscaping that would act as a buffer would have to remain. Kluchka questioned if
condition number 4 regarding landscaping really applies. Grimes added that that base of
the tower probably won't be visible from the street.
Hogeboom suggested adding the installation of security fencing as a condition of approval.
Eck asked about the height of the City's water tower. Grimes said he wasn't sure but
assumed it is over 120 feet in height.
Leon Trout, Honeywell Project Manager, reiterated that the proposed tower will be used for
research and that they will not be broadcasting anything. He explained that Honeywell is
moving this function from their Camden location to their Golden Valley location and that the
proposed tower needs to be 92 feet in height in order to see the horizon.
Keysser asked Mr. Trout how he feels about adding a security fence around the base of the
tower. Trout said he feels fine about adding a 10-foot high, lockable security fence around
the tower. He explained that the proposed tower will also be camouflaged by the existing
building.
Keysser asked about the type of lighting that will be used. Trout said they will not need any
lighting on the tower. He added that the cameras on the proposed tower will be watching
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 3
their own parking lot. McCarty asked how the City can be sure the cameras will only be
watching the parking lot. Trout said that Honeywell would be willing to sign an agreement.
McCarty questioned the things Honeywell will be doing that they are not willing to talk
about. Trout stated that Honeywell will be doing customer research and that they don't want
to name their customers. He reiterated that they will only be doing scientific research and
testing and no broadcasting.
Kluchka asked about the color of the proposed tower. Trout said the tower will not be
painted. It will be a galvanized tri-pod tower.
Keysser asked about the likelihood of interference with cell phones, telephones, televisions,
etc. Trout said he is not aware of any interference issues.
Eck asked if the location of the proposed tower was a deliberate choice. Trout said yes and
explained that there are limitations on how far away the tower can be from the access
equipment in the building.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Pat Lamon, 1701 Hampshire Lane, stated that she has gone through a lot of things with
Honeywell where they've said they will do things and they have not done them. She said
she doesn't feel the City can approve this proposal without knowing how it will affect cell
phones, televisions or GPS systems.
Lynn Jacobs, 6500 Hampshire Place, stated that she lives right across the street from
Honeywell and she will walk into her yard and look up and see this tower. She said she is
concerned about her property value and aviation lights lighting up her yard. She said she is
also concerned about the cameras and interference with her television and cell phone. She
urged the Planning Commission to consider the potential impact to homeowners.
Keith Heimer, 6405 Hampshire Place, said he has similar concerns as the previous
speakers. He said he would like to know more about future antennas being located on the
proposed tower and he wants to know the exact location and design of the proposed tower.
He said there is another tower located on Douglas Drive and questioned the necessity of
another one. He said he doesn't want to see this tower from his home and it will de-value
his property and he wants to see a limit placed on future height expansion.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the pUblic hearing.
Keysser asked the applicant if there will be aviation lights on the tower. Trout said no.
Keysser asked the applicant about future expansion of the tower. Trout said there will not
be any future expansion of the tower. He showed the Commissioners a drawing of the
proposed tower.
Keysser asked about potential interference with other electronics. Trout reiterated that he is
confident there will be no interference.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 4
Grimes explained that the City's lighting ordinance doesn't allow towers to be lit unless the
FAA requires lighting. He referred to the City's telecommunication ordinance and explained
that the City wants to make sure that when towers are built they can support additional
antennas rather than having to build towers all over the City.
Trout reiterated that the tower being proposed is not a transmittal tower. He said he thinks if
it were going to be a cell tower they would have to come back to the City for approval
because it would be a different use.
Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission isn't approving the use of the tower they are
just supposed to be considering the height and the land use. He referred to the questions
regarding interference and said he thinks that would be an FCC issue not a City issue.
Grimes noted that he has never had a complaint regarding interference from towers.
Kluchka said he would like to add a condition of approval regarding the installation of a
security fence. Keysser suggested adding the fence requirement to number eight in the
conditions of approval.
Kluchka said he would also like to add a condition that the tower can only be a maximum of
92 feet in height or a height that doesn't require lighting. Keysser said he thinks that if
Honeywell wanted a taller tower they would have to come back to the City for approval.
Grimes agreed that if Honeywell changes their proposal from what they've submitted they
would have to come back for approval. He suggested that a condition of approval be added
to state that the plans submitted with this application shall become a part of the approval.
Schmidgall stated that the addition of the 12-foot whip antenna would make the proposed
tower 100 feet in height. Grimes referred to the telecommunications ordinance and
discussed antenna location and mounting and stated that he would consider the proposed
structure to be 92 feet in height. Waldhauser noted that the 12-foot whip antenna may be a
horizontal antenna.
McCarty asked if there would be an increase in noise as a result of this tower. Trout said
there will not be any noise.
McCarty said he is not comfortable with this proposal because the use is not clearly
defined. Eck stated that no one wants to have to look at towers, but they are everywhere.
He said he doesn't want to discount people's concerns but there are so many towers and
poles and wires around that people get accustomed to seeing them.
Cera suggesting adding a condition of approval that states that the tower will only be for
receiving and not transmitting. Grimes stated that Honeywell could sell or lease their facility
in the future and if the tower is there they might as well use it. He stated that if the concern
is about the cameras, there could be a condition added that states that they can only be
aimed at Honeywell's property. He noted that the residential properties are 800 feet or
further away from Honeywell.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 5
Keysser clarified that the additional conditions discussed have been as follows: add
language regarding a 10-foot high, locking fence around the tower to condition number 8,
add a condition number 11 that states all camera angles will be on Honeywell property and
add a condition number 12 that states that the plans submitted with the application shall
become a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
McCarty stated that condition number 6 regarding the shared use of the tower "if
reasonable" seems to conflict with City Code which states that towers are required to co-
locate. Keysser stated that if another antenna is installed on this proposed tower then it
becomes a part of this conditional use permit.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 92-foot telecommunications tower to be
located at 1985 Douglas Drive - Honeywell, subject to the following conditions:
1. No signage may be located on the tower or any attached antenna, except those that
provide necessary information as required by federal or state laws.
2. The tower or any attached antennas may not be artificially illuminated, unless required
by law or the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Adequate access to the tower must be provided from a public right of way.
4. The tower must be adequately landscaped and screened with natural vegetation to
lessen its visual impact. The natural vegetation on the site must be documented on site
and landscaping plans submitted to the City.
5. The placement, design, use, and operation of the tower must comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications
Commission.
6. The owners of the tower must allow shared use of the tower if an additional user
agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use and signs the
Conditional Use Permit agreeing to requirements set therein.
7. No guy wires shall be permitted on the tower.
8. Reasonable security measures must be provided for the tower. A 10-foot high, lockable
fence must be installed around the base of the tower.
9. The tower must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. It must
conform to the City's Building Code.
10. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
11. All cameras mounted on the tower must be aimed on Honeywell's property.
12. The plans for the tower submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application prepared
by Radian and dated April 16, 2008 shall become a part of this approval.
13. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 6
3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment #1 - HLM
Sports, LLC - CU-105
Applicant: HLM Sports, LLC
Address: 8300 10th Avenue North
Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit Amendment will allow for the construction
of an outdoor sports court
Grimes noted that this is a request by HLM Sports doing business as Hey Coach at 8300
10th Avenue North. He stated that the conditional use permit would allow the applicant to
construct a sports court to the rear of the building.
Grimes explained that when the original conditional use permit was issued to Home Run
Hitters the use was more baseball oriented. The new owners want to expand and have the
proposed outdoor sports court for basketball training. He noted that there was a concern
when the original conditional use permit was issued that all activities be done inside the
building.
Grimes referred to a site plan and discussed the location of the proposed sports court. He
noted that the proposal meets the setback requirements and the applicant has stated that
they would like to add some lighting as well.
Grimes stated that the applicant originally wanted to place a tent structure over the
proposed sports court but he has not provided staff with the necessary structural
engineering information so at this point the conditional use permit request is only for the
outdoor sports court. He noted that if the applicant intends to put the tent structure over the
sports court in the future he will need to come back to the City for another conditional use
permit amendment.
Grimes stated that he doesn't think there will be any parking issues as a result of the
proposed sports court. He said there may be some concern about noise issues so staff is
recommending that there be no music, speaker systems or whistles allowed on the sports
court. He stated that the owners of the neighboring property to the west have some security
concerns and there is also some concern about what happens when the court is closed and
have questioned if the property has cameras or a locked fence. He stated that staff feels
the proposed sports court will be ok if there is no lighting after 9 pm and the security
concerns are addressed.
McCarty asked for information regarding the proposed retaining wall. Grimes stated that a
grading permit will be required. McCarty said he is more concerned about a child potentially
falling off of a 5-foot high retaining wall.
Kluchka asked about the current parking situation. Grimes stated that there are other
tenants in the building but the applicant's business mostly occurs off-hours on weekends or
after 5 pm so parking should not be a problem. He stated that the property owners to the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 7
west are concerned about cars parking in their lot rather than in the parking lot on the
applicant's property. He added that many of the customers are kids who are dropped off
and picked up by their parents.
Andrew Atkin, Owner of Hey Coach, applicant, stated that he purchased Home Run Hitters
in January and that customers are supportive of the baseball use part of the year but the
only viable business option is to have a multi-season, full year-round business. He stated
that he has partnered with Minnesota Developmental Basketball who will provide coaches
and training. He added that they've also added a teen fitness center and a lounge area for
teens.
Keysser asked about the teen fitness center. Atkin explained that the fitness center is a
combination of traditional weightlifting with "excergaming" which is a computerized circuit
training system. Keysser asked if the center is membership based. Atkin stated that he
offers both member and non-member rates.
Keysser asked the applicant how he felt about installing a security fence around the
proposed sports court. Atkin said installing a 10-foot high security fence around the sports
court might not be aesthetically pleasing and when they come back for approvals for the
tent structure over the sports court the fence would have to be taken out.
Keysser asked about the tent structure. Atkin explained that the tent structure is 45 feet by
55 feet and is barn-like in shape.
Waldhauser suggested the hoops be taken down after hours. Atkin said he would consider
hoops that retract or fold up. He noted that they are quite a distance from residential areas.
Grimes stated that there is a residential area to the north.
Grimes asked if the sports court will be a "half-court". Atkin said the sports court is
approximately a "half-court" and stated that there will be three basketball standards so they
can give three private lessons at the same time but they won't have three basketball games
at the same time.
Cera asked for clarification of the hours of operation. Atkin stated that his longest hours
would be in summer and they would be 9 am to 9 pm on weekdays, 10 am to 5 pm on
Saturdays and 12 pm to 5 pm on Sundays. Grimes added that the original conditional use
permit for this property had different hours. He explained that in his recommendation listed
in his staff report he said the business could be open until 10 pm in order to give the
applicant some flexibility. He added that the City doesn't typically restrict businesses hours.
Waldhauser asked the applicant if he needs to be open until 1 0 pm. Atkin said no.. they
don't work past 9 pm.
Cera asked the. applicant why he isn't proposing the tent structure now with this request.
Atkin said he hasn't made a decision about the tent structure yet but he wants to get the
basketball program up and running this summer. Cera referred to the fence suggestion and
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 8
asked if it would be taken down in six months or whenever the tent structure is installed.
Atkin said that he would consider having a fabric type fence or retractable hoops.
McCarty asked the applicant to address the retaining wall. Atkin said it is more of a
landscape wall than a concrete retaining wall. He said it will be a boulder wall and will
"grade down" and into the berm. McCarty asked if the proposed court will be at the grade of
the parking lot. Atkin said no, it will be at the grade of the building. McCarty questioned if
there will be a guard rail installed. Atkin said he would address that.
McCarty referred to condition number six in the staff report regarding no whistles and asked
how that would work. Atkin said the referees would just say "foul".
Keysser asked if there would be basketball leagues. Atkin said he is exploring that option
but the use will be mainly training and having fun.
McCarty asked about the interior building height dimension. Atkin said it is approximately
14 feet in height inside the building which is too short for basketball.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Walter Sellman, 1290 Yukon Court, stated that when Home Run Hitters originally opened
he was concerned about noise. He said he was misled by the lack of detail in the hearing
notice he received because he thought this request was for outdoor baseball. He said he
wants there to be security fencing around the proposed sports court and he would only
want the sports court open during business hours. He said he also wants to know more
about the lighting.
Greg Wagner, General Manager/President at Midco AN, 8360 10th Avenue, stated that he
is located at the property directly to the west of the applicant's property. He said there have
been some issues with their customers parking in his lot and they have been
confrontational at times. He said that sometimes their customers also use his parking lot as
a park and play baseball around the cars. He said he is concerned about people loitering
around the area. He suggested that a privacy fence be installed along the property line
between their two properties. He asked if there have been any studies done on other
similar operations regarding the impacts in demographics or impacts on properties. He said
he is not necessarily opposed to the proposal he is just concerned about having to chase
people off his property.
Terry Steen, 1149 Orkla Drive, stated that he also thought the hearing notice meant that
there were going to be baseball batting cages outside. He said he can hear baseball games
from Wesley Park a mile away so he will be impacted if people are closer. He said he is
concerned about lighting, noise, whistles and people loitering. He stated that he is also
speaking for his neighbors located at 1286 Yukon Court and 1288 Yukon Court who are not
in favor of any change in use for this property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 9
Bruce Russell, 1145 Orkla Drive, said he also thought the proposal was for outdoor batting
cages. He said if the sports court is enclosed it will be more private and he is open to the
idea if over the long-term he is assured that the noise will be limited.
Nancy Wagner, Midco AN, 8350 10th Avenue, stated that their building been defaced and
their trucks have been broken into and have had the gas siphoned out of them so there is
an element of crime in the area. She stated that a lot of trucks come in and out of their
parking lot so she is concerned about the children's safety.
Keysser asked about the location of Midco AN's loading docks. Nancy Wagner stated that
their loading docks are located on the east side of their building and reiterated that it will be
very dangerous if children are there during the day.
John Lindblom, 1293 Yukon Court, said he has a three-season porch that is quiet and he
wants to keep it that way. He said he is concerned about lighting, noise and outdoor
baseball.
Grimes reiterated that one of the conditions of approval states that there can be no music,
whistles or loud speakers outside.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Keysser asked the applicant to discuss the lighting. Atkin stated that there would be two
stanchions, one on each end of the sports court. He said that the light fixtures would be
aimed down, not toward the residential neighborhood. Schmidgall added that the City's
lighting ordinance would prohibit the light from shining on other properties. Grimes stated
that the conditional use permit could specify that lights have to be turned off at 9 pm, but
throughout most of the summer, they probably won't even need to use the lights.
Keysser asked the applicant to address security. Atkin said he thinks it is important to point
out that this proposed sports court is not a playground. He stated that anytime someone is
on the court they will be with a coach or a referee.
Waldhauser asked about people using the parking lot of the property to the west and the
truck traffic going in and out and people being disrespectful. Atkin said the best way for the
neighbors to deal with those types of issues is to make him aware of the problems. He said
he would be happy to install "no parking" signs so his customers are aware that they
shouldn't be parking in the next door neighbor's lot.
McCarty asked about the age of the customers. Atkin said most of the program participants
are 8 to 16 years old.
Cera asked the applicant how he felt about installing a fence along the property line
between this property and the property to the west. Atkin stated that it would be redundant
and expensive if he has to install fencing around the sports court and along the property
line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 10
Eck asked the applicant if he was planning to construct the tent structure as soon as
possible and if the tent structure would extend the use of the sports court throughout the
winter months. Atkin said yes, his plan is to construct the tent structure as soon as possible
so he can have year-round business. Eck asked if the tent structure will be heated. Atkin
said yes. Eck asked if the tent is considered a permanent structure. Atkin said no, because
it can be taken down. Grimes explained that staff hasn't yet determined if it will be
considered a permanent structure because they haven't received any structural
engineering information about the tent as of yet. He added that typically if a structure is up
for less than 180 days it is considered temporary and if it is up for more than 180 days it is
considered permanent.
Grimes suggesting adding conditions of approval that state lighting needs to be turned off
after hours and that the applicant should work with the property owner to the west
regarding the parking of Hey Coach customers in their lot. Atkin said he was surprised to
learn that his customers were parking in the neighbors' parking lot because his parking lot
is never full.
Hogeboom added that most of the residents he spoke with were concerned about security
after hours. Waldhauser stated that making the basketball hoops inaccessible after hours
will help with the security issues. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that the
sports court will not be usable after business hours.
Cera said he would like to change the hours of operation listed in the staff report to state
that the closing time would be 9 pm instead of 10 pm. Grimes suggested saying no outside
use after 9 pm.
Kluchka referred to recommendation number eight in the staff report and stated that it
should be changed to read that all lights shall be shielded to minimize lighting spillover on
to other properties. Waldhauser added that that the language about the sports court lighting
being turned off at 9 pm should also be added to recommendation number eight.
Kluchka referred to recommendation number eleven in the staff report and stated that the
words "boom boxes" should be taken out. He said he is concerned about people parking at
the property next door and he thinks a fence between the two properties is appropriate to
prevent people from going on the property next door. Grimes reiterated that he would like
the applicant to talk to the property owners next door to try and resolve the issues.
Keysser said he is not inclined to require a fence between the two properties because it will
be redundant once the applicant comes back to the City for approvals for the tent structure.
Kluchka said he would be voting no on this proposal until he sees a fence between the two
properties.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of
an amended Conditional Use Permit at 8300 10th Avenue North which would allow Hey
Coach to construct an outdoor sports court with the following conditions. Commissioner
Kluchka voted no.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9,2008
Page 11
1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by HTG Architects and dated
June 8, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates parking spaces
on the site.
2. A revised site plan prepared by HTG Architects and dated May 14,2008 shall become
a part of this approval. This plan indicates the location of the sports court.
3. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by WCL Associates and
dated September 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This indicates the
layout of the interior of the space. Changes to the interior can be made as long as it
does not increase the size of the space for Hey Coach and the changes are consistent
with the Hey Coach use.
4. A drainage and erosion control permit must be issued for the construction of the sport
court.
5. When the outdoor sports court is in use, a staff member shall be present outdoors.
6. The outdoor sports court shall be closed outside of business hours. The basketball
hoops shall be retractable or be made unusable after business hours.
7. Doors are to remain closed at all times.
8. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. All lights
shall be shielded so as to minimize lighting spillover on to other properties. All outdoor
lighting shall be turned off at 9 pm.
9. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code.
10. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front door.
11. No loud speakers, public address system, or whistles shall be used outside.
12. At least 30 parking spaces shall be available.
13. Operating hours shall be as follows: 9 am to 9 pm.
14. Hey Coach shall work with the property owners at 8360 10th Avenue North regarding
prohibiting customers parking and playing in their parking lot.
15. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met.
16. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the CUP.
4. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Rezoning the Properties in the 1-394
Corridor to Mixed Use Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To rezone the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their
current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district
Hogeboom reminded the Commission that at their August 13, 2007 meeting they tabled the
public hearing regarding rezoning the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their
current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district.
Kluchka asked why the item was tabled. Keysser said he thought it was tabled because of
non-conforming land use issues and property owner issues. He asked for clarification
regarding existing land uses becoming non-conforming once the properties are rezoned.
Hogeboom stated that some existing land uses will become non-conforming uses but they
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 12
can continue to operate in their current capacity. Grimes added that non-conforming uses
can be improved and maintained, they just can't be expanded.
Waldhauser questioned if an exception should be made for properties that could potentially
expand if they have the space. Grimes explained that rezoning the properties isn't saying
that a property can't be a particular use, it is just saying that is has to be mixed use.
Cera asked if a property owner could ask for a variance if they wanted to expand. Grimes
explained that the 1-394 Corridor Mixed Use zoning ordinance has already been approved
and that this public hearing is just about where the Mixed Use zoning district will apply.
Cera asked if the Speak the Word church property will be included in the Mixed Use zoning
district. Hogeboom said no and stated that it provides a good buffer for the neighborhood to
the north and it is consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map to leave it zoned
Institutional. Waldhauser noted that the zoning can be looked at again in the future.
Keysser asked if the Zoning Map will be in compliance with the General Land Use Plan
Map. Hogeboom said yes.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of rezoning the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current
zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district.
---Short Recess---
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Grimes reminded the Commission that there will be a Douglas Drive Corridor Study
Committee meeting on June 10 at 7:30 am at Brookview.
6. Other Business
Waldhauser asked if there was an update on the proposed subdivision on Janalyn Circle
that was tabled at their last meeting. Grimes stated that staff is still working on getting the
updated drainage study.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Hey
OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Brookview Community Center
Monday, April 28, 2008
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Roger Bergman, Ken Graves, Jim Johnson, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob
Mattison, Roger McConico, Anne Saffert, Jerry Sandler, Jim Vaughan, Rick
Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation, Sheila Van Sloun, Parks and
Recreation Administrative Assistant, and Veronica Anderson, SEH.
III. AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
No changes or additions.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 28, 2008
MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Vaughan to approve the April
28th meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PARK SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW
Veronica Anderson and the Commission went through the Park System Plan and
made appropriate changes that will be reflected in a future version.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
No new updates.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Mattison to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
April 22, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members, Hughes, Segelbaum, Sell, Weisberg and Planning
Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman
I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 2008
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Hughes and motion carried unanimously to
approve the April 22, 2008 minutes as submitted. Commissioner McCarty abstained
from voting.
II. The Petitions are:
4223 Glencrest Road (08-05-05)
Wooden Dreams, Applicant representing
Robert and Bridaet Burke. Homeowners
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A) Stairs and Landings
Requirements
. 7 sq. ft. more than the allowed 25 sq. ft. of stairsllandings into
the front yard setback area.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new stoop.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 6.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.7 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new stoop.
Hogeboom explained that the applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a
new front stoop. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is the lack of safety.
Currently a person can not stand on the front stoop and open the door at the same
time.
Segelbaum asked if the house is built right up to the front setback line. Hogeboom
noted that the house was built 33.7 feet at its closest point to the front property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
Page 2
Hughes asked if the proposed new front stoop will be covered. Hogeboom said the
proposed new stoop will not be covered.
Howard Theis, Wooden Dreams, representing the applicant, reiterated that the
proposed new front stoop will not be a covered entry. It will just be front steps going into
the front setback area.
Hughes asked if the stoop is going to be constructed of wood. Theis explained that the
stoop will be constructed of brick and bluestone.
Segelbaum questioned the hardship. Theis explained that the current landing area is
only 3 % feet in size and the homeowner needs more room in order to stand on the
steps and open the front door.
McCarty asked if the front door could be approached differently or accessed from the
side. Theis said that could be an option but the way they are proposing to build the front
stoop is more congruent with the style of the house. He referred to a survey of the
property and added that their proposal also works better with the way the driveway is
placed.
Bridget Burke, homeowner, stated that extending the front stoop to the side won't solve
the safety issue because people would still have to take a step back in order to enter
the house.
Hughes said that this variance request is not a prominent part of the homeowners
reconstruction. He added that this is a minor request and it seems reasonable. McCarty
said he agrees the request seems reasonable but was wondering if the applicant had
thought about any alternatives.
Hughes asked if the proposed new steps would be higher than the previous steps.
Theis said the new steps will be slightly higher because they will have to be built
according to current code requirements.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Weisberg and motion carried unanimously to
approve the following variance requests:
. 7 sq. ft. more than the allowed 25 sq. ft. of stairsllandings into the front yard
setback area to allow for the construction of a new front stoop.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
Page 3
2404 McNair Drive (08-02-02 - continued)
Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest
pointto the front yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage with living space above.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(b) Side Yard
Setback Requirements
. 1.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage with living space above
Hogeboom reminded the Board that this applicant's requests were tabled at the
February 26, 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He stated that the requests were
tabled to allow the applicant time to explore different options to build their proposed
garage. He explained that the applicant has spoken with several builders and is now
back with the same variance requests, because she feels that her proposal is the best
way to construct the proposed garage.
Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant, stated that she spoke with six different builders. One builder
came up with a design changing the entryway that would cost $120,000. She said she
can't do that financially and in addition they would lose all of the windows in the living
room. She explained that another builder proposed to get rid of the dining room making
the traffic pattern unworkable. She showed the Board a proposal that would not require
variances but she would end up with a garage that would only be 18 feet in depth. She
showed the Board another proposal that indicated a 24 feet wide by 22 feet deep
garage which would require a slightly smaller variance.
McCarty asked the applicant if she is still planning on building living space above the
proposed new garage. Wahlin said they are not planning on building above the garage
at this point, but they may in the future.
Weisberg asked for clarification on whether the applicant is asking for 4 feet or 7 feet
off the front yard requirements. Wahlin clarified that she is now asking for 4 feet off the
required 35 foot front yard setback requirement.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
Page 4
Segelbaum noted that since the applicant is now proposing a 24-foot wide garage if she
would still require the requested side yard variance. Wahlin said she thinks she still
needs a side yard variance because of the angle of the lot line.
Sell stated that the variance requests would be for 4 feet off of the front yard
requirements and 1.5 feet off of the side yard requirements.
McCarty stated that the Board was clear about what they were looking for back in
February. He added that he is willing to work with the applicant but there are still other
options for this proposed garage.
Wahlin explained that with any other option she won't have an entrance from the
garage into the home. She'd have to walk outside of the garage and back into the
house. McCarty noted that the applicant presented plans that showed an entrance from
the garage into the house. Wahlin reiterated that she can't put an entrance in the dining
room as alternative plans suggest.
Weisberg asked if there is an entry into the house in the current garage. Wahlin said
no.
McCarty said he is not willing to grant the front yard variance request because he thinks
the garage addition in this case could work if done differently. Wahlin stated that she
wouldn't gain the entry into the house any other way and if she doesn't go forward
(toward the front) with the garage then she can only have an 18-foot deep garage and it
would make her dining room unworkable.
McCarty suggested moving the entry to a different location in the garage. Wahlin stated
that if the entry location were moved then there would be a doorway in the middle of the
garage and the garage would have to be even wider to accommodate that, or she
would have an entry right in the middle of her living room.
Segelbaum agreed that there are other options and suggested she make the garage
wider. McCarty agreed and suggested allowing a larger side yard variance, then the
garage could be built 27 feet wide which would allow for stairs inside the garage for the
entry into the house.
Hughes referred to the neighboring property at 2310 Byrd and asked how this garage
would affect them. Wahlin said the neighbor's back yard and deck would face the
proposed new garage. Weisberg said he thinks that encroaching on the neighbor's
deck is more egregious than building the garage more toward the front yard. McCarty
noted that all the houses on that street are lined up so to have this garage in front
would really stick out.
Hughes asked how close the neighbor's deck is to the property line. Wahlin said it is
fairly close to the property line. Segelbaum asked if the neighbors have any concerns.
Wahlin said the neighbor's are not objectionable. Hughes agreed that it is a bigger deal
to build the proposed garage closer to the neighbor's deck than it is to build forward
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
Page 5
toward the street. McCarty said he thinks the garage will be more noticeable if it is built
more toward the front than if it is built 1 more foot toward the side.
Cleon Wahlin, Applicant, stated that if the garage is just made wider there would have
to be a lot more dirt removed and that it works better with the elevation of the lot to build
the garage forward more to the front.
Segelbaum noted that if the applicants construct a 27 -foot wide garage then they would
need a 3 foot variance. Hughes reiterated that it bothers him more to allow the garage
to be built closer to the neighbor rather than toward the front. He added that the
neighbor's rights are important too and a slight front yard variance would be better.
McCarty suggested that the Board allow the applicant's to build their garage 9.5 feet
away from the side yard property line because there are many ways to do this addition
without variances. Sell stated that he doesn't think anyone would want to buy a house
that has a garage with an entry into the living room.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to deny
the request for 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (west) property line and approve the request for 1.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft.
to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow
for the construction of a garage addition.
108 Turnpike Road (08-05-04)
David & Joan Frenz, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(0) Cornices and Eaves
Requirements
. 16.8 inches more than the allowed 30 inches to a distance of
46.8 inches into the setback area.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant's home
is located 36.4 feet from the front yard property line. The applicants would like to
construct an overhead roof over the front steps that would encroach into the front yard
setback area.
Jay Fisher, Custom Home Service, representing the applicants, showed photos of the
existing house and a rendering of the roof overhang they are proposing.
Segelbaum asked if there will be an overhead roof constructed above the garage as
well as above the front door. Fisher said yes. He stated that they are proposing an
eyebrow across the garage but that part of the proposal is within the 30" of allowed
overhang into the setback area. He added that the homeowners could construct a
porch within the zoning code requirements but a porch would not work in this situation.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
Page 6
Sell asked how the proposed gable roof would be supported. Fisher said the roof would
be supported with brackets attached to the house, not posts going down to the ground.
Weisberg asked how much further out the gable over the front door is compared to the
proposed eyebrow over the garage. Fisher said the gable over the front door is
approximately 42 inches deep.
Segelbaum asked if the dimension of the stairs will be staying the same. Fisher said
yes.
Weisberg asked about the hardship. Fisher said they would like to have a covered
entryway.
McCarty asked how this proposal is different from a porch. Hogeboom stated that a
porch has supports that go to the ground. He reiterated that the applicants could
probably build a porch in the same location without a variance but it doesn't work in this
situation with the style of the house. Fisher added that he thinks the existing stairs are
floating and they wouldn't be able to support a porch.
Hughes said that architecturally the proposed roof overhang will be an asset.
Segelbaum agreed that there would be a positive impact to the surrounding properties.
He noted that the existing house was built right up against the front yard setback.
MOVED by Weisberg, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to
approve 16.8 inches more than the allowed 30 inches to a distance of 46.8 inches into
the setback area.
1051 Sumter Avenue South (08-05-06)
Vasiliv Mamnev, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 11 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that this is a corner lot and
therefore has two front yard setback areas but the area where the applicant wants to
build the garage addition is actually on the side of the house. He stated that the
hardship noted by the applicant is that they currently have a single stall garage.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
Page 7
McCarty asked about the width of the existing garage. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure.
McCarty guessed that the existing garage is approximately 13 feet wide. He questioned
the location of the storage shed located on the property.
Segelbaum referred to a fence located along the south property line and asked who it
belonged to. Hogeboom said he doesn't know who owns the fence.
Vasiliy Mamnev, Applicant, stated that it is a simple project. They currently have a one
stall garage and they would like to have a two stall garage.
Sell asked the applicant how long he has lived in this house. Mamnev said 9 years. Sell
asked the applicant if he built the shed. Mamnev said yes.
McCarty asked the applicant about the width of the existing garage. Mamnev said it is
approximately 13 or 14 feet in width.
Weisberg referred to a photo of the property and questioned if the garage addition
would encroach on the neighboring house at 1060 Rhode Island.
Hughes referred to a red brick area located next the existing garage and asked if the
proposed new garage addition would be in approximate location of those bricks.
Mamnev said yes.
Segelbaum asked the applicant about the fence along the south property line. Mamnev
said the fence is 6 feet in height and he built it. Segelbaum asked if he planted the trees
there as well. Mamnev said yes. He referred to the survey and showed where the fence
and trees are located.
Segelbaum asked what the ultimate width of the garage would be. McCarty referred to
the survey and stated that the garage would be 29 feet wide in the front. He said he
would like to see the variance minimized.
Weisberg asked what the overall dimensions of the garage would be. Sell stated that
the proposed garage would be 29 feet wide in the front and 37 feet in the back.
McCarty suggested reducing the width of the garage in front to 25 feet to make the
variance request 6 feet off the required 35 feet instead of the requested 11 feet off the
required 35 feet. Sell suggested allowing one more foot in order to make the width of
the garage an even number. McCarty suggested allowing the width of the garage to be
24 feet in width.
Sell stated that the proposed garage is over the 1,000 square feet allowed. McCarty
said if they allow the applicant to construct a 24-foot wide garage than he would be
under the 1,000 square feet allowed.
Mamnev said he would like to build an entry door into the garage and he wasn't sure if
he could with a 24 feet wide garage. Segelbaum suggested the applicant make a
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 2008
Page 8
connection between the existing garage and new garage addition instead. Mamnev said
he will reconfigure the entry door location.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve 8 ft.
off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south)
property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition.
III. Other Business
Sell reminded the Board Members of the upcoming board and commission recognition
dinner.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 1 0 pm.
Mike Sell, Chair
Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
April 28, 2008
Present: Commissioners Baker; Chand lee; Pawluk and St. Clair. Also present were AI
Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative
Assistant.
Absent: Commissioners Anderson and Hill
1. Call to Order
Pawluk .called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes - March 24. 2008
MOVED by St. Clair, seconded by Baker, and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the March 24, 2008 meeting.
3. Commission Member Terms
Lundstrom reviewed the term dates for all the Commissioners. Anderson's term expires on
5/1/08. She will be contacted by the City Managers office regarding her reappointment.
4. 1/1 Presentation
Utilities Supervisor, Dave Lemke, explained the Inflow and Infiltration inspection process by
showing a video of a private sewer inspection.
5. 2008 Plan Development
Council directed Staff to contact J. Drake Hamilton from Fresh Energy about speaking at a
joint meeting of the three commissions. Staff will advise the commission as information is
known. Pawluk will continue to work on a one page summary of the 2008 priorities and will
send to Lisa when completed.
6. Program/Project Updates
TMDL - A study update from the website was reviewed.
III - Reviewed during Dave's presentation
Private Development Updates - Talks continue with a senior apartment complex on
Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road regarding alternative best management
practices to ponding.
DiGacimo Home Builders is doing working in the N. Tyrol area and has submitted a
proposal for a housing complex. However the proposal is it not complete so it has
been sent back for further information.
Recycling Collection Options - Minnetonka and Golden Valley have approved
recycling contract extensions. Plymouth has approved an RFP which will be sent out
soon. The details of the St. Louis Park contract have not been released. Staff will
keep the commission informed as information is made public. Pawluk will pass along
an article he read in the paper regarding compost collection in the Linden Hills area.
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
April 28, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Sweeny Branch Bank Stabilization Project - Lundstrom shared photos of the project.
Willow and Dogwood posts have been planted.
Valley Days - At the last meeting, the question was raised about displaying
information at this event. Staff confirmed that this is a private event, not a City
sponsored event. Volunteers are welcome to set up a display with the approval of
the Valley Days committee.
7. Commission Member Council Reports
None.
8. Other Business
None
9. Adiourn
MOVED by Baker, seconded by St. Clair, and the motion carried to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 8: 13 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be on May 19,
2008 at 7:00 pm.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
May 12, 2008
Present: Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Linda Loomis, Philip Lund, Dean Penk,
Marshall Tanick and Blair Tremere
Guest: Sharon Glover
Absent: Luke Weisberg (GVCEF Representative)
Staff: Jeanne Andre
The meeting began at 7:17 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Approval of Minutes
Tremere/Heidelberg moved to approve the minutes of April 17, 2008, as presented.
Motion carried.
Golden Valley Connects Outreach
Communications Workina Group - The group hasn't met again.
Concert in the Park MC coordination and Ice Cream Social - Jeanne Andre
reported on a draft policy, regarding non-profit groups participating in the Concerts in
the Park, that will be discussed by the Council at the May 13 Council/Manager Meeting.
The group discussed the provisions related to the sale of food required by the Hennepin
County Health Inspector for an Itinerant Food License. After some discussion the group
asked Chair Loomis to present an alternative concept to the Council, not involving the
sale of food. The Council would permit the Connection Project to coordinate and
approve informal participation by non-profit groups at the Concerts in the Park.
Participation would involve announcements and brief presentations related to
community building. The group also discussed the impact of the Itinerant Food License
requirements on the ice cream social. Blair Tremere has inquired with a few local
businesses about sponsoring the ice cream social but there has been no response up to
this time. Riva Kupritz is unable to serve as coordinator for the Social. Linda Loomis will
make other inquiries.
Speaker's Bureau - Philip Lund has been working on other priorities at this time and
will present his comments at a future meeting after the Festival.
Golden Valley Days Booth - Philip Lund reported that there will be 13 booths with 16
participants in the community organization section of the festival. Philip has painted and
rebuilt the May Pole/coffee counter, which will be staffed by volunteer Janet Garfield.
Blair Tremere has secured balloons for the event. Members reviewed their volunteer
assignments at the Connection Project/Bridge Builder booth. Additional people
volunteered to be on the take-down crew from 3 to 4 pm. Members reviewed the lilac
planting sign-up card and suggested revisions. Members also recommended another
sign-up card for other Bridge Builder activities. Suggestions included the ice cream
social, buckthorn busting, gorilla gardeners, dog park promoters and serving on the
Connection Project Board.
Bridge Building Activities
Quarterly Meetina - Linda Loomis will check with the Eloise Butler Wildflower Garden
to see if the summer Quarterly Meeting can be held there. She proposes a picnic,
meeting and tour of the garden. The suggested dates are still July 12 or 19 although
some members are not available on these dates.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
May 12, 2008 - Page 2
Fundraisina to support Bridae Buildina Activities - A draft letter to the Golden
Valley Community Events Fund (GVCEF) was in the agenda packet. The draft reflects
discussion with Luke Weisberg at previous meetings. The group supported the
language in the draft letter with the inclusion of an additional activity -lilac planting. The
letter will go out on May 27.
Bridae Builder Grants - Dean Penk proposed a meeting of the subcommittee on
Thursday, May 22, at 6:30 pm, at his house to discuss the latest draft of the criteria. Jim
Heidelberg, Blair Tremere, Philip Lund and Sharon Glover plan to attend.
Community Awards
The members reviewed the draft overview of the proposed community awards program.
Minor changes were recommended and the group brainstormed on a catchy name for
the program. The group consensus was to brainstorm about the name more at the next
meeting.
Recruitment of Members to the Executive Board
Sharon Glover expressed interest in serving on the Board. Mayor Loomis will bring this
appointment to the Council.
Presentation at the league of Minnesota Cities
Helene Johnson suggested that Linda Loomis and Philip Lund meet with her to discuss
a PowerPoint presentation for the League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference in
Rochester. The session on community visioning will be on Thursday, June 12 at 11 am.
The group decided to meet on Tuesday, May 20, at 4 pm, at City Hall to discuss the
presentation. Jeanne Andre will ask Cheryl Weiler to attend.
Future Meetings
The next meeting is June 19
The meeting ended at 8:55 pm.
Jeanne Andre
Assistant City Manager
alley
Mem randu
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Purchase New 800 MHz Radio Communication System
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Summary
Pursuant to the 2008 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and to meet the operation
and communication needs of the City, staff recommends the purchase of the new
800 MHz radios for the Public Works and Inspection Departments. The change in radio
communications systems is necessary to operate on the Statewide Interoperable Public
Service 800 MHz Radio Communications System and to allow day-to-day and
emergency radio communication between all departments within the City. A one-time
opportunity to purchase radios below state contract pricing is possible due to the sale of
radios used by the Republican National Committee (RNC) for its convention in
September 2008. The City must respond with the number of requested radios by July
15, 2008, in order to have the opportunity to purchase these radios (see attached
pricing sheet).
The 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Vehicles and Equipment #028-
(page 30) Radio System Infrastructure (Public Works) includes $260,000 for the
purchase of the 800 MHz Trunked Radio System. Staff has received the RNC radio
promotional pricing sheet and The Minnesota Materials Management Division awarded
Contract No. 437255 to Motorola Communication for this equipment. The breakdown of
the City's cost to purchase the equipment is as follows:
Portable Mobile Carry Vehicle Single 6 Rack
Vendor Radios Radios Case Holder Charger Charger Total
RNC and $98,750.00 $15,978.75 $1,020.00 $4,802.75 $0.00 $8,032.50 $128,584.00
Motorola
Motorola 50
Portable $116,234.00 $15,978.75 $1,020.00 $4,802.75 $2,244.00 $8,032.50 $148,312.00
Radios
The following options are presented for consideration:
Option 1
If accepted to participate, purchase the 800 MHz radio communication system at a not
to exceed amount of $128.584.00 from Motorola Communications utilizing Minnesota
Materials Management Contract pricing and RNC Promotion pricing.
Option 2
In the event that the City is not able to participate in the RNC promotion, purchase the
800 MHz radio communication system at a not to exceed amount of $148,312.00 from
Motorola Communications utilizing Minnesota Materials Management Contract pricing.
Attachments
Price Quote (5 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to purchase the 800 MHz radio communication system from Motorola
Communications and its RNC promotion at an amount not to exceed $128,584.00; or if
participation in the RNC promotion is not possible, to purchase the radios directly from
Motorola Communications in an amount not to exceed $148,312.00.
MOTOROLA INC.
Prepared By: Randy Beach
Ref: Motorola 800 Metro Equipment
ANCOM COMMUNICA TIONS, INC.
Type: Manufacture Representative
ti;;'W:;;i~tWI\'.'."_!~~IIM~-~tl!ltit\~I~;:~~
-.,)ji,'~";-_"~-,,,",~Ur,~DV1:~;;,,'i~~:ij~!'l~,~!_,",,,;\!t~fl1'<<''-.,,),0.,''.-...,,"'.,.,''
City of Golden Valley Public Works
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Customer Name
Dealer Name
Contact Name
Office Phone
Office Fax
Email
Date: Jun. 25, 2008
Quote #: RNC80625
Thank you for contacting me to discuss your communication needs. I am glad to have the opportunity to work the the City of Golden Valley
Proposal Notes and Other Information
Motorola oromotion or soecial offers
Special Instructions And/Or Billing: (For the purchase order.)
