The URL can be used to link to this page

12-02-08 agenda packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber December 2, 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 B. Proclamation Congratulating Anna Eames, Paralympic Medalist C. Receipt of Human Services Foundation 2009 Allocation Report 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 it~ normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - November 18, 2008 B. Approval of Check Register C. Licenses: 1. General Business Licenses 2. Solicitor's License -The Window Store, LLC D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - November 10, 2008 2. Environmental Commission - October 27, .2008 3. Joint Water Commission - October 1, 2008 4. Open Space and Recreation Commission - October 27, 2008 5. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - October 16, 2008 E. Bids and Quotes 1. Fire Engine Refurbishment - Bids 2. Fire Pumper - Bids F. Approval of Plat - Quail Woods Addition 08-54 G. Approval of City Manager Salary 08-55 H. Approval of Six Month Extension - Conditional Use Permit - Morries Automotive Group - 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Boulevard 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #410 - Rezoning from Single Family Zoning District (R-2) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) - 3335 Scott Avenue North 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. First Consideration - Ordinance #411 - Establishing a 2009 Master Fee Schedule B. Call for Public Hearing - Establishing a Franchise Fee with Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy - 12/16/08 08-56 C. Announcements of Meetings D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING ANNA EAMES, PARAL YMPIC MEDALIST WHEREAS, Anna Eames of Golden Valley, Minnesota participated in the 2008 Paralympics in Beijing, China, and WHEREAS, Anna is a senior at Hopkins High School and is a member of the Hopkins High School swim team, serving as Varsity Team Captain, and recently competed in the Minnesota State High School meet in the 200m Medley Relay and the 400m Free Relay; WHEREAS, Anna has competed internationally for three years and holds eight American, three Pan-American and one world record; WHEREAS, at the 2008 Paralympic Games Anna won a gold medal in the S10 final of the women's 100m butterfly event with a time of 1 minute 09.44 seconds; and WHEREAS, Anna also earned a bronze medal in the 100m freestyle event with a time of 1 minute, 01.91 seconds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that Anna Eames be commended and congratulated for her accomplishments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 2nd day of December, 2008. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor alley Memorandum Park and Recreation 763-512-2342/763-512-2344 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 1. C. Receipt of Human Services Foundation 2009 Allocation Report Prepared By Jeanne Fackler, Senior Program Coordinator Summary The Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (GVHSF) met on Monday, October 13 to review funding requests from five organizations. The following requests were received and approved by the Foundation for allocation: TOTAL Amount Requested $4,000 3,000 10,000 2,500 5,000 6,000 3,000 5,000 7.500 $46.000 Amount Allocated $2,500 3,000 10,000 2,500 5,000 6,000 3,000 5,000 5.000 $42.000 Organization Community Mediation Program Crisis Connection Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery Home Free NW Suburban Dinner at Your Door Senior Community Services HOME Program Senior Community Services Outreach The Bridge for Youth Tree House Dan Blumb, Chair, will be at the meeting to review the Allocation Report and recap the 2008 activities. Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the 2009 Allocation Report and approve notifying the nine organizations of their 2009 allocation amount. alley Memoran um Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 3. B. 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 emo ndum Inspections 763-593-8090 I 763-593-3997 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 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. #3495 #3496 #3498 #3503 #3505 #3510 Walgreen Company Tobacco Sales 5695 Duluth Street $200.00 Golden Valley Liquor Barrel Tobacco Sales 7890 Olson Memorial Highway $200.00 J.J.'s Clubhouse Tobacco Sales 6400 Wayzata Boulevard $200.00 Down In the Valley Tobacco Sales 8020 Olson Memorial Highway $200.00 Feist Automotive Tobacco Sales 1875 Lilac Drive North $200.00 G.V. Service Center Tobacco Sales 600 Boone Avenue North $200.00 Recommended Action Motion to authorize. the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. Hey M morandum City Administration/Council 763-593-8002/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - The Window Store, 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 The Window Store, LLC. 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 . CD TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ L(O - . 7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: ~ 50 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License Request : . ~VS Enclose the sum of $ 40 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. ~Vvl WI~ *~ I LLC.- (Business or Individual Name to be Licensed) Cf9[Jf S. <Q,az -r:r <S~ Jr70~ P~I MAl .~ (Address, including City, State and Zip Code) J 'h~'4j~.4)@ (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, hereby makes application for the (Applicant Name) through 6/30/Q1., subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. lcer) REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION Applicant (if different from above): Name Address Address ~I\\,t_ (Include City, State and Zip Code) l,lp. J4)-.9'tID ~ S-tore ~~ (Include City, State and Zip Code) Telephone Number (including area code) Date of Birth (if an individual) Business Name of Applicant Define Business (Corpora. , Descri~tion of go. ods or serv~~s for sa e (include p~ces or ~~~ if ,C?liciti."p_ donat~,^I~ mo.rree space IS needed, attach additional sheets (be 7~): ~AP 1!11;::. ~IT~ ~~ - (10 ~ ?ol~ ~ ckQC 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 ~~ W~ 8-or--~ ~~^S~ (Include City, State and Zip Code) Address of Organization Telephone Number (Including Area Code) (Corpo~ation tc.; State of Incorporation) Define Business 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: nn -h:r~~ (hq VJa1e:S (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) ~~~ (Office. ndiVidual) I, of ~~9pte (Name of Organization) being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the fore oing information is true to hislher own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on i ormation a b Ii, ,and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. /97" day of /!/oVCn?hCr- , 20 ?' 8". . RON VOSIKA I ~:~~~:B~:~~~ ,. .-i ')It/'1,/",,~'''~~N. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12- , v__ (Signature) Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 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, November 10, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7:30 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 October 13, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to paragraph eight on page four and noted that the word "know" should be changed to the word "now". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 13 minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning - 3335 Scott Avenue North - Z005-02 Applicant: Charmaine Wahlstrom Schodde Address: 3335 Scott Avenue North Purpose: To consider rezoning the property from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Grimes explained that the applicant is requesting to rezone her property from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential (R-2). He noted that the area is primarily zoned R-1 and added that the applicant recently purchased the house which had gone into foreclosure. Grimes explained that from the time the house was built in 1958 until 1998 the house was used as a two family home. After that time the house was converted to a single family home so it lost its legally non-conforming status. He explained that when the house was built the zoning code allowed duplexes as a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. Approximately 30 years ago the zoning code was amended to allow only single family homes in the R-1 zoning district causing all existing duplexes to become legally non-conforming. Grimes referred to the recent history of the property and explained that in September there was work being done in the house without a building permit and a stop work order Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10,2008 Page 2 was issued. He stated that the City did issue a building permit to allow some work to be done in the basement due to severe water damage which would have to be done whether the house is a one or two family home. Grimes referred to a survey of the property and noted that it meets all of the requirements of the R-2 zoning district and it is designated low density on the General Land Use Plan map and a two family home would be considered low density. He stated that the zoning code doesn't have specific issues to consider when a rezoning is requested but that some of the issues he considered are that the Comprehensive Plan is designated properly for a two family home (Low Density Residential is less than 5 units per acre), the house was legally built in 1958 before the zoning code was amended to only allow single family homes, the house looks like a duplex with two front doors, etc. and there are several other duplexes in the area. He questioned if maybe a larger area should be considered for rezoning rather than just this one property. He added that if the City Council chooses not to rezone this property nothing is really being taken away from the applicant because the house can still be used as a single family home. He explained that he did not make a recommendation in .his staff report because he can see both sides of this issue and how this request could be considered "spot zoning". Keysser questioned a specific duplex in the area that had been brought before the Planning Commission in the past. He asked if the existing non-conforming duplexes in the area are "grandfathered in". Grimes said he thought the house Keysser was referring to is a residential facility serving six or fewer people which is a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. Eck asked how the City knows when an existing duplex is converted into a single family home. Grimes stated that the City can tell by looking at utility bills and/or building permit information. Eck referred to Grimes' staff report regarding Grimes informing a realtor that this house could not be sold as a duplex. Grimes stated that he was informed by a neighbor that this house was being marketed as a two family home in 2007. He wrote a letter to the real estate agent informing him that this house could not be sold as a duplex without rezoning the property first. He added that sometime after he spoke with this realtor that the house went into foreclosure so he does not know how the house was marketed to the applicant. Eck asked if there is anything specific that needs to be done to a house to make it be considered a single family home versus a two family home. Grimes explained that once the wall was removed between the two sides of the house it was considered to be a single family home. Charmaine Schodde, Applicant, stated that the MLS listing of the house when she bought it said the property could be converted into a duplex. She said she spoke with someone at the City before she bought the house and was informed of the procedure Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2008 Page 3 required to rezone it from R-1 to R-2 and that is what she is in the process of doing. She said she was led to believe that rezoning this property would not be a problem. She stated that the house was built as a duplex. It looks like a duplex. It has two front doors, two kitchens, two gas meters, two furnaces and separate utilities and that is why she would like to have the property rezoned. She added that the property has a very large lot and there are several other duplexes in the area. She added that this is a very stable, family oriented area nota rental community. She explained that whoever lived in the house before she bought went through the foreclosure process. The heat was shut off but the water was left on causing the pipes to burst and water to bust out the windows causing extensive water damage. She stated that her plan is to live in one side of the house and have her daughter live in the other side of the house. Keysser asked if the MLS listing stated that the property would have to be rezoned. Schodde said no. Eck referred to Ms. Schodde saying that she called the City and discussed the procedure to rezone the property. He asked Schodde if she understood that the property would need to be rezoned. Schodde said yes. She said the house looked like a duplex and she believed it would not be a problem to rezone the property to R-2. Keysser stated that the applicant's daughter and family can live in the house with the applicant without having to rezone the property. Schodde explained that she lost her job and that her daughter living with her will be a temporary situation and she would eventually like to rent out half of the house in order to make the home more affordable. Keysser opened the public hearing. Lee Johnston, 3336 Scott Avenue North, said she has spent quite a bit of time in the house and it is her understanding that the house was totally renovated into a single family home approximately five years ago. She stated that the second kitchen was totally removed and converted to a bedroom and that the second stairway was removed as well. She stated that as far as she can tell the applicant has put a second stairway back in. She said she is mildly opposed to this property being rezoned to R-2 because it has been a drug house in the past and it is has been a single family home for several years now. Craig Hess, 3320 Scott Avenue North, said he is an architect and understands city codes. He referred to Subdivision 11.90 of the Golden Valley city code regarding non- conforming uses and stated that it is very clear that a non-conforming use can exist and continue as long as it is used in the same non-conforming way. He said it is also clear how the non-conforming status is lost. He said there has been no hardship shown in order to change the zoning on this property and if this property is rezoned it would be considered "spot" zoning which is typically not the preferred" method of zoning. Charles Christianson, 3376 Scott Avenue North, said he can confirm the history of the house which was spoken about by Lee Johnston. He said he is concerned about Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10,2008 Page 4 property values and rental units in the neighborhood. He said he is also concerned about the applicant purchasing the house in a manner that wasn't really valid. Waldhauser noted that the Planning Commission also received a letter from Kevin Boedigheimer, homeowner at 5240 33rd Avenue North. Keysser summarized the letter received and stated that Mr. Boedigheimer strongly opposes this rezoning request because he is concerned about the property values and setting a precedent. McCarty referred to the people who have stated that the home has been converted toa single family home and questioned how they are able to verify this. Johnston said she is friends with the previous owner and her children went to this house for daycare so she has been in the house many times. Keysser asked Johnston if she saw that the kitchen and stairs had been removed. Johnston said yes. Christianson said he also had his children in daycare at this house and he has only seen one kitchen but he has not seen every room in the house. Schodde stated that there was a kitchen downstairs with full size appliances and cabinets that had already been pulled out. Keysser asked Grimes how many unrelated people are allowed to live in a single family home. Grimes stated that up to five unrelated people can rent a single family home. Schodde said it seems like the neighbor's concerns are regarding the type of people living in the area and not if the property is a duplex. She said she could have the property be.a rental property but it looks like a duplex not like a single family home. Keysser reiterated to the applicant that she has other options if this property is not rezoned. Schodde said she will have to think about what she is going to do with the property because she bought it thinking it would not be a problem to rezone it. She referred to the concerns about property values and stated that she has put a lot of time and money into fixing up this property. McCarty questioned the legal issues regarding "spot" zoning. Grimes said he would talk to the City Attorney about "spot" zoning but he is not sure if that would be an argument in this case or not because a two family home would still be considered low density. Kluchka asked about crime in the neighborhood. Grimes said he did not do any research regarding crime and that nothing has been mentioned to him regarding crime in the area. Kluchka asked if crime is ever a consideration in zoning issues. Grimes said crime is not usually a consideration in zoning issues. Eck said notwithstanding that this was obviously built as a two family home and looks like a two family home he would not be in favor of rezoning this property to R-2 because it would be "spot" zoning. