Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-01-14 Agenda Packet (entire)
AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber July 1, 2014 6:30 pm The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Roll Call B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment: Mr. Ronald Blum - Planning Commission, Mr. David Perich - Board of Zoning Appeals and Mr. Larry Johnson - Environmental Commission D. Summarization of City Council Executive Session held on June 19, 2014 Regarding 3 Evaluation of City Manager 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes: 1. Special City Council Meeting - June 16, 2014 4 2. City Council Meeting - June 17, 2014 5-8 3. Executive Session Statement - June 19, 2014 9 B. Approval of City Check Register 10 C. Licenses: 1. Solicitor's License - North Country Food Alliance 11-13 2. Solicitor's License - Bayport Roofing and Siding 14-16 3. Solicitor's License - Irakli Chigolashvili on behalf of Edward Jones 17-19 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - May 28, 2014 20-32 2. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - May 15, 2014 33-40 3. Envision Connection Project Executive Board - April 17, 2014 41-44 4. Community Center Task Force - May 20, 2014 45-47 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Authorize Agreement with SEH, Inc. for Natural Resources Management Plan 48-59 F. Honeywell Pond 60-70 a. Authorize Cooperative Agreement between Golden Valley and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission b. Authorize Agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Stormwater Pond Expansion G. Resolution Approving Appointment of Election Judges for the Primary Election to be 71-73 held on August 12, 2014 14-54 3. CONSENT AGENDA - continued H. Authorize Agreement for Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force Co-Operative 74-83 Agreement I. Resolution Appointing Building Official 14-55 84-85 J. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine Brookview Park 86-87 K. Receipt of May 2014 Financial Reports 88-96 L. Authorization to Sign Renewal Agreement with Steve Tokle Inspections Inc. for 97-99 Electrical Inspection Services M. Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Agreement for the Tree Planting Grant Funded 100-103 by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 14-56 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Final Design Plan Approval - Tennant Company PUD No. 114 - 701 104 Lilac Drive North - Tennant Company, Applicant B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan for Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment 105-140 #3 - 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard - Twin Cities Automotive DBA Golden Valley TCAP., LLC, Applicant C. Public Hearing - Ordinance #519 - Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning 141-156 District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) - 1001 Lilac Drive North - Max Zelayaran, Applicant D. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Golden Valley Homes - 1001 Lilac Drive 157-174 North E. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Olson Tralee - 125 Cutacross Road 175-186 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. First Consideration - Ordinance #520 - Water Fee on City Utility Bill for Emergency 187-188 Water Supply B. First Consideration - Ordinance #521 - Amending, Ratifying and Readopting Section 189-191 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections C. Consideration of Recycling Centers as a Permitted Use in the Industrial and Light 192-217 Industrial Zoning Districts; and Option to Establish a Moratorium for Additional Study D. Announcements of Meeting E. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT SUMMARIZING ITS CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF CITY MANAGER THOMAS BURT The City Council met to evaluate the performance of Golden Valley City Manager Thomas Burt, provided feedback, addressed concerns and provided direction as to the future performance of the City Manager. Relying on the advice of the City Attorney and outside counsel, the City Council determined that no further action is warranted as to the City Manager position at this point in time. 445850v1 SJR GL135-17 _ , UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ��� ,� SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA JUNE 16, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 8:32 am. Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope. 2. GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY Mayor Harris introduced the agenda item. City Manager Burt described the new city organizational chart and answered questions from the Council. City Attorney David Schelzel answered questions from the Council. The Council discussed and reviewed the current and proposed organizational charts by city division. Council consensus was to move forward with the proposed city reorganization charts as presented and to schedule an Executive Session for a later date. 3. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:42 am. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk UNOFFICIAL MINUTES `` ae� ,T CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA JUNE 17, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro Tem Clausen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Pro Tem Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope. Absent: Mayor Harris. 1 B. Pledge of Allegiance 1C. Administration of Police Officer Oath of Office-Cory Proctor and Christopher White. Police Chief Carlson introduced the newest Police Officers, Cory Proctor and Christopher White. Mayor Pro Tem Clausen administered the oath of office to the Officers and the Council congratulated Police Officers Proctor and White. 1 D. Receipt of Community Partnership Grant from CenterPoint Energy. Fire Chief Crelly introduced the agenda item. Mr. Trey Kuchar, CenterPoint Energy, presented the City with a $1,200 Community Partnership Grant to be used towards the purchase of two Automatic External Defibrillators. The Council thanked CenterPoint Energy for their grant. 1 E. Recognition of Top Golden Valley Steppers from the 2014 Step To It Challenge. Recreation Supervisor Anderson presented the staff report. Council recognized the top five participants for the City of Golden Valley. Mr. Roger McCabe, one of the top five participants, for the City was in attendance. 1 F. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition — Mr. Marshal Tanick Mayor Pro Tem Clausen presented the certificate of recognition to Mr. Tanick and thanked him for his service on the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Quad Cities campaign. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the agenda of June 17, 2014 as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the consent agenda of June 17, 2014 as revised to remove items: 31-Approval for Neighborhood Meeting Policy and 3K-Establish permanent No Parking Zones and the motion carried unanimously. 3A. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting June 3, 2014. 3131. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- June 17, 2014 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA-Continued 3132. Approve Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register and authorize the payments of bills as submitted. 3C1. Approve the solicitor's license for True Protection. 3C2. Approve the solicitor's license for Kent Allen on behalf of Greater Midwest Realty. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Human Services Fund - May 12, 2014 2. Joint Water Commission - May 5, 2014 3. Joint Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission - May 15, 2014 3E Approve the following Boards and Commissions Appointments and Terms: Planning Commission Board of Zoning Appeals Ronald Blum 1 year-expires 5/1/15 David Perich 1 year-expires 5/1/15 Environmental Commission Larry Johnson 1 year-expires 5/1/15 3F. Approve authorization for City Manager to sign School Resource Officer Service Agreement with Independent School District 281. 3G. Adopt Resolution 14-50 appointment of Absentee Ballot Board Election Judges for the August 12, 2014, Primary Election. 3H. Approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. 31. Adept ResollUtiGn 14-51 appFeve a Neighborhood Meeting PGIiGY Planning DiVisieR. 3J. Adopt Resolution 14-52 authorization for execution of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Program in fiscal years 2015-2017. 3K. Adept Resolution 14-53 establish peFmaReRt Ne Parking ZGReG OR Perida Ave. N. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 31. Approve a Neighborhood Meeting Policy - Planning Division. Resolution 14-51 Council Member Fonnest requested staff to provide additional information regarding the policy. City Planner Zimmerman provided an overview of the policy and answered questions for the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Resolution 14-51 for the Neighborhood Meeting Policy - Planning Division upon a vote being take the following voted in favor thereof: Fonnest, Snope and Clausen and the following voted against: Member Schmidgall and the motion carried. 3K. Approve Establishing Permanent No Parking Zone on Florida Avenue North. Resolution 14-53 Council Member Snope requested staff provide additional information regarding no parking issue. Street Maintenance Supervisor Ray gave an overview of the concerns with parking on Florida Avenue North and answered questions from the Council. Fire Chief Crelly answered questions regarding the safety issues from the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Resolution 14-53 to restrict vehicle parking on the west side of Florida Avenue North and the motion carried unanimously. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- June 17, 2014 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4A. Public Hearing - Final Design Plan Approval - Morrie's Golden Valley PUD #115 - Morrie's Automotive Group, Applicant. Ordinance No. 518 City Planner Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Clausen opened the public hearing. Mr. Peter Coyle of Larkin Hoffman representing Morrie's Automotive Group came forward. He complimented City's staff for working with the applicant and stated they were pleased with the recommendation of the Planning Commission in granting the PUD. He requested that a portion of the mandatory park dedication fees be used for the required sidewalk extension. Mayor Pro Tem Clausen closed the public hearing. Council Member Schmidgall requested additional information regarding the park dedication fees. City Manager Burt answered questions from the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Ordinance No. 518, approval of Final Plan of Development, Morrie's Golden Valley PUD #115, Morrie's Automotive Group (Maserati & Bentley), Applicant and the motion carried unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Approve On-Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor License Renewals. Police Chief Carlson introduced the staff report. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the renewal of the respective liquor licenses for the applicants listed below for the 2014-2015 license term and the motion carried unanimously. On-Sale and Sunday Sale Samurai Inc. d/b/a Benihana *Teresa's LLC d/b/a Teresa's Mexican Restaurant *Approval of liquor license shall be contingent on applicant paying outstanding utility bill as required in Section 2.21 of the City Code. 6B. Bottineau Transitway Update. City Planner Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to receive and file Bottineau Transitway Update. 6C. Announcements of Meetings. The Public Safety Open House will be held on June 18, 2014 from 6 pm to 9 pm at the Golden Valley Police and Fire Stations. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- June 17, 2014 6C. Announcements of Meetings - continued. A Special City Council Executive Session will be held on June 19, 2014 at 7 am. The Police Bike A-long will be held on June 21, 2014 from 9 am to noon and will begin at the Golden Valley Police Department. The Golden Valley Fire Relief Street Dance will be held on June 21, 2014 from 5 pm to midnight at the Chester Bird American Legion. A Concert in the Park featuring the Plymouth Concert Band will be held on June 23, 2014 at 7 pm at Brookview Park. A Neighborhood meeting regarding the 7200 & 7218 Harold Ave PUD will be held June 25, 2014 at 7 pm in the Council Conference Room. The Fire Fighter Recruitment Meetings will be held on June 26, 2014 at 9:30 am and 6:30 pm at Fire Station 1. A Concert in the Park featuring the Robbinsdale City Band will be held on June 26, 2014 at 7 pm at Brookview Park. An Input meeting for the Sochacki Park, Mary Hill Nature Center and the Rice Lake Nature Center will be held on June 30, 2014 at 7:30 pm at Brookview Community Center. A Concert in the Park featuring Stompin' Drive will be held on June 30, 2014 at 7 pm at Brookview Park. The City Council meeting will be held on July 1, 2014 at 6:30 pm. The Golden Valley Ice Cream Social will be held on July 14, 2014 at 7 pm at Brookview Park. 61. Mayor and Council Communications. No action and/or discussion took place. Adiournment MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 pm. Joanie Clausen, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Session Statement of the City Council June 19, 2014 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Golden Valley Road in the Council Chambers in said City on June 19, 2014 at 7:31 am. A roll call was taken and the following were present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Schmidgall, Snope and Fonnest. Also present were: Thomas Burt, City Manager; and Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager. MOVED by Snope, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to move to a closed Executive Session of the City Council meeting. Mayor Harris stated the Council is holding an Executive Session to discuss the performance of the City Manager in implementing a new plan to reorganize departments of the City. The closed Executive Session was convened in the Manager's Conference Room at 7:32 am. Those present were: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Schmidgall, Snope and Fonnest. Also present were: Thomas Burt, City Manager; Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and Scott Riggs, Consulting Attorney. Council Member Clausen excused herself from the meeting at 9:25 am. No other subject was discussed. A continuous sound recording was made of the meeting and is being retained in the custody of the City Manager. The meeting was adjourned at 10 am. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager city 0) goldenvi ., MEMORANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) �Y Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city a� golden MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Solicitor's License - North Country Food Alliance Prepared By Judy Nally, 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 North Country Food Alliance. 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 5V 00 TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler olicitor (circle o �p Enclose the sum of$ Jl1 for I (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. NoQ.T14 Cnor-jTiLl FooD ALuANC>, (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) Y9- 3/39 s-,4 77- MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Business NoP IwcallPoRAT'S IN (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) 2.I my STEVE NS AvE . s (Address) f\A 00 A,P O O\A City, State and Zip Code) 6ol2 - 5(o9 - `-f5 85 (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, Clh y'l S 5orl hereby makes application for (Applicant Name) period of through 12/31/ , subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. (Signature of Applicant/ rincipal Officer) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): 5eL-Ic.1TlN6i 1)0NA-r"toNS F'oR ©UR POOp3NELF oPERa-t-ioM . NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. 