No
Please contact the following -
Shari Schmitz@952-237-5526
shar.schmitz@motorola.com
Mike Fink at 218-279-2911
mike.fink@motorola.com
Sincerely,
I look forward to discussing this proposal in more detail with you. Please feel free to give me a call at 763-428-7884 with any questions or concern.
Randy Beach
Ancom Communications Inc.
Quote Number:
RNC80625
City of Golden Valley Public Works
June 25, 2008
Account Manager: RANDY BEACH
Phone: 763-428-7884
* XTS 2500 Model II Portable
1 a 50 H46UCF9PW6_N Motorola XTS 2500 RNC PACKAGE
* Includes the following -
Sotware 9600 Baud (MN Metro Pkg.)
- Includes the following
* 0806 - CAI Operation
* 0361 - Astro 25 Software
* H38 - Smartzone
* 0173 - Omnilink
* H14 - PTT 10
b 50 Q393 alt: Batt impres NiMH FM 2000 mAH NTN9857
c 50 H885BK 2 Year Extended Service Plan
d 50 NTN9857 2000 mAh NiMH SMART Battery
e 50 H885BK XTS Desktop Rapid Rate Charger
2 S&H Shipping and Handling
3 P&G Programming
4 TAX Tax Exempt per M.S. 297A Sub D 8
$1,975.00
$98,750.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
* No Charge per State Contract
* Customer to arrange programming
I Qu....on Total $98,750.00 I
Ancom Communications Inc - 1800 East Cliff Road, Suite 17, Burnsville, MN 55337 - Ph: 952-808-0033 Fax: 952-808-0034
Randy Beach - Direct Phone 763-428-7884, Direct Fax 763-428-7886, Email: randybeach@earthlink.net
Please call Randy with any questions.
* Thank You for choosing Ancom Communications for your communication needslll
2
MOTOROLA INC.
ANCOM COMMUNICA TIONS, INC.
Prepared By: Randy Beach
Type: Manufacture Representative
Ref: Motorola 800 Metro Equipment
Customer Name
Date: Jul. 01, 2008
Quote #: MR80701
Rev 2 - Dated 5/25/08
Thank you for contacting me to discuss your communication needs. I am glad to have the opportunity to work the the City of GQ.!den Valley
Proposal Notes and Other Information
Motorola promotion or special offers
Special Instructions And/Or Billing: (For the purchase order.)
No
See attached TAB. PO Check List
Sincerely,
I look forward to discussing this proposal in more detail with you. Please feel free to give me a call at 763-428-7884 with any questions or concern.
Randy Beach
Ancom Communications Inc.
Quote Number:
MR80701
City of Golden Valley Public Works
July 1, 2008
Account Manager: RANDY BEACH
Phone: 763-428-7884
* XTS 2500 Model II Portable
1 a 50 H46UCF9PW6_N Motorola XTS 2500 Modell! 700/800 Mhz Pbl $1,054.00 $52,700.00 * XTS 2500 Discount. 32%
b 50 Q574 Sotware 9600 Baud (MN Metro Pkg.) $1,139.00 $56,950.00
- Includes the following
* 0806 - CAI Operation
* 0361 - Astro 25 Software
* H38 - Smartzone
* 0173 - Omnilink
* H14-PTTID
c 50 Q393 alt: Batt impres NiMH FM 2000 mAH NTN9857 $55.76 $2,788.00
d 50 H885BK 2 Year Extended Service Plan $67.00 $3,350.00
* Motorola Portable Accessories
2 50 NTN7247A Nylon Carry Case w/snap belt loop & T Strap $20.40 $1,020.00
3 16 WPLN4114AR XTS impres 110 Volt Destop Charger $140.25 $2,244.00
4 65 RLN4884 XTS Travel Charger $80.75 $5,248.75
5 7 WPLN4130 XTS impres Multi Unit Charger w/Display $1,147.50 $8,032.50
* XTL 2500 DASH MOUNT Mobile Radio * XTL 2500 Discount - 25%
6a 5 M21URM9PW1AN Mot XTL2500 Dash Mount Mobile $1,122.75 $5,613.75
b 5 G442 ADD: XTL 2500 Control Head $219.00 $1,095.00
c 5 G444 ADD: XTL 2500 ControL Head Software $0.00 $0.00
d 5 G806 Astro Digital CAI Operation Software $386.25 $1,931.25
e 5 G51 Smartzone/Singlezone System Software $731.25 $3,656.25
f 5 G361 Astro 25 Software $225.00 $1,125.00
g 5 G173 Smartzone Ominlink Software $150.00 $750.00
h 5 G66 ADD: DASH MOUNT $93.75 $468.75
5 W22 Standard Palm Microphone $54.00 $270.00
j 5 B18 Auxiliary 5 Watt Speaker $45.00 $225.00
k 5 G335 Antenna - 1/4 Wave (764-870 Mhz) $10.50 $52.50
I 5 G114 Enhanced DigitallD Display $56.25 $281.25
m 5 G24 2 Year Repair Service Advantage (3 Year) $102.00 $510.00
2
7
8
9
S&H
P&G
TAX
Shipping and Handling
Programming
Tax Exempt per M.S. 297A Sub D 8
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
* No Charge per State Contract
* Customer to arrange programming
I Quotation Total $148,312.00 I
Ancom Communications Inc -1800 East Cliff Road, Suite 17, Burnsville, MN 55337 - Ph: 952-808-0033 Fax: 952-808-0034
Randy Beach - Direct Phone 763-428-7884, Direct Fax 763-428-7886, Email: randybeach@earthlink.net
Please call Randy with any questions.
* Thank You for choosing Ancom Communications for your communication needs!!!
3
Hey
Memorand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. F. Authorizing Application to Minnesota Department of Transportation Community
Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac Planting
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
Bridge Builder Dwight Townes had a vision to recreate the Highway 100 Lilac Way concept
on Highway 55. He learned about the Minnesota Department of Transportation Community
Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program which provides professional assistance to
develop a landscaping plan and has a grant program that supplies plant and related
(compost, mulch, etc.) materials to implement the plan. The program has two rounds of
funding for materials, one for fall planting and another for spring planting.
MnDOT staff has developed a plan that has been reviewed by City staff. To proceed with the
application the City must adopt a resolution providing its support and authorizing a
cooperative agreement with MnDOT. City staff will prepare the site and water the new plants
through the fall. The planting date has tentatively been set for the morning of Saturday,
September 20. MnDOT staff suggested that 35-50 volunteers would be necessary to
complete the planting in approximately four hours. Volunteers have been solicited through
CityNews and at -the Golden Valley Days Festival. There has been strong interest from
volunteers.
Attachments
Resolution Authorizing Application to Minnesota Department of Transportation Community
Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac Planting (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve Resolution Authorizing Application to Minnesota Department of
Transportation Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac
Planting.
Resolution 08-31
July 1,2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY ROADSIDE
LANDSCAPING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR HIGHWAY 55 LILAC PLANTING
WHEREAS, Bridge Builder Dwight Townes, in cooperation with the Golden Valley
Connection Project and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Landscape
Partnership Program, has initiated a project to landscape the Trunk Highway 55 right-of-
way from Wirth Parkway to Trunk Highway 169 in Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, the initial phase of this project proposes to invite volunteers to
landscape the TH 55 right-of-way from Winnetka to General Mills Boulevard/Boone Avenue
North under the MnDOT Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program
application period ending July 31,2008; and
WHEREAS, the support of the Golden Valley City Council and City staff is necessary
to apply for MnDOT funding and successfully implement this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Golden Valley will act as
sponsoring unit for the project identified as Highway 55 Lilac Planting, on state Trunk
Highway 55, to be conducted during the period of August through November, 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to
the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding for this project on behalf of the City
of Golden Valley and enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation to undertake this project if it is funded.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
M morand m
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. G. Authorization to Sign Agreement with LHB, Inc. for Douglas Drive Corridor Planning
Services
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
In July, 2007, the City was awarded $50,000 in federal funds to conduct a planning study
along the Douglas Drive Corridor. In April, the City Council, in conjunction with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, officially accepted federal funding for this project. The City
then released a Request for Proposal for planning services.
Ultimately, the City selected LHB, Inc. to conduct the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. LHB Inc.
was selected based on its ability to conduct a quality study within project guidelines. LHB,
Inc. has partnered with WSB Inc. to provide necessary engineering knowledge for this
project. The Douglas Drive Corridor Study is proposed to begin in the next several weeks and
end in January, 2009. During this time, the contractors will receive direction from the Douglas
Drive Corridor Advisory Committee (Breakfast Club) made up of Council Members, Planning
Commissioners, and staff. Mark Grimes, AICP, Director of Planning and Development, will
serve as Project Manager for this study.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Professional Services Agreement
with the LHB, Inc. for planning services for Douglas Drive to allow LHB, Inc., in conjunction
with WSB, Inc., to conduct the Douglas Drive Corridor I Connection to the Luce Line Trail
(S.P. 128-091-002) Planning Study.
alley
Memorandu
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. H. Authorization to Sign Contract with Environmental Process, Inc., for Professional
Services for the 2008 Building Maintenance Project
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Summary
In 2006, Wold Architects and Engineers prepared a Facility Analysis Report that identified
deficiencies in Golden Valley City buildings excluding the park shelters. In 2008,
Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) developed an implementation schedule. The 2008
program includes building repairs in the categories of life safety, ADA upgrades,
miscellaneous concrete, and buildinglsite maintenance at several buildings.
A proposal from EPI is attached for Council consideration to provide professional services for
design and construction observation for the 2008 Building Maintenance Project. The 2008-
2012 Capital Improvement Program (page 60) includes $250,000 for this work.
Attachments
Proposal letter from EPI for Architectural, Engineering, and Environmental Services, dated
June 24, 2008 (6 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize entering into an agreement for professional services with EPI for the 2008
Building Maintenance Project at an estimated cost of $31 ,000.
m::~ri:;;~~;~;'~1~:o~~~~;=~:~:corn. wwwg~i.com cpri'll
June 24, 2008
Mr. Al Lundstrom
Environmental Coordinator
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: City of Golden Valley
2008 Building Maintenance
Proposal for Architectural, Engineering, and Environmental Services
EPI No. 08-997
Dear Mr. Lundstrom:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Thank you for this opportunity for Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) to submit our proposal to provide
Architectural, Engineering, and Environmental services for the 2008 Building Maintenance Project
located at various City of Golden Valley Buildings. The 2008 Building Maintenance work scope is based
on the Building Maintenance Prioritization Report dated May 19,2008 as prepared by EPI and the
Facility Analysis Report as prepared by Wold Architects and Engineers dated October 16, 2006.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
We understand the intent of this project is to provide Architectural, Engineering, and Environmental
Services for building maintenance work items.
2.1 The scope of work for Phase 1- Schematic Design, Feasibility, and Cost Estimate are as
follows:
a. Field verify existing conditions, perform field measurements, verify existing project
conditions for the specific building maintenance items listed below:
1.) 2008 Life Safety work items per the 2008 Building Maintenance Prioritization
Report dated May 19,2008 totaling $12,800.00.
2.) 2008 ADA Upgrades work items per the 2008 Building Maintenance
Prioritization Report dated May 19,2008 totaling $86,500.00.
3.) 2008 Concrete work items per the 2008 Building Maintenance Prioritization
Report dated May 19,2008 totaling $ 15, 100.00
4.) 2008 Building/Site Maintenance work items per the 2008 Building Maintenance
Prioritization Report dated May 19,2008 totaling $59,750.00.
City of Golden Valley
2008 Building Maintenance
June 24, 2008
Page 2
b. Attend preliminary design review meeting with City of Golden Valley Staff to review the
preliminary schematic design and estimated cost of construction for each work item.
c. Finalize building maintenance work scope based on above site data and review meeting.
d. Building materials suspect asbestos survey (collection and analysis of samples). The
asbestos survey will only be required if suspect building materials (gypsum wall
board, joint compound, caulking, etc.) will be disturbed as a part ofthis project and
has not previously been tested.
2.2 The scope of work for Phase 2 - Construction Documents is as follows:
a. Preparation of registered Architectural/Engineering plans and specifications (contract
documents) for the purpose of obtaining public (open) bids for the building maintenance
work scope as determined in Phase 1 Schematic Design and Feasibility:
b. This proposal is based on the assumption that the work area is asbestos free. If asbestos
containing materials are found in Phase 1 Schematic Design and Feasibility, we
anticipate the additional fees for the abatement design (plans and specifications), project
management (Quality Control), and on-site monitoring during the abatement shall not
exceed $2,000.00.
2.3 The scope of work for Phase 3 - Construction Project Management / Quality Control is as
follows:
a. Prepare bid advertisement, submit to Owner for publication.
b. Distribution of plans and specifications to Bidders shall be done by Owner.
c. Pre-bid conference meeting with minutes.
d. Review Contractor questions, clarify work scope, Addendums, etc. during bidding.
e. Review Contractor Contract, Insurance, Bonds for Owner / Contractor Agreement,
(prepared by Owner).
f. Pre-construction conference meeting with minutes.
g. Shop drawing and submittal review (schedule, payment schedule of values, samples,
etc.).
h. Site observations during construction on a regular basis (as needed) during construction.
An Architects' Field Report will be prepared for each site observation. Eight (8) site
observations and Architects' Field Reports are included. Additional site observations and
City of Golden Valley
2008 Building Maintenance
June 24, 2008
Page 3
field reports during construction will be extra @ $300.00 per visit.
1. Contractor payment request and lien waiver verification reviews.
J. Contractor/Owner change order requests and execution.
k. Final punch list site observation with documentation, preparation of substantial
completion document, and one (1) follow up punch list site observation review.
Additional site punch list observations and reports will be extra @ $200.00 per visit..
1. Collect and assemble contractor closeout documents, Lien Waivers, IC-134, and
contractor as-built plan submittal to Owner.
m. EPI can complete an as-built set of documents at an extra cost after Contractor submits
their documents. This cost can be provided upon project completion.
3.0 CLIENT RESPONSmILITIES
This proposal is based on the following client responsibilities.
3.1 Provide the existing and/or as-built building plans & specifications (Architectural, Structural,
Mechanical, and Electrical).
3.2 Provide topographical survey and/or elevations of Community Center handicap ramp entry
and top of ramp (patio area) and Golf Maintenance Building site as required.
3.3 Provide any required documents to be inserted in the contract document.
3.4 Provide review ofEPI's contract documents before bidding.
3.5 Provide access to the building areas as needed.
4.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
4.1 Expansion of the scope of project.
4.2 Asbestos (hazardous materials) abatement design (plans and specifications). This proposal
assumes no asbestos is present in the work areas. The asbestos survey will be completed if
necessary in Phase 1 work scope. If the existing building materials are found to be asbestos, we
anticipate the additional fees for the abatement design (plans and specifications), management,
and on-site monitoring shall not exceed $2,000.00.
City of Golden Valley
2008 Building Maintenance
June 24, 2008
Page 4
5.0 FEE SCHEDULE
Based on the services as defined above, EPI proposes a time and material not to exceed professional
service fee for the total Architectural/Engineering and Project Management / Quality Control services.
This fee breakdown is as follows:
Phase 1 Schematic Design, Feasibility, and Cost Estimate
Phase 2 Construction Documents (plans and specifications)
Phase 3 Construction Proiect Management / Ouality Control Services
$ 8,600.00
$10,500.00
$ 8.600.00
Total Professional Fees (NTE)
$27,800.00
Estimated Reimbursable Expenses at actual costs - Estimated
$ 1.400.00
Total Project Estimate
$ 29,200.00
Additional Asbestos fees (If Necessarv)
Limited Asbestos Survey (based on 12 samples)
$ 1,800.00
Please feel free to call me at (763) 398-3040 with any questions or comments. We feel confident that we
can assist you and look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions or find
this proposal acceptable, please sign, date and return and we will schedule a date to begin.
Sincerely,
rJ:;;:;:;,mc.
Denny Langer, PE
Architecture/Engineering Manager
Copy: Charles A. Lane, EPI
Michael Berreau, EPI
Please sign below indicating your acceptance of this proposal. The attached AlA B727 agreement is
incorporated as part of this proposal. Two (2) copies of each are provided. Please sign both copies of the
proposal and AlA B727 agreement, return one (1) copy of each to EPI. This needs to be submitted prior
to start of this work to insure EPI's insurance requirements. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
provide this proposal.
Signature of Acceptance
Date
.~.~
"""
$7$0;00 .'.
$1i~XIO
$S,QElo.QG
..$1~~,oo
~45Q:OO
. ~.OO
~,OQ
~,dQ
$2SQ'.OO
f()j)OQ,ot)
~$,QOO~Oi:;)
2~
$!t'6~0l.1
~~qo;qo
.~5Oi{K)
$750;00
$OO@;;OO:
~1,~O~
alley
Memo ndum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
3. I. Receipt of May 2008 General Fund Budget Report
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly General Fund Budget report provides a progress report on the General Fund
operations for 2008. The revenues and expenditures show current month actual and year-to-
date actual compared to the 2008 approved budget.
Attachments
May 2008 General Fund Budget Report - unaudited (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the May 2008 General Fund Budget Report.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - General Fund
May, 2008
Percentage Of Year Completed 42.00%
Revenue:
Over %
2008 May YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $11,295,415 0 $8,466 ($11,286,949) 0.07% (1 )
Licenses 151,095 25,782 132,727 ($18,368) 87.84% (2)
Permits 750,000 65,180 283,762 ($466,238) 37.83% (3)
State Aid 50,500 7,657 30,268 ($20,232) 59.94% (4)
Charges For Services: (5)
General Government 36,010 754 4,293 ($31,717) 11.92%
Public Safety 157,080 6,895 52,686 ($104,394) 33.54%
Public Works 101,220 10,469 52,359 ($48,861 ) 51.73%
Park & Rec 383,725 27,616 162,200 ($221,525) 42.27%
Other Funds 1,187,000 4,950 22,293 ($1,164,707) 1.88%
Fines & Forfeitures 280,000 29,181 80,891 ($199,109) 28.89% (6)
Interest On Investments 260,000 0 0 ($260,000) 0.00% (7)
Miscellaneous Revenue 206,940 6,119 11,979 ($194,961 ) 5.79% (8)
Transfers In 175,000 0 0 ($175,000) 0.00% (9)
TOTAL Revenue $15,033,985 $184,603 $841,924 ($14,192,061) 5.60%
Notes:
(1) 1st 1/2 2008 tax settlement will arrive in July.
(2) Not all annual licenses have hit their renewal period.
(3) We hope to meet this goal in 2008.
(4) The Gang Strike Force ended this year. We will not be receiving
$26,864 as budgeted.
(5) Administrative charges to construction funds are made as contracts are paid out and included in other funds.
(6) Includes April receipts from the County.
(7) Interest earnings will be distributed at year;.end based on an average monthly cash balance.
(8) Annual building rents from Motor Vehicle, Golf & Vehicle Maintenance Funds will be received in June.
(9) Transfers will be made in June.
Percentage Of Year Completed 42%
Expenditures:
Over %
2008 May YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division BUdget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
Council $343,135 19,448 $163,335 ($179,800) 47.60% (1)
City Manager 802,550 55,794 289,058 (513,492) 36.02%
Admin. Services 1,549,110 89,947 462,186 (1,086,924) 29.84%
Legal 103,000 8,251 34,976 (68,024) 33.96%
General Gov't. Bldgs. 615,950 82,952 310,549 (305,401) 50.42%
Planning 388,980 22,318 115,989 (272,991 ) 29.82%
Police 4,291,240 311,601 1,700,141 (2,591,099) 39.62%
Fire 1,487,650 101,918 460,376 (1,027,274) 30.95%
Public Works Admin. 308,175 25,934 119,290 (188,885) 38.71%
Engineering 662,945 65,326 181,630 (481,315) 27.40%
Streets 1,322,660 97,183 411,360 (911,300) 31.10%
Community Center 78,825 4,342 29,171 (49,654) 37.01%
Park & Rec. Admin. 627,850 46,683 251,350 (376,500) 40.03%
Park Maintenance 945,905 69,145 331,603 (614,302) 35.06%
Recreation Programs 423,665 27,024 89,476 (334,189) 21.12%
Casualty Insurance 207,345 2,000 123,261 (84,084) 59.45% (2)
Transfers Out 875,000 0 0 (875,000) 0.00% (3)
TOTAL Expenditures $15,033,985 $1,029,866 $5,073,751 ($9,960,234) 33.75%
(1) Includes payments to the YMCA and Home Free Shelter.
(2) Insurance premiums significantly increased in 2008. This amount is for two quarters.