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2008 Page 5 Keysser stated that if the City does rezone the property and the house is torn down in the future a new two family home could be built. He noted that the whole block is single family homes and that the other duplexes in the area are around the corner. Cera stated that the General Land Use plan has the area designated for single family (R-1) residential which means that is what is planned for the area. Waldhauser said this is a very nice, quiet single family neighborhood and she thinks the best use of the area is single family residential. She added however that a duplex can fit in a single family neighborhood especially if the owner lives on one side and is cognizant of who is living next door. Kluchka said he is also not in favor of this rezoning but he questioned how the City can encourage higher density and more affordable housing. He suggested maybe allowing different types of housing ir:J the R-1 zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes stated that the zoning code would have to be amended to allow two family homes as a conditional use in the R-1 zoning district. Waldhauser stated that the Planning Commission has seen requests where people with larger homes want to divide them into apartment for parents, etc. and hopefully they will come up with a way to address these types of issues in Golden Valley. Schmidgall said he feels for the applicant if the property was misrepresented to her by the real estate agent but he is not inclined to support this request because work was done in the house without obtaining a building permit first and he is not comfortable with "spot" zoning so he would like to keep the property zoned as it is. McCarty said he is also not in support of this request. Keysser agreed and reiterated that the applicant does have other options for sharing the burden of homeownership. Grimes suggested that if the Planning Commission recommends denial of this request that they list findings. Keysser suggested the following findings: 1) Scott Avenue is clearly a single family street, 2) the house has already been converted back to a single family home, 3) the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with "spot" zoning and 4) the applicant has other options available to make it more affordable. Waldhauser said she thinks finding number four should be removed. The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the applicant's request to rezone the property at 3335 Scott Avenue North from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) ---Short Recess--- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10,2008 Page 6 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings . Waldhauser discussed a recent MnAPA conference she attended. 4. Other Business Kluchka asked for an update on whether a PUD has to correspond with the underlying zoning. Grimes said he was still looking into it. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2008 Present: Commissioners Anderson, Baker, Chandlee, Pawluk, St. Clair and Stremel. Also present were Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director; AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant. Absent: Commissioner Hill 1. Call to Order Pawluk called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes - September 22. 2008 MOVED by St. Clair, seconded by Anderson, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2008 meeting. 3. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement . Measurement - Staff shared a benchmarking report that was submitted by the MN Dept. of Administration. The report showed raw BTU data which was Phase 1 data collection, Phase II will include more comprehensive data. The City is working with Xcel Energy on the possibility of utilizing their peak-shaving program. Staff is looking at ways to establish base-lines. They will bring a list of what information is currently available, to the next meeting. . Education articles - Lundstrom and Clancy met with the City's Communication Coordinator (Cheryl Weiler) regarding future articles as well as the Remodeling Fair. The commission needs to put together a proposal for the Fair's committee. The proposal should include who the target audience is and the message to be delivered. It also needs to state whether the information will be shared via a speaker or at a booth. City Planner Joe Hogeboom will submit the proposal to the Committee. Weiler suggested that another article be written for the January CityNews if the commission has an involvement in the remodeling fair. Clancy will e- mail the suggested points to Pawluk. She will also contact CenterPoint to see if they have any involvement in the Fair. . Develop materials for developers - Baker was on a trip recently and gathered some information. He will bring it to the next meeting. 4. Program/Project Updates TMDL - Lundstrom shared a summary that was e-mailed to him. The next step is the report of findings. Baker asked if a representative of BCWSC could present their findings to the Commission. Lundstrom will ask Ron Leaf. 1/1 - Final reports from 2008 PMP are not complete yet. Private Development Updates - Nothing new. Minutes of the Environmental Commission October 27, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Douglas Drive Corridor - A workshop was held and 53 people attended. The majority of the comments were in regards to pedestrian improvements, renovation of properties and the speed limit. There will be an open house in January/February. 5. Commission Member Council Reports None. 6. Other Business None. 7. Adiourn MOVED by Baker, seconded by St. Clair, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be on November 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm. JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES Golden Valley - Crystal- New Hope Meeting of October 1, 2008 The Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to order at 1 :30 pm, in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room. Commissioners Present Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal Staff Present Guy Johnson, Public Works Director, New Hope Paul Coone, Operations Manager, New Hope Bernie Weber, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, New Hope Tom Mathisen, Public Works Director, Crystal Randy Kloepper, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, Crystal Bert Tracy, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley Dave Lemke, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director, Golden Valley Other Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group (EFG) Approval of JWC Minutes MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 5, 2008 meeting as submitted. Update on neaotiations with Minneapolis Harder stated that on Friday September 26, 2008 Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. (PCE) supplied a revised version of the Water Rate and Cost of Service Study plan for the City of Minneapolis to serve the Joint Water Commission. Harder stated he felt the rate announced was fair and balanced for the next five years and should be between 65.4% to 58.4% Clancy asked if the rates with Minneapolis would have to be reviewed every year. Harder stated that the Joint Water Commission could request a yearly copy of the Operating and Maintenance cost along with a copy of the depreciation schedule from the City of Minneapolis. Clancy's biggest concern was the timeliness of the rates and her inability to plan her budget. Joint Water Commission October 1, 2008 Page 2 Update on negotiations with Minneapolis - Continued Harder mentioned that the rates were slow coming this year because of the JWC request for additional information and the rates were going to be set for the next five years. Viring stated that JWC would be approving the 2009 budget in November due to the lateness of estimated rates from Minneapolis. Harder stated he would provide copies of the JWC rates report to the commissioners. Harder spoke briefly about the advisory board that he and Mayor Loomis sat on and that they would be sharing their findings with the Golden Valley Council on October 14, 2008. Burt stated that other cities were interested and there might be future meetings with Fridley, Columbia Heights, Edina and Bloomington. He also mentioned that there should be a resolution for support of the task force coming from the Council. Clancy will write the resolution for Council Recommendation for the three cities. Emergency Supply Study Harder has met with General Mills and addressed their concerns over the use of their wells. Next Harder will meet with TAC and get more details, develop final lists of scenarios and run the hydraulic model. Resolution 08-03 regarding tort limits - 2008-2009 Commissioner Norris introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION 08-3 RESOLUTION MAKING ANNUAL ELECTIONS FOR THE 2007-08 INSURANCE POLICY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner McDonald and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Burt, McDonald, and Norris; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Chair and his signature attested by the Vice Chair. Lease Agreement with T -Mobile MOVED by McDonald seconded by Norris and motion carried unanimously to approve the Lease Agreement with T -Mobile for the installation of an antenna at the water tower located at 2801 Hillsboro Avenue North in the City of New Hope. Joint Water Commission October 1, 2008 Page 3 Access to JWC SCADA bv Total Control After a recent staff change at Total Control the vendor was not allowed to access to SCADA through LOGIS. The issue was resolved when Burt granted permission. Clancy stated that in the past there was no agreement with Total Control and that a Contractual Service Agreement should be entered into with Total Control regarding services provided and cost to provide those services. JWC Water Consumption/Meter Tracy acknowledged the meter reading problems we have had with the City of Minneapolis regarding usage. They had an independent contractor verify the accuracy of the reads and Minneapolis concurred. Minneapolis will be crediting the account. CIP for Years 2008..2013 A discussion ensued as to whether the costs for driveways, retaining walls and streets leading up to water towers are the responsibility of the Joint Water Commission or the City where the equipment is located. A review will be made to determine where cost should come from and discussed at the next meeting. Other Tom Mathisen stated that at the Governors Monthly meeting they discussed the replacement of water membranes at the Columbia Heights water plant and that General Electric was paying eighty percent of the costs. The cost effectiveness of green roofs over white roofs was also discussed. Mathisen stated that in a Minnesota climate the pay back and life expectance of green roofs was not cost effective. Next Meeting The next meeting will be November 5,2008. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:37 pm. Thomas D. Burt, Chair ATTEST: Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant alley OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Brookview Community Center Monday, October 27, 2008 7:00 PM I. Call to Order Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call Present: Roger Bergman, Ken Graves, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Anne Saffert, Jerry Sandler, Jim Vaughan, Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Brian Erickson, Recreation Supervisor. Absent: Jim Johnson. III. Agenda changes or Additions Sandler added the Golden Valley Human Services Foundation Taste of Golden Val~y. . IV. Approval of Minutes - September 22, 2008 Bergman recommended a grammatical change to the minutes. MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Graves to approve the September 22nd meeting minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. V. Comprehensive Plan/Park System Plan Update Jacobson said the majority of the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan have been completed and are in draft form and soon will be available on the city website. He added that the Council will review the plan at a work session on Thursday, October 30th. VI. Brookview Community Center Study Jacobson said the Council has put discussions on the project on hold until after the first of the year. Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission October 27, 2008 Page 2 VII. Recreation Report - Brian Erickson Erickson updated the Commission on summer, fall and upcoming winter programs. Erickson gave details on fall soccer. He said he had 17 youth teams and 18 adult teams. He added it was a good season with cooperative weather. An attendance summary of summer youth programs was presented. Erickson also gave details on new programs that were offered. Erickson said he is also accepting applications for Warming House Attendants and will be conducting interviews in the next few weeks. VIII. Recreation Department Fees Jacobson presented the 2009 proposed fee schedule, which includes an additional $3.00 fee for non-resident registrations for youth, adult and senior activities. After some discussion, the following motion was introduced: MOTION: Moved by Vaughan and seconded by Kuebelbeck to accept the proposed 2009 fees. Motion carried unanimously. IX. Old Business Regional Trail Jacobson gave an update on the Luce Line status. He also stated that Three Rivers has hired a consultant to begin studying the north/south Canadian Pacific corridor and explore the feasibility of building the trail along that corridor from New Hope to Bloomington. Golden Valley Human Services Taste of Golden Valley Sandler invited the Commission to attend the Taste of Golden Valley which will be held on Thursday, November 20th from 5:30-8:00 p.m. at the Golden Valley Country Club. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Kuebelbeck and seconded by Mattison to adjourn at 8: 15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 Present: Sharon Glover, Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Linda Loomis, Philip Lund, Dean Penk, Marshall Tanick, and Blair Tremere Absent: Luke Weisberg (GVCEF Representative) Staff: Jeanne Andre The meeting began at 7:12 pm in the Council Conference Room. Approval of Minutes Tremere/Lund moved to approve the minutes of September 18, 2008, as presented. Motion carried. Golden Valley Connects Outreach New Ideas for Outreach - The Committee brainstormed on ways to attract new Bridge Builders. Ideas suggested include: · Contact the lilac planters and invite them to get involved in other projects. Possible projects include buckthorn busting, guerilla gardening, highway cleanup (and weeding), dog park, and new bridge builder training) · Use new Envision Award as way to celebrate successes, inviting planters to celebrate and get involved in other ways. . Use General Mills volunteer recruitment form to invite General Mills employees to get involved on the Connection Project Board or other volunteer activities. · Use Taste of Golden Valley as forum to recruit participants. · Fine tune the Envision/Bridge Builder slide show, include lilac planting photos. · Make Vision Guide available to new participants. · Look at City Web Site and consider how to better utilize it for the Connection Project/Bridge Builders. · Consider stories that could be placed in CityNews in 2009 about Connection Project/Bridge Builders. Some of these ideas will be implemented in the short term, including: 1. Use Quarterly Bridge Builder meeting to invite folks to be more involved. Update PowerPoint presentation and plan to fine tune message for Bridge Builder Quarterly meeting at next Connection Project meeting. Dean Penk invited some potential Bridge Builders to attend the next quarterly meeting the day of the lilac planting - working with them can be a preliminary exercise for a broader initiative in 2008. 