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: 0,W/S ALL) S o IV �n S ) - z�TR — 1��.3c=l (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF (� I N('� 9YA) COUNTY OF �NPjiPiA') ss. I, r d w-IS A u-1 S o d of IVDA I CoyNTi-y FZ20D 4t U,9WCE (Officer/Individual) (Name of Organization) being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. ignature o -App is nt/Principal Officer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this v day of 2o—i A.q (Signature) JUDITH N&Ly "T�„ ''psora ■ city Y f 91 1! golden MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - Bayport Roofing and Siding Prepared By Judy Nally, 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 Bayport Roofing and Siding. Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month. PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler Solicitor (circle o Enclose the sum of$ for (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary for obtaining this license. Liad (B—Usin4 or Individual Name m&ganization to b icensed) MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Businesstic orpora i , Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) 1141)(4 I2l4.L ISL III _ 3 (Address) ffialtaaovi Is oij City, State and Zip Code) (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE JOt�_ V� hereby makes application for (Applict Name) period of LAZMA through 12/31/x, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. (Sig atrd'of Appiicant/Principal Officer) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): r , r R S•' 2 l� NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. 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 an addresses of all per ons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City; rc. tacks MylN1 (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF �� ) COUNTY OF ) ss. I, of t (Officer/In jvRdual) (N e of Organization) being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on info r ation and belief, and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. 10 Signat a of Applica d ipal Officer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this da of tie 20 DANIELLE MARIE HOEKSTRA ' NO(ARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA 1 208 ,iy'ti' s My Commion ExDues Jan,3� city 0� golden MEMORANDUM valley City Administration Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 3. Solicitor's License - Irakli Chigolashvili on behalf of Edward Jones Prepared By Judy Nally, 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 Irakli Chigolashvili on behalf of Edward Jones. Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month. PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ �o 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: i Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddlerolicitor' (circle one Enclose the sum of$ for (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary for obtaining this license. T-akh 6� a5kv'k (Business or Indivi al Name or Organization to be Licensed) MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Business �� ( // r��QI'�Y p, l -M,4e� �(✓'r�T�Qrah,��� ✓ 1 �a,�iJi^;" (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) 1126 ge'nn�eio►n Ave , X26 (Address) 5-54-03 City, State and Zip Code) 6/2- 5-71° - L) (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, lr&k4l; ���,; �Gts��i�,' hereby makes application for (Applicant Name) period of 2Z / through 12/31/, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. (Signature f Applicant/Principal Officer) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. 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 name rd ad resses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City: C { �2� Hen # 2b rn,n���� � �� ss 4, (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF M-'n n�)040Ai ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HeAAe I n ) Q 1 l lra Chif-T-aol Ay-vl: of Edwa'� .JrJ�12S (Officer/Individual) (Name of Organization) being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. Signature o pplicant/Principal Officer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of J����C' , 206) c�a '&4_' (Signature) Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 28, 2014. Vice Chair Cera called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Cera, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Boudreau-Landis and Kluchka were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 28, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 28, 2014, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Morrie's Automotive — 7400 Wayzata Blvd. — PU-115 Applicant: Morrie's Automotive Group Address: 7400 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To allow for the addition of a new standalone dealership with customer service support area within the existing parking lot. Zimmerman explained that this is the Final PUD plan for the Morrie's Automotive Group proposal to build a new dealership building within their existing parking lot. He stated that Lot 1 will contain the current Cadillac dealership and will be 4.6 acres in size. Lot 2 will be located in the southeast corner of the property, will contain the new Maserati & Bentley dealership and will be 1 acre in size. He added that access to the proposed new lot would be through an existing private, shared driveway along the south lot line. Segelbaum referred to the comments in the staff report about the applicant's request for a third pylon sign on the property. Zimmerman stated that the City sign ordinance allows one pylon sign per lot so this proposal would be allowed to have two pylon signs. Zimmerman discussed how the Final PUD proposal has changed since the Preliminary PUD stage. He noted that the proposed building will be slightly larger, the proposed car elevator has been relocated to the interior of the building, a covered service drive has been added on the north side of the proposed building, windows have been added to the east and west facades to match the front facade, additional trees have been added along Pennsylvania Avenue and a bicycle rack has been added to the front of the building. He referred to the parking requirements and stated that the City Code requires 217 parking spaces for this use. The applicant is proposing 255 spaces for the Cadillac building and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 2 28 spaces for the Maserati and Bentley building for a total of 283 parking spaces. Cera asked if the parking requirements apply to each lot or to the overall property. Zimmerman said the parking requirements are considered for the entire PUD, not individual lots. Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the Applicant, stated that they were happy they could make the changes the Planning Commission recommended during the Preliminary Plan review because they feel they now have a better plan. He said they will review the Sign Code requirements with staff during the building permit phase. He referred to the City Engineer's memo regarding sidewalks and said he is concerned about the language requiring a sidewalk connection south to the pedestrian bridge. He asked if part of the required park dedication fees could be used to pay for that connection. Segelbaum asked Coyle if he thinks there is the ability to find a compromise regarding the signage and asked if they need to have three pylon signs. Coyle said they do need to have three pylon signs and he could argue that the existing two pylon signs should be "grandfathered-in." Cera opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she is pleased with the changes the applicant has made to their plans. She added that the landscaping, stormwater improvements and sidewalk are all good assets and she will defer to staff to negotiate the signage issues. Baker said he is curious about the sidewalk connection issue and asked staff if they know the costs involved. Grimes said he would have the City Engineer address that issue in further detail before this proposal goes to the City Council. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for PUD #115 Morrie's Automotive Group subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 3 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by mfra, dated 4/25/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Access to the newly created Lot 2 shall be maintained via a driveway easement. 5. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 115" in its title. 6. A park dedication fee of$80,640, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Tennant Company — 701 Lilac Drive North — PU-114 Applicant: Tennant Company Address: 701 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To allow for the consolidation of multiple properties into one parcel to enable inter-campus connections. Due to the lack of a quorum, this item was tabled to the June 9, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods — 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue — PU-116 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the existing two single family properties into a new six-lot, single family development Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to develop six single family homes on two existing single family lots at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue. He referred to a site plan of the properties and noted that two of the proposed homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue and the other four homes would share two driveways. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 4 He stated that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting as required and four neighbors attended, however, the applicant did not meet the 10-day notice requirement. He referred to the staff reports and discussed some of the concerns including the length and maintenance of sewer services, the confirmation of the high water level of the wetland and the inadequate width of the driveways with no turn around areas. Segelbaum referred the Fire Chief's staff report which states that Lots 3, 4 and 5 do not meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code and asked how the Planning Commission can review the proposal if it doesn't meet the Fire Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that there are things the applicant can do in order to meet the requirements. He added that the plan would not go forward until the Fire Code issues are addressed. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposal but thinks there are some improvements that can be made. Segelbaum asked if analysis was done on the possibility of having a cul-de-sac instead of all of the proposed driveways. Zimmerman said he thinks it is possible to have a cul- de-sac, but it is a question of how many lots the applicant would then have. Baker referred to sheet 8 in the plan set which shows a conforming lot layout and asked Zimmerman to explain the purpose behind it being included. Zimmerman stated that the conforming layout shown in the plans would still be a PUD it would just consist of twin homes instead of single family homes and was included to provide a comparison. Segelbaum stated Golden Valley has several existing flag lots and asked if they were allowed before current City Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that flag lots were allowed at one time. Grimes added that the City Code was amended in the early 1990s to not allow flag lots because of negative feedback received from residents. Baker questioned who would own the driveways. Zimmerman said they would be shared driveways with an easement over them. Baker asked how the width of Lot 5 is measured since there is no street frontage. Zimmerman stated that the front of Lot 5 is the east property line along the proposed driveway and it measures 40.6 feet in width. Segelbaum asked about the distance between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Zimmerman said there would be 15 feet between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Baker questioned why the plans show a berm being built on the lot to the west when that lot is not part of this proposal. Zimmerman said he thinks the plan is illustrating what the area could look like in the future. He added that a similar proposal with a cul-de-sac could possibly be replicated to the west but another proposal like this current proposal would more difficult to replicate. Baker asked if this proposal would constrain future development. Zimmerman said it's hard to tell without knowing a proposed layout. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 5 Peter Knaeble, Applicant, reminded the Commissioners that his previous plan only included the 7218 Harold Avenue property. Since then, the 7200 Harold Avenue property became available and he feels this proposal has a more creative layout, and creates a larger development with higher density, which is what staff and the Planning Commission wanted. He referred to the questions regarding a cul-de-sac and said there are a number of reasons that a cul-de-sac would not be a good fit. He stated that the site is 1.6 acres in size and the average lot size he is proposing is 11,800 square feet. The minimum required lot size is 10,000 square feet. He referred to the recently built homes on Rhode Island Avenue near this proposal and stated that the lots in that development are 50 feet wide and have a 5-foot setback on one side and a 10-foot setback on the other side and no less than 15 feet between any of the homes, which is what he is also proposing. He referred to the proposed berm and said he included it on the plans to show how it would fit with future development. He stated that the Engineering and Planning Departments have recommended approval and he is working with the Fire Chief regarding his comments including the installation of sprinkler systems on any of the homes not fronting on Harold Avenue. He showed the Planning Commission a proposed layout that had a cul-de-sac in the center with three lots on one side and five on the other. He stated that when he showed the neighbors this plan they did not like it as much because the houses would be closer to their side yard property line. He added that a cul-de-sac would also add more impervious surface. Waldhauser asked Knaeble if he considered a 6-lot, cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said no because the relationship to the neighbors on the east and west would be the same and he is trying to maximize the density. Baker asked Knaeble if staff required that the density be maximized. Knaeble said no, staff asked him to look at a range of densities and to consider options that would increase the density. Grimes agreed and stated that the properties are zoned R-2 and that the previous proposal for this property was almost the same density as the R-1 Single Family zoning district. Cera asked about the width of Harold Avenue. Knaeble said that Harold Avenue is 26 feet wide. Knaeble said he has considered other options but he thinks this proposal is the best. He handed out an illustration of a proposed layout that addresses the comments in the staff reports and reiterated that the neighbors were supportive of the shared driveway concept instead of a cul-de-sac. Segelbaum asked if staff had reviewed the plan Knaeble handed out. Zimmerman said no. Baker asked about the distance between the houses on this new plan. Knaeble said the setbacks are the same as his other proposal, 5 feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other per Zoning Code requirements. Segelbaum asked about the trees shown on the new plan. Knaeble stated that it is just a rendering showing some existing trees and some proposed new trees, but it is not an actual landscape plan. Grimes stated that each lot will require a tree preservation plan. Cera opened the public hearing. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said her lot size is half an acre so when she sees this kind of development with 6 homes on 1.6 acres it upsets her a lot. She said it would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 6 be fair to allow 4 houses but not 6 or 8. She said Golden Valley is losing its natural landscaping, privacy and appeal every time something like this is built. She said the proposed houses are clearly too small and this is a big departure that she is not comfortable with. She said the applicant should be asked to use geothermal energy because the future is in front of us and we need to make these types of changes to benefit everyone. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he received a notice from the applicant regarding the neighborhood meeting four days before the meeting. He said he knows that the neighborhood meeting is nothing official but something is not right. He said at that meeting the neighbors thought they approved the first plan that the Planning Commissioners discussed and that they haven't seen the new plan handed out at this meeting. He stated that the first plan showed two driveways on Harold Avenue and the second plan shows four, which is a lot. He said he originally didn't like the idea of a cul- de-sac but that sounds better than this new plan the Applicant showed. He questioned which plan the Commission would be voting on if approval is recommended. Susan Kelly, 7324 Harold Avenue, said she is not opposed to change. She said the hearing notice for the neighborhood came in an envelope with no return address. She said she was told that the first plan discussed is what would be approved. Now there is a new plan that would change the neighborhood dramatically and she is opposed. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Knaeble stated that the properties in question are zoned R-2 not R-1 which allows 8 units per acre so the proposed density is appropriate. He stated that geothermal energy is a good idea and if the families purchasing the properties want to do that there will be no restrictions against it, but he would be against geothermal being a requirement. Baker asked Knaeble if the homes will be "spec" homes. Knaeble said they will be custom built homes. He added that he has two or three families interested in building houses similar to the ones down the street on Rhode Island. Waldhauser asked about the price of the homes. Knaeble said they will be in the $450,000 to $500,000 range. Segelbaum asked Knaeble which plan he is asking the Planning Commission to approve. Knaeble said he is asking for the plan originally submitted to be approved. The one he showed the Commission at this meeting was just another concept. Baker asked Knaeble if he would be pursuing that second alternative plan. Knaeble said he wants to hear the staff's response on the second plan. He stated that staff was concerned about the proposed shared driveway and his newer plan addresses that concern. Baker asked Knaeble how this plan would affect parking at Lion's Park. Knaeble said it won't affect it all and noted that parking isn't currently allowed on the north side of the street. He added that the spacing of the driveways would not be unlike the homes on Rhode Island Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 7 Cera referred to the 16-foot private driveway on the project Knaeble did on Turners Crossroad and asked how that is different than a public road. Knaeble stated that the Turners Crossroad property has 4 homes that share a driveway whereas this proposal would have 2 homes sharing a driveway. He added that in his experience there have been no issues with cars being on the driveway at the same time. He said he feels it is more appropriate to have less impervious surface. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission can require that geothermal energy be used. Waldhauser said doesn't think they can address that at all. Cera asked if the City Council will see the same plans the Planning Commission received. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked for clarification on the density issue. Grimes stated that the applicant originally submitted a proposal for two smaller single family homes. He explained that the City Council designated this area R-2 to encourage higher density and different types of housing. Baker said $500,000 houses won't achieve higher density or more affordable housing. Grimes stated there are other reasons the area was zoned R-2 such as the desire for single level living, smaller lots, and properties with less maintenance. Waldhauser added that people really want big houses on small lots. She added that she would like to see a private road up the center of the property rather than private driveways along the sides of the property. She stated that a 16-foot with road won't change the amount of impervious surface that much. Cera said he doesn't like the idea of allowing flag lots and a cul-de-sac would make the project look like a more cohesive development and not like homes were just "shoe horned" in. Segelbaum agreed with Cera. He said he appreciates that the applicant is trying to meet the requirements, but the City would be compromising in so many areas to get more density. He said the proposal seems far afield from things that have been granted in the past and that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Baker also agreed and said he is not confident that the purpose of the R-2 zoning is to put more expensive houses in that space. He said he thinks the purpose was to create diversity in the costs of homes and questioned if this is the correct use of the R-2 zoning designation. He said if the City is going to fit homes in the R-2 zoning district, more affordable homes should be encouraged. Grimes suggested giving the applicant some further direction or asking him if he would like to table or withdraw his request. Knaeble said he may proceed with this plan or he may come back with different plans. He said the question of affordability is a relative term and that it is up the families who purchase the homes how much they want to spend. Segelbaum said he would like the proposed new homes to be commensurate with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Cera asked about the square footage of the proposed homes. Knaeble stated that the homes would be approximately 2,200 to 2,400 square feet. He said that $450,000 is relatively affordable for a new home in Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 8 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed PUD plan because the access and safety issues were not adequately addressed and because of the impact this development would have on future development of the two adjoining lots. Segelbaum asked that the motion be amended to add that the proposed plan compromises many different City Code requirements, flag lots being one example. Waldhauser said she does not want to add that language to the motion because she appreciates that it was brought to the Planning Commission as a PUD and she would expect deviations from City Code requirements with a PUD. 5. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Definition of Lot Width and Lot Depth —Z000-94 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending the definition of Lot Width and Lot Depth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Zimmerman explained that staff received an application for a subdivision and a neighbor pointed out that there is an inconsistency in how lot width and lot depth is determined in the Zoning Code versus the Subdivision Code. He stated that staff is now looking for direction on how to interpret and apply the language. He stated that the Zoning Code defines lot depth as the mean (average) depth between front and rear lot lines and lot width as the mean (average) width measured at right angles to the mean depth. The Subdivision code defines lot depth as the shortest distance between the front and rear lot lines measured at right angles to the street right of way and lot width as the minimum distance between side lot lines measured at right angles to lot depth at the minimum building setback line. He discussed several other cities' requirements and showed several examples of various lot shapes and how width and depth are calculated. He stated that the options are to: 1.) keep the Zoning and Subdivision Codes unchanged (new lots must meet minimum width at front yard setback and maintain the minimum average width throughout the lot). 2.) Modify the Subdivision Code to define width as average width throughout the lot (to match Zoning Code). 3.) Modify the Zoning Code to define width as width at front yard setback (to match Subdivision Code) or 4.) Other options the Planning Commission would like to see. He stated that staff is suggesting, based on past precedent, ease of interpretation and administration, and conformity with neighboring communities, that the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code be revised to define lot width as the width of the lot at the front yard setback line to be consistent with the Subdivision Code. Segelbaum wanted to clarify that staff is not recommending the elimination of lot width requirements; they are recommending that the Zoning Code be revised to be the same as the Subdivision Code which requires 80 feet of width as measured at the front setback line. Zimmerman said yes, that is staff's recommendation. Segelbaum stated that this is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 9 the way the City has been determining lot width for a long time and won't make any lots become non-conforming. Baker stated that there is a Zoning Code and Subdivision Code for a reason and asked Zimmerman to compare and contrast the two. Zimmerman explained that the Zoning Code deals with setbacks and the Subdivision Code deals with the creation of new lots. Cera opened the public hearing. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said she did not understand that this discussion was to clarify the definitions in the City Code. She thought it was to discuss eliminating lot width requirements. She said there is more to the "buildability" of a property such as overall square footage and the terrain. She said she gets freaked out when the word subdivision is used because she has seen some subdivisions that she doesn't get, and as a neighbor, she wants to know how the subdivision on Glenwood was allowed to happen. She said she wants the integrity of her neighborhood maintained and that this isn't a money making operation, or maybe it is, and if so that should be said. She said she doesn't want every single lot to have two or more houses on it. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he concurs with staff's recommendation. He said he has been doing infill developments in Golden Valley and in several other cities and he is encouraged by people wanting to build houses to look for properties that are "close-in." He said he sees this issue more as a housekeeping item than a big change in the zoning and subdivision ordinances. He said the requirements have been consistently applied for 27 years and in his experience for the last 10 to 12 years. He said he thinks it would be grossly unfair to try and change the definitions now, especially with two or three proposals pending. Ralph Jacobson, 516 Parkview Terrace, said he has watched his neighborhood dramatically change over something that looks to him to be arbitrary and not very good practice. He said this is a very important topic that warrants greater discussion. He said his neighborhood is very concerned about the travesty that is happening and how the things that attracted them to Golden Valley are slowly being eroded. He said he thinks there are very difficult decisions to be made with a little more seriousness and a little more consistency. Harry Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said he would like to concur with what others have said. He said there seems to be an explosion of development in eastern Golden Valley. He said he understands that people can divide their lots if they'd like and that there is great demand in Golden Valley but he gets concerned when comparisons are made between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park and New Hope because they are very different communities. Richard Hockney, Attorney representing the Knaeble family, said he has been working with Peter Knaeble for approximately 25 years and has made hundreds of appearances in dozens of communities throughout the area. He said he appreciates the effort that staff has made in looking at neighboring communities to see what their ordinances say on this Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 10 subject. He said the Golden Valley's ordinances are consistent with many other cities that measure the width of a lot at the front yard setback line and that standard is overwhelmingly the standard used. David Knaeble, 221 Sunnyridge Lane, said he is in favor of the proposed Zoning code amendment for a number of reasons. He said Golden Valley is a desirable city to live in and the proposed text amendment is just a formal change that doesn't impact or change the status Golden Valley has as being a great City to live in. He said the proposed amendment ensures that the Code is aligned with a development strategy and it clarifies the Code for the City and for residents. He said the proposed amendment supports what has been used to guide development in the past, and how it should guide development into the future. The Code has been used consistently for over 20 years and the proposed amendment does not represent any significant change to the City's intent. He said he and his wife are landowners in Golden Valley and this amendment change directly impacts their ability to use their land in a manner they choose. He said their property is large enough to divide into two separate parcels based on the City's current subdivision and zoning regulations. The amendment to the Zoning code would allow him to subdivide his property without the need to remove the existing home or apply for a variance to allow the existing home to stay. He said if this amendment is not approved there are many other property owners in the City who will lose their right to subdivide their property if they so choose, so he is in favor of the proposed amendment. Pam Lott, 220 Sunnyridge Lane, said she was under the impression that the purpose of zoning is to keep people from inappropriately "shoe horning" houses in to areas where they do not fit and any change that makes development that much easier will have an oversized impact on her immediate neighborhood. She said she believes the Tyrol Hills neighborhood is one of the finest parts of Golden Valley so she would hate to see the one really unique area being subdivided into Brooklyn Center, and that is what staff seems to want to do with smaller and smaller lots and more density. She said higher density is not necessarily the highest and best use. Perry Thom, 320 Louisiana Avenue North, said he appreciates the effort to combine the two definitions and he feels for the folks who are concerned about high density in their neighborhood. He cautioned them to think about high density between single family homes and multi-family homes which may fit the criteria of an individual home, and would be less desirable than a single family home on a slightly modified lot. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said the definition of density is all relative. If the common lots are half an acre, putting two houses on half an acre is high density from her perspective. She said the landscape, animals and trees have to be considered as well. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Cera clarified that the proposed Zoning code text amendment will just make the current Subdivision code and Zoning code language match each other. There will not be any impact on density and it won't change how anything is done regarding the subdivision of property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 11 Baker said this may be an opportunity to visit and broaden the issue. He said the Planning Commission's action could be to ask staff to give them more options on how to calculate lot width and depth. He stated that if they go with staff's first option, subdivisions would slow down. Grimes noted that every neighborhood has the option of putting covenants on their properties to not allow for subdividing. Waldhauser stated the City could also be carved up into different zoning districts with different requirements. Segelbaum stated that there is more than just this one requirement when considering subdivisions. Zimmerman agreed that there are many more requirements in the Zoning code and the Subdivision code that need to be met in order to subdivide a property. Segelbaum questioned if Golden Valley is encouraging subdividing. Grimes stated that Golden Valley is almost 100% developed so most new development is going to be through the tear-down process and subdividing larger lots. Segelbaum asked about the impact on development if the Zoning code text amendment is adopted as recommended by staff. Zimmerman stated that if applicants have to meet both the Zoning code requirements and the Subdivision code requirements, as they are currently written, there will be a small subset that won't be able to divide their property. Segelbaum asked if the proposed Zoning code text change is made, if the requirements would be the same as they were a month ago, and the required lot width wouldn't be expanding or contracting, it would be the same as it has been for many years. Zimmerman said that is correct. Segelbaum asked if the idea is to create more of a "front yard" community. Waldhauser said she thinks most people would rather have a larger back yard. Grimes stated that generally a 35-foot front yard setback is slightly larger than other communities. Cera asked when the 10,000 square foot lot size requirement went into effect. Grimes said that in the 1970s the minimum lot size was 12,500 square feet. That requirement was lowered to 10,000 square feet to increase affordability and encourage people to stay in Golden Valley. Baker said he is not buying that it is difficult for staff to implement an average lot width requirement. Zimmerman said it is possible, and wouldn't be insurmountable, but it would be more difficult. Baker questioned if the information regarding other cities requirements was comparable to Golden Valley's single family zoning district. Zimmerman explained that the width requirement is located in the definition section of the Zoning code and applies to all zoning districts, not just the Single Family zoning district. Waldhauser said she doesn't like the Subdivision code definition even though it is what the City has used for 27 years, and it is the common definition. She said it works great when most of the lots are rectangular. She said she appreciates the difficulty of measuring the averages, and thought maybe requiring that a lot maintain a certain width for half of the depth or something like that might work. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 12 Baker said he would like this item sent back to staff for more analysis. He said he is struck that a standard based on the width of the front may have made sense in the past, but he is not sure that applies today. He said that Tyrol has very unique characteristics and the rate of infill there is quite dramatic, and he wants to moderate that trend. Segelbaum said this is a sensitive topic, and he understands the neighbors' concerns about over-development, but he would prefer to go with the staff's recommendation and maintain the status quo in how the width of a lot is measured, and maybe examine it the future. Cera said there are several pending developments waiting for resolution on this item. He said making the two different definitions match won't change anything regarding how lot width has been measured for many years. He also agreed that the Planning Commission might want to study the issue in a broad context in the future. Baker suggested that subdivision applicants be required to follow both definitions for the next month, and then staff can report back on how it is going. Cera said there is an obligation to address the applications that are pending. Grimes suggested bringing this item back to Planning Commission next month when the full Commission is present. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 3 to 1 to table this item to the June 23, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Baker, Cera and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 7. Other Business • Election of Officers and BZA Liaison This item was tabled to the June 9 Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum suggested the Commissioners consider rotating their attendance to the BZA meetings instead of having one Commissioner be the designated Liaison. • Council Liaison Report Council Member Snope updated the Commissioners on the May 20, 2014, City Council meeting. He stated that the Council approved the subdivision request at 400 Decatur Avenue North. The Council also approved a resolution supporting J-HAP's TIF application. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 13 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Item 4 A. BCWMC. 6-19-14 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission h ut ,sof egu ai Meting 40 Al a h" pr,v Commissioners and Staff Present: Crystal Commissioner Guy Mueller, Vice Robbinsdale Not represented Chair Golden Valley Commissioner Stacy Hoschka, St. Louis Park Commissioner Jim de Lambert, Chair Treasurer Medicine Commissioner Clint Carlson Administrator Laura Jester,Keystone Waters LLC Lake Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Kennedy& Graven Minnetonka Not represented Engineer Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Co. New Hope Not represented Recorder Amy Herbert Plymouth Commissioner Ginny Black Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)Members/Other Attendees Present: Derek Asche, TAC, City of Plymouth Jane McDonald Black,Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley Constance Bonniwell,Minneapolis resident Jeff Oliver, TAC, City of Golden Valley Terrie Christian,Plymouth resident,Medicine Lake Rachel Olmanson, MPCA lakeshore property owner Joe Fox,TAC, City of Golden Valley John O'Toole,Alternate Commissioner,City of Medicine Lake Erick Francis, TAC, City of St. Louis Park David Stack,Minneapolis resident Christopher Gise, Golden Valley resident Liz Stout,TAC, City of Minnetonka Chris Long, TAC, City of New Hope Peter Tiede, Murnane Brandt Richard McCoy, TAC, City of Robbinsdale Robert White, Friends of Northwood Lake Association 1.CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL On Thursday,May 15, 2014,at 8:35 a.m. in the Council Conference room at Golden Valley City Hall,Chair de Lambert called to order the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission(BCWMC)and 1 BCWMC May 15, 2014, Meeting Minutes asked for roll call to be taken. The Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope,and Robbinsdale were absent from the roll call. 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No items were brought forward. 3.AGENDA, Commissioner Black moved to approve the agenda.Alternate Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 4. CONSENT AGENDA. Chair de Lambert requested to remove from the Consent Agenda 4C—Financial Report and 4D—Payment of Invoices and to add them to the Business agenda as 5A1. Commissioner Welch requested the removal of item 4F — Approval of Comments on the Draft EIS for the Bottineau Transitway Project. Chair de Lambert said it would be added to the Business Agenda as 5A2. Commissioner Hoschka moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Commissioner Black seconded the motion.Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka, New Hope, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [The following items were approved as part of the Consent Agenda: the April 14,2014 Commission Workshop minutes,the April 17, 2014 BCWMC meeting minutes, response to comments on Major Plan Amendment, accept and authorize distribution of fiscal year 2013 financial audit, accept Fernbrook Lane emergency culvert replacement(Plymouth), approval of Lock-Up Storage Facility project(Golden Valley), and approval of comment letter on draft bacteria TMDL report.] The general and construction account balances reported in the Financial Report prepared for the May 15,2014, meeting are as follows: Checking Account Balance $735,455.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $735,455.00 TOTAL CASH& INVESTMENTS ON- $2,621,520.95 HAND (5/7/14) CIP Projects Levied—Budget Remaining ($2,874,430.73) Closed Projects Remaining Balance ($252,909.78) 2013 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $9,662.09 2014 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $895,000.00 Anticipated Closed Project Balance $651,752.31 2 BCWMC May 15, 2014, Meeting Minutes 5.BUSINESS 5AL BCWMC Financial Report and Payment of May Invoices Administrator Jester explained that the financial report had been revised to include an invoice in the amount of $405.00 to Schmitty and Sons Transportation for the Commission's upcoming watershed tour bus transportation. Commissioner Black moved to accept the financial report and pay the invoices. Commissioner Hoschka seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope,and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 5A2.Approval of Comments on the Draft EIS for the Bottineau Transitway Project Engineer Chandler described the current alignment of the project and noted that there are a lot of wetland and floodplain impacts with the alignment that would need mitigation. Commissioner Welch added that he thinks that the Commission's comments should state that the Commission would like to work with the Bottineau Transitway Project throughout the process. He said that he is nervous about the steep slopes along the alignment and along the creek in Minneapolis and that the Commission's comments should emphasize that the Commission is doing a capital project in the area before the Bottineau project will be done. Mr. Oliver said that the City of Golden Valley's comments are still being drafted but do include many of the same comments that are in the Commission's comments. He said that the City's comments will include that no increase in upstream flood stage will be acceptable. Commissioner Black said that she generally agrees with the draft comment letter and that it raises all of the issues that the BCWMC needs to raise. She said that she is most concerned with the runoff coming from hard surfaces and how it will be addressed. She commented that the Commission should communicate its rules. Commissioner Welch said that he assumes that the project will come to the Commission for Engineer review,and he commented that the Commission has no permitting program, so the burden would fall on the cities of Minneapolis and Golden Valley to implement, in terms of water quality,with the Commission's assistance. Mr. Oliver reported that the station area planning process is underway for the first group of stations from Minneapolis through Golden Valley. He said that the City of Golden Valley has staff on the Technical Advisory Committee for that process. He relayed that the City of Golden Valley's message to both the Rail Authority and the Metropolitan Council is that the City will be involved in the preliminary design, if and when that moves forward. Mr. Oliver explained that both the Rail Authority and Metropolitan Council are well aware of the Commission's CIP water quality project immediately adjacent to the rail corridor. Engineer Chandler remarked that because of the tight corridor of the proposed alignment,her biggest concern is how the erosion and sediment will be handled during construction. There was a discussion about how this could be addressed. Commissioner Welch recommended that the Commission could direct Engineer Chandler and Administrator Jester to attend some of the project design meetings. He suggested asking Mr. Oliver to be a liaison and to communicate about upcoming meetings that Engineer Chandler and/or Administrator Jester should attend. Commissioner Black recommended that the Commission direct the Administrator to go and she can decide when the Commission Engineer will go since many of the Commission's TAC members/City Engineers will be involved for their cities already. Engineer Chandler summarized the comments that she will add to the letter based on today's comments. Ms. Constance Bonniwell provided comments and stated that Hennepin County chose alignment D1 as it is the 3 BCWMC May 15, 2014, Meeting Minutes cheapest option. She requested that the Commission maintain its focus of protecting the wetlands. She noted that the locally-preferred option is for no light rail and instead to provide rapid bus transit. Ms. Bonniwell described many details of the proposed project and her participation in many public meetings about the project. Commissioner Welch moved to: • direct the Commission Engineer to include in the comment letter an emphasis on the Commission's CIP project and the need to plan and design the project to ensure the integrity of the Commission's project; • authorize the Administrator and, at the Administrator's discretion,the Commission Engineer to attend the station area plan process meetings; and, • authorize Chair de Lambert to review and sign the final comment letter for submission by the Commission Engineer. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. A. Consider Agreement with the City of New Hope for Development of Feasibility Study for Northwood Lake Improvements Project Administrator Jester explained that this is the time of year to start the CIP process for 2016 projects and is the time to authorize the drafting of the feasibility study for the Northwood Lake Improvements Project. She said that Stantec prepared a proposal for doing the feasibility study and the proposal is in the meeting packet. Mr. Long reported that New Hope's City Council approved going forward with the Cooperative Agreement with the BCWMC and if the BCWMC approves the Cooperative Agreement then the City of New Hope will sign the agreement with Stantec for the feasibility study. Commissioner Black moved to approve entering into the Cooperative Agreement. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Commissioner Welch commented that it is really important that the City of New Hope is aware of the context within which improvements to Northwood Lake should be assessed. He recommended that the Administrator provide New Hope and its consultant with copies of the Commission meetings minutes where improvements to Northwood Lake have been discussed, especially in relation to the proposed project in Plymouth that hasn't moved forward yet. Commissioner Welch encouraged the consultant to work closely with the Commission Engineer and to ask questions that may be helpful in preparing the study. Engineer Chandler added that the P8 model is up and running and may be useful as the City and consultant are looking at alternatives. Mr. Robert White of the Friends of the Northwood Lake Association remarked that the Association is in support of the project. He described the condition of the lake and said that the Association is in favor of reducing sediments, phosphorous,and the goose population. Mr.Long said that the City will work closely with all of the parties. He said that in May,June,and July the City will be meeting with all of the stakeholders. Commissioner Black said that New Hope provided the City of Plymouth with a document that detailed all of the projects and work done to help the quality of Northwood Lake and suggested that the document be made available to the Commission. Mr.Long said that he will send it to Administrator Jester. Administrator Jester reviewed the timeline and process for the 2016 CIP projects. She noted that a process is being developed regarding post-construction final reporting. 4 BCWMC May 15, 2014, Meeting Minutes Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope,and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. B. Update on Watershed Tour Administrator Jester updated the Commission about the May 291h watershed tour details and asked for authorization from the Commission to modify the bus reservation to a larger bus than the one currently reserved in the case that it is necessary based on RSVPs. She said that the larger bus would be an additional cost of$130. Commissioner Mueller moved to authorize the Administrator to rent a larger bus if necessary. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. C. Update on Medicine Lake Water Level Issue and Conversations between Commissioners and Cities Administrator Jester reminded the Commission that at one of its previous meetings the Commission decided that the members would talk with their city representatives regarding the Medicine Lake water level issue. She asked if anyone had any updates for the Commission based on those conversations. Commissioner Mueller provided comments from the City of Crystal. Commissioner Black provided comments. Mr. Asche said that he thinks that the next step is for the cities of Plymouth and Medicine Lake to discuss collaborating on a possible study. Commissioner Carlson announced that the City of Medicine Lake City Council approved signing a JPA amendment extending the term by two years instead of ten years. He said that this term will allow the City of Medicine Lake to carefully analyze what is best for Medicine Lake,the residents, and the whole system. Mr. LeFevere explained that the two-year proposal would need to go back to all the member cities for approval. Administrator Jester reported that to-date the cities of Golden Valley, Plymouth,New Hope, Robbinsdale, and Minnetonka have already signed the amended Joint Powers Agreement(JPA)as originally proposed and that St. Louis Park has communicated that it will sign it next Monday There was extensive discussion on the two-year term proposal,what a study of the Medicine Lake water level issue would entail and cost and who would pay for it, concerns over the bounce of Medicine Lake and the risk of flooding, what the City of Medicine Lake proposes would occur in those two years so that the watershed organization would not be in this same position two years from now, and what the other member cities would need in order to consider the two-year JPA proposal. D. Contingency Plans in Event of JPA Expiration Mr. LeFevere pointed out that in order for this organization to exist the member cities need to sign a Joint Powers Agreement. He summarized what the current JPA states about the dissolution of the organization, and he provided an overview of what would need to be handled in the case of dissolution. Mr.LeFevere explained that according to State Law, if the joint powers organization dissolves,the County would form a watershed district. Mr. LeFevere discussed the information in his May 6,2014,memo"Potential Dissolution of Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission."He outlined the next steps that the Commission could take. He recommended that at either this meeting or the next meeting the Commission form a committee or charge an existing committee to focus on these issues. There was an extensive discussion about the next steps that the Commission should take. Commissioner Black recommended that the Administrative Services Committee take on the role of discussing these issues and that anyone interested can participate or join the Committee. 5 BCWMC May 15, 2014, Meeting Minutes Commissioner Mueller moved to direct the Administrative Services Committee and Legal Counsel to meet with the Medicine Lake City Council to discuss the situation and the implications of the two-year extension and of possible dissolution of the organization. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. Commissioner Black suggested that commissioners talk to their cities about the two-year proposal and bring that information back to the Commission next month.Upon a vote,the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [Commissioner Hoschka and Commissioner Welch depart the meeting. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black assumes representation for City of Golden Valley.] E. TAC Recommendations i. 2015 Water Quality Monitoring Program Mr. Fox reported on the TAC's meeting and presented the TAC's recommendations: • Eliminate Crane Lake from the Commission's 2015 water quality monitoring program and revisit data needs from Crane Lake in 2016 in coordination with the City of Minnetonka's water quality monitoring program. • Include the proposed"enhanced"biotic index monitoring and data analysis in 2015. • The Commission Engineer continue the full reporting of results and trend analyses of the annual water quality monitoring program as is current practice. ii. Responsible Parties and Funding of Flood Control Project Mr. Fox explained that the TAC had a long conversation with legal counsel on the roles and responsibilities for the Flood Control Project. Mr. Fox presented the TAC's recommendations: • The Commission continues to be responsible for the annual, five-year(20-year for the tunnel) inspection of the Flood Control project features and the follow-up reporting. • The cities be responsible for debris removal, brushing,tree removal, and general maintenance and repairs(except for major maintenance and repairs)of the Flood Control Project features. • The policies in the Next Generation Watershed Management Plan reflect the above along with other current practices. • The Next Generation Watershed Management Plan include a policy stating the Commission will determine the responsibilities and funding mechanisms for major rehabilitation and replacement during the first five years of the plan. • Further discussion and prioritization by the TAC and/or Commission on maintenance of the CIP projects and major rehabilitation of the Flood Control Project features. Commissioner Black moved to approve the TAC's recommendations as presented. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 5-0 [Cities of Minneapolis, Minnetonka,New Hope,and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. F. Review Draft 2015 Operating Budget,Assessments to Cities,Budget Detail Document Commissioner Black presented the draft budget, described the proposed modest increase over last year's budget,and reported that the Budget Committee decided not to include funds for updating the XP-SWMM model. She said if it turns out that the XP-SWMM work needs to be done in 2015 then the funds will come 6 BCWMC May 15, 2014, Meeting Minutes out of one of the Commission's existing funds.Administrator Jester noted that the proposed 2015 $63,000 Water Quality/Monitoring budget is the budget with Crane Lake excluded from the 2015 program. Commissioner Black went through the proposed budget and described the proposed increases and decreases. She said that the budget will be on the Consent Agenda for the Commission's June meeting for final approval. G. Review 2013 Annual Report and Direct Staff to Submit to BWSR Commissioner Black moved to accept the report and direct staff to submit it to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 5-0 [Cities of Minneapolis,Minnetonka,New Hope, and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. H. Update on Next Generation Watershed Management Plan Development Administrator Jester gave an overview of the Plan Steering Committee's most recent meeting and stated that the recommendation from the Committee will be to use the MIDS(Minimum Impact Design Standards)as the guidance. She reported that the Committee's next meeting will be on Monday,May 19`h at 4:30 p.m. 6. COMMUNICATIONS A. Administrator: i. Administrator Jester said that her Administrator Report is in the meeting packet and commented on the report's format change. B. Chair:No Chair Communications C. Commissioners: i. Commissioner Black said that she would not be at the Commission's June meeting. D. TAC Members i. Update on Twin Cities Metro Chloride Project Mr. Asche gave an update on the project and summarized the discussion from the group's April meeting. E. Committees: i. Education Committee Administrator Jester updated the Commission on the watershed map project. ii. Budget Committee No additional communications aside from those in item 5F. iii. Administrative Services Committee Commissioner Black provided an update including the Administrator's priorities for this year and noted that$2,500 has been included in the 2015 budget to convert the Commission's files from written files to digital files. F. Legal Counsel: No Legal Communications G. Engineer: i. 2014 Impaired Waters List: Delisting of Wirth Lake; no chloride listing for Wirth and Medicine Lakes; remaining chloride listings. Engineer Chandler reported that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency removed Wirth Lake 7 BCWMC May 15, 2014, Meeting Minutes from the Impaired Waters List although it may take a year before the final approval comes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. She reported that the several waters in the watershed that were included on the draft impaired waters list as impaired for chloride have been removed from the Impaired Waters List: Wirth Lake, Medicine Lake, and some unnamed streams in Plymouth. Engineer Chandler explained that remaining on the Impaired Waters List for chloride impairment are Parkers Lake, Spring Lake, Sweeney Lake, Bassett Creek Main Stem, and Plymouth Creek. ii. Vicksburg Lane Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW) Engineer Chandler pointed out that the Commission sent in comments on the EAW for the Vicksburg Lane project. iii. Engineer Chandler announced that the Barr sent in a proposal to the City of Minneapolis' Community Planning and Economic Development Group that's looking at the extent of contamination from the city impound lot. 7. INFORMATION ONLY(Available at http //www.bassettereekwmo.org/Meetings/2014/2014-May/2014M4y,meetingFacket.htm) A. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet B. Mississippi River Forum Workshop May 30, 2014; Science Museum of Minnesota; registration is free—advance registration requested C. Triclosan &Public Health: Public Perceptions & Educational Recommendations Workshop; May 22, 2014, MN Department of Health, St. Paul; RSVP required. 10.ADJOURNMENT Chair de Lambert adjourned the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Regular Meeting at noon. Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Secretary Date 8 MINUTES Envision Connection Project Executive Board April 17, 2014 7:30 pm City Hall Council Conference Room Directors Present: Lynn Gitelis (chair), Mike Berger, Sharon Glover, Jim Heidelberg, Cindy Inselmann, Helene Johnson, Philip Lund, Dean Penk, Wendy Rubinyi, Mike Schleif, Marshall Tanick, Blair Tremere Directors Absent: Other: Cheryl Weiler (Staff Liaison) 1. Call to Order Chair Gitelis called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm with a quorum. 2. Approval of Agenda Tremere moved the approval of the agenda and Penk seconded. Motion carried. 3. Approval of February 25, 2014 Minutes Lund asked for a change under#5, "Bridge Builders Update," to soften the language from using "declined" to "asked to defer to a later date." Schleif moved approval of the minutes as amended, Lund seconded, motion carried. 4. Work Plan and Budget Gitelis asked if there were expenditures to add in case Envision continues. Rubinyi suggested adding funds for a community summit on the 10th anniversary of the first Envision Summit. Discussion ensued about the type of event and costs for food, publicity, mailing, etc. Tanick suggested appointing a group to plan the event. Rubinyi said it's important to draw families and younger folks, so there would be a need for day care. Lund asked the group to define the idea more before spending time discussing it. He said he's heard from groups he works with that the City is pushing back on what is expected of them. Gitelis said she's seeing here and in other Cities fewer resourced to handle events and that they're constrained by funding, staffing, and ability to raise levies. She said if the group wants to do more than it is currently doing, it has to come up with funding. Tremere said the group is advisory to the Council, reminding them that 10 years ago the City Council worked with the Rotary Club on visioning, which was a hot topic then. He thought it would be a good time to revisit the outcomes and see if they're still valid, which would be a sound reason to do another summit. What would the group advise the Council to do, and if the Council can't make it a priority, could the group find someone to fund it. Lund added that although the Board has figured out a way to generate new ideas, it doesn't have a way to get them done, which makes a good case for revisiting. Penk said the group needs someone to step up and help get things done. Tanick said one reason to have another summit is to engage more people to help get things done. Penk said he thinks the model of the quarterly meetings has legs, but he doesn't know if this event will make it better. Gitelis said the mayor wants this community to be a destination. How can the Board contribute to that effort, especially now with the Community Center project starting? She asked if the Envision Board could attach itself to that project and use the Task Force as a way to have some sort of citizen's summit. She pointed out Golden Valley doesn't get LGA funding, doesn't have a way to generate new revenue, and can't spend more, so if a group can attach itself to another project it might get funding that way. Tremere said another option would be to not be grandiose but simply have a 10 year celebration as a way to get some publicity. Schleif said the main thing the Board has developed over 10 years is coming up with new ideas, and we don't need new ideas, we need implementation. Johnson used her work at GTS as an example, saying when the organization went nonprofit 10 years ago it used the tagline "Celebrate, Educate, Engage." She then asked what trends could the Board focus on? She remembered at the last summit there were so many people with skills and interests that they didn't have a place to plug them in. If the group identifies the right trends it can connect with people, but it would take a lot of work to make it happen. Gitelis said the one thing she sees missing is project management, so the City gets surprised when the Board needs all sorts of help at the last minute. To make it work would require managing the process going forward, both forecasting FTEs and cost. Penk said the Board would need a volunteer to do project management, then identify a source to train people how to do project management and leadership. Gitelis mentioned SCORE, a group that does work in this area, and suggested talking to other organizations that do such work pro bono. Johnson suggested trying to get a loaned executive and mentioned a program a General Mills. Gitelis said Allianz also has a similar program, and the Board could perhaps ask both companies for help. Rubinyi suggested all this would be something for a subcommittee to deal with after the Board decides the reason for having another summit. She suggested surveying citizens on the purpose or reason for having a summit or having a large community focus group. Penk mentioned there's a survey company in Golden Valley and perhaps the Board could ask them for help. Rubinyi moved to form a 2015 Summit Task Force. Tanick seconded. Motion carried. Rubinyi and Penk will be on the Task Force. Gitelis said this means asking for another $1,000 for 2015.Johnson pointed out that without the Hall of Fame, there will be a free $1,000. The group agreed to ask for an extra $2,000 in 2015, then went on to discuss whether the Envision Board will continue for 2015. Heidelberg asked when the decision will be made, and Weiler referred to the Council's last resolution, which said Envision must complete its work by December 2014. Heidelberg asked when the Board should ask the City Council for continuance, and Gitelis said she has already made that phone call. Heidelberg asked if she made one call or five, and she replied one phone call. Tremere then outlined a bit of history from the Board's last request for continuance. Tanick asked Weiler to provide the documentation from that request so he and Tremere could put together a new proposal for continuance. Tremere said the City Council has to come to grips with if the Envision Board will continue and, if not, that's the reality of 2014. Gitelis suggested a two-week deadline. Tanick suggested Gitelis make another phone call to the person she had previously called. Gitelis said if the Envision Board is continued, it will request an additional $2,000 for 2015 and if it's not continued, she will ask the Council how the City will do community development. 