(3) Transfers are made in June.
alley
Memo ndum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
"60 Days" Deadline: August 29, 2008
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 401 - Conditional Use Permit 08-122 - 1985 Douglas
Drive - Honeywell, Inc., Applicant
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
At the June 9,2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval
of Conditional Use Permit #122 that would allow for a 92-foot telecommunications tower at
Honeywell, Inc., located at 1985 Douglas Drive. Honeywell, Inc. is located within the
Industrial Zoning District. Telecommunication towers are allowed as a conditional use in the
Industrial Zoning District.
The proposed tower, which will utilize a lattice design, will enable various types of research at
the Honeywell facility, including GPS fixed-position testing, and video camera testing. The
tower will not be used for broadcast purposes, and must meet all requirements set forth by
the Federal Communications Commission. City staff and the Planning Commission feel that
the proposed tower is in compliance with the ten factors in the City Code that determine the
eligibility of a conditional use. Included in the Planning Commission's recommendation are
thirteen conditions. The purpose of the conditions is to limit the effects of the tower on the
surrounding neighborhood. The conditions are listed below and in the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting.
1. No signage may be located on the tower or any attached antenna, except those that
provide necessary information as required by federal or state laws.
2. The tower or any attached antennas may not be artificially illuminated, unless required
law or the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Adequate access to the tower must be provided from a public right of way.
4. The tower must be adequately landscaped and screened with natural vegetation to
lessen its visual impact. The natural vegetation on the site must be documented on
site and landscaping plans submitted to the City.
5. The placement, design, use, and operation of the tower must comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications
Commission.
6. The owners of the tower must allow shared use of the tower if an additional user
agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use and sign the
Conditional Use Permit agreeing to requirements set therein.
7. No guy wires shall be permitted on the tower.
8. Reasonable security measures must be provided for the tower. A 10-foot high,
lockable fence must be installed around the base of the tower.
9. The tower must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. It must
conform to the City's Building Code.
10. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
11. All cameras mounted on the tower must be aimed on Honeywell's property.
12. The plans for the tower submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application
prepared by Radian and dated April 16, 2008 shall become a part of this approval.
13. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
The applicant has included specific plans for a telecommunications tower in the Conditional
Use Permit application. In addition to regulations set forth by the City, the applicant must also
meet regulations established by the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal
Aviation Administration, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Attachments
Location Map ( 1 page)
Memo to Planning Commission dated May 28,2008 (3 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2008 (5 pages)
Email fromJeffOliver.PE. dated May 12,2008 (1 page)
Drawings of Proposed Tower (3 pages)
Ordinance No. 401, Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 08-122, 1985 Douglas
Drive, Honeywell, Applicant (2 pages)
Site Plan (1 page, loose in agenda packet)
Aerial photo of 1985 Douglas Drive (1 page, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 401, Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 08-122,
1985 Douglas Drive, Honeywell, Inc., Applicant.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
May 28, 2008
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP-122) to
Allow for a Communication Tower at 1985 Douglas Drive - Jim Hiller (Honeywell,
Inc.), Applicant
Background and Proposed Use
Honeywell Inc., 1985 Douglas Drive, has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to
allow a 92 foot telecommunication tower. The property is located in the Industrial Zoning
District. Section 11.71, Subdivision 5(G)(1) of City Code permits telecommunication tovvers to
be located in Industrial Zoning District through a Conditional Use Permit.
Honeywell, having recently expanded operations at its Douglas Drive facility, intends to use the
proposed tower for GPS fixed position testing and video camera research, as well as intra-
company communication. The proposed tower will utilize a lattice design to enhance the ability
to climb the tower for maintenance procedures and research-related tasks. For its intended
purposes, the tower must remain stable and not sway in the wind. A lattice design enables the
tower to remain still in wind and other adverse weather. City Code does not indicate a .
preference between lattice-style towers and monopole towers.
Design and Performance Standards
To regulate the location, placement, construction, and maintenance of telecommunications
towers, the City has established design and performance standards. These standards require
telecommunication towers over 60 feet to be designed to accommodate additional antennas
from at least one other user. Towers must also be designed to allow other antennas mounted
at additional heights. City Code states that landowners must allow shared use of
telecommunication towers with other comparable uses if an agreement is reached which binds
additional users to provisions described in the Code.
As required by City Code, the proposed tower will be located entirely within appropriate
setback boundaries of the site. Additional design and performance standards regulate the
location of telecommunication towers on property as well as the design practices for towers.
These standards are reflected as conditions for the CUP, stated later in this report.
Analysis of Ten Factors
The Planning Commission must make findings on ten factors when reviewing a CUP
application. They are as follows with staff comment:
1. Demonstrated Need of the Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a market for
the proposed good or service necessitating a CUP. Honeywell has expressed its need for
GPS testing and video camera research, both of which require the use of a
telecommunication tower.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map guides the
Honeywell site as long-term industrial use. A telecommunication tower is consistent with
this land use designation.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Staff does not believe the approval of this permit .
will negatively affect property values in the area. As required by City Code, Honeywell must
place the proposed telecommunication tower within an area that is visually as unobtrusive
as possible, as well as preserve existing trees and landscape features that work to buffer
the view of the tower. Adhering to these measures will ensure no negative impact occur to
neighboring property values.
4. Effect of Use on Traffic in the Area: The proposed tower will have no impact on traffic.
5. Effect of Increases in Density or Population on the Area: The proposed tower will have
no effect on population. .
6. Increase in Noise Created by Use: Noise impacts created by the proposed tower should
not extend beyond the site.
7. Any Dust, Odor or Vibration caused by Use: The proposed tower will not create dust,
odor, or excessive vibrations.
8. Any Increase in Animal Pests Caused by the Use: The proposed tower will not attract
animal pests of any kind.
9. Visual Appearance of the Use: The visual appearance of the proposed tower must.
adhere to Section 11.71, Subdivision 6 of City Code. The visual appearance of the tower
will have minimal impacts to surrounding properties.
10. Other Effects of the Use: Staff does not anticipate any negative effects of the proposed
use.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing Honeywell to construct a 92
foot telecommunication tower. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the
following conditions:
1. No signage may be located on the tower or any attached antenna, except those that
provide necessary information as required by federal or state laws.
2. The tower or any attached antennas may not be artificially illuminated, unless required law
or the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Adequate access to the tower must be provided from a public right of way.
4. The tower must be adequately landscaped and screened with natural vegetation to lessen
its visual impact. The natural vegetation on the site must be documented on site and
landscaping plans submitted to the City.
5. The placement, design, use, and operation of the tower must comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications
Commission.
6. The owners of the tower must allow shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in
writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use and sign the Conditional
Use Permit agreeing to requirements set therein.
7. No guy wires shall be permitted on the tower.
8. Reasonable security measures must be provided for the tower.
9. The tower must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. It must
conform to the City's Building Code.
1 O.AII other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Aerial photo of site showing approximate location of proposed tower (1 page)
Email from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated May 12, 2008 (1 page)
Applicant's Drawings of proposed Tower (3 pages)
Site Plans (2 pages)
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valle Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Com ission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valle oad, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June
9,2008 Chair Keysser called the meet g to order at 7 pm.
Eck referred to page one an
Those pres were Planning Commis
Schmidgall an Idhauser. Also pres
Grimes, City Plann
ners Cera, Eck, Ke , Kluchka, McCarty,
anning and Development Mark
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
. es should have been listed as present.
Eck referred to the sec
the word "than" shou
sentence in t e fourth parag
e the word "the
Waldhauser ref; ed to the second para aph on page five and state at the last
sentence sh ~ be changed to read...h significant the grade change '1 be, rather than
how signi' nt the grade is.
the ninth paragraph on page seven and stated
fore the words "drainage problems".
Wal user referred to the last sentence
he word "existing" should be added
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the
May 28, 2008 minutes with the above noted changes.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Honeywell - 1985 Douglas
Drive - CU-122
Applicant: Honeywell
Address: 1985 Douglas Drive
Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit will allow for the construction of 92' tall
communications tower
Hogeboom stated that Honeywell is proposing to construct a 92-foot tall communications
tower on their property located at 1985 Douglas Drive which is zoned Industrial. He
explained that communications towers are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the
Industrial zoning district.
Hogeboom explained that the applicant has stated that the proposed tower will be used for
GPS fixed positioning testing and video camera research. The tower will be a lattice design
because of the need to climb it for maintenance and research-related tasks. He referred to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 2
the City's design and performance standards and noted that these standards require
telecommunications towers over 60 feet to be designed to accommodate additional
antennas from at least one other user. He added that City Code states that landowners
must allow the shared use of telecommunication towers with other comparable uses if an
agreement is reached which binds additional users to provisions described in the Code.
Hogeboom referred to his staff report and reviewed the ten factors the Planning
Commission must use to make findings when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit
application. He noted that Honeywell has demonstrated a need for this use, the proposal is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and staff does not believe there will be an
adverse effect on property values in the area. He added that staff is recommending
approval of the proposal with the conditions listed in his staff report.
Keysser asked if there will be a security fence around the base of the tower. Hogeboom
said he wasn't sure and suggested the applicant address that issue.
Keysser asked about illumination of the tower. Hogeboom referred to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and noted that most of the requirements apply to towers
that are 100 feet or taller.
Cera asked the height of the tower in relation to the height of the building. Hogeboom said
he wasn't sure how tall the building is but the existing water tower on the HOneywell site is
approximately 120 feet in height.
Kluchka referred to the staff report regarding landscaping and asked what "adequately
Tandscaped" means. Hogeboom stated that it basically means that any current trees or
landscaping that would act as a buffer would have to remain. Kluchka questioned if
condition number 4 regarding landscaping really applies. Grimes added that that base of
the tower probably won't be visible from the street.
Hogeboom suggested adding the installation of security fencing as a condition of approval.
Eck asked about the height of the City's water tower. Grimes said he wasn't sure but
assumed it is over 120 feet in height.
Leon Trout, Honeywell Project Manager, reiterated that the proposed tower will be used for
research and that they will not be broadcasting anything. He explained that Honeywell is
moving this function from their Camden location to their Golden Valley location and that the
proposed tower needs to be 92 feet in height in order to see the horizon.
Keysser asked Mr. Trout how he feels about adding a security fence around the base of the
tower. Trout said he feels fine about adding a 10-foot high, lockable security fence around
the tower. He explained that the proposed tower will also be camouflaged by the existing
building.
Keysser asked about the type of lighting that will be used. Trout said they will not need any
lighting on the tower. He added that the cameras on the proposed tower will be watching
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 3
their own parking lot. McCarty asked how the City can be sure the cameras will only be
watching the parking lot. Trout said that Honeywell would be willing to sign an agreement.
McCarty questioned the things Honeywell will be doing that they are not willing to talk
about. Trout stated that Honeywell will be doing customer research and that they don't want
to name their customers. He reiterated that they will only be doing scientific research and
testing and no broadcasting.
Kluchka asked about the color of the proposed tower. Trout said the tower will not be
painted. It will be a galvanized tri-pod tower.
Keysser asked about the likelihood of interference with cell phones, telephones, televisions,
etc. Trout said he is not aware of any interference issues.
Eck asked if the location of the proposed tower was a deliberate choice. Trout said yes and
explained that there are limitations on how far away the tower can be from the access
equipment in the building.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Pat Lamon, 1701 Hampshire Lane, stated that she has gone through a lot of things with
Honeywell where they've said they will do things and they have not done them. She said
she doesn't feel the City can approve this proposal without knowing how it will affect cell
phones, televisions or GPS systems.
Lynn Jacobs, 6500 Hampshire Place, stated that she lives right across the street from
Honeywell and she will walk into her yard and look up and see this tower. She said she is
concerned about her property value and aviation lights lighting up her yard. She said she is
also concerned about the cameras and interference with her television and cell phone. She
urged the Planning Commission to consider the potential impact to homeowners.
Keith Heimer, 6405 Hampshire Place, said he has similar concerns as the previous
speakers. He said he would like to know more about future antennas being located on the
proposed tower and he wants to know the exact location and design of the proposed tower.
He said there is another tower located on Douglas Drive and questioned the necessity of
another one. He said he doesn't want to see this tower from his home and it will de-value
his property and he wants to see a limit placed on future height expansion.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Keysser asked the applicant if there will be aviation lights on the tower. Trout said no.
Keysser asked the applicant about future expansion of the tower. Trout said there will not
be any future expansion of the tower. He showed the Commissioners a drawing of the
proposed tower.
Keysser asked about potential interference with other electronics. Trout reiterated that he is
confident there will be no interference.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 4
Grimes explained that the City's lighting ordinance doesn't allow towers to be lit unless the
FAA requires lighting. He referred to the City's telecommunication ordinance and explained
that the City wants to make sure that when towers are built they can support additional
antennas rather than having to build towers all over the City.
Trout reiterated that the tower being proposed is not a transmittal tower. He said he thinks if
it were going to be a cell tower they would have to come back to the City for approval
because it would be a different use.
Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission isn't approving the use of the tower they are
just supposed to be considering the height and the land use. He referred to the questions
regarding interference and said he thinks that would be an FCC issue not a City issue.
Grimes noted that he has never had a complaint regarding interference from towers.
Kluchka said he would like to add a condition of approval regarding the installation of a
security fence. Keysser suggested adding the fence requirement to number eight in the
conditions of approval.
Kluchka said he would also like to add a condition that the tower can only be a maximum of
92 feet in height or a height that doesn't require lighting. Keysser said he thinks that if
Honeywell wanted a taller tower they would have to come back to the City for approval.
Grimes agreed that if Honeywell changes their proposal from what they've submitted they
would have to come back for approval. He suggested that a condition of approval be added
to state that the plans submitted with this application shall become a part of the approval.
Schmidgall stated that the addition of the 12-foot whip antenna would make the proposed
tower 100 feet in height. Grimes referred to the telecommunications ordinance and
discussed antenna location and mounting and stated that he would consider the proposed
structure to be 92 feet in height. Waldhauser noted that the 12-foot whip antenna may be a
horizontal antenna.
McCarty asked if there would be an increase in noise as a result of this tower. Trout said
there will not be any noise.
McCarty said he is not comfortable with this proposal because the use is not clearly
defined. Eck stated that no one wants to have to look at towers, but they are everywhere.
He said he doesn't want to discount people's concerns but there are so many towers and
poles and wires around that people get accustomed to seeing them.
Cera suggesting adding a condition of approval that states that the tower will only be for
receiving and not transmitting. Grimes stated that Honeywell could sell or lease their facility
in the future and if the tower is there they might as well use it. He stated that if the concern
is about the cameras, there could be a condition added that states that they can only be
aimed at Honeywell's property. He noted that the residential properties are 800 feet or
further away from Honeywell.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 5
Keysser clarified that the additional conditions discussed have been as follows: add
language regarding a 10-foot high, locking fence around the tower to condition number 8,
add a condition number 11 that states all camera angles will be on Honeywell property and
add a condition number 12 that states that the plans submitted with the application shall
become a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
McCarty stated that condition number 6 regarding the shared use of the tower "if
reasonable" seems to conflict with City Code which states that towers are required to co-
locate. Keysser stated that if another antenna is installed on this proposed tower then it
becomes a part of this conditional use permit.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 92-foot telecommunications tower to be
located at 1985 Douglas Drive - Honeywell, subject to the following conditions:
1. No signage may be located on the tower or any attached antenna, except those that
provide necessary information as required by federal or state laws.
2. The tower or any attached antennas may not be artificially illuminated, unless required
by law or the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Adequate access to the tower must be provided from a public right of way.
4. The tower must be adequately landscaped and screened with natural vegetation to
lessen its visual impact. The natural vegetation on the site must be documented on site
and landscaping plans submitted to the City.
5. The placement, design, use, and operation of the tower must comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications
Commission.
6. The owners of the tower must allow shared use of the tower if an additional user
agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use and signs the
Conditional Use Permit agreeing to requirements set therein.
7. No guy wires shall be permitted on the tower.
8. Reasonable security measures must be provided for the tQwer. A 10-foot high, lockable
fence must be installed around the base of the tower.
9. The tower must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. It must
conform to the City's Building Code.
10. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
11. All cameras mounted on the tower must be aimed on Honeywell's property.
12. The plans for the tower submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application prepared
by Radian and dated April 16, 2008 shall become a part of this approval.
13. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation.
Wittman, Lisa
~_~~"~'.'.~W,"".~~.'WN~~"'.~_w.,','='.'_,,="'~'m"^'m_~.."_.~.~..,,__._..~_"N.'~~.~='M'~"NY.Wh,,.===~,~Y"m'~'~'-_..,,,,-,,,...,,..,_~,,~,_,,"'_._"'^,....__m~.'<~.w.~~.w.."~.",,,,,,-,,,,,V.~__',^""~,,,_,_~~,~"~"""'_'''''A_.~_~',W_"N~,''V_,^_.y~._m.~,"_.~~~_._^~""""""'-,
From: Oliver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, May 12,20089:37 AM
To: Wittman, Lisa; Grimes, Mark
Cc: Lundstrom, AI; Clancy, Jeannine; Eckman, Eric
Subject: Honeywell Communications Tower
Mark:
Public Works staff has reviewed the materials for CU-122. There are no Public Works comments on this submittal.
Jeff Oliver, PE
City Engineer
City of Golden Valley
Phone: 763.593.8034
Fax: 763.593.3988
e-mail: joliver@ci.golden-valley.mn.us
5/12/2008
~
TOWER DESIGN LOADING
DESIGN WIND LOAD Pm 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (lBC)
USING ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3108.4
90 MPH FASTEST MILE WIND SPEED (1.65" RADIAL ICE LOAD)
110 MPH 3-SECOND GUST WINO SPEED (1.65" RADIAL ICE LOAD)
THIS TOWER IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LOADS:
ELEV- ANTENNA LINE
A TI 'N TYPE SIZE
FT NOM
BB (2) 12' WHIP ANTENNAS (2) 1/2"
B5 (2) 12' WHIP ANTENNAS (2) 1/2"
BS (2) YAGI ANTENNAS (2) 1/2"
60 (I) CCTV CAMERA (3) 1/2"
40 (3) GPS ANTENNAS (3) 1/2"
SEE STRESS ANAL YSIS FOR A COMPLETE LISTING OF ALL LOADS ON TOIllER.
ill ,
~ ~
"'"
sa
6C
60
... 4 M 7
... NOTEI SEeTl""
III FOR /lDMIJ
REFER ro
"
... ~
~
~
'"
I
l5
G.L.
"
6 A-BOL TS( IB TOTAL)
I " DIA.X 70" LONG
ASTM F/554 GR. 105
TOWt=R REACTIONS
COMPRESSION ./72.6 KIPS
TENSION 156. I KIPS
TOTAL SHEAR 19.9 KIPS
O. T.M. 979.6 rT-KIPS
O.
TOIlER
AXIS
TOWER CONFIGURATION
N.T.S.
. GENERAL NOTES
I. RADIAN COMMUNICATION TOWER DESIGNS CONFORM TO
ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIF'IED UNDER TOWER
DESIGN LOADING.
2. THE DESIGN LOADINI3 CRITERIA INDICATED HAS BEEN PROVIDED
TO RADIAN AND HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO BE BASED ON
SITE-SPECIF'IC DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-r
AND MUST BE VERIF'IED BY OTHERS PRIOR TO INSTALLA TION.
3. ANTENNAS AND LINES LISTED IN TOWER DESIGN LOADING TABLE ARE
PROVIDED BY OTHERS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIF'IED.
4. TOWER MEMBER DESIGN DOES NOT INCLUDE STRESSES DUE TO ERECTION
SINCE ERECTION EQUIPMENT AND CONDITIONS ARE UNKNOWN. DESIGN
ASSUMES COMPETENT AND QUALIF'IED PERSONNEL WILL ERECT THE
TOWER.
5. WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-r,
"STRUCTURAL STANDARDS rOR STEEL ANTENNA TOWERS AND ANTENNA
SUPPORTING STRUCTURES".
6. THE MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH Dr STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS SHALL
BE 50 KSI. EXCEPT AS NDTED BELOW.
ANGLE BRACES LI.5XI/8 THRU L2X2XI/4 SHALL BE 36 KSI.
STRUCTURAL PLA TES SHALL BE 36 KSI.
7. F'IEW CONNECTIONS SHALL Bt BOL TED. ND F'IELD WELDS SHALL BE
ALLOWED.
8. STRUCTURAL BOLTS SHALL CONrORM TO ASTM A-325, EXCEPT WHERE
NOTED.
9. PAL NUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED rOR ALL TOWER BOL TS.
10. STRUCTURAL STEEL AND CONNECTION BOLTS SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED
I3ALVANIZED ArTER rABRICATION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-r.