2. Include invitation to get involved in new projects in thank you emails/letters to volunteers. Give them options and ask them to respond regarding their interest in specific projects or a general Bridge Builder training. Use responses to help determine future course of action. 3. Plan for a general Bridge Builder Training in the winter or spring of 2009. Do significant advance recruitment so that a base level of attendance is assured. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors Meeting Minutes October 16, 2008 - Page 2 Bridge Building Activities Quarterly Meetinas - The next quarterly meeting will be on Saturday, November 22, from 10 am to noon at the Vikings Boy Scout Council on Glenwood Avenue. Marshall Tanick has already sent email notices and will do follow up calling. The Board will work on the specific agenda for the meeting at its next meeting. A Boy Scout representative will give a presentation at the end of the meeting. Lilac Plantina - The event was very successful. It was well organized and went smoothly. Public relations for the event were very positive and good feedback continues to roll in. Volunteers seem upbeat about another event next year and even asked about volunteering for weeding and maintenance activities. Thank you letters are going out to contributors and organizers. The data base of volunteers has been updated and will be used to recruit for future lilac planting and other Bridge Builder events. Joint Fundraisina with GVCEF - Luke Weisberg was not at the meeting and Dean Penk has not received the anticipated letter of intent for further discussion. Dean will try and meet with Luke soon and bring information to the next Board meeting. Sharon Glover suggested that the group put together a budget for all of the anticipated 2009 activities in order to prepare a comprehensive request to present to possible funders. Community Awards Helene Johnson reported on the Council/Manager Meeting at which she presented the Board's recommendations regarding a community award. She noted that the Council was supportive and suggested that it be clear that groups as well as individuals can be recognized, and that the form be designed to elicit a narrative on how the person/project has furthered Envision. The Council suggested it be called the Envision Award, with a nickname of the VISI. The Council supports having the award granted by the Connection Project, with a Council Meeting as the venue so that there is broader recognition. Helene Johnson volunteered to work on a nomination process and revise the summary to move on to implementation. The Board would like to finalize the award at its November meeting and be ready to take nominations in December. Recruitment of Members to the Executive Board Blair Tremere will follow up with the General Mills volunteer form and request that Board membership be posted as an opportunity for General Mills employees. Board Members supported following up on this opportunity. Future Meetings The Board decided to, change the next meeting to November 13 in order not to conflict with the Taste of Golden Valley. The meeting ended at 8:45 pm. Jeanne Andre Assistant City Manager hlley Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Fire Engine Refurbishment - Bid Prepared By Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections Summary The 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Program, V&E-023 (page 28) allocates $100,000 for the refurbishment of a 1985 fire pumper. This vehicle is currently on a twenty-two year replacement schedule. Bid packets were sent to four vendors and one sealed bid was received and opened on November 6, 2008. Staff recommends awarding the bid for the fire engine refurbishment with Option 5.3, vehicle undercoating. Recommended Action Motion to award the bid for the fire engine refurbishment to the only bidder, General Safety Equipment for $85,222, plus Option 5.3 vehicle undercoating for $685, for a total amount of $85,907. Hey Me orandum Fire Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Fire Pumper - Bid Prepared By Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections Summary The 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Program, Vehicles and Equipment, V&E-036 (page 33) allocates $550,000 for the purchase of a new fire pumper. This new vehicle will replace a 1986 Ford L9000 fire pumper. Three sealed bids for the construction and delivery of a new fire pumper were received and opened on November 6, 2008. It is recommended to approve the base bid of $494,960 from Custom Fire to construct and deliver the fire pumper. It is also recommended not to accept Option #1 Trade in 1986 Ford L9000, but to sell it upon receiving the new fire pumper. The bid submitted by General Safety has differences to the specifications, including cabinet size, hose bed design, overall length of the vehicle and wheel base. Custom Fire met the written specifications. Manufacturer Pierce Custom Fire General Safety Base Bid Construct & Deliver Fire Pumper $601,075 $494,960 $486,990 Option #1 Trade In 1986 Ford L-9000 No Bid ($6,500) ($10,000) Total $601,075 $488,460 $476,990 Recommended Action Motion to award the bid for construction and delivery of one fire pumper to Custom Fire for $494,960, not accepting the Option #1 trade in. alley M morandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) .~ \ \ Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 \ "60 Days" Deadline: December 19, 2008 Agendtltem 3. F. APfroval of Final Plat and Subdivision - Quail Woods Addition I, Prepared By Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development , Summary\ At the October 21,2008 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the preliminary plan for the minor subdivision of Quail Woods. After the hearing the Council approved the preliminary plan with four conditions. The final plat of Quail Woods has now been prepared by Peter Knaeble of the Golden Valley Land Company. City staff has reviewed the final plat and finds it consistent with the approved preliminary plan and the requirements of City Code. The four conditions of approval have been met or will be met prior to the December 2,2008 meeting. The City Attorney has reviewed the plat and helped draft the required Subdivision Agreement that is also on this agenda. Prior to December 2, 2008, Golden Valley Land Company will have to provide the City with a check in the amount of $1 ,100 for park dedication fees. The issue regarding future variances has been included in the Subdivision Agreement. In review, Quail Woods subdivides the existing one lot at 1825 Quail Avenue North into three lots. The middle lot will be the location of the existing single family home that is now located on the property. The two other lots will be the location of future homes. Each of the lots meets or exceeds the requirements of both the zoning and subdivision codes. The existing home will be located on its new lot in a manner that is consistent with zoning code requirements. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Planning Commission minutes dated September 22,2008 (5 pages) City Council minutes dated October 21, 2008 (1 page) Subdivision Development Agreement (8 pages) Resolution for Approval of Plat - Quail Woods Addition (1 page) Final Plat of Quail Woods Addition (1 oversized page loose in agenda packet) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Quail Woods Addition. Motion to approve the Subdivision Development Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City. 2010 1951 J j -' 414fl 01 I 0 I 1943 i (I SOREll AVE ~ 4975 4955 4945 4935 49ZS 4875 4835 1931 z lJ;,i ~! !Zi "" lJl w I/:t 4l14O 1920 1840 0;) SPRING VALLEY em 1900 1823 i 1819 z ~ ~ ... < :;; ;::i 1813 -< 1815 :5 18U. ~ 0' tl 1llO1 1811 18liO 4900 1801 SPRtNG VAllEY at< 1790 1IlOlI 1804 1101 4941 4921 4901 4960 4930 4920 4912 1649 SAINT CROlX AVE N (l) S02S 5015 SOll5 4941 4921 4913 4901 4001 1624 M::u ~::'~~i:lc.I'N;;","1 Ar:jMS ':':"-'Y"g:t .~~-~ L(jQJ:n 0.15 ~ G :!Ufl 1629 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22,2008 1. rs Cera, Keysser, Klu , nning and Devel missioners E " ,McCarty, and nt Mark Grimes, and Waldhauser were absent. egular meeting of the Planning Commi ,ion was held at the Golden Valley Ci Co iI Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley R d, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Septe 22, 2008. Chair Keysser calle he meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present Schmidgall. Also pre Administrative Assistant Mayor Loomis was in attendanc " iscu October 4. She explained that the id Highway 55 came from Envision Golde funds for the plant materials and landsc map of the area and stated that they General Mills Blvd. to Winnetka in the volunteer efforts. anting project scheduled for nt .' and other shrubs and trees along nd Bridge Builders. She explained that the s came from MnDOT. She referred to a > Ian on both sides of Highway 55 from ed the. ning Commissioners to participate mission Meeting McCarty r red to the third paragraph on R ge 15 and stated that he woul > that his' 'ention was that he would like to s the proposed building be set bac just t r) from the property line along Gold Valley Road. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - Quail Woods - 1825 Quail Avenue - SU06-03 M ED by Cera, seconded by McCarty an, otion carried unanimously to approve the gust 11, 2008 minutes with the above cl Ication. Applicant: Peter Knaeble (Golden Valley Land Co.) Address: 1825 Quail Avenue Purpose: The subdivision would create three separate lots and allow for the construction of two new homes. The existing home will remain.> Grimes referred to a location map and noted that the location of his proposed subdivision is at the southwest corner of.Golden Valley Road and Quail Avenue near Scheid Park. He explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 38,714 square foot lot into three new lots. He added that the existing home will remain, but the existing garage will be relocated. He stated that all three lots exceed the minimum lot size requirements and noted that utilities are available to each lot. He explained that when building permits are applied for, a tree preservation plan and grading and erosion control plan will be required for each lot. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision because it meets all of the requirements of the zoning code and subdivision code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22,2008 Page 2 Kluchka asked if there are any covenants on this property. Grimes said he is not aware of any covenants on this property. Kluchka asked about the owner of the property. Grimes stated that the applicant has purchased this property from a trust. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, stated that his intent is to remodel the existing house which has been vacant for about a year. He clarified that the sale of the property closes at the end of October at which time he will rearrange the location of the existing driveway and garage and start renovating the existing home. He reiterated that all three lots exceed the minimum standards and that all three homes will meet all of the setback requirements. He stated that the property is heavily wooded and that the vast majority of the trees will remain however one or two may be removed on each lot in order to construct the new homes. Keysser asked the applicant if he plans to sell the parcels after the property is subdivided or if he is planning on building the homes on the lots and then selling them. Knaeble stated that he is subdividing the property then selling the lots to builders or buyers who would then build custom homes. Keysser asked the applicant if he anticipates doing any grading of the property. Knaeble said no and explained that the grading on the individual lots will be done by the builders when the homes are built. McCarty referred to Lot 3, the northern most lot, and asked about the square footage of the proposed home. Knaeble said the footprint would be approximately 1,500 square feet and the home would be approximately 2,500 to 3,000 square feet in size. Grimes added that staff and the applicant have made sure that the existing home and both new homes will meet all of the new setback requirements without any variances being issued. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that states no variances will be granted in the future for any of these homes. Schmidgall asked the applicant if he is planning on "rouging-in" the utilities to the proposed new lots. Knaeble said they will be "roughing-in" the utilities but not until the first house is ready to be built. Grimes asked the applicant to discuss the trees on the property. Knaeblesaid they did a complete tree survey. He explained that on Lot 1 there may be one tree removed depending on the placement of the house. On Lot 2 there may be a couple of trees removed behind the existir.lg house and on Lot 3 one or two trees may be removed in order to build a new house. He stated that they will be doing individual tree preservation plans for each lot. Keysser asked if there will be a rain garden installed on Lot 2 where the existing house is located. Knaeble said he is not planning on installing a rain garden at this point but he is waiting to see what the Bassett Creek Management Commission will require. Grimes added that this development is small enough not to require any ponding but it will require that best management practices be followed. Keysser opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page3 Roma Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, asked if the developer could give some background information on his company, projects they've done in the past and builders they have used. She asked what assurances the neighbors have as to the quality of these proposed new homes. She said she is very concerned about these homes becoming rental properties and she wants to be notified when the proposed new homes are to be built. Lynn Gitelis, 4945 Golden Valley Road, said she will end up living next to whatever is built on this property. She said that some of the existing trees may not be worth preserving because they are dying. She said she is concerned about having extra activity and a garage and cars right next door to her. She said she would prefer if two houses were built instead of three. She referred to the traffic in the area and stated that it is very difficult to turn left off of Quail Avenue onto Golden Valley Road throughout most of the day. She said it would be great to see someone living at this property again but reiterated that she would rather see two houses built, not three. She said she would like to see the property cleaned up and she is also concerned about the design of the new houses. Catherine Martignacco, 4846 Golden Valley Road, said she keeps her eye on Golden Valley. She said she is concerned, and knows there are others concerned, about these houses becoming rental properties and she would strongly object to any kind of twin home or rental property being built here. She said she agrees that two houses would be better than three and that traffic is a concern. Sam Madrid, 4900 Frontenac Avenue, said he is concerned about the impact to the side yard setback area next to his property. He said he realizes this project isn't going to be stopped by the neighborhood but he lives next to Lot 1 and even though the applicant is legally meeting the setback requirements he would like to see a larger setback area between his property and the proposed new Lot 1. He said he thinks the side and front yard setbacks should be consistent with the other side and front yard setbacks in the neighborhood. He added that he would also like windows along the south side of the proposed house on Lot 1 minimized for his privacy. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Knaeble discussed some of the other projects he has done in Golden Valley and other cities and discussed his background. Kluchka referred to the other projects the applicant has done and asked if he just subdivided the properties to prepare them for sale or if he has built houses on the properties and then sold them. Knaeble said he mostly does infill developments where he subdivides properties and sells them to builders to build whatthey want. He explained that he doesn't know what type or style these proposed new homes will be, but the plans will be reviewed by the City and the City does not have any design standards so he doesn't know if the neighbors will be able to have input on the building design. He said he recognizes that this property has been abandoned and is run-down but it is his intent to clean it up. He referred to the concerns expressed regarding traffic and said he.doesn't see two more lots having an impact to the existing streets. He referred to the concerns about rental properties and stated that the property is zoned R-1 so single-family homes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 4 will be built but if someone wants to rent out their home in the future he has no control over that and he is not sure if the City does either. Kluchka questioned the proposed location of the existing garage. Knaeble said he is not sure yet where on the lot the garage will be placed but it will probably be attached to home and it will meet all setback requirements. Grimes referred to the concern about the quality of the proposed new homes and stated that the City does not require single-family homes to be reviewed by neighboring property owners. McCarty said he would be in favor of this proposal with the condition added that there will be no variance requests made in the future. Keysser questioned if the City can legally not allow someone to ask for a variance. Grimes stated that a stipulation regarding not allowing future variances has been put in subdivision development agreements in the past. He stated that the City Council can always choose to override a subdivision development agreement. He added that he thinks there is plenty of room for good sized houses on these proposed lots without needing any variances. Knaeble said he thinks it would be unfair to the new homeowners to preclude variances because it is not required for any of the other homes in Golden Valley. He added that he would ask the City Council to strike language in the subdivision development agreement regarding not allowing future variances because no one can foresee what the future zoning code requirements will be. Keysser suggested getting the City Attorney's opinion regarding future variances. He noted that just because a homeowner asks for a variance doesn't mean they would get one and he would like to leave that condition out of the Planning Commission's approval and let the Board of Zoning Appeals do their job regarding variance requests. Cera said he agreed with McCarty and Kluchka that there should be a condition of approval that no variances will be allowed on these lots in the future. Grimes agreed and said there really is no reason or justification for variances on any of these proposed lots. He explained that there is a state statute that says subdivision agreements are subject to the zoning regulations currently in place for two years from the time of approval of the subdivision agreement. McCarty stated that putting language in the subdivision development agreement about not allowing future variances doesn't mean that a homeowner can't come before the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance especially if it is for a hardship created by the City if the zoning code requirements are amended. Keysser suggested the Commissioners take a separate vote on the issue of adding a condition regarding allowing future variances. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 5 The following Commissioners voted yes to add a condition of approval stating that future variances would not be allowed: Cera, Kluchka and McCarty. Commissioners Keysser and Schmidgall voted no. Kluchka asked Grimes about the best way for the neighbors to mitigate the traffic issues. Grimes stated that there has been additional right-of-way given as a part of this proposal. He stated that this proposal would add approximately 20 trips per day to the existing traffic, not counting the 10 trips per day for the existing home. He noted that the City Engineer does not have concerns about the traffic being generated by this proposal, but he could ask him to address'the issue before this proposal goes on to the City Council. Kluchkaasked what the neighbors could do to be proactive about the traffic issues. Grimes suggested they talk to the Director of Public Works or the City Engineer about their traffic concerns. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to subdivide the property located at 1825 Quail Avenue into three lots with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,100 shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 3. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated September 12, 2008. 4. No future variances will be allowed on any of these lots. Roma Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, asked the applicant when the existing home would be renovated and if there is a prospective buyer for the house. She asked who would be responsible for the upkeep of the property until they sell the lots. She added that she never realized how few rights property owners have. Knaeble said he would be responsible for the properties when they close on the sale at the end of October. He said the renovations will begin right away and then the existing home and new lots will be sold. Grimes explained that ther.e is a single-family housing maintenance code that these houses will be subject to follow. Knaeble stated that there will be a pedod of transition but that the existing house has been in transition for a year and a half already. He added that in 2006 when the streets were reconstructed in this area the City assessed the property owner for three lots, not two, so the owners expected there to be three lots in the future. ---Short Recess--- Regular Meeting of the City Council October 21,2008 Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - 1825 Quail Avenue North - Quail Woods Peter Knaeble (Golden Valley Land Co.), Applicant Peter Knaeble, Applicant, presented the plan amendment and answered questions from the Council. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, introduced the agenda item and answered questions from the Council. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Rosa Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, stated at the Planning Commission that her neighborhood felt very strongly that if the plat were approved it would have the condition that no variances would be permitted. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the preliminary plan for the minor subdivision of Quail Woods, located at the corner of Quail Avenue North and Golden Valley Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,100 shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 3. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memos dated September 12, 2008 and October 13, 2008. 4. It is the present intention of the council not to grant to the developer variances for this subdivision unless the circumstances. This condition would be included in the Subdivision Agreement for Quail Woods. 5. The garage on Lot 2 be moved prior to plan approval. SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Quail Woods Addition AGREEMENT dated this day of December, 2008, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and Golden Valley Land Co. (the "Developer"). 1. ReQuest for Plat Ap~roval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivision of land and a plat of land to be known as Quail Woods Addition, which land is legally described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"). 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the subdivision and the plat on the following conditions: a. Conformance to, and inclusion of, all provisions of the Preliminary Plans for Quail Woods, dated August 21, 2008, prepared by Terra Engineering together with the Grading and Utility Plan for Quail Woods as revised. b. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer concerning design and installation of public infrastructure including grading, drainage, erosion control, streets and utilities as outlined in his September 12, 2008 and October 13, 2008 reviews. c. Execution of this Subdivision Development Agreement. d. Payment of all applicable fees including a $1,100 Park Dedication fee and other fees identified in the current fee schedule. e. Incorporation of any easements necessary to accommodate drainage, ponding, trails, underpasses, conservation areas, streets and utilities. f. Relocation of the existing garage located on the subject property to a conforming location before final plat approval. g. Marketable title in the Developer, if the City attorney determines a title review is necessary before final plat approval. h. It is the present intention of the City Council not to grant to the Developer any variances for the subdivision unless the circumstances warrant it. 3. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state of federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 4. Development Plans. The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Department of Public Works. The plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering this Agreement, but before commencement of any work on the Subject Property. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The Plans are: Plan A - Plat Plan B - Terra Engineering Existing Conditions Plan dated August21, 2008 Plan C - Terra Engineering Preliminary Grading/Utility Plan dated August 21,2008 as revised September 23,2008. 5. Installation bv Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay for the following, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Improvements". The grading, erosion control and landscaping shall all be made in accordance with City approved plans. a. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments b. Surveying and Staking of work required to be performed by the Developer. c. Gas, Electric, Telephone, and Cable Lines d. Site Grading and Erosion Control e. Landscaping f. Other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in other agreements. 6. Gradina. Drainaae/Site Gradina/Erosion Control and Clean UP. Site grading for each lot shall be completed by the Developer at its cost in accordance with the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit for each lot issued and approved by the City at the time of home construction. If required, such activities shall also be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and be in accordance with an NPDES permit. The Developer or its assigns shall comply with the terms of the grading, drainage and erosion control permit issued for each home and the relocation of the garage. 7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of Public Infrastructure Improvements. 8. Ownership of Improvements. The City shall install services in the public right~-of- way and ownership shall be the responsibility of the Developer or its assigns. 9. Assessment for Public Works Costs. a. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay, by way of special assessments levied against each Lot, costs incurred by the City in conjunction with installation of sewer and water services to said Lot 1 and driveway aprons for said Lots 1,2 and 3. Developer waives its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. b. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat or subdivision approval and development of the Subject Property. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. c. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the preparation and enforcement of this Agreement including engineering and attorney's fees. The estimated City fees of $14,136 shall be deposited with the City at the time this Agreement is signed, and represent the following estimates: $7,433.00 $5,203.00 $1,500.00 Attorney Fees and Costs City Administrative Costs Street Signs If the City fees and costs exceed this estimate, the Developer shall pay the additional fees and costs to the City within ten (10) days of the request. d. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt development work and construction including, but not limited to, the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer mayor may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per year. 10. Park Dedication. The Developer agrees to pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $1,100.00 at the time of execution of any plat by the City. 11. Property Fees, Charaes and Assessments. The Developer understands that builders will be required to pay for the Subject Property fees, charges and assessments in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The rates for each of these items will be set according to the current rate structure at the time the building permit is' received. The fees, charges, and assessments in effect as of this agreement are: a. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Availability Charges per SAC unit (current rate is $1,550.00). 12. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by its hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. 13. Miscellaneous. a. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property, the subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the subdivision, or the plat, or the development of the Subject Property does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work on the Subject Property until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. b. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. c. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. d. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. e. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of utility service and driveway apron installation by the City and damage to public improvements caused by the City, the Developer, it contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. f. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. g. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer shall take such steps, including execution of amendments to this Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release. h. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. i. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City Council. j. It is the present intention of the Council not to grant to the developer variances for this subdivision unless the circumstances warrant it. 14. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Peter Knaeble Golden Valley Land Co. 6001 Glenwood Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55422 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City Manager City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager DEVELOPER By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2008, by Linda R. Loomis, Mayor, and Thomas D. Burt, City Manager, of the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 200_, by Peter Knaeble, , on behalf of the said Golden Valley Land Co. Notary Public Drafted by: Best & Flanagan, LLP (ADB) 225 South 6th Street Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 ATTACHMENT 1 Lot 1, in Auditor's Subdivision Number 330, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Resolution 08-54 December 2, 2008 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - QUAIL WOODS ADDITION WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice, has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Quail Woods Addition covering the following described tracts of land: Lot 1, in Auditor's Subdivision Number 330, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises. 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 Memorand m City Administration/Council 763-593-8096/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 3. G. Approval of City Manager Salary Prepared By: Paula A. Graff, Human Resources Coordinator Summary Upon completion of the City Manager's performance review, Council requested that staff prepare a request for an increase in the City Manager's compensation package. At the direction of the Council, the City Manager will receive a 3% increase in compensation which will increase his annual salary to $127,183, retroactive back to his six-year anniversary date on November 18, 2008. Effective January 1, 2009, as a result of changes to the employer provider benefit package, the City Manager will take a premium savings as salary in order to participate in a tax-favored health plan. This benefit change will add an additional $6,257 to his pay for a total annual salary of $133,441. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Updating the Addendum to the City Manager Employment Agreement. Resolution 08-55 December 2,2008 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION UPDATING THE ADDENDUM TO THE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it hereby adopts the following addendum to the City Manager Employment Agreement. This addendum supersedes the previous addendum dated December 18, 2007. Salary 11/18/08 through 12/31/08 $127,183 $133,441 Salary effective 1/1/2009 Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: , whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. alley M morandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 3. H. Approval of Six Month Extension - Conditional Use Permit - Morries Automotive Group- 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Boulevard Prepared By Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Summary On December 4,2007, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow for the former Suburban Tire property at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue South and Wayzata Boulevard to be used for auto sales and repair by Morries Cadillac. Morries Automotive Group is still in the process of finalizing the purchase of the property and getting the proper papers filed that would allow them to get the necessary building permits from the City. The zoning code requires that construction for the use approved by the CUP must commence within a year of the issuance of the CUP by the City Council. Therefore, Morries Automotive Group is requesting a six month extension to begin work on the site. The extension would be until June 3, 2009. Attachment Location Map (1 page) Letter from Rod Ibis, Morries Automotive Group, dated November 20,2008 (1 page) Conditional Use Permits 117A and 117B (4 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve an extension until June 3, 2009 to begin work on the construction for the use approved by CUP on December 4, 2007 for the properties located at 7500 and 7500 Wayzata Boulevard. 34$ 7400 ~ LAUREL AVE 701 150 840 If! ~ '< i if $! , f' lIl5 7500-7550 Wayzata Blvd. L::. I.U~~ . I-:=-i ~i ..~ o 7400 7100 o o o WAY2ATA BLVD .o.' S 1'0 We 094 lOWSlAl'IA A- INTERSTATE 394 ~ INTYRSTATE 394 fa 1394 TO t.oulSlANA AVU ...... WAVZATABLVD III ~ '< !Ill "I: tl ... III ... > or: i i ~ a: \<", 13TH LN W ;g I ~ )'Ii ~ :so :Ii '" @ M.apcrt'~~'.W'~"'kdMS.~ l~~{C-) tOOJ.SG!S2rofi II 41Ctt I ~ November 20, 2008 City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Mn. 55427 Attn: Mr. Mark Grimes Subject: Suburban Tire property Dear Mr. Grimes, As the December 6, 2008 deadline approaches, it appears we will need to request an extension in order to complete the necessary requirements. We still need to get some signatures, a copy of the Contract for Deed and the cross easement agreement. Please include this request on the City Council Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, December 2, 2008. Thank.:.ym1........ LJdJik Rod Ibis Morries Automotive Group CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. CU-117A Date of Approval: December 4. 2007 by the City Council in accordance with Sec. 11.10. Subd. 2 and Section 11.30 of City Code Issued To: Waqener Properties, Inc. Approved Location: 7500 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley. MN Approved Conditional Use: To allow for auto sales and auto repair/service in the Industrial zoninq district. Conditions of Approval: 1. The property shall be used only in conjunction with the property at 7550 Wayzata Blvd. for the sale of vehicles (cars and light trucks) and for the service and repair of light trucks and cars. This does not include a body shop. 2. The maximum number of cars and light trucks that are parked on the combined site at 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Blvd. shall be limited to 37 as per the attached site plan prepared by Steven Fichtel Architect and dated 10/8/07. At least four of the parking spaces shall be designated for customer parking. No more than 15 of the spaces can be used for display of cars or light trucks for sale. 3. All signage and lighting of the site shall meet the requirement of current City Code. 4. The lot and exterior of the building at 7500 Wayzata Blvd. shall be remodeled as per the plans prepared by Steven Fichtel Architect and dated 7/6/007. 5. As indicated on the survey prepared by Gronberg and Associates, Inc. and dated 8/2/07, the areas on the combined site at 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Blvd. between the parking areas and the street curb along Pennsylvania Avenue South and Wayzata Boulevard shall be seeded with grass or have sod placed. Some of the grass or sod will be on City or MnDOT right-ot-way. This grass area shall be maintained and, if it dies, replaced by Wagener Properties, Inc. or its successor. 6. The recommendation~ found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October 30, 2007, shall become a part of this recommendation. 7. The recommendation found in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshall Ed Anderson dated November 26, 2007 shall become a part of this plan. However, the final determination on the matters addressed in the memo shall be made by the Building Official. 8. No outside speakers shall be permitted on the site or combined site. 9. All garbage and recycling containers shall be screened or stored within a building. 10. All outside storage of materials (other than vehicles) shall be kept inside a building or screened from view of the street. This includes tires. 11. The lot shall be subject to a recorded cross parking and access easement benefiting both 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Boulevard and the City in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. 12. The sidewalk shall be constructed to be ADA compliant. 13. The applicant shall file a corrected site plan to show property lines consistent with the survey prepared by Gronberg and Associates, Inc. dated 8/2/07 before building permits are issued. 14. All other applicable local, state, 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 conditional use permit. Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other city code provisions, regulations, and ordinances. Issued by: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. CU-117B Date of Approval: December 4. 2007 by the City Council in accordance with Sec. 11.10, Subd. 2 and Section 11.30 of City Code Issued To: Wagener Properties. Inc. Approved Location: 7550 Wayzata Boulevard. Golden Valley. MN Approved Conditional Use: To allow for auto sales and auto repair/service in the Industrial zoninQ district. Conditions of Approval: 1. The property shall be used only in conjunction with the property at 7500 Wayzata Blvd. for the sale of vehicles (cars and light trucks) and for the service and repair of light trucks and cars. This does not include a body shop. 2. The maximum number of cars and light trucks that are parked on the combined site at 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Blvd. shall be limited to 37 as per the attached site plan prepared by Steven Fichtel Architect and dated 10/8/07. At least four of the parking spaces shall be designated for customer parking. No more than 15 of the spaces can be used for display of cars or light trucks for sale. 3. All signage and lighting of the site shall meet the requirement of current City Code. 4. The lot and exterior of the building at 7550 Wayzata Blvd. shall be remodeled as per the plans prepared by Steven Fichtel Architect and dated 7/6/007. 5. As indicated on the survey prepared by Gronberg and Associates, Inc. and dated 8/2/07, the areas on the combined site at 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Blvd. between the parking areas and the street curb along Pennsylvania Avenue South and Wayzata Boulevard shall be seeded with grass or have sod placed. Some of the grass or sod will be on City or MnDOT right-of-way. This grass area shall be maintained and, if it dies, replaced by Wagener Properties, Inc. or its successor. 6. The recommendations, found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October 30,2007, shall become a part of this recommendation. 7. The recommendation found in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshall Ed Anderson dated November 26, 2007 shall become a part of this plan. However, the final determination on the matters addressed in the memo shall be made by the Building Official. 8. No outside speakers shall be permitted on the site or combined site. 9. All garbage and recycling containers shall be screened or stored within a building. 10. All outside storage of materials (other than vehicles) shall be kept inside a building or screened from view of the street. This includes tires. 11. The lot shall be subject to a recorded cross parking and access easement benefiting both 7500 and 7550 Wayzata Boulevard and the City in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. 12. The sidewalk shall be constructed to be ADA compliant. 13. The applicant shall file a corrected site plan to show property lines consistent with the survey prepared by Gronberg and Associates, Inc. dated 8/2/07 before building permits are issued. 14. All other applicable local, state, 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 conditional use permit. Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other city code provisions, regulations, and ordinances. Issued by: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development alley M morandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 "60 Days" Deadline: January 27, 2009 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #410 - Rezoning to Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District - 3335 Scott Avenue North Prepared By Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Summary At the November 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public hearing on a request to rezone the property at 3335 Scott Avenue North from Single Family (R-1) Zoning District to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. The request was made in order that the existing home at this address could be used as a two family dwelling. As indicated in the minutes from the meeting, a number of neighbors spoke to the Commission and they were all generally opposed to the rezoning. After the hearing closed, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the rezoning request that included several findings for denial. (See recommendation below) My memo to the Planning Commission dated November 5, 2008 gives a history of this property. In summary, the house was built in 1958 as a two family dwelling. At the time the two family dwelling was built, it was considered a permitted use in the single family zoning district. About 30 years ago, the City altered the single family zoning district to allow only single family homes as permitted uses. Therefore, all existing two family homes became nonconforming. The nonconforming status means that a two family home can remain and be used as a two family home but no changes can be made to enlarge the structure or change its use. In this case, the two family home was converted to a single family home in 1998 and has remained that way since that time. Therefore, it cannot be converted back to a two family dwelling without first rezoning the property to the R-2 zoning district. The house was put on the market in 2007 and the realtor was told by me in a letter that the house could not be used as a two family home. Sometime between the summer of 2007 and September of 2008, the house went into foreclosure. The bank or financial institution who took the house over put it on the market stating that the house could be converted to a two family dwelling. The applicant for the rezoning did contact the City and was made aware that the rezoning was necessary for it to be used as a two family dwelling. At the November 10 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant said she knew of the rezoning requirement and still began work to convert it to a two family home without the rezoning or a building permit. (In September 2008, the Inspections Department stopped work at the house because no building permit had been issued.) Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo to Planning Commission dated November 5,2008 (4 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated November 10, 2008 (5 pages) Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) (4 pages) Letter from Kevin Boedigheimer, 5420 33rd Avenue North (1 page) Ordinance #410, Rezoning from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2), 3335 Scott Avenue North, Charmain Wahlstrom Schodde, Applicant (1 page) Survey of Property (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet) Photos of Property (2 pages, loose in agenda packet) Zoning Map (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet) General Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet) Existing Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet) Recommended Action The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the rezoning of the 3335 Scott Avenue North property from R-1 to R-2 for the following reasons: 1) Scott Avenue North is clearly a single family street, 2) the house has already been converted back to a single family home and, 3) the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with "spot" zoning. I .... c Q z ! \J ~ 3350 Cl) 3398 3390 33114 3376 331ill o 3310 o 3385 o 5315 3360 d 3320 34Tli'lIVE'N FA; Subject Property 'I 3350 3329 3312 3330 3345 3320 3315 3321 3301 3301 5150 3311 33ilO 3301 33RDAVE N 3249 3Z48 5001 324S 3244 ;v 3281 m '" 3241 ~ 3240 ~ 3211 Z 3231 3230 3261 3221 3220 3251 Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: November 5, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendment to Zoning Map from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential (R-2) for Property Located at 3335 Scott Ave. N. (Lot 1, Block 2, Dahinden's 3rd Addition)-Charmaine Wahlstrom Schodde, Applicant Background Charmaine Wahlstrom Shodde recently purchased the house at 3335 Scott Ave. N. Staff was told by the owner that the house had gone into foreclosure and was purchased from the bank. The applicant purchased the house with the understanding that it could be used as a two family dwelling. The property is designated on the General Land Use Plan map for Low Density development as is the area surrounding the house. The Low Density designation allows housing that is less than 5 units per acre. The property has been zoned Single Family Residential (R-1) for the past 30 years. Within the R-1 zoning district, only single family homes are permitted. The surrounding area is also zoned R-1. In order to allow this property to be used as a two family home, the property must be rezoned to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) zoning district that permits two family homes as a permitted use. In terms of the General Land Use Plan map, a two family dwelling is considered Low Density because it is less than 5 units per acre. The building was constructed in 1958 as a legal two family home. At that time, the City of Golden Valley permitted two family homes in the low density residential zoning district. In fact, there are six or seven two family homes located within a block of the subject property. Over 30 years ago, the City changed the zoning code to permit two family home construction only in a separate R-2 zoning district. Those existing two family homes (probably less than 25 city-wide) became non-conforming uses within the revised R-1 zoning district. Under the non-conforming use status, these two family homes could continue to exist. An owner could improve the two family home through maintenance and repair but not expand the two family home within the R-1 zoning district. In the case of the 3335 Scott Ave. N. property, it continued to operate as a nonconforming two family home until 1998. At that time, a family converted the structure to a single family home by modifying the interior layout of the structure. . 