5. Projects and Council Updates Bridge Builders Lund said there were no new developments regarding the next Bridge Builders event and asked the group if anyone had called the venues assigned to them at the last meeting. He reported that he thanked the host and speaker for the previous event and still needed to make calls to the people who were involved in the event. Gitelis suggested Lund email Weiler with a list of who is calling whom, so she can forward it to the rest of the group. Tanick reported he left three messages for KARE 11 and has had no response. He suggested holding the next event at the Historical Society, perhaps before the official grand opening, and offered to contact them. Lund reminded the group of the goal from the March meeting to have venues set up for the coming year. Tanick suggested Peaceful Valley Montessori School as a backup to the Historical Society. Rubinyi suggested the new Mini Cooper dealership as a venue. Penk agreed to contact Mini Cooper. Valley Volunteer Day Planning Penk said Valley Volunteer Day will require an infusion of volunteers and that last year's event was hampered by cold, wet weather as well as being on the same day as the lilac planting event. He wondered if Jennifer would agree to be a consultant. Gitelis asked if it should be turned over to the City's volunteer coordinator. Penk said she hasn't embraced it and that the event needs a project manager. Gitelis asked if anyone else is interested. Rubinyi suggested asking if Golden Valley LIVE wants to lead, or perhaps placing an article in the City newsletter looking for a project manager. Johnson said LIVE would be perfect, and they have people to help. It was decided to advertise the opportunity to all. Great Ideas Tremere suggested each Board member bring one new person to become a Bridge Builder in the next three months. Rubinyi suggested moving Golden Valley Greenways forward. 6. New Business Tanick suggested taking a group photo, since the entire Board was present. Weiler took a photo of the group using Tanick's camera. 7. Upcoming Meetings Gitelis encouraged attendance at the June 12 Board and Commission Dinner. She also said she wouldn't be at the May 15 meeting. Johnson said she would miss that meeting as well. 8. Adjournment Moved by Tanick and seconded by Schleif. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 pm. Lynn Gitelis, Chair ATTEST: Cheryl Weiler, Staff Liaison �R. Architecture i Engineering i Planning M e e t i n g M i n u t e s PROJECT: Golden Valley Community Center HGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 FROM: Glenn Waguespack,AIA WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL 612-758-4253 DATE: June 17, 2014 MEETING Purpose: Task Force Meeting#1 Date: May 20, 2014 PRESENT: Task Force Members Facilitation Team John Cornelius City of Golden Valley Pat Dale Carrie Anderson Lynn Gitelis Rick Birno Brad Kadue Ben Disch John Kluchka Brian Erickson Kelly Kuebelbeck Jeanne Fackler Dean Penk Chantell Knauss Karla Rose Jeff Oliver Merton Suckerman Greg Spencer Mickie Weaver Cheryl Weiler Jason Zimmerman Gill Design Kari Haug HGA Victor Pechaty Glenn Waguespack COPIES: Those Present Nancy Blankfard, HGA Item Task Force Meeting#1 was the first of six meetings scheduled for the Golden Valley Community Center Task Force to review and provide community input for the Feasibility Study and Predesign for a new Community Center. Meeting#1 included an overview of the feasibility study and predesign process, and focused on two main goals: 1. Identify program areas for City staff to consider for inclusion in a new facility, and 2. Establish Vision and Guiding Principles to follow throughout the process in order to create a successful project. The detailed meeting discussion is captured in the two major categories below—Program and Vision/Guiding Principles. Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. 420 5th Street North • Suite 100 • Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 55401-2338 HGA Architects and Engineers, LLC MGA Architects and Engineers, LLP Telephone 612.758.4000 Facsimile 612.758.4199 HGA Architecture and Engineering, PC Visit our Website: hga.com HGA Mid-Atlantic, Inc. Golden Valley Community Center June 17, 2014 Page 2 Item 1. Program a. Golf Program Spaces 1) Team Lockers 2) Locker Rooms 3) Pro Shop 4) Bag Room 5) Workshop Space 6) Equipment Storage b. Meeting Spaces 1) Wedding/Event Space—film and conference center abilities possible ■ Catering Kitchen ■ Event Equipment Storage 2) Classroom Space ■ Meeting Space ■ Indoor Outdoor Performance Space ■ Dance Classroom ■ Music Classroom—lessons ■ Art Classroom ■ Cooking Classroom ■ Computer Classroom ■ Fitness Studio—yoga, tai chi,pilates 3) Senior Space—Living room, quiet space,game room and break out rooms 4) Huddle Room (nurse consultation)—Partner space c. Community Gathering Commons 1) Lobby—Art gallery,waiting and working space 2) Fireplace/lounge Space 3) Grill/Tap Room 4) Patio/Screen Porch 5) Indoor Playground 6) Childcare 7) On-site Preschool 8) Warming House for skiing,ice skating, snow shoeing 9) Bathroom for outdoor activities d. Office and Program Support 1) Park and Recreation Administration Offices 2) Golf Administration Offices Golden Valley Community Center June 17, 2014 Page 3 Item 3) Teen Caddie Program 4) Conference Room 5) Workroom 6) Break Room 7) General Storage e. Site Program 1) Lawn bowling, croquet, snag golf, mini golf 2) Golf Green as seniors balance exercise or kids' activities 3) Driving Range 4) Green House 5) Baseball/Softball Batting Cages 6) Splash Pad 7) Indoor Dome for soccer,walking golf,batting,lacrosse 2. Vision/Guiding Principles: a. The Golden Valley Community Center will be a success if it facilitates greater community engagement: ...it is fun and welcoming ...it is accessible/easy to get in and out of ...it has enough parking ...it supports a variety of functions—from birthday parties to corporate events to club meetings to community programs ...it meets needs and supports programs that attracts citizens of all ages ...it serves as a destination;a central hub ...it functions as a gathering place ...it is a place where parents are comfortable dropping off their kids ...it is the first place you'd want to go if you're bored! ...it functions as a storm shelter ...it is an enjoyable place to be b. The Golden Valley Community Center will be a success if it is a source of community pride: ...it brings greater brand awareness of Golden Valley ...it is a "legacy" building ...it is architecturally significant ...it becomes an historic 100-year landmark ...it is compatible with the mid-century modern character in Golden Valley ...it gets 20,000 likes on Facebook ...it makes other cities jealous city 0 golden MEMORANDUM alleX Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. Authorize Agreement with SEM, Inc. for Natural Resources Management Plan Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary At the May 14, 2013 Council/Manager meeting,the City Council approved the Environmental Commission's work plan to develop a Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP).The NRMP will include objectives, policies, and an implementation program identifying specific and achievable natural resource projects, and will improve the City's position in leveraging grants and other resource assistance. The NRMP will have the appearance of the City's current Comprehensive Plan, and it is anticipated that the NRMP will be incorporated into the next Comprehensive Plan update. Important components of the plan include: 1. Prioritizing areas to preserve or enhance. 2. Developing management strategies and action plans for specific natural areas, including invasive species management. 3. Identifying partnerships and grant opportunities to help the City achieve its natural resource objectives. 4. Identifying opportunities to provide natural resource education and community involvement, including volunteer opportunities. 5. Creating an inventory of City-owned open space parcels, right-of-ways and exploring ways to improve the use and appearance of these properties. As directed this past winter, the Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission worked jointly with City staff and its consultant, SEH, Inc.,to provide guidance and develop a framework for the NRMP. SEH, Inc. has submitted the attached proposal in the not-to-exceed amount of$43,882 to complete the plan. The proposal serves as a supplemental letter to the Master Agreement for Professional Services between SEH, Inc. and the City of Golden Valley. SEH, Inc. has demonstrated expertise in the area of natural resources and has completed the City's Natural Resources Inventory and the Parks Chapter of the 2008-2018 Comprehensive Plan. Funding for the Natural Resources Management Plan is provided in the City's 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program (SS-44, page 81) in the amount of$50,000. If approved by Council,the Environmental Commission will continue to work with staff and SEH, Inc. to complete the Natural Resources Management Plan in 2014. Attachments • Agreement with SEH, Inc. for Natural Resources Management Plan (4 pages) • Memo from SEH, Inc. to Eric Eckman dated March 25, 2014, regarding Natural Resources Management Plan Outline (6 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize Agreement with SEH, Inc. for Natural Resources Management Plan in an amount not to exceed $43,882. SEH June 12,2014 RE: City of Golden Valley,Minnesota Natural Resources Management Plan- Scope of Services SEH No. GOLDV 124632 Mr.Jeff Oliver,PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley,MN 55427 Dear Jeff: Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services to the City of Golden Valley for the completion of a Natural Resources Management Plan(NRMP). This proposal is a supplemental letter to the master agreement for professional services between SEH and the City of Golden Valley. The City of Golden Valley has initiated the preparation of a Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP),has updated the natural resource inventory,and completed an outline of the anticipated plan content(attached for reference). This was accomplished through several joint meetings of the Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission between October 2013 and March 2014.At the final meeting,an outline was reviewed,and proposed to be used to establish the content of the final NRMP. The NRMP will be prepared to consolidate existing local natural resource regulations,prioritize local concerns,and present management strategies and goals. It is intended that the NRMP will become a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan in the future. In order to be consistent with the goals and objectives,the NRMP will follow the formatting of the 2008-2018 Park Plan. Scope of work Like the development of the plan content,the NRMP is proposed to occur through an iterative process. Using the approved plan outline as a guide,the following tasks are proposed to complete the NRMP. Task 1:Natural Resources Inventory-Analysis&Discussion Following the completion of the Natural Resources Inventory in 2002,new open spaces have been added to city management or ownership,and some land use has changed.The development of the NRMP included an update of the land use(through MLCCS)and invasive species coverage. While the GIS data has been updated,the initial plans did not include a description of the changes,or the relevance of these changes to the status and trends of the City's natural resources. The updated inventory,and a discussion of the changes since 2002,will be included as a section of the NRMP. The GIS data for the inventory will be used to generate the figures used within the plan. Task 2:Complete the Draft Natural Resource Management Plan Working with City staff,SEH will prepare a draft NRMP. This plan will include the updated inventory, visions and goals statements,policies,priorities,management strategies,action plans, success criteria, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.13635 Vadnais Center Drive I Saint Paul MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I vwwr.sehinc.com 1 651.490.2000 1 600.325.2055 1 651.490.2150 fax Mr.Jeff Oliver June 12,2014 Page 2 educational opportunities,an implementation plan,and discussion of how the plan works with existing plans and requirements. The draft plan will be written in the format of the City Comprehensive Plan,and will include the recommendations discussed by the Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission.It is intended to use this as a starting point,and that refinement will occur through review of the draft. Task 3:Complete the Final Natural Resource Management Plan The third task is the development of the final plan. The process from the draft plan to the final plan will include review and discussion of the draft plan with City staff and Environmental Commission through multiple meetings. The following subtasks are proposed as part of this process: A. Five meetings with the Environmental Commission. These meetings will have a specific topic, and are intended to guide the process towards completion. Meeting topics will include: a. Meeting 1: Overview of plan outline,process,and development of vision and goals statements b. Meeting 2:Recommendations for management strategies, specific project recommendations,and monitoring and success criteria. c. Meeting 3:Educational opportunities,implementation,and fimding opportunities. d. Meeting 4:Review of complete plan and ancillary topics related to climate change,GIS, plan update schedule,and process for integration into Comprehensive Plan. This meeting will include the Open Space and Recreation Commission. e. Meeting 5:Review of final draft of plan,final comments,and recommendations to City Council.This meeting may include the Open Space and Recreation Commission. B. Meetings with City staff Meetings will occur throughout the process with City Staff to discuss the plan development. It is anticipated that at least one meeting will occur prior to each Environmental Commission meeting,and at least five additional meetings. These meetings may be in person,or via conference call. C. Opportunity for Public Participation: It is anticipated that the draft plan will be made available for residents to review and comment.The format of this opportunity is to be determined,but may include an open house,allowing public comment during one of the joint meetings,or soliciting comments on the plan in writing,possibly via email or the City website. D. Identify Educational Opportunities: Although education is a section within the plan,there is an outreach component that warrants additional discussion. It has been expressed by the Environmental Commission that the plan is intended to be utilized,which includes providing the information to the community. This task will identify the extent of community outreach,a communication plan,and innovative methods to inform and educate the public. E. Presentation to City Council:Upon approval by the Environmental Commission,it is anticipated that the plan and recommendations will be presented to the City Council. With assistance from City staff,SEH will present the plan to the Council. F. Publication: SEH will coordinate with City staff to produce an attractive plan that is similar in style and appearance to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. This will include the use of graphics, Mr.Jeff Oliver June 12,2014 Page 3 photographs,figures,and exhibits. The plan is intended for use primarily as an electronic document,and will be formatted to allow this preferred publication style. Project Schedule We anticipate beginning the project upon authorization to proceed.The first tasks will be to coordinate with City staff the project schedule as it relates to the Environmental Commission meetings.It is anticipated that the July 2014 Environmental Commission meeting will be the project kickoff,and that subsequent meetings will occur monthly following the topics identified above in Task 3,Subtask A.The project will proceed diligently,and we anticipate that the final Environmental Commission meeting will be November 2014. It is proposed that we present to the City Council in December 2014,with publication of the final plan in January 2015. Compensation SEH proposes to be compensated for the scope of services proposed in the agreement on an hourly basis. Compensation will be based on the hourly cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses,including reproductions,mileage,and equipment.Hourly rates will be in accordance with the enclosed rate table. The cost estimate for the first three tasks are summarized below: Task 1:Natural Resource Inventory Update: $2,521.00 Task 2: Complete Draft Plan: $16,949.00 Task 3: Complete Final Plan: $24,412.00 Total Cost(not to exceed): $43,882.00 If this document satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of our agreement,please sign the space below and return one copy to our office.We look forward to working with you,your staff,and the community on this project.Thank you for the opportunity to continue working with the City of Golden Valley. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. 0 '�iL Deric Deuschle,CWD Project Manager Accepted this day of ,2014. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY,MINNESOTA By: Title: Mr.Jeff Oliver June 12,2014 Page 4 Rate Table Golden Valley Natural Resource Management Plan Rate Table. Hourly Rates are valid from July 1,2014 through June 31,2015. Classification Rate Senior Biologist/Project Manager $126.08 Senior Landscape Architect $136.40 GIS Specialist $97.56 Biologist $75.50 Restoration Ecolo 'st $97.46 Graphic Design Specialist $92.00 CADD Technician $93.25 Administrative Assistant $87.00 Water Resources Engineer $115.50 SEN Building Better World MEMORANDUM for All off Use TO: Eric Eckman,City of Golden Valley FROM: Deric Deuschle DATE: March 25,2014 RE: Golden Valley NRMP Outline Based on discussions with the Environmental Commission,the Open Space and Recreation Commissions, and city staff,a conceptual framework for a Natural Resource Management Plan(NRNP)has been prepared. The following outline incorporates the typical plan contents,and expands to incorporate the topics that are specific to Golden Valley.It is intended that this outline serve as the basis for the proposal for completion of the final plan. Following is a suggested outline of a complete plan which builds upon the natural resource work that was started in the Parks chapter of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.Focus is on goals,prioritization of needs, and measureable success. Special consideration is given for developing an implementation plan which identifies specific and achievable projects and potential funding opportunities. It is anticipated that the final plan will utilize summary tables to succinctly display information,provide maps through Geographic Information Systems to show locations of key resources,and provide visually appealing graphics and photographs to complete a plan which resembles the format of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 1. Executive summary a. Brief overview of plan and priorities. b. Summary of Comprehensive Plan process and plan incorporation. 2. Introduction a. History of plan. b. Plan purpose and approach. c. Visions and goals—use framework of Comprehensive Plan for incorporation of the NRMP. Develop unique,yet compatible,vision and mission statements for Natural Resources. 3. Natural Resources Inventory a. Process,results,summarize findings. b. Summary of 2003 Inventory. c. Update of land use using 2013 Inventory Update. d. Discuss changes in coverage of invasive species;status and trends. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,3535 Vadnals Center Drive,St.Paul,MN 55110-5196 SEH Is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 1 800.325.2055 1 888.908.8168 fax Golden Valley NRMP Outline April 9,2014 Page 2 4. Natural Resource Strategies a. Policies. i. Review policies set forth in Parks chapter of Comprehensive Plan(attached to this memo). ii. Review existing City practices and evaluate applicability to incorporate into NRMP. b. Priorities. Focus on primary,secondary,and other considerations. i. Corridors,green spaces,open space parcels,rights of way,water resources, invasive species,wildlife management,preservation/restoration,private/public properties,land acquisition. ii. Preservation is priority,enhancement is secondary. iii. Develop long and short term goals. c. Overall Recommendations,as related to Vision and Mission Statements i. Big picture management strategies,geographic focus vs widespread action,open space management,woodland management. 1. Buckthorn eradication program 2. Identify strategies to preserve,maintain,and enhance natural areas. 3. Invasive species management plans. 4. Incorporate consideration of climate change. 5. Protect and manage wildlife(including protection/enhancement of pollinator insects such as bees and butterflies),and management of nuisance species. d. Individual/Specific Recommendations—Actions to be taken on priorities. i. Specific properties,specific topics,invasive species control techniques. 1. Coordinate with Minneapolis Park Board to protect and manage the resources within Wirth Park. 2. Preserve,maintain,and/or enhance specific natural.areas. Identify and prioritize specific plans for the following areas,or additional areas identified as part of the plan development. a. Mary Hills Nature Area. b. General Mills Nature Area. c. Laurel Avenue Greenbelt. d. Pennsylvania Woods. e. Western Avenue Marsh. f. Bassett Creek and Basset Creek corridor. g. Rice Lake Nature Area. h. Adeline Nature Area. i. Sweeney Lake. j. Bassett Creek Nature Area. k. Briarwood Nature Area. 1. Golden Ridge Nature Area. m. City properties that function as open space. 3. Bottineau LRT and Stations—This is a gateway to the city,and should incorporate natural resources in the project planning efforts. 4. Invasive species management,primarily buckthorn. t Golden Valley NRMP Outline April 9,2014 Page 3 5. Monitoring and success criteria a. Define success criteria. Establish timeline and practicable means to measure. i. Acres of land protected,percent cover of invasive species,number and diversity of trees,acres of restored woods,number of wildlife encounters,etc. b. Provide adaptive management strategies to allow seamless changes. i. Incorporate flexibility to account for new management techniques,new threats, climate change,etc. c. Funding for monitoring. 6. Education a. Identify community benefits. b. Extent of community involvementloutreach. i. Print media,workshops,cost sharing,wildlife management,urban forestry, and/or dedicated staff. Identify hands on opportunities. 1. Volunteer programs. 2. Partnerships,including other agencies such as Three Rivers Park District and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board,and MnDNR. c. Communication Plan. i. Identify strategies including mobile technology,social media,interactive websites,email listserve,as well as site based interpretive signage. ii. Develop innovative communication techniques using current technology. d. Identify education topics(i.e.buckthorn,wetlands,native plants). i. Determine whether to use a broad base of information,or focus on specific topics in greater detail. 1. Determine frequency of topic rotation. 7. Implementation Plan and Funding a. Identify partnerships and interagency cooperation. b. Include demonstration projects and educational components. c. Grant opportunities. d. Capital Improvement Plan. i. Set realistic expectations. ii. Timelines. iii. Contingency plan/budget for unanticipated diseases or invasive species e. Plans/Maps showing priorities and opportunities. 8. Discussion of Climate Change(Likely incorporate in other sections,but identified here if there is a desire to make this a specific section). a. Role of City in addressing climate change,and flexibility within plan should change occur. Golden Valley NRMP Outline April 9,2014 Page 4 9. Review of Existing City Plans/Ordinances a. Consolidate plans,include by reference,summarize, etc. L Comprehensive Plan. ii. Surface Water Management Plan. iii. Park Plan. iv. Forestry Plan. b. Zoning requirements. c. Storm water requirements. d. Redevelopment. 10. Public Meetings/Open House a. Comments and Input. i. Determine the extent of feedback desired,and most efficient means to collect and incorporate. 1. Summary of public process included in the plan. 11. GIS Database a. How will data be gathered and managed. Who is responsible. b. Plan will utilize GIS for analysis and mapping,but will also describe the procedural components,and how GIS will be used as a management tool. 12. Plan Updates a. What the frequency that the plan will require revisions? i. Plan will provide requirements for when updates are needed. This is primarily an administrative discussion. This framework will be reviewed by Commissions and city staff,and therefore the final plan may vary. The greatest tasks will be the identification of the goals and expectations,determining which actions are desired to be taken,and prioritization of those actions. Golden Valley NRMP Outline April 9,2014 Page S Summary of 2008 Comprehensive Plan—Chanter 6:Parks Following are excerpts from the Parks Chapter of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the Natural Resources within the City. The Natural Resource Management Plan(NRMP)may incorporate similar vision and mission statements to be developed as part of the NRMP.The natural resource objectives and policies listed below will be reviewed as part of the policy section of the NRMP. Parks Vision Statement The City of Golden Valley shall nurture places,events,and associations that maintain recreation as a focal point of family and community life. Parks Mission Statement The mission of the Golden Valley Park and Recreation Department is to build community through people, parks,and programs. Natural Resources Goal in Parks Chapter Objectives • Protect,preserve,enhance,and develop the natural resources within the City. • Protect the City's natural resources and eco-system through community education. • Increase passive recreational opportunities of existing natural resources Policies The City shall: • Review development proposals for conformance with ordinances regarding tree preservation, water quality,wetland protection and mitigation,and shoreland protection • Work with developers to provide permanent open space areas or cash in monetary compensation of land in development plans • Educate private property owners on how to protect and maintain natural resources on their property • Protect parks and open space areas from unnecessary encroachment or destruction from neighboring properties • Use site planning,construction,and maintenance techniques on public park lands to minimize negative impacts on the natural environment • Use or specify native plant materials in projects on City property • Search for,and take advantage of opportunities to acquire properties to add to the City's inventory of natural resource-based open space • Identify and acquire significant habitat areas and areas of unique plant and animal species to help ensure their preservation • Protect and preserve endangered and threatened species and their natural habitat through cooperative efforts with Metropolitan Parks Commission,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,and the US Fish and Wildlife Service • Enforce no-net loss of wetlands within jurisdictional limits through administration of the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act • Increase emphasis on minimizing runoff volumes,through implementation of storm water best management practices and other environmental practices,that are technically acceptable and financially feasible • Continue to take a proactive approach in efforts to identify and treat diseased and insect- infested trees in a timely manner through implementation of the City's shade tree disease program • Work with private property owners and developers to encourage reforestation and preservation of significant vegetation and enforce current tree preservation ordinance 1 Golden Valley NRMP Outline April 9,2014 Page 6 • Use best management practices to improve the effectiveness of natural resource management • Provide,maintain,search for,and develop public access to parks and areas on water bodies protect and manage open space areas within the City • Maintain and develop natural corridors to foster ecosystem continuity and provide connections to parks and open space • Expand environmental education programs with schools and in the community • Continue to inventory and analyze natural resources and manage them accordingly within the City • Manage over-population of wildlife species L:t Y U ;y g'01d ' n -- .,iV' MEMORANDUM valley Public Warks Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) �k�°" ,.�.,n :,�,�...r� '`° '..a,H r�sF.=� "';��.�.�.,�:ss4'rv.. -i•.;d�.°xx :; , �''�S'� ��- �`U:a'''" :!.`�`'Y".,. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. F. Honeywell Pond 1. Authorize Cooperative Agreement between City of Golden Valley and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 2. Authorize Agreement with WSB &Associates, Inc. for Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Stormwater Pond (Honeywell Pond) Expansion Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer Summary The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) has determined that it is in the best interest of its member communities and the BCWMC to expand the stormwater pond located west of Douglas Drive at Duluth Street, known as the Honeywell Pond. The project is part of the BCWMC 2016 Capital Improvement Program. It will be bid and constructed as part of the Douglas Drive rehabilitation project. Honeywell Pond was already planned for expansion as part of the 2016 Douglas Drive rehabilitation to meet a portion of the water quality improvements that will be required for the project. The BCWMC joined the project to expand the water quality volume to the extent possible within the local subwatershed. Construction of the pond will occur at the same time as road construction. Before the project can be considered for construction, a feasibility study must be completed to identify and evaluate improvement options and costs. On June 19, 2014, a Cooperative Agreement for Preparation of a Feasibility Report, developed by the City and BCWMC, was approved by the BCWMC (attached). The agreement specifies that the City of Golden Valley will prepare the feasibility report and BCWMC will reimburse the City up to $29,800 for the work. Staff requested a proposal from WSB &Associates, Inc. for the completion of the feasibility report. Its engineers are also designing the Douglas Drive rehabilitation project. The total cost of WSB's proposal is $29,800 and the study is scheduled to be completed within four months of the notice to proceed. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Cooperative Agreement for Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Honeywell Pond Expansion - Douglas Drive and Duluth Street - Project BC-4 between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and the City of Golden Valley (5 pages) • Agreement from WSB &Associates, Inc. for Honeywell Pond Enhancement/Improvement Project Feasibility Work Plan (3 pages) Recommendation 1. Motion to authorize the Cooperative Agreement for Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Honeywell Pond Expansion - Douglas Drive and Duluth Street- Project BC-4 with the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. 2. Motion to authorize the agreement for professional engineering services with WSB & Associates, Inc. to complete a feasibility study in an amount not to exceed $29,800. _-•- -•i 202 2010 ,� t► ., � i ---- 200 t =� 00 i 1950 i D 3,9 . .._..