II. ALL HIGH STRENGTH BOL TS ARE TO BE TIGHTENED TO A "SNUGTIGHT
CONDITION AS DErINED IN THE NOVEMBER 13, 1985, AISC "SPECIF'I-
CATION rOR STRUCTURAL JOINTS USING ASTM A325 OR A490 BOLTS".
NO OTHER MINIMUM BOL T TENSION OR TORQUE VALUES ARE REQUIRED.
12. PURCHASER SHALL VERlrY THE INSTALLATION IS IN CONF'ORMANCE
WITH LOCAL. STATE. AND rEDERAL REQUIREMENTS rOR OBSTRUCTION
MARKING AND LIGHTING.
13. TOLERANCE ON TOWER STEEL HEIGHT IS EQUAL TO PLUS IX OR MINUS
1/2X.
14. DESIGN ASSUMES THAT, AS A MINIMUM, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION
WILL BE PERrORMED OVER THE LIrE Or THE STRUCTURE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-r.
15. DESIGN ASSUMES LEVEL GRADE AT TOWER SITE.
16. rOUNDATIONS SHALL BE OESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE REACTIONS SHOWN
rOR THE CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THE SITE.
TOWERSlTE: GOLDEN VALLEY
COUNTY: HENNEPIN. MN
N~.4 Rev/.',m D..crl t/on .. 04,. .. R.v" .. Ckd 8 AA dB
THIS DRAWING IS THE' PRfJPER,TY OF" RADJAN. IT IS R A D I A N
NOT TO. SF REPFiODUCEO. COPIED OR TRACED IN WH:2LE
OR IN PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT.
Sc:.,.~ MJIE
REV.
Dr.",",
92' SSV TOWER DESIGN
FOR
ADOLFSON & PETERSON CONSTRUCTION
EN8. FILE. I...... ""., AOB0199
0604BOO
Ch.i:kedt
~
P.".n' FJ I.:
SHEET I OF I
TSTower - v 3.6.8 Tower Analysis Program
(c) 1997-2006 TowerSoft www.TSTower.cam
~.
Licensed to: Radian Communication
Peoria, Il, USA
File: C:\Documents and Settings\ehaschke\Desktop\0604800.out
Contract: 0604800 Revision: 1
Project: 92' SSV Site: GOLDEN VALLEY,MN
Date and Time: 4/J.6/2008 J.1:0J.:2J. AM Engineer: eeh /;/11
DESIGN SPECIFICATION
Design Standard: TIAlEIA.222.F.1996 12.00
Basic Wind speed = 90.0 (mph) I'
Service Wind speed = 50.0 (mph)
Ice thickness = 1.65 [111)
/
Sct. Length Top Width Bot Width
(ft) (in) (in)
1 20.00 57.95 81.97
2 20.00 57.13 56.14 20.00
3 20.00 55.20 56,14
4 20.00 54.72 55.20
5 12.00 54.25 54.72
20.00
92.00
20.00
M.6XIMUM BASE REACTIONS
Bale
Iced
20.00.
Download (Kips J
Uplift (Kips)
104.5
93.2
172.6
156.1
Shear (Kips) 8.0 13.6
/fIlfI1 To!:: q 7f1.' /(. FT
707l/t- Sht"a....::: /1. f IL..
{074-t ANC?fQ"t 1! Ot IJ
". et .,
:::: (18) I /)14 l(' 70
NOTE: SEE TOWER ASSEMBL YDRAWING FOR FOUNDATION LAYOUT AND
ANCHORAGE EMBEDMENT DRAWING NUMBER
r- 9'-0"
I
REACTIONS
10'-0"
MAX O. T.M. = 1000.6 FT-KIPS
TOTAL TOWER WT. = 21.0 KIPS
TOTAL SHEAR = 19.9 KIPS
MAX. SHEAR/LEG = 13.6KIPS
MAX. TEN.lLEG = 156.1 KIPS
MAX. COMP.lLEG = 172.6 KIPS
lEa
18'-0"
~I
PLAN VIEW
CONCRETE VOLUME
27.00 CUBIC YDS.
2'-6" ~ ~
1 GROUND LINE
1 =11I1=
7'-6" 1
7'-0"
1=1111=1111=
NO.4 CIRCULAR TIES ON
3w CENTERS
(12) NO.7 VERT. BARS
EQUALL Y SPACED ON A 21"
DIA. CIRCULAR CAGE
WI 90. HOOKS A T BOTTOM (TYP.)
2'-0"
(20) NO.6 HORIZONTAL BARS
iEQUALL Y SPACED EACH WA Y,
TOP & BOTTOM (80 TOTAL)
ELEVATION VIEW
TOWER SITE: GOLDEN VALLEY, MN
No. ~ Revision Description
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RADIAN. IT IS NOT
TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, OR TRACED/N WHOLE
OR PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT.
Scale: NONE By Date
Drawn: EEH
~ Date A Rev By ~ Ckd By A Appd By
::: ~ RtIN PROOOcrS&ACCESSORIES
_...~ ....._ PEORIA, I1, USA +18QO 727 ROHN
Checked'
App. Eng.:
Parent A7e:
MAT WITH RAISED PIERS FOUNDATION DETAILS
FOR
ADOLFSON & PETERSON CONSTRUCTION
ENG. FILE: DWG. NO.: A080200
060-4800 SHEET 1 OF 1
REV.
ORDINANCE NO. 401, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 08-122
1985 Douglas Drive
Honeywell, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is
amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, and Section 11.30, by approving a Conditional Use
Permit for a certain tract of land at 1985 Douglas Drive, thereby allowing the applicant to
construct a 92-foot telecommunications tower located in the Industrial Zoning District.
This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the findings of the Planning
Commission pursuant to City Code Section 11.80 subd. 2(G), which findings are hereby
adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be
issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions:
1. No signage may be located on the tower or any attached antenna, except those
that provide necessary information as required by federal or state laws.
2. The tower or any attached antennas may not be artificially illuminated, unless
required by law or the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Adequate access to the tower must be provided from a public right of way..
4. The tower must be adequately landscaped and screened with natural vegetation
to lessen its visual impact. The natural vegetation on the site must be
documented on site and landscaping plans submitted to the City.
5. The placement, design, use, and operation of the tower must comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications
Commission.
6. The owners of the tower must allow shared use of the tower if an additional user
agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use and
signs the Conditional Use Permit agreeing to requirements set therein.
7. No guy wires shall be permitted on the tower.
8. Reasonable security measures must be provided for the tower. A 10-foot high,
lockable fence must be installed around the base of the tower.
9. The tower must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. It
must conform to the City's Building Code.
10. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all
times.
11. All cameras mounted on the tower must be aimed on Honeywell's property.
12. The plans for the tower submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application
prepared by Radian and dated April 16, 2008 shall become a part of this
approval.
13. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation.
Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as
follows:
Parcel 1: Lot 3, Block 1, Honeywell Golden Valley 2nd Addition, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (torrens property, certificate of title
no. 1062207)
Parcel 2: Non-exclusive easements as contained in Easement Agreement dated
March 28, 2001, recorded April 5, 2001 as Document No. 3375556 in the Office of the
Registrar of Titles, and as Document No. 7450025 in the Office of the County
Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sec. 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 1 st day of July, 2008.
IslLinda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
IslSusan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
alley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1,2008
"60 Days" Deadline: July 18, 2008
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 402 - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 03-105-
Amendment NO.1 - 8300 10th Avenue North - HLM Sports, LLC, Applicant
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
At the June 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval
of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #105 that would allow for a 45' x 55' sport court
at Hey Coach, located at 8300 10th Avenue North. Basketball would be the primary sport
played on the proposed court. Hey Coach, a sports training facility, is located in the Industrial
Zoning District.
The proposed court would be located outdoors. However, HLM Sports has expressed interest
in applying fora temporary cover structure at a later date. The Planning Commission and
staff believe the proposed court addition meets the ten factors for consideration of a
Conditional Use Permit, set forth by City Code. Neighboring business owners, as well as
residential property owners to the north, have expressed concern over noise, loitering, and
trespassing as a result of the proposed court. To protect against misuse of the court, the
Planning Commission recommends requiring the applicant to render the court inoperable
after business hours. The Planning Commission has also advised Hey Coach and
neighboring businesses to discuss parking issues and create a solution to prevent misuse of
neighboring parking lots.
The applicant has included specific plans for a sport court in the Conditional Use Permit
Amendment application. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended 16
conditions for the proposed court, which are reflected in the Planning Commission minutes
and are listed below. These conditions work to protect neighboring homes and businesses
from the effects of the proposed court.
1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Avenue North building prepared by HTG Architects and
dated June 8, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates parking
spaces on the site.
2. A revised site plan prepared by HTG Architects and dated May 14,2008 shall become
a part of this approval. This plan indicates the location of the sports court.
3. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Avenue North building prepared by WCL
Associates and dated September 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This
indicates the layout of the interior of the space. Changes to the interior can be made
as long as it does not increase the size of the space for Hey Coach and the changes
are consistent with the Hey Coach use.
4. A drainage and erosion control permit must be issued for the construction of the sport
court.
5. When the outdoor sports court is in use, a staff member shall be present outdoors.
6. The outdoor sports court shall be closed outside of business hours. The basketball
hoops shall be retractable or be made unusable after business hours.
7. Doors are to remain closed at all times.
8. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. All lights
shall be shielded so as to minimize lighting spillover on to other properties. All outdoor
lighting shall be turned off at 9 pm.
9. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code.
10. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front door.
11. No loud speakers, public address system, or whistles shall be used outside.
12. At least 30 parking spaces shall be available.
13. Operating hours shall be as follows: 9 am to 9 pm.
14. Hey Coach shall work with the property owners at 8360 10th Avenue North regarding
prohibiting customers parking and playing in their parking lot.
15. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met.
16. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the CUP.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memo to Planning Commission dated June 4, 2008 (4 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2008 (6 pages)
Applicants Narrative (2 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated June 2,2008 (1 page)
Memo to Planning Commission dated October 20,2003 (3 pages)
Existing Conditional Use Permit (1 page)
Site Plan (1 page)
Ordinance NoA02, Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-105, Amendment No.1,
8300 10th Avenue North, HLM Sports, LLC, Applicant (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance NoA02, Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-105,
Amendment No.1, 8300 10th Avenue North, HLM Sports, LLC, Applicant.
1::"" ^'" ·
I ..., ....R
Mh;lcr~'Ji..~At-AMS.. C~~~C.fW.:;'~GtS~
9000
9lIOO
----
(>
----;~
I~
I~
l~
m
:.t
1M2 i4ZS
1336 1413
ii30 1401
1324 fi25
1319
1313
U07
1430-
1.bo
!t~::
8DOO
81110
00000
o 0
:I:::
. fiu(r
, ~~io:
, J.Q16....:2:
"."','"
!1a:w
L::--
C
o
1000
18300 10th Ave. N.I
(>
Q
o
o
820
o
(>
o
o
o
_"qW~Vf,lN
925
8511
00000
lI325
00000
830
Q
825
il3ll1
fIb
. III
o Ii
Q i~
7450 ':t
800
8)00 cBI
7$0
730
00 0000 C<ii8DiJ Q 0 000
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
June 4, 2008
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject
Informal Public Hearing on Amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for
Hey Coach (formally Home Run Hitters) Training Facility at 8300 10th Ave. N.
HLM Sports, LLC--Applicant
In November, 2003, the City of Golden Valley issued a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the
operation of a baseball/sports training facility at 8300 10th Ave. N. At the time the facility
opened, it was operated by Steve Kitsis and was named Home Run Hitters. On January 8,
2008, Home Run Hitters was sold and the facility was purchased by HLM Sports, LLC, and the
name changed to Hey Coach. As indicated in the attached description of the Hey Coach
business, Hey Coach would like to expand to include training for basketball as well as
baseball. According to the new owners, this multi-sport approach will generate more revenue
and make the business successful.
In order to provide the necessary space to practice and play basketball games, Hey Coach
must provide space for a basketball court. They did examine the possibility of altering the
existing indoor space but they found it to be very expensive because the floor would have to
be lowered or the ceiling made higher. The other alternative that they have chosen is to build a
small outdoor basketball court that would be 45 ft. by 55 ft. in size on a concrete slab with a .
Sport Court surface. They propose to have two light poles for outdoor lighting.
(As indicated in their written explanation of the proposal, they would like to have an inflatable
or tent structure over the court for use during inclement weather and during the fall and winter.
However, staff has told the applicant that this inflatable or tent structure cannot be included in
the amended CUP application unless it is shown to staff that the structures meet all state
building and fire codes. The applicant has not yet gotten the requested information on the tent
or inflatable structure so only the outdoor court is part of this CUP amendment applicatibn.)
A copy of the existing CUP for Home Run Hitters is attached. This CUP only covers operating
the training facility within a building. In fact, one of the conditions is that there will be no outside
music, loud speakers or public address system. Also, the doors are to remain closed at all
times. There was a concern that the doors would be opened when it was hot inside the
building and that there would be noise or music heard outside. Up to this date, the City has
received no complaints regarding the operation of Home Run Hitters (now Hey Coach).
1
The proposed change to the CUP would allow the 45 ft. by 55 ft. sport court to be constructed
directly north of the Hey Coach space as indicated on the site plan. The court would be located
20 ft. from the building and 20 ft. from the west or side property line. They propose to have two
light poles so that the court can be used in the evening hours. The court would not require the
removal of any parking spaces or access to the cell tower lease space located at the north end
of this property adjacent to the railroad tracks.
The outdoor court brings up a couple of issues that are different from only an indoor sports
training facility. First, noise could be a concern. I suggest keeping the condition that there be
no outside music, loud speakers or public address system. Also, no whistles should' be used
since that type of noise travels long distances and there are houses to the norttlacfOss the
railroad tracks. Second, the concern about open doors is the same. Doors should remain.
closed at all times in order to keep noise inside the building. Third, there is a concern about
outdoor lighting of the court. However, they will not be operating after 9 pm so lighting issues
would be minimal. Also, they will have to meet the cities lighting standards that require
recreational lighting to be shielded so as to minimize spillover to adjacent properties. Because
this property is within an Industrial zoning district and there is a significant tree cover to the
north, the lighting should not be a problem if proper shields are installed.
Due to the nature of the sports training facility and its location, the small outdoor court should
not have a negative impact on the area. Most of the activity will be done in the evening hours
and on weekends when most of the businesses in the area are vacant.
In terms of parking, the existing CUP requires that 30 spaces be dedicated to Home Run
Hitters. This is more than adequate for this type of business. There has not been any parking
issues related to the business operation and the staff sees no reason to believe that the. new
operator will experience any parking problems due to the outdoor basketball court.
Factors for Consideration
As part of the original CUP application, staff made findings on 10 factors as required by the
zoning code. These findings by staff and those findings added by the Planning Commission
must be sent on to the City Council for their consideration of the CUP. The findings are as
follows:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that
an applicant has identified a market for a proposed for or service. In this case, the new,
owners have determined that there is a market for basketball training at this location in.
additional to baseball training.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan identified the site for long-term
industrial uses. Recreational uses, by conditional use, can be considered for that land use
classification. In the case of Golden Valley, other comparable recreation uses are located in
the Industrial zoning district such as the skate park on Florida Ave. S.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Approval of this amended CUP will not
substantially alter the extent or nature of the neighboring site development or activity. Hey
Coach will primarily operate when other businesses in the area are not open. Also, the
outdoor court is a significant distance from any residential uses.
2
4. Effect on Any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and
Congestion in the Area: Due to the nature of the business and its primary hours of
operation when other businesses in the area are closed, staff does not believe the
expanded Hey Coach will cause undue congestion in the area. The number of employees
and customers anticipated on the site at anyone time would not cause a problem with
access to 10th Ave. N. or any other neighboring street.
5. Effect on Any Increase in Population: Staff does not believe that the number of
employees or customers that will be on site will cause a negative impact on the area.
6. Increase in Noise level: With the exception of the outdoor basketball court, all activities ..
occur inside the building. The outdoor court should not be that noisy considering the
requirement that the site have no outdoor music, loudspeakers or public address syst~m.
Staff would add to the amended CUP that the use of whistles be prohibited.
7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke, Gas or Vibrations Cause by the Use: The added outdoor court
should not cause any of these problems.
8. Any Increase in Animal Pests as a Result of the Proposed Use: The added outdoor
court will not have an impact on animals in the area.
9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Use: The proposed outdoor sport court with two
lighting poles should not have a significant impact on the area. The sport court is located to
the rear of the building and will have limited visibility from the street.
10. Other Concerns Regarding the Amended CUP: Any changes to the interior of the
building will require permits from the City. Staff does not have an issue with the interior use
of the building as long at it relates to sports training. As with the Home Run Hitters
operation, there can be sales of sporting good items and other items related to sports.
These sales are usually in a Pro Shop. The building can also be used for small gatherings
such as birthday parties and team events.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the amended Conditional Use Permit to allow Hey Coach to
have a 45 ft. by 55 ft. outdoor court with two lighting poles. The outdoor court cannot be
enclosed without another amendment to the CUP and approval from the City's Building Official
and Fire Marshal. The amended CUP will contain many of the conditions of the existing Cl,JP
with a couple of additions. The conditions are as follows:
1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by HTG Architects and dated June
8, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates parking spaces on the site.
2. A revised site plan prepared by HTG Architects and dated May 14, 2008 shall become a
part of this approval. This plan indicates to location of the sports court.
3. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by WCL Associates and dated
September 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This indicates the layout of the
interior of the space. Changes to the interior can be made as long as it does not increase
the size of the space for Hey Coach and the changes are consistent with the Hey Coach
use.
3
4. A drainage and erosion control permit must be issued for the construction of the sport
court.
5. When the outdoor sport court is in use, a staff member shall be present outdoors.
6. The outdoor sport court shall be closed outside of business hours.
7. Doors are to remain closed at all times.
8. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. All lights shall be
shielded so as not minimize lighting spillover on to other properties. ;
9. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code.
10. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front door.
11. No boom boxes, loud speakers, public address system, or whistles shall be used outside.
12. At least 30 parking spaces shall be available.
13. Operating hours shall be as follows: 9 am to 10 pm.
14. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met.
15. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation
of the CUP.
Attachments
Location Map ( 1 page)
Applicant's Narrative (2 pages)
Existing Conditional Use Permit (2 pages)
Memo from Mark Grimes dated October 23,2003 (3 pages)
Memo from Ed Anderson dated June 2,2008 (1 page)
Site Plan dated May 14, 2008 (1 page)
4
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 6
3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment #1 - HLM
Sports, LLC - CU-105
Applicant: HLM Sports, LLC
Address: 8300 10th Avenue North
Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit Amendment will allow for the construction
of an outdoor sports court
Grimes noted that this is a request by HLM Sports doing business as Hey Coach at 8300
10th Avenue North. He stated that the conditional use permit would allow the applicant to
construct a sports court to the rear of the building.
Grimes explained that when the original conditional use permit was issued to Home Run
Hitters the use was more baseball oriented. The new owners want to expand and have the
proposed outdoor sports court for basketball training. He noted that there was a concern
when the original conditional use permit was issued that all activities be done inside the
building.
Grimes referred to a site plan and discussed the location of the proposed sports court. He
noted that the proposal meets the setback requirements and the applicant has stated that
they would like to add some lighting as well.
Grimes stated that the applicant originally wanted to place a tent structure over the
proposed sports court but he has not provided staff with the necessary structural
engineering information so at this point the conditional use permit request is only for the
outdoor sports court. He noted that if the applicant intends to put the tent structure over the
sports court in the future he will need to come back to the City for another conditional use
permit amendment.
Grimes stated that he doesn't think there will be any parking issues as a result of the
proposed sports court. He said there may be some concern about noise issues so staff is
recommending that there be no music, speaker systems or whistles allowed on the sports
court. He stated that the owners of the neighboring property to the west have some security
concerns and there is also some concern about what happens when the court is closed and
have questioned if the property has cameras or a locked fence. He stated that staff feels
the proposed sports court will be ok if there is no lighting after 9 pm and the security
concerns are addressed.
McCarty asked for information regarding the proposed retaining wall. Grimes stated that a
grading permit will be required. McCarty said he is more concerned about a child potentially
falling off of a 5-foot high retaining wall.
Kluchka asked about the current parking situation. Grimes stated that there are other
tenants in the building but the applicant's business mostly occurs off-hours on weekends or
after 5 pm so parking should not be a problem. He stated that the property owners to the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 7
west are concerned about cars parking in their lot rather than in the parking lot on the
applicant's property. He added that many of the customers are kids who are dropped off
and picked up by their parents.
Andrew Atkin, Owner of Hey Coach, applicant, stated that he purchased Home Run Hitters
in January and that customers are supportive of the baseball use part of the year but the
only viable business option is to have a multi~season, full year~round business. He stated
that he has partnered with Minnesota Developmental Basketball who will provide coaches
and training. He added that they've also added a teen fitness center and a lounge area for
teens.