1 Until the bank foreclosed on the house within the past year of so, it was used only as a single family home. City Code states that once the nonconformity is discontinued for a period of more than one year, the use has to conform to the requirements of the zoning code. In other words, the house lost its legal nonconforming status as soon as the property was converted to a single family home for more than one year. In 2007, staff was made aware by a complaint that it appeared that the house was being marketed as a two family house. I sent the realtor a letter telling the realty firm that the house could only be sold as a single family home. The realtor indicated to me that itwas understood that the house could only be sold as a single family home. Since that time, the house went into foreclosure. During last winter, there was water damage to the house due to lack of heat in the home and the water service being left on. Earlier this fall, the City received a complaint about work being done at this location and that it appeared the work was being done so that the structure could be used as a two family home. I went to the site and found that work was being done at the house without a building permit and that it appeared the work was being done to convert the structure back to a two family home. The City issued a stop work order. The owner was told that a building permit must be issued for work at the house and that any work cannot be done at the house to convert it into a two family dwelling. The applicant (Charmaine Shodde) was told that the only way the property could be used for a two family dwelling is to request a rezoning of the property from R-1 to R-2. In early October 2008, an application for rezoning was submitted. If the rezoning is,approved, Charmaine Shodde plans to live in one side of the two family dwelling and her daughter and family plan to live in the other side. (The City has allowed some repair work to continue at the house that was caused by the water damage. The owner understands that the work done in the lower level does not approve the rezoning and is necessary whether or not the rezoning is approved or denied.) Review of Request The zoning code does not give specific areas or issues for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider when reviewing a rezoning request. Essentially, the zoning code states that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning request. This is different than the consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) because in both those cases, the zoning code outlines specific findings that must be made prior to recommending approval or denial of the request. In this case, there are several issues the Planning Commission may want to consider prior to making a recommendation. First and foremost is the General Land Use Plan map. This map indicates that the property is designated for Low Density Residential Uses (5 or fewer units per acre). The survey provided for the site indicates that the lot on which this structure is located is 21,643 sq. ft. in area. If there were two units on this lot, the density would be about 4.2 units per acre. Even with the existing nonconforming two family homes in the area, the overall density of the neighborhood is below 5 units per acre. Second, the current zoning of the area is R-1 and it has been zoned that way by the City Council for over 30 years. During this time period, the only way a new two family home could be built was by rezoning to R-2 or through the PUD process. 2 By creating the R-2 zoning district over 30 years ago, the City stated that in order for a two family home to be constructed, they would have to be located in a different zoning district than the R-1 district with a larger lot size, increased setbacks and other requirements. In this case, the lot and house exceed all the requirements of the R-2 zoning district in terms of lot size, setbacks and parking. (Within the R-2 zoning district, lots for two family homes must be at least 11,000 sq. ft. and meet certain minimum setback requirements. A copy of the R-2 zoning district is attached for your review.) Third, the Commission should consider the existing area and whether or not a two family home is appropriate for the area. In this case, there are five or six others within a block or so area of the subject structure. Is it best to have a cluster of two family homes within the same area? Maybe the rezoning should be considered for a larger area than just one lot. Fourth, the structure was originally constructed as a two family home and does appear to be one from the outside due to the two front doors. (There are also two addresses on the front of the house which will have to be removed if the house is not rezoned to R-2.) However, this structure was used for almost ten years asa one family house by changing interior walls to allow it to work as one living unit. The structure does have a standard size two car garage in the rear yard that was built in the early 1970s. Fifth, if the City chooses not to rezone the property, they have not taken away the right of the owner of the property to use it in a reasonable way. The property has been used as a single family home for the past nine or ten years as permitted by the zoning code. Therefore, the City would not be "taking" any rights away from the owner of the property by not changing the zoning to R-2. Summary and Recommended Action The structure was legally constructed in 1958 as a two family dwelling and was used in such a manner until 1998. At that time, the house lost its nonconforming status by being converted to a single family home for a period of nine or ten years. There are five or six other two family homes in the immediate area that were probably built around the same time. The City has received complaints or concerns about this house and its conversion back to a two family home. In 2007, staff did tell the realtor of the status of the structure and that it could only be sold as a single family home. The bank should have contacted the City and asked about the zoning of the property prior to the foreclosure sale. This house and lot would meet all the requirements of the zoning code for an R-2 property and the property would be low density in character. If the City would decide not to'rezone the property, the applicant could share the house with family members but the house cannot be divided into two separate units. (The zoning code defines a family as any group of people related by blood or marriage.) Staff does not have a recommendation on this request. The use of the property for either a two family dwelling or single family home appears to be appropriate for this location. Staff has tried to layout factors for consideration that can be used in making a recommendation. 3 Attachments Location Map (1 page) City Code Section 11.22: Moderate Densi~ Residential Zoning District (R-2) (4 pages) Letter from Kevin Boedigheimer, 5240 33r Ave. N. (1 page) . Photos of property (2 pages) Survey of property (1 oversized page) Existing Land Use Plan map (1 oversized page) General Land Use Plan map (1 oversized page) Zoning Map (1 page oversized page) 4 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2008 A ular meeting of the Plannin Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, ncil Chambers, 7800 G Iden Valley Road, Gold alley, Minnesota, on Monday, mber 10, 2008. C air Keysser called . eeting to order at 7:30 pm. 1. Eck erred to paragraph eight page four and s uld be changed to the word" w". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Wal hauser a approve the October 13 minutes with t arried unanimously to rrection. 2. Informal Public Hearing - P North - Z005-02 Applicant: Address: rezoning the property from Single Family Zoning ) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District he applicant is requesting to rezone her property from Single ;~.\\ki:1 (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential (R-2). He noted that the area ea;:H-1 and added that the applicant recently purchased the house which oreclosure. Grimes explained that from the time the house was built in 1958 until 1998 the house was used as a two family home. After that time the house was converted to a single family home so it lost its legally non-conforming status. He explained that when the house was built the zoning code allowed duplexes as a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. Approximately 30 years ago the zoning code was amended to allow only single family homes in the R-1 zoning district causing all existing duplexes to become legally non-conforming. Grimes referred to the recent history of the property and explained that in September there was work being done in the house without a building permit and a stop work order Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2008 Page 2 was issued. He stated that the City did issue a building permit to allow some work to be done in the basement due to severe water damage which would have to be done whether the house is a one or two family home. Grimes referred to a survey of the property and noted that it meets all of the requirements of the R-2 zoning district and it is designated low density on the General Land Use Plan map and a two family home would be considered low density. He stated that the zoning code doesn't have specific issues to consider when a rezoning is requested but that some of the issues he considered are that the Comprehensive Plan is designated properly for a two family home (Low Density Reside . . less than 5 units per acre), the house was legally built in 1958 before the zo was amended to only allow single family homes, the house looks r . h two front doors, etc. and there are several other duplexes in the are f maybe a larger area should be considered for rezoning rather tha erty. He added that if the City Council chooses not to rezone thi is really.being taken away from the applicant because the house can s a single family home. He explained that he did not make a reco d taff report because he can see both sides of this issue and how t be considered "spot zoning". Eck asked how the Ci home. Grimes stated t information. d been brought before the ng non-conforming duplexes in .e.m~i;pught the house Keysser was r fewer people which is a permitted use in Keysser questioned a specific duplex. Planning Commission in the past. H the area are "grandfathered in". . referring to is a residential fac. . the R-1 zoning district. n existing duplex is converted into a single family ell by looking at utility bills and/or building permit port. regarding Grimes informing a realtor that this house plex. Grimes stated that he was informed by a neighbor that rketed as a two family home in 2007. He wrote a letter to the ing him that this house could not be sold as a duplex without :{~rty first. He added that sometime after he spoke with this realtor that t inlo foreclosure so he does not know how the house was marketed to Eck asked if there is anything specific that needs to be done to a house to make it be considered a single family home versus a two family home. Grimes explained that once the wall was removed between the two sides of the 'house it was considered to be a single family home. Charmaine Schodde, Applicant, stated that the MLS listing of the house when she bought it said the property could be converted into a duplex. She said she spoke with someone at the City before she bought the house and was informed of the procedure Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10,2008 Page 3 required to rezone it from R-1 to R-2 and that is what she is in the process of doing. She said she was led to believe that rezoning this property would not be a problem. She stated that the house was built as a duplex. It looks like a duplex. It has two front doors, two kitchens, two gas meters, two furnaces and separate utilities and that is why she would like to have the property rezoned. She added that the property has a very large lot and there are several other duplexes in the area. She added that this is a very stable, family oriented area not a rental community. She explained that whoever lived in the house before she bought went through the foreclosure process. The heat was shut off but the water was left on causing the pipes to burst and'water to bust out the windows causing extensive water damage. She stated that her pia' live in one side of the house and have her daughter live in the other side of the Keysser asked if the MLS listing stated that the property w Schodde said no. zoned. Eck referred to Ms. Schodde saying that she called the procedure to rezone the property. He asked Schodd~it' property would need to be rezoned. Schodde duplex and she believed it would not be a pr sed the ood that the id the house looked like a e property to R-2. Keysser stated that the applicant's da applicant without having to rezone t and that her daughter living with eventually like to rent out half an live in the house with the e explained that she lost her job :e!1iJi!lQ.orary situation and she would in order to make the home more affordable. ue h, said she has spent quite a bit of time in the . g that the house was totally renovated into a single ears ago. She stated that the second kitchen was o a bedroom and that the second stairway was removed s far as she can tell the applicant has put a second stairway i1dly opposed to this property being rezoned to R-2 because it in the past and it is has been a single family home for several 20 Scott Avenue North, said he is an architect and understands city codes. erred to Subdivision 11.90 of the Golden Valley city code regarding non- conforming uses and stated that it is very clear that a non-conforming use can exist and continue as long as it is 'used in the same non-conforming way. He said it is also clear how the non-conforming status is lost. He said there has been no hardship shown in order to change the zoning on this property and if this property is rezoned it would be considered "spot" zoning which is typically not the preferred method of zoning. Charles Christianson, 3376 Scott Avenue North, said he can confirm the history of the house which was spoken about by Lee Johnston. He said he is concerned about Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2008 Page 4 property values and rental units in the neighborhood. He said he is also concerned about the applicant purchasing the house in a manner that wasn't really valid. Waldhauser noted that the Planning Commission also received a letter from Kevin Boedigheimer, homeowner at 5240 33rd Avenue North. Keysser summarized the letter received and stated that Mr. Boedigheimer strongly opposes this rezoning request because he is concerned about the property values and setting a precedent. McCarty referred to the people who have stated that the home has been converted to a single family home and questioned how they are able to verify this. Johnston said she is friends with the previous owner and her children went to this house for daycare so she has been in the house many times. Keysser asked Johnston if she saw that the kitchen and stairs had been removed. Johnston said yes. Christianson said he also had his children in daycare at this house and he has only seen one kitchen but he has not seen every room in the house. Schodde stated that there was a kitchen downstairs with full size appliances and cabinets that had already been pulled out. Keysser asked Grimes how many unrelated people are allowed to live in a single family home. Grimes stated that up to five unrelated people can rent a single family home. Schodde said it seems like the neighbor's concerns are regarding the type of people living in the area and not if the property is a duplex. She said she could have the property be a rental property but it looks like a duplex not like a single family home. Keysser reiterated to the applicant that she has other options if this property is not rezoned. Schodde said she will have to think about what she is going to do with the property because she bought it thinking it would not be a problem to rezone it. She referred to the concerns about property values and stated that she has put a lot of time and money into fixing up this property. McCarty questioned the legal issues regarding "spot" zoning. Grimes said he would talk to the City Attorney about "spot" zoning but he is not sure if that would be an argument in this case or not because a two family home would still be considered low density. Kluchka asked about crime in the neighborhood. Grimes said he did not do any research regarding crime and that nothing has been mentioned to him regarding crime in the area. Kluchka asked if crime is ever a consideration in zoning issues. Grimes said crime is not usually a consideration in zoning issues. Eck said notwithstanding that this was obviously built as a two family home and looks like a two family home he would not be in favor of rezoning this property to R-2 because it would be "spot" zoning. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10,2008 Page 5 Keysser stated that if the City does rezone the property and the house is torn down in the future a new two family home could be built. He noted that the whole block is single family homes and that the other duplexes in the area are around the corner. Cera stated that the General Land Use plan has the area designated for single family (R-1) residential which means that is what is planned for the area. Waldhauser said this is a very nice, quiet single family neighborhood and she thinks the best use of the area is single family residential. She added however that a duplex can fit in a single family neighborhood especially if the owner lives on one side and is cognizant of who is living next door. McCarty said he is also e City can allowing ermit. o family d that the lar omes want to divide me up with a way to Kluchka said he is also not in favor of this rezoning but he qu encourage higher density and more affordable housing. H different types of housing in the R-1 zoning district with a Grimes stated that the zoning code would have to be a homes as a conditional use in the R-1 zoning district. W Planning Commission has seen requests where peCil them into apartment for parents, etc. and hopU address these types of issues in Golden Val Schmidgall said he feels for the applic the real estate agent but he is not i done in the house without obtain' "spot" zoning so he would like was misrepresented to her by is request because work was ,>,plit first and he is not comfortable with p;rty zoned as it is. Keysser agreed and re burden of homeo s applicant does have other options for sharing the :/Ianning Commission recommends denial of this request following findings: 1) Scott Avenue is clearly a single family has already been converted back to a single family home, 3) the ion is uncomfortable with "spot" zoning and 4) the applicant has other Ie to make it more affordable. Waldhauser said she thinks finding number four should be removed. The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the applicant's request to rezone the property at 3335 Scott Avenue North from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) ---Short Recess--- 9 11.22 Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses. . Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts: A. Single Family dwellings B. Two-Family dwellings C. Townhouses D. Foster Family Homes E. Home occupations, as regulated by Section 11.21, Subdivision 15 F. Essential Services - Class I G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter. Subdivision s. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of4 9 11.22 Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons B. Group foster family homes Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-2 ResitJential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line.. 2. Rear Setback.. The required rear setback shall be twenty percent (20) of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. The required side setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 4 ~ 11.22 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer lot line. ,To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line. B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of thirty (30) feet as defined in the City's building code. C. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. D. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District: 1 Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback and side setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2 Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty-five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of- way line. 3 Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4 Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of4 9 11.22 ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. C. Garage Construction Required. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. Single family dwelling units shall require a two (2) stall garage. D. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures. F. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements as accessory structures. G. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 4 Kevin Boedigheimer 5240 33rd Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 612-226-4945 Golden Valley City Planning Commission City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8095 RE: Rezoning 3335 Scott Avenue North, Charmaine Wahlstrom Schodde, Applicant Dear City Planner, I am unable to attend the public hearing on November 10th at 7:30 pm so I am submitting this objection in writing. It is my opinion that we have too many resident duplexes in this neighborhood and any further development or rezoning seriously threatens the cohesiveness of our community and the value of our homes. I live across from a historically problematic duplex and do not wish any further encroachment of multi-unit dwellings in my neighborhood. Furthermore, a rezoning of this property would set a precedent that would almost guarantee more duplex development in my neighborhood, further eroding the value of my property. In these economic times, with all the over development of condominiums, townhomes, single-family homes, there is just not enough demand to justify turning this single family home into a duplex. I strongly urge you to consider this objection and to deny the rezoning of this property. Best Regards, f~ Kevin Boedigheimer ORDINANCE NO. 410, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Rezoning from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) 3335 Scott Avenue North Charmain Wahlstrom Schodde, 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, Section 11.30, Subd. 2 by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, Dahinden's 3rd Addition, 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 Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of December, 2008. IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M.VirniQ Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk Hey Memorandum Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 6. A. First Consideration - Ordinance #411 - Establishing A 2009 Master Fee Schedule Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Staff has reviewed the current master fee schedule forthe City and is recommending the Council adopt the 2009 Master Fee Schedule. The schedule shows both 2008 and 2009 fees except for the 2010 Special Assessments. Any difference in rates is shown in bold type or crossed out. The utility rates will be presented to the Council in January and will be effective for any billing after April 1 ,2009. Attachments Ordinance #411, Establishing A 2009 Master Fee Schedule (15 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on First Consideration, Ordinance #411, Establishing A 2009 Master Fee Schedule. ORDINANCE NO. 411, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Establishing A 2009 Master Fee Schedule The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City Code requires that certain fees for City services and licenses be established from time to time by the City Council. Section 2. The Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby adopted as the city's fee schedule effective January 1, 2009, unless otherwise noted and shall be added to Chapter 25 of the City Code. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in its entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 16th day of December, 2008. IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M. Virnig Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A IPel'l1'lit$ Building & Fire Permit Fees based on fee schedule below. Mandatory State Surcharge: per permit is a minimum of .50 and when a permit fee is over $1,000 in value the state surcharge is .0005 times the permit value. Surcharge is remitted to MN State Treasurer. Permit Cancellation Policy: 80% of the permit fee will be returned upon written notice of cancellation. If job has been started no refund will be made. No surcharge or plan review fees will be returned (includes the fees for grading, drainage, erosion control, ROWand tree preservation permits). Building/Fire/Plan Review Fee - 65% of the permit fee (no surcharge) Administrative Seasonal, Farm Produce, Christmas Tree Sales, etc in Commercial Zoning District Fire Alarm System (New Installation or Alteration of Existing) Up to the 1 st $1,200 in value Over $1,200 value - use fire suppression fee Fire Commercial Cooking Ventilation Systems Inspection Re-inspection Fire Pumps Fire Suppression & Special Fire Suppression Systems: FM 200 system, C02 systems, spray booths, kitchen extinguisher systems, hood~ Total valuation based on below fee schedule: Value Range 2004 LMC/AMM Recommendation $150 $500 $25.00 $501 $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500 $3.25/ additional $100 $2,001 $25,000 $73.50 for the first $2,000 $14.75/ additional $1,000 $25,001 $50,000 $415.75 for the first $25,000 $10.75/ additional $1 000 $50,001 $100,000 $682.50 for the first $50,000 $7.50/ additional $1,000 $100,001 $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first $100,000 $6.00/ additional $1,000 $500,001 $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first $500,000 $5.00/ additional $1,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 $4.00/ additional $1 000 Fireworks/Pyrotechnic Special Effects Permit requires rental of fire engine and crew for stand-by at display 2008 Fee 75.00 50.00 50.00 75.00 50.00 No change 100.00 2::1 75.00 50.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 No change 100.00 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 2009 Fee Fee 100.00 100.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 I P~r'fuit$ "'C::Ql1til1Ued Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control House/Building Moving Demolition Mechanical: HVAC, Gas Piping, Refrigeration and Fireplace (Includes all types of fireplaces - masonry, gas, gas log, gas insert, etc.) VI P 't h a ue erml c arae $0- $999 $15.00 $1,001 - $5 000 $31.50 + 2.60% over $1000 $5,001 - $10000 $135.50 + 2.15% over $5000 $10,001 - $25,000 $243.00 + 1.85% over $10,000 $25,001 - $50 000 $520.50 + 1.65% over $25 000 $50,001 - over $933.00 + 1.30% over $50 000 25.00 25.00 No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 75.00 75.00 60.00 60.00 75.00 75.00 50.00 50.00 Parade/Special Event Petroleum Tanks Installation - per dispenser Installation - per tank Piping associated with tanks Removal - per tank Temporary LP Tank (per site) Plumbing and Piping Fixtures Includes hydraulic sewer valves; rain water leaders, and alteration to existing systems. VI P 't h a ue erml c aree $0 - $999 $15.00 $1,001 - $5.000 $31.50 + 2.60% over $1000 $5.001 - $10000 $135.50 + 2.15% over $5000 $10,001 - $25,000 $243.00 + 1.85% over $10,000 $25.001 - $50,000 $520.50 + 1.65% over $25 000 $50.001 - over $933.00 + 1.30% over $50,000 25.00 25.00 No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change Right Of Way Obstruction Permit per obstruction Qncludes courtesy benches) In Boulevard Excavation Permit per opening In Street Excavation Permit per opening Overhead or Trenching Utility minimum over one mile 100.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 500.00 150.00 Pavement excavation fee per mile Sign Permit Base fee Area fee (per sq ft of sign area) Temporary Sign 50.00 (2.75/sq ft over 18 sq ft 2 100.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 500.00 150.00 50.00 (2.75/sq ft over 18 sq ft City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule. Exhibit A Ip~nnit$....continl.led . Standpipe Installation of each standpipe (up to 5 floors) Each additional floor Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Partial Certificate of Occupancy Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Extension of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Penalty for expired Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Tent/Canopy Inspections - required for tents exceeding 200 sq It and canopies exceeding 400 sq ft (per site) Tree Preservation Permit Tree Preservation Mitigation Permit. per caliper inch Utility Permits Water Meter Permit Water Tapping Permit Water Cut-off Permit Sewer Permit (connection) Sewer Repair Permit Sewer Cut-off Permit 2008 Fee 50.00 20.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ~=I 50.00 20.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 [Licenses I .,....... - - ._... .d ".. ._ ___. ._._ d_ .... ........ __.... .."d" " ..'-.----. ...... ..---- ... F<el1ElWalOate I Auctioning Auctioneers do not need to be licensed in the City of Golden Valley. However, they have to show us a copy of a license or bond from the county or state and provide us a letter on the date, time and place of the auction. Cigarettes. Tobacco Products over the counter Contractors - Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond and Refrigeration Dog Kennel - per kennel Entertainment Amusement and Shows (movies - per screen; caravans, circuses, amusement rides) Bowling Alley (each lane) Dancing & Entertainment Pinball Machine, Video Game or Pool Table each location each device Fireworks Retail consumer fireworks that sell other items Retail consumer fireworks, retailers that sell only fireworks 3 1-Jan 200.00 200.00 1-Apr 50.00 75.00 1-Apr 200.00 200.00 1-Apr 50.00 50.00 1-Apr 15.00 15.00 1-Apr 375.00 375.00 1 ~Apr 15.00 15.00 1-Apr 15.00 15.00 1-May 100.00 100.00 1-May 350.00 350.00 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule ~ Exhibit A 2008 2009 Fee Fee I ~ellewal Date Garbage Haulers - per vehicle (See also Recylcing Haulers) 1-Jun 50.00 50.00 Gasoline Stations First nozzle Each additional nozzle 1-Apr 55.00 55.00 15.00 15.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 100.00 20.00 20.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 100.00 100.00 Lawful Gambling License First year Renewal after 1st year 1-Jan Liquor License Application Packet Liquor ~ Investigation Fee (Liquor On-sale, Off-sale, and Sunday sale and Wine) new applicant $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation Liquor - Miscellaneous Change thru the year per change Liquor On, Off and Sunday Sale and Wine (renewal or misc changes) Liquor License (State law) Sunday sale 1-Jul Off-sale 1-Jul On-sale 1-Jul Wine On-sale 1-Jul Club 1-Jul up to 200 members 200-500 members 501-1,000 members 1,001-2,000 members 2001-4000 members 4001-6000 members Over 6000 members Liquor - Non-lntoxicating Malt (On-sale) 1-Apr (This fee is not charged to applicants holding a wine license and renewed at the time of the wine license renewal date) 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 300.00 300.00 500.00 500.00 650.00 650.00 800.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 500.00 500.00 Massage Therapist Premise License 1-Jan Operating location Investigation fee 150.00 150.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 500.00 500.00 200.00 200.00 400.00 400.00 Liquor - Non~lntoxicating Malt (Off-sale) 1-Apr Massage Therapist ~ Individual Certificate (each individual/person) 1-Jan Investigation fee New/Used Vehicle Sales 1-Sep 4 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 2009 F~e Fee I licenses ...contillued r R~ti~W.:d Dare I I Peddlers and Solicitors 1-Jul 1 st person Each additional person (upto a max fee of $50.00 per time) Pawnbroker and Precious Metal Dealer Location Dealer Investigation Fee $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation 1-Jan 1-Jan 30.00 30.00 5.00 5.00 5000.00 5000.00 400.00 400.00 3000.00 3000.00 50.00 50.00 Recycling Haulers (Multi Family Apartment) - per vehicle 1-Jan Rental Dwelling License Single Family Dwellings One Unit Dwelling Re-inspection Additional Unit Inspections License Transfer Inspection Appeal Filing Fee minimum 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 $20/unit $20/unit $10/unit $10/unit $8/unit $8/unit $4/unit $4/unit $O/unit $O/unit 100.00 100.00 250.00 250.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 1-Jul Twin Homes & Duplexes Re-inspection (per unit/per address) Additional Inspections (per unit/per address) 1-May Condominiums & Townhomes Re-inspection (per unit/per address) Additional Inspections (per unit/per address) 1-Sep Group Homes I homes with services Re-inspection (per unit/per address) Additional Inspections (per unit/per address) 1-Nov Multiple Unit Dwelling (3 or more units) per building Re-inspection (per building/per address) License Transfer (pro rate) 1-Mar Star Program Fees (Based on participation level) Non-Participant Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Administrative Citations on (all) Rental Dwellings 1 st citation 2nd citation 3rd citation 4th citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 5 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 2009 Fee Fee llicenses-continued I IdReneWalOate I Sexually Oriented Business License Fee (operating location) 1-Jan Investigation Fee $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation 5000.00 3000.00 I $~I"eet. Assessl1lent$ Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dWelling unit on local street Multi Unit Residential (more than 2 dwelling units) on local street Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dwelling unit on state aid street Multi Unit Residential (more than 2 dwelling units) on state aid street Other Zonings, Local Streets Other Zonings, State Aid Streets 2009 4,400.00 62. 281ft 1,100.00 66.7/ft 74. 