Keysser asked about the teen fitness center. Atkin explained that the fitness center is a
combination of traditional weightlifting with "excergaming" which is a computerized circuit
training system. Keysser asked if the center is membership based. Atkin stated that he
offers both member and non~member rates.
Keysser asked the applicant how he felt about installing a security fence around the
proposed sports court. Atkin said installing a 10-foot high security fence around the sports
court might not be aesthetically pleasing and when they come back for approvals for the
tent structure over the sports court the fence would have to be taken out.
Keysser asked about the tent structure. Atkin explained that the tent structure is 45 feet by
55 feet and is barn-like in shape.
Waldhauser suggested the hoops be taken down after hours. Atkin said he would consider
hoops that retract or fold up. He noted that they are quite a distance from residential areas.
Grimes stated that there is a residential area to the north.
Grimes asked if the sports court will be a "half~court". Atkin said the sports court is
approximately a "half-court" and stated that there will be three basketball standards so they
can give three private lessons at the same time but they won't have three basketball games
at the same time.
Cera asked for clarification of the hours of operation. Atkin stated that his longest hours
would be in summer and they would be 9 am to 9 pm on weekdays, 10 am to 5 pm on
Saturdays and 12 pm to 5 pm on Sundays. Grimes added that the original conditional use
permit for this property had different hours. He explained that in his recommendation listed
in his staff report he said the business could be open until 10 pm in order to give the
applicant some flexibility. He added that the City doesn't typically restrict businesses hours.
Waldhauser asked the applicant if he needs to be open until 1 0 pm. Atkin said no, they
don't work past 9 pm.
Cera asked the applicant why he isn't proposing the tent structure now with this request.
Atkin said he hasn't made a decision about the tent structure yet but he wants to get the
basketball program up and running this summer. Cera referred to the fence suggestion and
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 8
asked if it would be taken down in six months or whenever the tent structure is installed.
Atkin said that he would consider having a fabric type fence or retractable hoops.
McCarty asked the applicant to address the retaining wall. Atkin said it is more of a
landscape wall than a concrete retaining wall. He said it will be a boulder wall and will
"grade down" and into the berm. McCarty asked if the proposed court will be at the grade of
the parking lot. Atkin said no, it will be at the grade of the building. McCarty questioned if
there will be a guard rail installed. Atkin said he would address that.
McCarty referred to condition number six in the staff report regarding no whistles and asked
how that would work. Atkin said the referees would just say "foul".
Keysser asked if there would be basketball leagues. Atkin said he is exploring that option
but the use will be mainly training and having fun.
McCarty asked about the interior building height dimension. Atkin said it is approximately
14 feet in height inside the building which is too short for basketball.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Walter Sellman, 1290 Yukon Court, stated that when Home Run Hitters originally opened
he was concerned about noise. He said he was misled by the lack of detail in the hearing
notice he received because he thought this request was for outdoor baseball. He said he
wants there to be security fencing around the proposed sports court and he would only
want the sports court open during business hours. He said he also wants to know more
about the lighting.
Greg Wagner, General Manager/President at Midco AN, 8360 10th Avenue, stated that he
is located at the property directly to the west of the applicant's property. He said there have
been some issues with their customers parking in his lot and they have been
confrontational at times. He said that sometimes their customers also use his parking lot as
a park and play baseball around the cars. He said he is concerned about people loitering
around the area. He suggested that a privacy fence be installed along the property line
between their two properties. He asked if there have been any studies done on other
similar operations regarding the impacts in demographics or impacts on properties. He said
he is not necessarily opposed to the proposal he is just concerned about having to chase
people off his property.
Terry Steen, 1149 Orkla Drive, stated that he also thought the hearing notice meant that
there were going to be baseball batting cages outside. He said he can hear baseball games
from Wesley Park a mile away so he will be impacted if people are closer. He said he is
concerned about lighting, noise, whistles and people loitering. He stated that he is also
speaking for his neighbors located at 1286 Yukon Court and 1288 Yukon Court who are not
in favor of any change in use for this property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 9
Bruce Russell, 1145 Orkla Drive, said he also thought the proposal was for outdoor batting
cages. He said if the sports court is enclosed it will be more private and he is open to the
idea if over the long-term he is assured that the noise will be limited.
Nancy Wagner, Midco AN, 8350 10th Avenue, stated that their building been defaced and
their trucks have been broken into and have had the gas siphoned out of them so there is
an element of crime in the area. She stated that a lot of trucks come in and out of their
parking lot so she is concerned about the children's safety.
Keysser asked about the location of Midco AN's loading docks. Nancy Wagner stated that
their loading docks are located on the east side of their building and reiterated that it will be
very dangerous if children are there during the day.
John Lindblom, 1293 Yukon Court, said he has a three-season porch that is quiet and he
wants to keep it that way. He said he is concerned about lighting, noise and outdoor
baseball.
Grimes reiterated that one of the conditions of approval states that there can be no music,
whistles or loud speakers outside.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Keysser asked the applicant to discuss the lighting. Atkin stated that there would be two
stanchions, one on each end of the sports court. He said that the light fixtures would be
aimed down, not toward the residential neighborhood. Schmidgall added that the City's
lighting ordinance would prohibit the light from shining on other properties. Grimes stated
that the conditional use permit could specify that lights have to be turned off at 9 pm, but
throughout most of the summer, they probably won't even need to use the lights.
Keysser asked the applicant to address security. Atkin said he thinks it is important to point
out that this proposed sports court is not a playground. He stated that anytime someone is
on the court they will be with a coach or a referee.
Waldhauser asked about people using the parking lot of the property to the west and the
truck traffic going in and out and people being disrespectful. Atkin said the best way for the
neighbors to deal with those types of issues is to make him aware of the problems. He said
he would be happy to install "no parking" signs so his customers are aware that they
shouldn't be parking in the next door neighbor's lot.
McCarty asked about the age of the customers. Atkin said most of the program participants
are 8 to 16 years old.
Cera asked the applicant how he felt about installing a fence along the property line
between this property and the property to the west. Atkin stated that it would be redundant
and expensive if he has to install fencing around the sports court and along the property
line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 10
Eck asked the applicant if he was planning to construct the tent structure as soon as
possible and if the tent structure would extend the use of the sports court throughout the
winter months. Atkin said yes, his plan is to construct the tent structure as soon as possible
so he can have year-round business. Eck asked if the tent structure will be heated. Atkin
said yes. Eck asked if the tent is considered a permanent structure. Atkin said no, because
it can be taken down. Grimes explained that staff hasn't yet determined if it will be
considered a permanent structure because they haven't received any structural
engineering information about the tent as of yet. He added that typically if a structure is up
for less than 180 days it is considered temporary and if it is up for more than 180 days it is
considered permanent.
Grimes suggesting adding conditions of approval that state lighting needs to be turned off
after hours and that the applicant should work with the property owner to the west
regarding the parking of Hey Coach customers in their lot. Atkin said he was surprised to
learn that his customers were parking in the neighbors' parking lot because his parking lot
is never full.
Hogeboom added that most of the residents he spoke with were concerned about security
after hours. Waldhauser stated that making the basketball hoops inaccessible after hours
will help with the security issues. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that the
sports court will not be usable after business hours.
Cera said he would like to change the hours of operation listed in the staff report to state
that the closing time would be 9 pm instead of 10 pm. Grimes suggested saying no outside
use after 9 pm.
Kluchka referred to recommendation number eight in the staff report and stated that it
should be changed to read that all lights shall be shielded to minimize lighting spillover on
to other properties. Waldhauser added that that the language about the sports court lighting
being turned off at 9 pm should also be added to recommendation number eight.
Kluchka referred to recommendation number eleven in the staff report and stated that the
words "boom boxes" should be taken out. He said he is concerned about people parking at
the property next door and he thinks a fence between the two properties is appropriate to
prevent people from going on the property next door. Grimes reiterated that he would like
the applicant to talk to the property owners next door to try and resolve the issues.
Keysser said he is not inclined to require a fence between the two properties because it will
be redundant once the applicant comes back to the City for approvals for the tent structure.
Kluchka said he would be voting no on this proposal until he sees a fence between the two
properties.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of
an amended Conditional Use Permit at 8300 10th Avenue North which would allow Hey
Coach to construct an outdoor sports court with the following conditions. Commissioner
Kluchka voted no.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 9, 2008
Page 11
1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by HTG Architects and dated
June 8, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates parking spaces
on the site.
2. A revised site plan prepared by HTG Architects and dated May 14, 2008 shall become
a part of this approval. This plan indicates the location of the sports court.
3. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by WCL Associates and
dated September 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This indicates the
layout of the interior of the space. Changes to the interior can be made as long as it
does not increase the size of the space for Hey Coach and the changes are consistent
with the Hey Coach use.
4. A drainage and erosion control permit must be issued for the construction of the sport
court.
5. When the outdoor sports court is in use, a staff member shall be present outdoors.
6. The outdoor sports court shall be closed outside of business hours. The basketball
hoops shall be retractable or be made unusable after business hours.
7. Doors are to remain closed at all times.
8. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. All lights
shall be shielded so as to minimize lighting spillover on to other properties. All outdoor
lighting shall be turned off at 9 pm.
9. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code.
10. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front door.
11. No loud speakers, public address system, or whistles shall be used outside.
12. At least 30 parking spaces shall be available.
13. Operating hours shall be as follows: 9 am to 9 pm.
14. Hey Coach shall work with the property owners at 8360 10th Avenue North regarding
prohibiting customers parking and playing in their parking lot.
15. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met.
16. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the CUP.
4.
lie Hearing - Rezoning.... Rez ing the Properties in the 1-394
d Use Zoning District
Applicant:
Purpose:
To rezone the p,
current zoning district
Kluchka asked why the item wa$ ed. Keysser s
non-conforming land use iss and property owne
regarding existing land u ecoming non-confor
Hogeboom stated th me existing land uses will
he thought it was table ecause of
sues. He asked for c1arific 'on
g once the properties are rezoned.
come non-conforming uses but they
III
'I
It:
HEY COACH
CLUB HOUSE
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
HLM Sports dba Hey Coach Club House
Proposed Changes to Use
On January 10,2008 Hey Coach acquired the assets of the Home Run Hitters a baseball
training facility located at 8300 10th Avenue North in Golden Valley. Home Run Hitters
had operated under a CUP since 2003. The Home Run Hitters venture was unsuccessful
as the previous owner did not recognize the seasonality of the business and the need for a
multi-season sports offering.
The Hey Coach business plan was based on adding Basketball as an additional sport
which would generate revenues during the Summer and Fall seasons. To execute this
plan Hey Coach will need to build a basketball court at the current facility. Consultations
with designers and engineers have resulted in the opinion that it is best to construct the
court on a small piece of property directly behind the facility. The owner of the property
has consented to this construction indicated by his signature on the CUP.
The basketball court will be 45 X 55 feet located on a concrete slab that will be covered.
with a Sport Court surface. There will be two light poles that focus light down on the
court for night time use. We propose to cover the court from November through April
with a temporary membrane structure so that it can be used during the winter season. No
existing parking spaces will be eliminated as part of this plan.
The basketball court will be used in the following manner:
1. An open court available to surrounding leagues, schools and park/recreation
functions.
2. To provide Private and Group basketball instruction
3. To host weekly 3 on 3 basketball tournaments for 10 - 18 year olds.
We anticipate the hours of operation to be as follows:
Winter:
Weekdays 3-9 PM
Weekends 9 -7 PM
8300 10TH AVENUE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 763545 2005
Summer:
Weekdays 9a - 9p
Weekends 12- 5 P
There are many community benefits to amending this CUP which include:
I. An additional basketball facility in an area which has a scarcity of courts
2. A family friendly facility which helps Golden Valley athletes excel in their
chosen sport
3. Located in a light industrial area with no surrounding residences.
4. A facility which supports the various leagues of surrounding communities
5. A facility which generates a significant source of customers for surrounding
dining establishments
Please contact Andrew Atkin, President, Hey Coach with any additional questions.
Hey
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
To:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning
From:
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Subject: Conditional Use Permit for Hey Coach located at 8300 10th Avenue North
Date: June 2, 2008
cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application and documentation for the
conditional use permit for the installation of an air supported structure located at 8300 10th Avenue
North. The Minnesota State Fire Code requires that the installation and maintenance of an air
supported structure shall be in accordance with the following items:
1) The installation of the air supported inflatable structure shall not be erected for a period of
more than 180 days.
2) The air supported inflatable structure shall not be within 20 feet of a lot line, buildings or other
tents, parked vehicles or internal combustible engines.
3) The air supported inflatable structure will be required to have not less than 2 air blowers, each
of which must be adequate to maintain full inflation of the structure.
4) Exit sign illumination will be required by the Minnesota State Building Code.
5) The generator, the electrical power for the air supported structure system, shall be installed in
accordance with the Minnesota State Electrical Code.
6) No vegetation or waster material shall be within 30 feet of the air support inflatable structure.
7) "No Smoking" signs shall be posted within the air supported inflatable structure.
8) The required flamespread certification and documentation shall be on a permanently affixed
label bearing the identification of the size, fabric and material type used in the air supported
inflatable structure.
9) A flamespread certificate and a site map shall be submitted to the fire department prior to the
installation of this structure.
10) A Golden Valley Fire Department permit will be required to install the air supported inflatable
structure.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
October 20, 2003
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing-Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Baseball/Softball
Training Facility at 8300 10th Ave. N.-Home Run Hitters, Inc. (Steve and Mary
Kitsis), Applicant
Steve and Mary Kitsis are proposing to lease a portion of the building at 8300 10th Ave. N. in
order to open Home Run Hitters indoor baseball/softball training facility. The business includes 4
batting cages, an Astroturf fielding area, and 4 pitching tunnels for live pitching and hitting. There
is also space for instruction and a fitness area. There will also be a pro shop for the sale of
softball and baseball products only. Several vending machines will also be within the space.
There will also be offices for the administrative staff. . .
The Golden Valley Zoning Code requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for this type of
business in the Industrial zoning district. The Zoning Code states that "Ball fields and other
recreational facilities" are allowed with a CUP. In the past, the_City Council has permitted other
recreational uses in the Industrial or Light Industrial zoning district including the 3rd Lair
(skateboarding) at 850 Florida Ave. S. and Rico's Kickboxing on Plymouth Ave. near TH 169.
The property at 8300 10th Ave. N. is zoned Industrial and is designated on the General Land Use
Plan lTiap for industrial uses.
Description of Proposed Business
Home Run Hitters has provided a good description of their business in the attached materials.
The materials include a layout of the space they will lease in the 8300 10th Ave. building and a
site plan of the property including parking lot layout. Staff will not repeat the detailed description
of the business submitted by Home Run Hitters.
Planning Considerations
Overall, the Planning Department does not have an issue with this use. It is consistent with other
recreational uses that have been permitted in the Industrial zoning district. The only issue that the
staff would like to discuss in detail is in regard to parking and the parking lot.
There are a total of88 parking spaces on the site"The Zoning Code does not have a specific
requirement for parking for this particular type of facility. In this case, staff has. asked the applicant
to identify the number of parking spaces that would be needed for the use. A total of 30 stalls was
identified for their use which includes the office space and practice space. The remaining 58
spaces on the site would be for the other tenant-All Systems Installation. The applicant has
stated that they will have three employees on hand at anyone time. In addition, there may be one
or two coaches teaching at their facility. On average, they expect to have 10-12 customers per
hour using the facility. Based on the information submitted by the applicant, many of the users will
be dropped offby parents. Also, the busiest times will be on the evenings and weekends when
the other building tenant-does not operate. I have spent a lot of time at a similar training center in
Arden Hills. This training center was also located in a multi-tenant industrial building. Because the
other users of the building left after normal business hours, there was more than adequate
parking with 20-30 spaces.
Because many of the customers will be young, staff recommends that there be a bike rack for at
least 10 bikes on the site. There is also bus service along 10th Ave. N. for those whowant to use
transit to get to the training facility.
At this time, there is no parking along 10th Ave. N. Therefore, aU customer and employee parking
must be on site. Staff suggests that the owner of the building may want to erect a directional sign
indicating that the majority of the parking is located on the east side of the building. There may be
a need to reserve some Of the parking spaces in front of the building for both tenants. Overall,
staff does not think this is going to be a major problem because the primary hours for Home Run
Hitters is in the late afternoon, evenings and on weekends.
Factors for Consideration
In approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten specified
factors. Staff evaluation of the ten factors as they relate to the current proposal is as follows:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an
applicant has identified a market fora proposed good or service. In this case, Mr. and Mrs.
Kitsis have researched the market and believe that there is a need for this facility. .
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan identifies the proposed site for
long-term industrial uses. Recreational facilities, by conditional use, can be considered for
that land use classification. In the case of Golden Valley, other comparable recreational
uses are located in the Industrial areas of the City.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Approval of the CUP will not substantially alter the
extent or nature of the neighboring site development or activity. Home Run Hitters will
primarily operate when other businesses in the area are not open.
4. Effect on Any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and
Congestion in the Area: Due to the nature of the business and its primary hours of
operation, staff does not believe the new use will cause undue congestion in the area. The
number of empJoyees and customers anticipated on site atany one time would not cause a
problem with access to 10th Ave. N. or other neighboring streets.
5. Effect on Any Increase in Population: Staff does not believe that the number of
employees or customers that will be on site will cause a negative impact on the area.
6. Increase in Noise level: All activities will occur inside the building with the exception of the
parking of cars. If some doors or windows are opened, this should not have a negative
impact since the noise from such a facility is relatively low.
2
7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke, Gas or Vibration Caused by the Use: Staff does not believe
that these are issues with this CUP application.
8. Any Increase in Animal Pests as a Result of this Proposed Use: There should be no
increases in animal pests because of this use. All garbage will be stored inside or in an
enclosed storage container.
9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: The Sign Code would regulate
any new signs. Home Run Hitters understands that all signage must meet the requirements
outlined in the Sign Code. There are no other changes proposed to the exteric;>r of the
building.
10. Other Concerns Regarding this CUP: Any interior modification to the building will, require
approval by the Inspections Department. Both the Fire Marshal and Building Official have
given a quick review of the request and find no reason that it cannot go forward.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow Home Run Hitters to operate
at 8300 10th Ave. N. The proposed use is consistent with similar recreational uses that have also
been permitted in the Industrial areas of the City. Staff recommends the following conditions.
1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by HTG Architects and dated June 8,
2001 shall become part of this approval. This plan indicates parking spaces on the site.
2. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by WCL Associates and dated
Sept. 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This indicates the layout of the interior
space for Home Run Hitters.
3. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code.
4. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front door to Home Run Hitters.
5. No outside music, loud speakers or public address systems will be permitted.
6. At least 30 parking spaces shall be available to Home Run Hitters.
7. Operating hours shall be as follows: During School Year - Monday-Friday 3 pm to 10 pm,
Saturday 9 am to 10 pm and Sunday 9 am to 6 pm. Summer Hours - Monday-Friday 9. am to
10 pm, Saturday 9 am to 10 pm, and Sunday 9 am to 6 pm.
8. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met.
9. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of
the CUP.
Attachments: Location .Map
Site Plan
Interior Plan
Information Submitted by Home Run Hitters
3
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. CU-105
Issued
November 18. 2003 by the City Council in accordance with
'Sec. 11.10. Subd. 2 and Section 11.36 of City Code
Home Run Hitters,lnc.
Date of Approval
Approved Location:
Approved Conditional
Use:
.8300 10th Avenue North. Golden Valley. MN
To allow for an indoor baseball/softball traininq facility in '
the Industrial zoninq district .
Conditions of Approval:
1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by HTG Architects and
dated June 8. 2001 shall become part of this approval. This plan indicates parking
spaces on the site.
2. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by WCL Associates
and dated Sept. 26. 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This indicates the
layout of the interior space for Home Run Hitters.
3. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code.
4. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front dpor to Home Run
Hitters.
5. NOc>utside musio, lood speakers or publiC address systems will be permitted.
6. At least 30 parking spaceS shall be available to. Home Run Hitters.
7. Qperatirlg hours shall be as follows: During SChool Year" Monday"Friday9 am to
1 Opm, Saturday 9 am to 10 pm andSunday 9 a III t06pm. Summer Hours"
Monday..Friday 9 am to 10 pm, $aturdayg am to 10 pm, and Sunday 9 am to 6
pm.
8. The doors are to ret1l.ain closed .atal! times.
9. Home Run Hitters may request to be open after 10 pm with approval from the
Director of Planning and Development.
10. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met.
11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the CUP.. .
I
I
I
,
I
Fi
~,
~I
::;:, ,
~I
<(,
:51
Q,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
~I <
I' 0
110
I
10
L-
10 -------,
I~------------ d
l:=.-= E.Kt>TlN6~LtE - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------~---------
@ SITE PLAN
lo2D'<1'
---7
B/
/
/
j~
Ii
/
~ HIEA
c)
II
8300 Hennepin Town Road
Eden PrlIIlIe. MN 5S347
TIll:t!It27lII8lI Filct!l2.2'f8.lll22
lXIl'l'Ill6lfJ".;2OaTIIJHl&_
PROJECT
ALL SYsrEMS
INSTALLATION
CORPORATE
HEADQUARTERS
EX1ERIORREMODEL
83IIII101h AVENIE NOOllI
GOI.IlEN VAllEY, MIlNESOTA
1SaO$ET
.,..,,,
IlAf( NO.
Jt!!l!!.. arr_
'_lUIFr'lOnMf_
=====::::::'.:"
"""".lIlf."_~
--.............
-
11'1'
SlTEPLIN
! .
j
~
f INIIl\ ~
., A1.1
ORDINANCE NO. 402, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit No. 03-105, Amendment NO.1
8300 10th Avenue North
HLM Sports, LLC, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is
amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, and Section 11.30, by approving a Conditional Use
Permit for a certain tract of land at 8300 10th Avenue North, thereby allowing the
applicant to construct a 45 foot x 55 foot sports court located in the Industrial zoning
district.
This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the findings of the Planning
Commission pursuant to City Code Section 11.80 subd. 2(G), which findings are hereby
adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be
issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions:
1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Avenue North building prepared by HTG
Architects and dated June 8, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. This
plan indicates parking spaces on the site.
2. A revised site plan prepared by HTG Architects and dated May 14,2008 shall
become a part of this approval. This plan indicates the location of the sports
court.
3. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Avenue North building prepared by WCL
Associates and dated September 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval.
This indicates the layout of the interior of the space. Changes to the interior can
be made as long as it does not increase the size of the space for Hey Coach and
the changes are consistent with the Hey Coach use.
4. A drainage and erosion control permit must be issued for the construction of the
sport court.
5. When the outdoor sports court is in use, a staff member shall be present
outdoors.
6. The outdoor sports court shall be closed outside of business hours. The
basketball hoops shall be retractable or be made unusable after business hours.
7. Doors are to remain closed at all times.
8. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. All
lights shall be shielded so as to minimize lighting spillover on to other properties.
All outdoor lighting shall be turned off at 9 pm.
9. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code.
10. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front door.
11. No loud speakers, public address system, or whistles shall be used outside.
12. At least 30 parking spaces shall be available.
13. Operating hours shall be as follows: 9 am to 9 pm.
14. Hey Coach shall work with the property owners at 8360 10th Avenue North
regarding prohibiting customers parking and playing in their parking lot.
15. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met.
16. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the CUP.
Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as
follows:
Lot 001, Buschs Golden Valley Acres recorded plat thereof, and situated in
Hennepin County Minnesota: That part of Lot 001 lying east of a line drawn parallel with the
east line thereoffrom a point on the south line thereof distant 171 47/100
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sec. 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of July, 2008.
Is/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Is/Susan M. VirniQ
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
Hey
Mem randum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1,2008
"60 Days" Deadline: August 15, 2008
Agenda Item
5. A. Continued Item - Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Calvary Lutheran Church -
PUD No. 46 - Amendment NO.6 - 7520 Golden Valley Road
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
At the June 17, 2008 City Council meeting, the Council considered a minor PUD amendment
for Calvary Church that would allow for the construction of both an outdoor and indoor
columbarium. Council continued the discussion of this matter until the July 1, 2008 meeting.
At the request of Calvary Church, they would like to continue this matter until the July 15,
2008 City Council meeting.
Recommended Action
Motion to continue the item for authorization to sign amended PUD permit for Calvary
Lutheran Church, PUD 46, Amendment No.6, 7520 Golden Valley Road until the July 15,
2008 City Council meeting.
alley
M mo ndum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1,2008
Agenda Item
5. B. Confirmation of Conditional Use Permit #120 Requirement - 1405 Lilac Drive North
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
At the June 10, 2008 Council/Manager meeting, the Council discussed the screening
requirement that was made part of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the 1405 Lilac Drive
North building. This CUP was necessary in order to allow for the operation of a hair and
beauty salon within a building in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council that the screening along the
northwest property line would include a six foot high fence along the rear property line of the
property located at 5545 Golden Valley Road and that additional landscape screening would
be placed between the west portion of the parking lot at 1415 Lilac Drive North and the 1405
Lilac Drive North building. (This is shown on the map.) Both staff and the majority of City
Council believed that extending the fence the entire distance across the property line would
destroy at least three high quality trees that currently provide screening and shade.
The City Attorney has written a letter to the City Manager dated June 25, 2008. The letter
indicates that it is the Attorney's opinion that the City Manager will decide about the fence
and screening along the northwest property line. Therefore, an amendment of the CUP is not
necessary.
Attachments
Letter from City Attorney Allen Barnard dated June 25,2008 (2 pages)
Aerial photo indicating location of 6 foot high fence and location of additional landscaping
(1 page, loose in agenda packet)
Conditional Use Permit -
Y Oll have asked me my opinion on two questions in connection with the above
conditional use permit matter. They are: 1) The statu$ of the videotape record of the
council meeting at which the conditional use permit amendment was approved; and 2)
the role of the staff in this matter.
Videotape recordings. Even though videotapes and sound recordings
may indicate verbatim what occurred at a meeting, they are not the official record of
the meeting. The approved minutes, including resolutions and ordinances adopted by
reference,.are the official record of the meeting. A videotape recording may be
helpful in establishing the official record of a meeting if the onoo-existing records
have been lost or destroyed, or were shown to be the result of fraud. For our purposes,
the minutes and the included resolutions and ordinances constitute the official record
of the decisions made by the council at the meeting.
Role of the staff. Ordinance No. 391, Second Series, which was
incorporated into the minutes of the November 20,2007 city council meeting, contains
the language of the conditional use permit. It provides in section 1 at subparagraph 10
the following:
Within 60 the owner shall prepare and submit a privacy fence
plan, for the northwest comer, as approved by the City Manager or his
designee1...The fence shall be completed no later than July 1,2008.
I Note that the owner was also required to submit a financial guarantee to the City in II form and amount
approved by the City Matt.r for the Conl>truction and completion of the fence.
Tom Burt
I hope the foregoing provides you the information needed.
further questions please do not hesitate to calL
Allen D. Barnard
City Attorney
ADBmek
~lley
Memoran um
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
5. C. Continued Item - Multiple Dwelling License - Douglas Drive Apartments
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
The Douglas Drive Apartments located at 1400, 1450, 1500 and 1600 Douglas Drive North
received a provisional license with an expiration date of June 3, 2008. The provisional license
was a result of the roof condition of the four buildings.
A signed contract to re-roof the four buildings with a completion date of June 30, 2008 was
received by city staff and presented to the City Council on June 3,2008. The City Council on
June 3, 2008 approved extending the multiple dwelling provisional license to July 1, 2008 so
the work could be completed. The re-roofing has been completed at 1400,1450, 1500 and
1600 Douglas Drive. Completion of the roofs was the last condition of the provisional license.
The next scheduled inspection of the property will be in the Fall of 2008.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the multiple dwelling license for 1400, 1450, 1500 and 1600 Douglas
Drive.
alley
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
Agenda Item
6. A. Declaration of Hazardous Building - 2530 and 2540 Douglas Drive North
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
The partially completed townhouses at 2530 and 2540 Douglas Drive North has extensive
damage to the exterior of the structure. The damage is a result of the exterior not being
properly protected from the weather. A new house building permit was issued on November
3,2005 and the construction was never completed. The site is not maintained and has had
previous violations of the grass and weed ordinance. Thestructure is often unsecured and
accessible by anyone in the general public. Minnesota Statute 463.15 subdivision 3 states
that "a hazardous building or property which because of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary conditions or abandonment, constitutes a fire
hazard or a hazard to public safety or health." The building meets the criteria of a hazardous
building. Upon Council approval the property owners will be served this order and
enforcement of this order will be made to the District Court of Hennepin County unless
corrective action is taken.
All costs of this proceeding and the repair or removal of the building will be charged to the
owners or assessed against the real estate pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 463.21.
Attachment
Order for Removal of Hazardous Building (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to order completion of the building exterior or removal of the hazardous building at
2530 and 2540 Douglas Drive North.
ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
TO:
AMAIN HOMES, INC.;
PREMIER BANK;
KUECHLE UNDERGROUND INC.;
RLK INCORPORATED;
AND ANY AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS OWNING, CLAIMING A LIEN UPON,
OCCUPYING OR HAVING ANY INTEREST
WHATSOEVER IN THE PREMISES LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS
Street Address: 2530 and 2540 Douglas Drive,
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Legal Description: Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, Amain Addition,
Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Property ID: 28-118-21-22-0100 and 28-118-21-22-0099
RE:
HAZARDOUS BUILDING REMOVAL
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
You and each of you are hereby ordered pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
sections 463.15 to 463.261, inclusive, to take the following action with respect to the above-
described property, upon which the City Council of the City of Golden Valley has determined
there exists a hazardous building within the meaning of the aforesaid Minnesota Statutes.
REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING
By this Order, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 463.16, the City orders the owner
of the property to correct or remove the hazardous condition of the building and property.
Removal of the hazardous condition includes the following actions:
1. Remove the building/structure now located on the above-described premises.
2. Seal the sanitary sewer line, water line, and other utilities leading from the premises.
3. Fill to grade and cover any excavation remaining after the removal hereinabove ordered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The foregoing Order is based upon the finding by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley that the property is a hazardous building defined by Minnesota Statutes section 463.15
due to its "inadequat e maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or
abandonment" and the following findings of fact based on the report of the City's Building
Inspector.
A. Inadequate Maintenance and Physical Damage:
The construction of the house was never completed. The exterior of the house has
extensive deterioration as a result of not being properly protected from the weather. The front
entryway collapsed during a storm in 2007. The site was not maintained and is in violation of
the grass and weed ordinance.
B. Abandonment:
A "new house" building permit was issued on November 3, 2005. The building permit
has expired. The construction of the house was never completed. The structure is in foreclosure.
The building is unsecured and accessible by anyone in the general public.
C. Fire Hazard/Public Hazard:
The Building Inspector of Golden Valley has concluded thatthe property is indeed a fire
and public hazard as it is unsecured and completely accessible by anyone in the general public.
The property is a hazard to fire fighters because of the physical condition of the building.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that you
have thirty (30) days from the service of this order upon you within which to comply with the
terms of this order. You are hereby notified that a motion for summary enforcement of this order
will be made to the District Court of Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, unless corrective
action is taken by the aforesaid compliance date, or unless an answer to this Order is served upon
000090/280005/959816_1
2
the City of Golden Valley within twenty (20) days from the date of the service of this Order upon
you, in the manner for service of such Answer as is provided in Minnesota Statutes section
463.18.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs of this proceeding and the removal of the
hazardous condition be charged to the owners or assessed against the real estate pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 9463.21.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to the action duly ordered by the City Council of
the City of Golden Valley on this _ day of
, 2008, the Mayor and the City Clerk
hereunto set their hands and the seal of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
This document drafted by:
Best & Flanagan, LLP (KXD)
225 South 6th Street, #4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
000090/280005/959816_1
3
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1,2008
"60 Days" Deadline: August 8, 2008
Agenda Item
6. B. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - North Lilac Drive Addition PUD No. 42,
Amendment NO.3 - 820 Lilac Drive North
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
Endura Financial Federal Credit Union (formally Honeywell Credit Union) has purchased the
building at 820 Lilac Drive North. The property is Lot 1, Block 1, of North Lilac Drive Addition;
PUD No. 42. Endura's plans are to immediately move its credit union headquarters into 70%
of the building. The remaining 30% is leased to outside tenants. When the leases to outside
tenants run out, Endura plans to take over the entire building for their operations.
In order to serve their members (many of whom live and work in the Golden Valley area),
Endura is requesting a minor PUD amendment to allow for one drive thru kiosk to be
constructed along the north side of the building. As indicated on the proposed site plan, they
will be placing the small kiosk in the middle of the north side of the building and providing
stacking space for five cars. In order to accommodate the drive thru lane, the driveway
around the north side of the building will be one-way east to west. Endura has met with the
Deputy Fire Marshal to insure that there would be adequate access around the building even
with the drive thru lane. As indicated in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson,
dated June 16, 2008, the plan is acceptable as long as the three conditions in the memo are
met.
HTG Architects represents Endura in this application. Mike Kraft of HTG has prepared a
description of the proposed minor PUD amendment in the attached letter dated June 3, 2008.
It is attached. In the letter, Mr. Kraft describes that parking on the site will be reduced from
the approved 127 parking stalls (of which five were proof of parking spaces) to a total of 106
(of which five are proof of parking spaces). According to the Kraft letter, the site has been
operating with less than the 122 parking stalls because six spaces have been removed to
provide a no parking lane. Staff has visited the site over the past several months and the
number of spaces has been more than adequate for the tenants in the building.
Endura would like to reduce the number of parking spaces to 101 built spaces and five proof
of parking spaces (106 total). The existing site plan and the proposed site plans indicate that
the seven parking spaces along the north side of the building will be removed and used as
the drive thru lane. The proof of parking spaces are the same as approved as part of the
original PUD that requires the removal of the parking lot islands. Mr. Kraft believes that the
106 parking spaces will be adequate for the site, especially after Endura occupies the entire
building. At that time there is estimated to be 89 employees in the building with the possibility
of a small retail credit union location. There are currently a total of 74 employees in the
building that includes both Endura and the tenant's employees. There is no on street parking
available in the area. Endura will be providing a bike rack at the northwest corner of the site.
The Kraft letter also indicates that Endura will be moving the north curb several more feet to
the north in order to widen the driveway around the building. The widened driveway will
provide adequate width for emergency vehicles and the drive thru lane. The property to the
north is the railroad and future Three Rivers trail. North of the railroad is a pond and a
residential area. The widened driveway should have no impact on the railroad, bike trail or
residences.
Endura estimates that the one lane drive thru will generate 70-75 trips on an average day
with up to 120-130 trips on a pay day. The hours of operation will be 8 am to 6 pm on
weekdays. There will be no weekend hours. The headlights from the stacking of cars for the
drive thru should have no impact on the residences to the north because of the way the cars
are facing (west) and because there is substantial vegetation along the south side of the
railroad tracks. Endura does not anticipate the stacking of more than five cars at anyone time
based on experience at their other sites.
Endura is requesting that the proposed drive thru lane be considered as a minor PUD
amendment. In the case of a minor amendment, the City Council may approve it by simple
majority vote with or without referral to the Planning Commission. To qualify for this type of
review, a minor amendment shall not:
1. Eliminate, diminish or be disruptive to the preservation and protection of sensitive site
features. (In this case, the proposed drive thru lane would move the curb along the north
property line to the north several feet. This new curbing would not have a negative impact
on any sensitive site features.)
2. Eliminate, diminish or compromise the high quality of site planning, design, landscaping or
building materials. (The proposed drive thru lane would impact only the north side of the
building by eliminating seven parking spaces and moving the curb to the north. The
building will have the same "look" from the street side.)
3. Alter significantly the location of buildings, parking areas or roads. (The proposed drive
thru lane requires moving the north curb more to the north and a widening the driveway
around the north side of the building. However, staff does not believe that these are
significant changes.)
4. Increase or decrease the number of dwelling units by more than five percent. (This is not
a residential development.)
5. Increase the gross floor area of non-residential buildings by more than three percent.
(This proposal does not increase the size of the building.)
6. Decrease the amount of open space by more than three percent or alter it in such a way
as to change its original design or intended .function or use. (The moving of the curb to the
north reduces the amount of open space on the site by about 500-600 square feet. This is
less than three percent of the total open space on this site.)
7. Create non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the final
PUD Plan. (The proposed amendment would not create any non-compliance with any
special conditions in the existing PUD permit. The existing PUD specifies that the property
will be used for an office building.)
Staff believes that this amendment can be considered as a minor amendment based on the
seven criteria listed above. However, the City Council has the right to refer this matter to the
Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
In summary, the changes requested by this minor amendment would be to amend the
existing PUD permit to replace the approved site plan for the 820 Lilac Drive North lot to the
site plan prepared by HTG Architects for Endura Financial Headquarters and dated June 3,
2008. This would allow for the construction of the drive thru lane and kiosk along with
changes to the parking lot and driveway. The new parking lot would have a total of 106
parking spaces (including five proof of parking spaces) which is a reduction from the 127
spaces approved as part of the existing PUD permit. The approval is also subject to the
recommendations of the Deputy Fire Marshal.
Staff recommends approval of the minor amendment to North Lilac Drive Addition, PUD No.
42, Amendment NO.3 that would adopt a new site plan for the west lot in the PUD (Lot 1 or
820 Lilac Drive North). This new site plan allow for the construction of a drive thru lane with
kiosk for the credit union. The new site plan indicates that the north curb line be moved to the
north by less than five feet. The hours of operation for the drive thru lane would be 8 am to 6
pm Monday-Friday. Parking on the site would be reduced to 106 parking spaces. The memo
from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson shall become a part of this approval.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Letter from HTG (Kraft letter) dated June 3, 2008 (3 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated June 16, 2008 (1 page)
Amended PUD Permit (4 pages)
Photos (6 pages, loose in agenda packet)
Site plans (3 oversized pages, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amended PUD permit for the
North Lilac Drive Addition PUD No. 42, Amendment No.3, 820 Lilac Drive North
./ '-
PHOENIX ST
!1201
1140 1141
11.311
5221 1041
10311 1031
28 1020 1001
~I ;LI_
L::l g'
'i.
~
!
llf
a
Ie
i
<
...
co
c
28
621 0
o
5616
5612
~#'
,
~~~
{fr'
~
~o~+
M~~~~"i A~d\!S. ~(~;gm~Ci- iOOlS GfS 21))5
~
i
l.ll
~
I
III
i:
~
al
i
fI)
1II
BOO
9SO
e
t"l
i
z
1121
11.20
HlGHWA'f !is
1101
1100
a:m:m:w
m
604
GOOW
m
~mmf
_ ~f!t _^ ,..,
.....
"'11
ARCHITEcrs
03 June, 2008
Mark Grimes
City of Golden Valley Planning Department
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Endora Financial Federal Credit Union
Proposed drive-thru kiosk
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Dear Mark:
Endora Financial Federal Credit Union (Formerly Honeywell Credit Union) is moving their headquarters to Golden
Valley. They will be located at 820 N Lilac Drive. The property is owned by Endora Financial. To better serve
their members who live and work in the area they would like to add a drive thru kiosk to their new headquarters
facility. Many of the members are past employees of Honeywell who no longer have access to the plant location for
their financial needs. The kiosk would likely have teller tubes that run underground to the NW comer of the
building were tellers would process transactions. The exterior equipment would be a single kiosk with small canopy
to protect the transaction from the weather. Following is a brief description of the project for your use in review of
our request.
Parking
The site has an existing building on it that will remain. The existing 109 parking spaces (including 5 proof parking)
will be reduced to 106 spaces (including 5 proof parking). The original 1998 city submittal for the building and site
shows a requirement of 127 parking stalls with 122 stalls being provided and 5 indicated as proof parking. We
believe it was built with 121 stalls. Since the building has been completed, 6 stalls have been removed near the
northwest comer of the site and the curb marked "no parking fire lane." There are 4 parking stalls which are
currently not wide enough to be included in the count. We propose widening the four stalls as part of this project
(included with the 106 number). The zoning requirement states 1:250 for parking, for a total of 127 parking spaces.
Weare asking for approval to reduce the number of parking stalls (7 at north side of building) to create the drive
thru kiosk, and a wider fire truck access road along the back (north) side of the building, as requested by the Fire
Marshall. The history of the building has shown that the parking has been ample. With Endura as the primary
tenant, taking over about 70% of the building they believe the parking sitUation will remain adequate. Guest parking
is at the west side of the building, and primary employee parking on the east side.
Endora's anticipated employee count for the first year occupying the building is 45. The other tenants in the
building have an employee count of 29. Total first year employee count is 74. Over the next few years Endora
anticipates adding 10-15 employees for a total of 89 possible; however other tenants' leases will be expiring.
Endura's growth will determine which leases will be extended. Endora also has a goal of providing a small retail
branch in the future. The timing is dependent on whether they can add the drive thru kiosk.
Setback
To allow for the drive thru kiosk vehicle traffic and stacking space along with the fire truck access route we propose
to move the north curb further to the north. We are requesting an amendment to the PUD for a 10' setback on the
north. The fire truck route provides for 45 foot inside turning radius and a 26' wide path at the north side of the
building.