88/ft 80.991ft low Income level for Senior/Retired due to Disability Deferral 2008 HUD Limits 5000.00 3000.00 ................... ~()10 I 4,900.00 69.36 1,225.00 74.28 83.39 90.19 2009 HUD Limits I Mi$ceU;,"'leQusFee$..... I Address Change Administrative Citations - Non Rental Housing 1 st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation 4th Citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 100.00 250.00 500.00 500.00 Alarm System - False Alarms (12 month period beginning March 1 of each year upon given notice) 1-3 false alarms No charge 4-10 false alarms 100.00 11-15 false alarms 150.00 16 or more false alarms 200.00 Animal Control Dog License Duplicate Dog License Impound Fee for dogs Boarding Fee for dogs and cats per day (5 day maximum) 6.00 5.00 50.00 20.00 Building Plan/Storage Retrieval 50.00 Certification Fee (Special Assessment) 30.00 City Cemetery Cemetery Plot Open/Close Fee: Crematory (up to 2 per lot) Burial 500.00 200.00/ ea 750.00 6 50.00 100.00 250.00 SOO.OO 500.00 No charge 100.00 150.00 200.00 6.00 5.00 50.00 20.00 50.00 30.00 500.00 200.00 / ea 750.00 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 Fee 2009 Fee 1 Miscellal1eousFees-cOl1til1ued ,,1 Documents Address Map As-builts, Plats per page City Budget City Capital Improvement Program City Code Full book in binder Updates Zoning Chapters Only City Maps: Color (81/2 x 11 or 11X17) Color (larger than 11X17) B/W (81/2 x 11 or 11 x 17) B/W (larger than 11 x 17) Comprehensive Plan Surface Water Management Plan Water Supply Plan Comprehensive Plan Map Computer Plots per ft Copies of any black and white, letter or legal size documents of 100 or fewer pages (Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4.) Copies of any color, letter or legal size documents... ... ... Digital Format Aerial photography Aerial topography Special Assessment Search (non-owner) Video Tape Reproduction (per tape + shipping) Zoning Map (24 X 36) Dog Owner's List Equipment Charge per hour Fire Engine (includes personnel) Fire Aerial Truck (includes personnel) Police and Fire Rescue Truck (includes personnel) Utflity Vehicle (includes personnel) Squad Car (includes personnel) Heavy (motor grader, front end loader, 360 Backhoe, Pickup sweeper, sewer camera, truck, sewer jet, vac all, aerial truck) does not include personnel costs Medium (dump truck, water truck, tractor backhoe, utility tractor/ accessory, 15 ft cut lawn mower, brush chipper, asphalt roller) does not include personnel costs Light (truck - one ton and under, air compressor, water pump, generator, steamer, asphalt/saw, concrete, cable tracer, sewer rodder) does not include personnel costs Filing Fee (Administrative Citation Appeal) per violation 7 10.00 6.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 10.00 10.00 200.00 15/each 10.00 200.00 15/each 10.00 4.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 10.00 10.00 5.00/full sheet 5.00/full sheet .25/pg . 25/pg . 33/page . 33/page .25 for 8.5X12 .25 for 8.5X12 time & material time & material time & material time & material 15.00 15.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 25.00 250.00 250.00 350.00 350.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 125.00 80.00 80.00 45.00 45.00 25.00 25.00 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 Fee 2009 Fee I Miscella l1eousFees ."col1til1ued ..<1 Fingerprinting Golden Valley Resident Anyone employed in GV First card Additional cards each SECOND OR MORE VIOLATIONS IN ONE SEASON Vacant land - 1 hour minimum - Occupied/unoccupied residentiaVcommercial property - 3 hour minimum 10.00 25.00 10.00 5.00 cost of cost of removal + 20% removal + 20% 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 200.00 200.00 1000.00 1000.00 250.00 250.00 $75/hour $75/hour $25/hour $25/hour 110/ hr 125/ hr 110/ hr 125/ hr 250 / hr 250/ hr Forced Tree Removal Hydrant Meter Rental Residential (per day + consumption) Commercial (per day + consumption) Deposit (residential) Deposit (commercial) Nuisance Service Call Fee (after three calls) Personnel Off Duty Police Officer (minimum applies as determined by City Manager/designee) Firefighters, Lieutenants, Captains, & Assistant Chiefs Weed Eradication/Lawn mowing - per hour (see minimums) Vacant land - 1 hour minimum Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property - 3 hour minimum Ifllannillg.8. ZOfliflQFees Conditional Use Items Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development Preliminary Design Plan Final Plan of Development Minor Amendments 400.00 400.00 300.00 300.00 500.00 500.00 75.00 75.00 25.00 25.00 1 % of land 1% of land Market Value Market Value 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 250.00 250.00 Easement Vacation (each request) Flood Control Management (Special Permit) Floodplain Search Letter Park Dedication Fees (per Minnesota Statute 462.358) 8 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule.. Exhibit A 2008 Fee 2009 Fee I Plalllling. &ZonillgFees ...contilllled I Rezoning Subdivision Subdivision.. Minor Variance from City Code.. Zoning Chapters Single family residential All others Wetland Management (plus professional fees if necessary) Zoning Examination Letter Temporary Retail Sales in Industrial Zone (for each sale, up to five days) I Utility Fees Driveway Covers - Replace Meter Testing (to be returned if meter is in error of 5% or more of read) Sanitary Sewer Inspections and Compliance Fees (Ordinance No. 352) Noncompliant discharge into sanitary sewer(or refuse inspection) Single Family Residential Non Single Family Residential Application fee for noncompliant winter discharge into sanitary sewer Application fee for certificate of sewer regulations compliance Single Family Residential Non Single Family Residential Fee to review residential video record completed by private licensed plumber Fee to review non-residential video record completed by private licensed plumber Water on/off per each event ( additional charge for call in and overtime) Utility.. Manual Read of Water/Sewer Meter Water Meter and Parts (All) 9 500.00 400.00 250.00 125.00 225.00 75.00 75.00 150.00 75.00 50.00 500 / month 1000 / month 250.00 200.00 750.00 500.00 400.00 250.00 125.00 225.00 75.00 75.00 150.00 I 90.00 50.00 500 / month 1000 / month 250.00 250.00 750.00 100.00 375.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 At cost +20% At cost +20% City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 2009 Fee Fee 6t()()kvi~WG()lf Course Rates Regulation Course 18 Hole Non-patron 18 Hole Patron 18 Hole Sr Patron 18 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 18 Hole Non-patron League 18 Tournament 9 Hole Non-patron 9 Hole Patron 9 Hole Sr Patron 9 Hole Non-patron Senior 9 Hole Non-patron League 9 Hole Tournament 2nd Nine Non-patron 2nd Nine Patron Sunrise/Sunset Rate Twilight Non-patron Twilight Patron Junior Rate (patron/Non/patron) 18 Hole Sr Patron "Special" Monday-Tuesday before 1 pm 9 Hole Sr Patron "Special" Monday-Tuesday 34.00 27.00 24.00 27.00 34.00 34.00 18.50 15.50 14.00 15.50 18.50 18.50 15.50 11.50 14.50 18.50 15.50 20.00/11.00 Par 3 Course 9 Hole Non-patron 9 Hole patron 9 Hole Sr Patron 9 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 9 Hole League 9 Hole Tournament 9 Hole Junior Rate Junior Punch Card 9 Hole Sr Patron Special 2nd 9 Par 3 12.00 8.50 8.00 8.50 12.00 12.00 7.50 75.00 Patron Cards Resident Adult Patron Non-resident Adult Patron Resident Senior Patron (age 62+) Non-resident Senior Patron (age 62+) Resident Junior Patron (17 yrs & under) Non-resident Junior (17 yrs & under) 75.00/70.00 115.00/110.00 45.00/40.00 80.00/75.00 35.00/30.00 40.00/35.00 Driving Range Warm Up Bucket Small Bucket Large Bucket 10 Bucket Punch Pass Large Patron Bucket 3.00 5.00 7.00 57.00 10 35.00 28.00 25.00 28.00 35.00 35.00 19.00 16.00 14.50 16.00 19.00 20.00 16.00 12.00 15.00 19.00 16.00 20.50/11.50 23.00 14.00 12.50 9.00 8.50 9.00 12.50 12.50 8.00 80.00 8.50 7.50 75.00170.00 115.00/110.00 45.00/40.00 80.00/75.00 35.00/30.00 40.00/35.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 57.00 5.00 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 2009 Fee Fee . ... .... .1 28.00 29.00 33.00 36.00 19.00 21.00 17.00 17.50 18.00 19.00 12.00 12.50 13.00 15.00 4.50 5.00 3.00 4.00 14.00/9.00 14.00/9.00 24.00 16.00 18.00 18.00 10.00 10.00 7.00 10.00 30.00 20.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 I $rook"iew~olf (:ourseRates .... continued. Cart Rates 18 Hole Power Cart 18 Hole Tournament Cart 9 Hole Tournament Cart 18 Hole Single Rider Cart 9 Hole Power Cart 9 Hole Single Rider Cart 9 Hole Par 3 Power Cart Pull Cart/Regulation Course Pull Cart/Par 3 Course Trailer feelUse of personal power cart 18 Hole Sr Patron Cart Special 9 Hole Sr Patron Cart Special Club Rentals 18 Hole full rental ~ Regulation 9 Hole full rental- Regulation 9 hole Par 3 half rental Locker Rental Season Daily Towel fee Miscellaneous Fees USGA Handicap Service MGA Non-patron Patron Annual No Show Fee 40.00 23.00 FULL FEE Lessons Adult Group Junior Group 90.00 55.00 40.00 24.00 FULL FEE 95.00 60.00 Park & . RecteatjonFees (AN:OIi.RlilSideiit fell :0'$3.00 is tecolilttiended to be added to Yoiitll,AdUIt ahits~hl:Or ~trWitJe$.}...... Youth Fees Baseball - Park Basketball - Mites Basketball - Youth Bike Rangers Catch, Kick & Throw Chess Club Drama Club (Summer) Drama Club (Fall & Winter) Explorers Hiking & Biking Club Football- Flag Football/Basketball/Soccer Skills Ice Hockey Skills Camp Jewelry Making 31.00 37.00 45.00 32.00 29.00 26.00 56.00 45.00 30.00 27.00 27.00 47.00 29.00 11 32.00 37.00 45.00 32.00 30.00 26.00 57.00 46.00 31.00 28.00 28.00 48.00 30.00 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2009 I Fee 16.00 2008 Fee Jump Rope 16.00 ~a,.k&. Recreati.on. Fees. ...continued . . (A Non-Resident fee of $3.m1i. recommended to 1111 added to Youth, Adult IJII~ Senior ACrfvItiH.J Youth Fees - continued Kickball 26.00 26.00 Kids Club 36.00 37.00 Kids Korner 27.00 28.00 Little Critters (Summer) 35.00 35.00 Little likes 35.00 35.00 Pens, Pencils, Markers, & More 22.00 22.00 Pitch by Coach 31.00 32.00 Playgrounds Free Free Sand Volleyball 26.00 27.00 Slowpitch Softball 31.00 32.00 Soccer - Fall 30.00 31.00 Soccer - Nerf 29.00 30.00 Summer Survivor 28.00 29.00 Tap & Ballet 34.00 35.00 T-Ball 31.00 32.00 Tennis Teen Team League 75.00 125.00 Tennis-Full Day Camp 180.00 190.00 Tennis-Half Day Camp 100.00 110.00 Adult/Senior Activities Ballroom Dance - Swing & Social 49.00 50.00 Basketball - Open Drop-in Fee 3.00 3.00 10-time Punch Pass 20.00 20.00 Belly Dancing 40.00-60.00 65.00 Bridge - Beginning 28.00 29.00 Bridge - Intermediate 28.00 29.00 Broomball - Co-Rec Resident 420.00 425.00 Non-Resident 510.00 515.00 Easy Photo Organization 15.00 15.00 Holiday Photo Greeting Cards 15.00 15.00 Hypnosis Classes (1 day) 20.00 20.00 Line Dancing 40.00-60.00 45.00 - 60.00 Painting (6-time punch pass) 37.00 38.00 Pilates 40.00-60.00 50.00 - 70.00 Scrapbooking - Big Picture 15.00 15.00 Scrapbooking - Bordermania 15.00 15.00 Self Defense - Women's 35.00 35.00 Soccer League - Co-Rec Resident 435.00 440.00 Non-Resident 585.00 590.00 Softball Leagues - Fall Resident 300.00 305.00 Non-Resident 425.00 430.00 12 City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A 2008 2009 Fee Fee Pal"k& .Recreation .Fees .... continued. .(A Non-ReSlaMt fBeot1300 lsreooml11ended to be added to Youth, .Adultalld Sellior AOllvlties.). Adult/Senior Activities - continued Softball Leagues - Spring/Summer Doubleheader Leagues Resident Non-Resident Single Game Leagues Resident Non-Resident Tennis Drills (2 lessons) Tennis League - Mixed Doubles Tennis League - Singles Volleyball - Open Drop-in Fee 1 O-time Punch Pass Yoga & Pilates 605.00 610.00 805.00 810.00 430.00 435.00 585.00 590.00 35.00 35.00 26.00 26.00 20.00 20.00 3.00 3.00 20.00 20.00 60.00-80.00 60.00 - 80.00 2.00-3.00 2.00 - 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 - 15.00 6.00 -15.00 3.00 - 10.00 4.00 - 10.00 1.00 2.00-3.00 2.00 - 4.00 1.00 - 3.00 8.00 -12.00 8.00 - 15.00 5.00 5.00 -7.00 1.00 - 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 - 12.00 3.00 - 20.00 8.00 - 12.00 8.00 - 15.00 200-1,500 200 - 2,000 5.50-70.00 6.00 - 95.00 Senior Programs Antique Presentation Bowling Tourney Coffee Talk Craft Classes Dance Parties Defensive Driving (refreshments only) Humanities Living Well and Wise Lunch Events Membership Dues Money Matters Nutrition and You Remember When Special Events Supper Events Trips - Extended 2-6 Days Trips - One Day Other Park & Recreation Fees Small Park Shelter Resident (up to 50 people) Non-resident Large Park Shelter Resident (up to 100 people) Non-resident Beer/Wine Permit Only with picnic shelter rental 60.00 70.00 75.00 85.00 8.00 Community Center Resident (over 75 people; 12 hours) Non-resident (over 75 people; 12 hours) Resident (up to 75 people; 5 hours max) Non-resident (up to 75 people; 5 hours max) Private Industry or Commercial Use Resident/Non-resident 550.00 635.00 25 per hr 35 per hr 45-55 per hr 13 70.00 80.00 85.00 95.00 10.00 550.00 635.00 25 per hr 25 per hr 50-60 per hr City of Golden Valley 2009 Master Fee Schedule. Exhibit A 2008 Fee 2009 Fee Park & . Recre~tic>n. fees.... cOl1tinued. .lA.NOIl-ReSldent fee Of$3.OlIisreCOmmllndedto .be .addedto 'l'Ollth,Adultllll<lSefllor Activities.). Other Park & Recreation Fees - continued Tennis Court Courtlhr/wkday Eve & Weekend Picnic Kits Ball Diamond Athletic Field Per hour W/Lights per hour Non-Brookview General Park Usage Commercial Use of Park Park Building Hockey Rink 14 $30 deposit/$2 add'l item Per hour 5.00 10.00 10/3 items 35.00 35.00 50.00 per hour per hour Per hour Per hour 35.00 75.00 40.00 35.00 5.00 10.00 15.00/kit 35.00 35.00 50.00 35.00 75.00 40.00 35.00 Hey morandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley Council Meeting December 2, 2008 Agenda Item 6. B. Call for Public Hearings for the Ordinance Establishing a Franchise Fee with Northern States Power, d/b/a, Xcel Energy Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Summary , At the November 10,2008 Council/Manager meeting, the Council directed staff to start the process to develop an ordinance which would impose a franchise fee for services provided by Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy. Revenue generated by the franchise fee could be used to assist with the cost of placing overhead power utilities underground, replacing street lights in pavement management project areas, and funding other infrastructure projects. The list of infrastructure projects includes, but is not limited to, Douglas Drive, completion of the sidewalk plan, completion of the City's trail plan, replacement of sidewalks and trails, Zane Avenue, Lindsay Avenue and Harold Avenue. Xcel Energy recommends that the franchise fee, if imposed, be assessed as a flat fee per meter basis. Staff has worked with representatives from Xcel to develop a model, which would provide the City with approximately $456,674 in annual revenue. The Xcel model is based on fees that equal the current surcharge that was necessary for the TH/55/Boone Avenue project. The fees proposed as follows: E uivalent Monthl Flat Fee $3.65 $3.65 $10.95 $14.60 -0- -0- -0- This ordinance is scheduled to be considered at the December 16, 2008 and January 2,2009 Council meetings. If approved, it would be effective upon publication. However, collection of the franchise fee would not take place until the debt associated with the TH55/Boone Avenue/General Mills Boulevard Project is satisfied. Attachments Resolution Providing for Public Hearings to Consider an Ordinance Requiring an Electric Franchise Fee from Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Providing Electric Service Within the City of Golden Valley (1 page) Franchise Fee Estimate - Electric Flat Fee, prepared 11/5/08 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt a Resolution providing for Public Hearing to consider an ordinance requiring an electric franchise fee from Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for providing electric service within the City of Golden Valley on December 16, 2008 and January 2, 2009. Resolution 08-56 December 2, 2008 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE FROM NORTHERN STATES POWER, d/b/a XCEL ENERGY, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Public hearings shall be held on the proposed franchise fee for Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy, on December 16,2008 and January_2, 2009, in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7 pm. 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. City of Golden Valley, MN Franchise Fee Estimate Electric Flat Fee Information Based on Year Ending August 2008 Round to $0.00 or increments of $0.25 Residential" 8,044 72,101 ,234 7,177,787 $352,336 80% 77% $ 74.36 Residential Low Income 894 8,011,248 797,532 $10,726 9% 2% $ 74.36 Small C&I - Non-Demand" 586 7,899,463 $776,098 $25,667 6% 6% $ 11 0.37 Small C&I - Demand 365 56,690,005 $4,483,750 $48,021 4% 11% $ 1,022.41 Large C&I (> 1 Mw) 114 231,112,864 $16,124,076 $19,925 1% 4% $ 11,814.87 Public Street Lighting 39 1,582,172 $261 ,792 $0 0% 0% $ 556.79 Municipal Pumping - Non-Demand 3 10,623 $1,242 $0 0% 0% $ 34.50 Municipal Pumping - Demand - - $0 $0 0% 0% $ $29,622,277 NOTE: The above figures do not reflect any calculation for low income residential customers which may affect the total revenues the City may receive from the franchise. GIROW MGMT\Franchise Agreements\Xcel\Golden Valley-Elec Fee Worksheet REV1xlsx