The anticipated drive thru trips are: Slow days, 30-40 total per day; Pay Check Fridays, 120-130 total per day and
average, 70-75 total per day. Typical hours for the drive thru to be open are approximately 8:00 - 6:00 Monday -
Friday.
In addition we will be adding a bike rack to the site in anticipation of the proposed bike trail north of the site by the
Three Rivers Park District.
HTG Architects 9300 Hennepin Town Road, Mpls. MN 55347 (952) 278-8880 www.htg-architects.com
Primary Contact Information
Property Owner: Jason Hid
Endura Financial
6465 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55426
(952) 738-7407
Architect:
Mike Kraft
HTG Architects
9300 Hennepin Town Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
(952) 278-8880
Endura Financial is excited about becoming an integral part of the community. We look forward to your approval.
Thank you for your assistance in reviewing our project. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the
submittal further. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any clarifications or additional information.
Sincerely,
~~~
Michael F. Kraft
cc Jason Hid, Endura Financial
tJk. -
//1; ;p/f?
HTG Architects 9300 Hennepin Town Road, Mpls. MN 55347 (952) 278-8880 www.htg-architects.com
- - - -.. - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - ---
- - - ~SEMEN.!. ~L~TRICAL EASEMENT _ ORA
W---~ ~ ~~~~--
STERN RAILROAD
r---e~2!r.\!'lt... . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _
~---=-- - - - - ="
-:- 1 -- -~-----~-!o:'
! ~ ~t'I'l-~.....~,.
,
~i
~!
~I
BYPAS!>
+-26' FIRE A.
LA~En~
~l ~
.h1Jtiiintini-
3
RD
7
fXlST/NG 2 STORY OFF/a BUILDING
PIO, 19-029-24-2:1-0026
820 LILAC DR. N.
~7
o
2
lTP
lTP
~3
106,089. sq. ft.
2.43 acres
35' SETBACK
200.0
C&:N R.R. R.O. W.
{)
lTP
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - '-EASE::!\4EN'f""::. DRAINAGE &UTllITY - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~'tT.r ~E_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-~-
HOLIDA Y
CD ~N?~RA SITE PLAN - ENTRY AT EAST
II
'01'- N
m"'" ~
olZ co
lrl() cO
I'-
N
c: N
I()
~ Ol
~
c:
Q.
Gl . 0
c:Z co
c:::2: co
GlQ) co
!'C ~
f! N
oD. ~
015 Ol
(')-0 ~
Olw
z
~
~
...J
...J
~
~~
::)0
O...J
zO
we>
to
~~
~9
.....co
00
:h:
b
w ..
a~
0:::<
0..0
tij
!l!~
II)
~alley
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8079 J 763-593-8098 (fax)
To:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning
From:
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Subject: PUD-42 Amendment No. 3- Endura Credit Union
Date: June 16, 2008
cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application packet for the proposed PUD-42
Amendment No.3 located at 820 North Lilac Drive, Endura Credit Union. This proposal is to
construct a bank drive-thru located on the north side of the building. The Golden Valley Fire
Department has comments on this proposal:
1. The proposed fire department apparatus access road shall be posted with "No Parking Fire
Lane" with stationary posts in accordance with the City of Golden Valley City Ordinance.
2. The kiosk bank teller area shall be identified by yellow paint and cement bollards to separate
the fire department access road and the staging area for the waiting vehicles.
3. The current site plan indicates that the fire department access road is a one-way travel
direction from the west to east side of the building and the vehicular traffic is traveling from
east to west. The fire department apparatus access road and the vehicular traffic shall be a
one-way combination for both the fire apparatus and vehicles.
If you have any questions regarding this memo, please contact me at #763-593-8065.
Amendment No. ~ .Q
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
City Council Approval: June 23, 1998
Amendment No.3 City Council Approval: July 1. 2008
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name: North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
Location: 810 and 812 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Legal Description: Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 and Outlot B, North Lilac Drive Addition
P.U.D. No. 42, according to the recorded plat thereof
Applicant: C. S. McCrossan Endura Credit Union (Lot 1. Block 1)
Wayne E. Dahl (Lot 3, Block 1)
Address: 7865 Jefferson High'Nay North, Maple Grove, MN 55311
810 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, MN 55422 and
820 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Owner: C. S. McCrossan Endura Credit Union (Lot 1, Block 1)
Wayne E. Dahl (Lot 3, Block 1)
Address: 7865 Jefferson High'Nay North, Maple Grove, MN 55311
810 Lilac Drive North. Golden Valley, MN 55422 and
820 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Zoning District: Commercial
Permitted Uses: Office
Components:
A. Land Use Component:
1. The Site Plan prepared by The Design Partnership, Ltd. and dated 5/27/98 shall
become a part of the PUD approval. The First and Second Floor Plans, prepared by
The Design Partnership, Ltd. and dated 5/27/98 shall also become a part of the
approval. The Building Elevation Plans, dated 5/27/98 and the Photometries Plan
dated 5/11/98 both prepared by The Design Partnership, Ltd. shall become a part of
the approval. The Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 1, North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No.
42 (existing office condominium) dated 1/25/84 and prepared by the Builders Studio
shall become a part of the approval. The Site Plans for Lot 1, Block 1, North Lilac
Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 prepared by HTG Architects and dated 6/3/08 shall become a
part of the PUD approval. Amendment NO.3 allows for the construction of a credit
union drive thru lane with a kiosk. These plans shall be kept in the official City files on
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
Page 2
P.U.D. No. 42 and these site and building plans shall be noted by City staff as the
plans submitted as part of the amended General Plan approval.
2. The two buildings in the PUD shall be used only for office space as indicated on the
site plans.
3. The new building on the north lot shall be constructed as per the site plan and building
elevations that are attached.
4. All outside lighting for parking or storage areas shall be as per the attached
Photometrics Plan. Any changes to outside lighting must be approved by the Chief of
Fire and Inspections. The Chief shall have the right to modify any lighting.
5. All signage on the site must meet the requirements of a building in the Business and
Professional Office Zoning District.
6. Landscaping for the north lot shall be completed as shown on the attached Landscape
Plan dated 5/8/98 and prepared by The Design Partnership. Landscaping on the south
lot shall be consistent with the Landscape Plan dated 1/25/84 and prepared by the
Builders Studio. The plan shall be submitted to the Building Board of Review for
review and approval. The Building Board of Review may make improvements and
enhancements to this Landscape Plan. The final Landscape Plan for the north lot
approved by the Building Board of Review shall become a part of the General Plan
approval.
B. Circulation Component:
1. Access drives, parking and walkways shall be constructed and maintained as per the
site plan.
2. If the Chief of Fire and Inspections determines that additional parking is needed for
the north lot, the owner shall be required to construct the "proof of parking" spaces
marked on the site plan for the north lot. Amendment NO.3 allows there to be 106
parkinq spaces at 820 Lilac Drive North.
3. If required by the City Manager, the owner shall dedicate to the City or other public
agency, an easement for trail purposes as herein described: That part of Lot 1, Block
1, Golden Valley Office Center P.U.D. No. 42, according to said plat on file and of
record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies
Northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said
Lot 1; thence South, an assumed bearing along the East line of said Lot 1, a distance
of 12 feet to the actual point of beginning of said line to be hereinafter described;
thence North 88 degrees 59 minutes thence North 80 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds
West, parallel with said North line of Lot 1, a distance of 112.43 feet to the Westerly
line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
4. Fire lanes shall be posted as recommended by the City Fire Marshall.
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
Page 3
C. Subdivision
1. The applicant shall file the final plat of "Golden Valley Office Center P.U.D. No. 42"
with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of any building permits related to building
on the north lot. The applicant shall give the City proof of such filing.
2. The plan name shall include "P.U.D. No. 42".
3. The final plat shall be filed within six (6) months after the date of the Council action
giving final approval to the P.U.D. Permit or the P.U.D. Permit shall become void.
4. The south lot shall remain as Lot 3, Block 1, North Lilac Drive Addition P.U.D. No. 42.
D. Population Component:
1. There shall be no residential use in any buildings within this P.U.D.
2. Provision shall be made for handicapped access as required by the Minnesota
Building Code.
E. Services and Facilities Component:
1. The Grading and Erosion Control Plan dated 5/28/98 and prepared by Howard R.
Green company shall become a part of this permit.
2. The Preliminary Utility Plan dated 5/28/98 and prepared by Howard R. Green
Company shall become a part of this permit.
3. Any new sewer and water connections shall conform to the City's utility standards.
4. All utility, grading, and site work shall be done to the satisfaction of the city Engineer
and the Chief of Fire and Inspections. The City Engineer shall approve any changes to
the plans.
5. A fire suppression sprinkler system shall be installed in the existing building on Lot 3,
Block 1, North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42. This work shall be completed within
six months of the approval of this permit. The City Fire Marshall must approve the fire
suppression system.
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
Page 4
It is hereby understood and agreed that this amended Use Permit is a part of the City Council
approval~ granted on June 23, 1998 and Julv 1. 2008. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for
the North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 shall require an additional amendment.
C. S. McCrossan ENDURA CREDIT UNION
Witness:
By:
Title:
Date:
WAYNE E. DAHL
By:
Witness:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Witness:
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
Date:
By:
Witness:
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
Date:
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
alley
M morandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 1, 2008
"60 Days" Deadline: August 24, 2008
Agenda Item
6. C. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - North Lilac Drive Addition PUD No. 42 -
Amendment NO.4 - 810 Lilac Drive North
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
Dr. Wayne Dahl is the owner of the Golden Valley Office Center at 810 Lilac Drive North. He
purchased the building within the past couple of years from the McCrossan family. The
property is located on the south lot of the two lot North Lilac Drive Addition, PUD No. 42. The
north lot is the location of the Golden Valley Office Center at 820 Lilac Drive North. Dr. Dahl
has requested a minor PUD amendment to allow an existing 1,600 square foot garage to be
converted to office space. (Coincidently, the 820 Lilac Drive North property has also
requested a minor PUD amendment to allow for the construction of a drive-thru kiosk for
Endura Credit Union. These two requests are independent but are both being considered at
the July 1 City Council meeting. There is no connection between the two lots and they share
no parking or access roads to Lilac Drive North.)
Dr. Dahl has hired HTG Architects to prepare plans for this minor PUD amendment. The
attached site plan indicates the location of the existing garage. My understanding is that the
garage unit has been used for storage. Dr. Dahl has told staff that the Golden Valley Office
Center is fully leased and that there is a demand for more space in the office building. His
plan is to eliminate the garage door and convert the space for office use. This will include
putting in 4-5 windows and refacing the garage building with stucco. The building footprint or
height will not change. The new building will have to meet current building and fire code
requirements. The Building Official is requiring that a Building Code Analysis be prepared for
the entire structure prior to conversion of the garage to office space.
The existing office building is an old motel. It was converted to office space some years ago.
Each office suite is one of the old motel rooms so each has an individual bathroom. The
office building is 16,875 square feet in area. The existing PUD plan indicates that there are
68 parking spaces for the office building which is consistent with the City's parking code
requirement of one space for each 250 square feet of gross office space. With the addition of
1,600 square feet of office due to the garage conversion, an additional four parking spaces
are needed to make the City's parking requirement. Dr. Dahl is proposing to provide 64
parking spaces after the garage conversion. He contends that the existing parking lot is more
than adequate to meet the existing client's needs. Even with the additional 1,600 square feet
of space, he does not see a problem for parking.
In order to show that there is adequate parking with the additional office space, he has had
HTG Architects provide a table that indicates the existing parking count and proposed parking
for the site. Because this office building was once a motel and each unit has its own
restroom, there is far more space dedicated to restrooms than would be the case in a normal
office building. HTG has shown that a building of this size (16,875 square feet) would be
required to have only 400 square feet of restroom space by current code standards. (Staff
has verified this figure with the Building Official.) Therefore, HTG argues that there is an
excess of 2,579 square feet of restroom space in this building. If this excess restroom space
were taken out of the calculation, the parking demand for the existing building would be 57.2
spaces and the parking demand with the 1,600 square feet of additional office space would
be 63.6. The revised plan indicates 64 spaces. Due to the amount of restroom space in the
office building, staff believes that the 64 spaces are reasonable for this office building after it
is expanded.
Over the past several months, Dr. Dahl has made several improvements to this office building
including a new roof and painting that is now in process. He believes that the conversion of
the garage space to office space will enhance the site and area. (Dr. Dahl is also the owner
of SUMA MRI.)
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Amended PUD Permit (4 pages)
Proposed Parking Counts Table (1 page)
Plan showing Parking Spaces (1 page)
Photos (4 pages, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amended PUD permit for the
North Lilac Drive Addition PUD No. 42, Amendment No.4, 810 Lilac Drive North.
931
~
5341 53215301
I I
5231 1041
o
1030 1031
i536 5,52$
1020 1OlI1
21'1
5612
:at:'W'ii-
~ i I
\.l j;l )>
:s .~_j
::l ! 8
g
950 921
:ztl
901
~
621 0
o
,,~
t;+'
,-I'
d'"
0009
1m
Offimf
:ztl
"OlSON MEMOlUAl tfWy
HIGHWAY 5S
~
\
\II
\II
'8
~
:s:.
i
1::>
'"
~
f
m
w
e
g
i
HIGHWAY5S '
m
z
Amendment No. 2- 4
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
City Council Approval: June 23, 1998
Amendment NO.3 and 4 City Council Approval: July 1. 2008
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name: North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
location: 810 and 812 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota
legal Description: Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 and Outlot B, North Lilac Drive Addition
P.U.D. No. 42, according to the recorded plat thereof
Applicant: C. S. McCrossan Endura Credit Union (Lot 1. Block 1)
Wayne E. Dahl (Lot 3. Block 1)
Address: 7865 Jefferson High'Nay North, Maple Grove, MN 55311
810 Lilac Drive North. Golden Valley. MN 55422 and
820 Lilac Drive North. Golden Valley. MN 55422
Owner: C. S. McCrossan Endura Credit Union (Lot 1, Block 1)
Wayne E. Dahl (Lot 3. Block 1)
Address: 7865 Jefferson Highv.(ay North, Maple Grove, MN 55311
810 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley. MN 55422 and
820 Lilac Drive North. Golden Valley. MN 55422
Zoning District: Commercial
Permitted Uses: Office
Components:
A. land Use Component:
1. The Site Plan prepared by The Design Partnership, Ltd. and dated 5/27/98 shall
become a part of the PUD approval. The First and Second Floor Plans, prepared by
The Design Partnership, Ltd. and dated 5/27/98 shall also become a part of the
approval. The Building Elevation Plans, dated 5/27/98 and the Photometries Plan
dated 5/11/98 both prepared by The Design Partnership, Ltd. shall become a part of
the approval. The Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 1, North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No.
42 (existing office condominium) dated 1/25/84 and prepared by the Builders Studio
shall become a part of the approval. The Site Plans for Lot 1, Block 1, North Lilac
Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 prepared by HTG Architects and dated 6/3/08 shall become a
part of the PUD approval. Amendment NO.3 allows for the construction ofa credit
union drive thru lane with a kiosk. These plans shall be kept in the official City files on
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
Page 2
P.U.D. No. 42 and these site and building plans shall be noted by City staff as the
plans submitted as part of the amended General Plan approval.
2. The two buildings in the PUD shall be used only for office space as indicated on the
site plans.
3. The new building on the north lot shall be constructed as per the site plan and building
elevations that are attached.
4. All outside lighting for parking or storage areas shall be as per the attach.ed
Photometrics Plan. Any changes to outside lighting must be approved by the Chief of
Fire and Inspections. The Chief shall have the right to modify any lighting.
5. All signage on the site must meet the requirements of a building in the Business and
Professional Office Zoning District.
6. Landscaping for the north lot shall be completed as shown on the attached Landscape
Plan dated 5/8/98 and prepared by The Design Partnership. Landscaping on the south
lot shall be consistent with the Landscape Plan dated 1/25/84 and prepared by the
Builders Studio. The plan shall be submitted to the Building Board of Review for
review and approval. The Building Board of Review may make improvements and
enhancements to this Landscape Plan. The final Landscape Plan for the north lot
approved by the Building Board of Review shall become a part of the General Plan
approval.
7. Amendment NO.4 allows the existinQ 1600 square foot QaraQe to be converted t6 .
office space. .
B. Circulation Component:
1. Access drives, parking and walkways shall be constructed and maintained as per the
site plan.
2. If the Chief of Fire and Inspections determines that additional parking is needed for
the north lot, the owner shall be required to construct the "proof of parking" spaces
marked on the site plan for the north lot. Amendment NO.3 allows there to be 106.
parking spaces at 820 Lilac Dr. N. Amendment NO.4 allows there to be 64 parkinQ-
spaces at 810 Lilac Drive North.
3. If required by the City Manager, the owner shall dedicate to the City or other public
agency, an easement for trail purposes as herein described: That part of Lot 1, Block
1 J Golden Valley Office Center P.U.D. No. 42, according to said plat on file and of
record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies
Northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said
Lot 1; thence South, an assumed bearing along the East line of said Lot 1, a distance
of 12 feet to the actual point of beginning of said line to be hereinafter descriaed;
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
Page 3
thence North 88 degrees 59 minutes thence North 80 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds
West, parallel with said North line of Lot 1, a distance of 112.43 feet to the Westerly line of
said Lot 1 and there terminating.
4. Fire lanes shall be posted as recommended by the City Fire Marshall.
C. Subdivision
1. The applicant shall file the final plat of "Golden Valley Office Center P.U.D. No. 42"
with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of any building permits related to building
on the north lot. The applicant shall give the City proof of such filing.
2. The plan name shall include "P.U.D. No. 42".
3. The final plat shall be filed within six (6) months after the date of the Council action
giving final approval to the P.U.D. Permit or the P.U.D. Permit shall become void.
4. The south lot shall remain as Lot 3, Block 1, North Lilac Drive Addition P.U.D. No. 42.
D. Population Component:
1. There shall be no residential use in any buildings within this P.U.D.
2. Provision shall be made for handicapped access as required by the Minnesota
Building Code.
E. Services and Facilities Component:
1. The Grading and Erosion Control Plan dated 5/28/98 and prepared by Howard R.
Green company shall become a part of this permit.
2. The Preliminary Utility Plan dated 5/28/98 and prepared by Howard R. Green
Company shall become a part of this permit.
3. Any new sewer and water connections shall conform to the City's utility standards..
4. All utility, grading, and site work shall be done to the satisfaction of the city Engineer
and the Chief of Fire and Inspections. The City Engineer shall approve any changes to
the plans.
5. A fire suppression sprinkler system shall be installed in the existing building on Lot 3,
Block 1, North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42. This work shall be completed within
six months of the approval of this permit. The City Fire Marshall must approve the fire
suppression system.
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
Page 4
It is hereby understood and agreed that this amended Use Permit is a part of the City Council
approval~ granted on June 23,1998 and July 1, 2008. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for
the North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 shall require an additional amendment.
C. S. McCrossan ENDURA CREDIT UNION
Witness:
By:
Title:
Date:
WAYNE E. DAHL
Witness:
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Witness:
By:
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
Date:
Witness:
By:
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
Date:
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
a"An
388.87 S.F. Gross Area
566.82 S.F. Gross Area
693.27 S.F. Gross Area
e"B"
aliGn
Unit Type
Office Type "A"
Office Type "B"
Office Type "C"
TOTAL
Area
Number of Units
388.87
566.82
-
693.27
Total Area
34
4
2
16875 / 250 = 67.5 Cars required
68 Cars provided
13221.58
2267.28
1386.54
16875.4
Restroom size
14'-0" x 5'-6" =
Occupant Load Factor
Gross Area
100
2979.2
400
2579
10.3
57.2
1600
6.4
63.6
64
~iI<'K1" :~~i *'*;li,~....''';i\i*,~:
'. . .' '. '1- .' .' ! '. . - . - . .: 7\' :. "... ."
. . . .' . :": ~
. . ~.. .. .. . .
'" ..... '.. - . ~". (. -
" (. . '-'." .
" "" "i. . "~.. .
" (. ". . ..-~" ....: ~". -.
.. : \" ':,,:,;, "'J" .. l'"'. '. ".
. .......... '"......... ... __ ..' ...... .'. ... ..... ....1:.1
. .. . . .... .. .... ..". .............. .... , .. . .'
....
f
5'
i.
64 EXISTING PARKING SPACES
~
" ,
".
~.
ffl!..~~'I"----"
;..;
Golden Valley Office Center
820 Lilac Drive
Dr. Wayne Dahl
'J'
I ._ ,,' c
HTG Architects JlA.V\< 2 S , 2001
~ :.~;;.:::.." ... ,'..
';~I~i':t':\~~~r:~;i~JL