—..J m 6 1930 Z o / 1; f w .n � � r s , 0/1 6540 6 O 4 O � O soh 1 08 1 0 z 1 404 F. 110 1J6 161 �r ■ c z 120 1604 u 0en In Fm_ ■ Print Date: 6/23/2014 "t' ` Honeywell Sources: -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for go dvalleyitProperty Lines(2014)&Aerial Photography(2012). Pond Expansion y of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 100 200 400 Feet COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE HONEYWELL POND EXPANSION—DOUGLAS DRIVE AND DULTH STREET— PROJECT BC4 This Agreement is made as of this L-I qday of 011 tj e, , 2014, by and between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, a joint powers watershed management organization(hereinafter the"Comrnission'J,and the City of Golden Valley,a Minnesota municipal corporation(hereinafter the"City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Commission adopted the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Water Management Plan,July 2004 on September 16, 2004(the"Plan"), a watershed management plan within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 103B.231;and WHEREAS, the Plan, as amended, includes in the Commission's Capital Improvement Program ("CW) a Project referred to as Honeywell Pond Expansion—Douglas Drive and Duluth Street—Project BC4(the"Project');and WHEREAS,the Joint Powers Agreement for the Commission requires the preparation of a feasibility report for projects in its CIP;and WHEREAS, the City is willing to prepare a feasibility report for the Project on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE PREMISES AND MUTUAL COVENANTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH,THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Project will consist of expansion of the existing Honeywell Pond at Douglas Drive and Duluth Street—Project BC-4. 2. The City will prepare a feasibility report for the Project (the "Report") in accordance with the Proposal of WS$&Associates attached as Attachment One. 3. The Commission will reimburse up to twenty nine thousand eight hundred dollars ($29,800)of the cost of preparing the Report. 4. Reimbursement to the City will not exceed the amount specified in paragraph 3. Reimbursement will not exceed the costs and expenses incurred by the City for preparation of the Report, less any amounts the City receives for preparation of the Report as grants from other sources. All costs of preparing the Report incurred by the City in excess of such reimbursement shall be borne by the City or secured by the City from other sources. 443434v1 CLLBA295-1 5. All City books, records, documents, and accounting procedures related to the preparation of a Report are subject to examination by the Commission. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers on behalf of the parties as of the day and date first above written. BASSETT CREEK WATERSPED MANAGEMENT CO ISS N By: And by: �`'�-' I retary� CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Its Mayor And by: Its Manager 443434YI CLL BA295-1 WAsap Attachment A +�7�3 d-4;v&, engine;ing•plan ng-enviroir mental•construction 701 Xenia Avenue south Suits 300 lAinnespolls,MN 55418 Tel: 783-641-4800 Fax: 783.541-1700 June 2,2014 Mr.Jeff Oliver City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley,MN 55427 Re: Honeywell Pond Enhancement/Improvement Project Feasibility Report Work Plan Dear Mr.Oliver: We are pleased to submit to you a scope of work to provide professional services necessary to develop a feasibility report for the Honeywell Pond Enhancement/Improvement Project. Our Scope of Services and schedule to complete this project are as follows: SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1: Gather Background Information Estimated Cost:$5,400 • Meet with Stakeholders, complete site inspection, • Develop photographic record for area. • Gather existing GIS,survey,aerial mapping,wetland delineations,and other relevant data for site. • Complete wetland Delineation,and MnRam or other suitable functions and values assessment of area. Task 2: Complete Review and Analysis of Background Data Estimated Cast:$6,S00 • The background data that is gathered as part of task 1,,along with previously completed water quality and related evaluations for purpose of identifying options and alternatives to expand functions and values of pond. • Meet with Stakeholders to informally discuss options,obtain feedback. St Cloud• Minneapolis•St Paul Equal opportunity Employer wsbeng.00m C-%N--1CU`=6 HOMY-LPW F1r. &7AJ-dh r b—r"VoW asnN(=1Mca Mr.Jeff Oliver May 5,2014 Page 2 Task 3: Evaluate Benefits and Costs for Alternatives Estimated Cost.$7,100 • Complete technical analyses as needed to evaluate Alternatives,Benefits and Costs. • Develop information as needed on alternative designs,construction techniques, unique general and special conditions,etc. • Develop preliminary quantity take off and cast estimate for each alternative. • Review information with Property Owner,City,Watershed Commission,and other stakeholders to obtain further input. Task 4: Evaluate regulatory/permit issues associated with Alternatives Estimated Cost:$4,300 • Develop information as needed to evaluate and assess the ability of each alternative to meet regulatory requirements of the DNR,Bassett Creek Watershed Commission, Wetland Conservation Act, Corp of Engineers,or other applicable regulatory agency rules. • Meet with agencies/stakeholders to obtain feedback and further assess the permitting /mitigation considerations associated implementation of the alternatives identified. Task 5: Prepare Draft(Final Feasibility Report. Estimated Cost:$6,500 • Upon Completion of the above tasks,a Draft feasibility report will be prepared that includes the components outlined in the document"Feasibility Study Criteria" approved October 17t`,2013 by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. • Draft report will be submitted to City and Bassett Creek Staff for comments,based on comments,appropriate changes will be made,and a final plan will be completed and forwarded to the City and Commission for approval. COST ESTIMATE We propose to complete the tasks outlined above on an hourly reimbursable basis,at an estimated cost of$29,800 as outlined above. r-4&.ddMM16 H--/M3 P®d&WW dLTRLQhW b*ryMsll Pd OW276(2}&U Mr.Jeff Oliver May 5,2014 Page 3 SCHEDULE The following schedule defining dates for task completion is based on authorization to proceed by June 19,2014 and that permitting agencies will be able to meet the schedule. Noticeto Proceed............................;................................................................................June 2014 GatherBackground Data....................................................................................................July 2014 Reviewand Analysis.....................................................................................................August 2014 Draft Feasibility Report.......................................................................................... September 2014 Final Feasibility Report....................... .....................................................................December 2014 We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions,please contact me at 763-287-7188. Sincerely, WSB&Associates,Ina '�)�VQ - W. t Vice President Attachments of CAS..tW"16 Hoagwd P-db":a,Taiou-h-1.mpmda=14Cnj— r,�/A �Y SB A.csociatea,Inr. engineering•planning•environmental•construction 701 Xenia Avenue South & Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 June 2, 2014 Mr. Jeff Oliver City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Honeywell Pond Enhancement/Improvement Project Feasibility Report Work Plan Dear Mr. Oliver: We are pleased to submit to you a scope of work to provide professional services necessary to develop a feasibility report for the Honeywell Pond Enhancement/Improvement Project. Our Scope of Services and schedule to complete this project are as follows: SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1: Gather Background Information Estimated Cost: $5,400 • Meet with Stakeholders, complete site inspection, • Develop photographic record for area. • Gather existing GIS, survey, aerial mapping, wetland delineations, and other relevant data for site. • Complete wetland Delineation, and MnRam or other suitable functions and values assessment of area. Task 2: Complete Review and Analysis of Background Data Estimated Cost: $6,500 • The background data that is gathered as part of task 1, along with previously completed water quality and related evaluations for purpose of identifying options and alternatives to expand functions and values of pond. • Meet with Stakeholders to informally discuss options, obtain feedback. St.Cloud• Minneapolis•St.Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com W:\Propm,1AGo1den Valley\LTR j_Qwr honey 11 pond 060214.do Mr. Jeff Oliver June 5, 2014 Page 2 Task 3: Evaluate Benefits and Costs for Alternatives Estimated Cost: $7,100 • Complete technical analyses as needed to evaluate Alternatives, Benefits and Costs. • Develop information as needed on alternative designs, construction techniques, unique general and special conditions, etc. • Develop preliminary quantity take off and cost estimate for each alternative. • Review information with Property Owner, City, Watershed Commission, and other stakeholders to obtain further input. Task 4: Evaluate regulatory/permit issues associated with Alternatives Estimated Cost: $4,300 • Develop information as needed to evaluate and assess the ability of each alternative to meet regulatory requirements of the DNR, Bassett Creek Watershed Commission, Wetland Conservation Act, Corp of Engineers, or other applicable regulatory agency rules. • Meet with agencies/stakeholders to obtain feedback and further assess the permitting /mitigation considerations associated implementation of the alternatives identified. Task 5: Prepare Draft/Final Feasibility Report Estimated Cost: $6,500 • Upon completion of the above tasks, a Draft feasibility report will be prepared that includes the components outlined in the document"Feasibility Study Criteria" approved October 17, 2013 by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. • Draft report will be submitted to City and Bassett Creek Staff for comments, based on comments, appropriate changes will be made, and a final plan will be completed and forwarded to the City and Commission for approval. COST ESTIMATE We propose to complete the tasks outlined above on an hourly reimbursable basis, at an estimated cost of$29,800 as outlined above. W'.\1t p—I.,\Gold.Va11.)\LTR i_oli—h..--fl pond 060214.d— Mr. Jeff Oliver June 5, 2014 Page 3 SCHEDULE The following schedule defining dates for task completion is based on authorization to proceed by June 19, 2014 and that permitting agencies will be able to meet the schedule. Noticeto Proceed..............................................................................................................June 2014 GatherBackground Data....................................................................................................July 2014 Reviewand Analysis.....................................................................................................August 2014 Draft Feasibility Report.......................................................................................... September 2014 Feasibility Report........................................................................... ..........................December 2014 We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions,please contact me at 763-287-7188. Sincerely, WSB&Associates,Inc. l Vice President Attachments of I hereby authorize WSB &Associates, Inc. to proceed with this work in accordance with the work plan outlined above. Thomas D. Burt City Manager WAM.p..I.,\Golden V.11,\LTRj.liver hm-e—ll pond 060214_d— City 0 - 9 id 0 c n, MEMORANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) .,wmiy . .. ., Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. G. Approving Appointment of Election Judges for Primary Election to be held August, 12, 2014 Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As required in State Statute 2046.21, Council needs to approve the appointment of the Election Judges for the upcoming Primary Election. Attached is a list of judges that will be working on the Primary Election Day. Attachments • Resolution approving the appointment of Election Judges for the Primary Election to be Held on August 12, 2014 (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution approving the appointment of Election Judges for the Primary Election to be held on August 12, 2014. Resolution 14-54 July 1, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 12, 2014 WHEREAS, Minnesota Election Law 20413.21 requires that persons serving as election judges be appointed by the Council at least 25 days before the election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Golden Valley City Council that the individuals named on Exhibit A, and on file in the office of the City Clerk be appointed as the City of Golden Valley Election Judges for the August 12, 2014 Primary Election; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any substitutions or additions as deemed necessary. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 14-54 - Continued July 1, 2014 Exhibit A Susan Anderson Marilyn Kilner Tracy Anderson Dwayne King Andra Barnard Elizabeth Kisling Roger Bergman Barbara Krenn Eleanor Blatt James Lien LouAnn Bongard Christy Lueck John Burkholder Pat Magnuson Kathleen Burke-Scheffler Stephen Merriman Gary Cohen Pat Moore Marilyn Condon Tom Moore Nancy Cooper Kay Myers Barbara Courey Janet Olfe Martin Cowan Bruce Osvold Carol Cummins Dianne Osvold Arlene Dietz Jane Pagenkopf Robert Drysdale Lois Palmquist Debra Dworsky Jan Plager Lloyd Fortman Michele Repke Mary Gaffney Linda Romeo Teresa George Marcie Schlaeger Pierre Girard Glennys Sell Gary Hanson Mike Sell Cynthia Hasselbusch Marjorie Stresemann James Hera Nancy Strobel Suzanne Herberg Delphine Sunderland John Hiebert Phillip Tenenbaum Constance Hietala Sylvia Thompson Betty Hill Marie Tiffin Mary Hill Patricia Tomko Maria Johnson Gordon Tvedt Shirley Jones Mary Van Hook Gwen Jorgens Helen Vodovoz Elizabeth Kamman Jackie Wells Colleen Whalen citY 0� :. go I d e . MEMORANDUM valley Police Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. H. Authorization to Sign Amended Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co- Operative Agreement Prepared By Stacy Carlson, Chief of Police Summary In 2008, the Golden Valley Police Department entered into an agreement with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office to join the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. This agreement enhanced the ability of the Police Department to effectively conduct investigations and enforcement activities through a partnership with agencies with advanced intelligence-gathering resources and experience; specifically, in regards to violent crimes. The term of the agreement has been amended to extend through January 30, 2021. Attachments • Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co-Operative Agreement (9 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign amended Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co-Operative Agreement. HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE 2014 CO-OPERATIVE AGREEMENT The Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force is currently operating under an existing Co-operative Agreement, executed by Hennepin County, on behalf of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, the City of Richfield, the City of Brooklyn Park, the City of Brooklyn Center, the City of Golden Valley and the Drug Enforcement Administration(may be referred to herein as the"parties"). The parties to this Co-operative Agreement are units of government responsible for the enforcement of laws in their respective jurisdictions. The parties desire to work cooperatively in the enforcement of violent offender laws including but not limited to the enhancements and crimes set forth in Minnesota Statutes § 609.1095, and, for that purpose, are hereby forming the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. The undersigned governmental units, in the co-operative and mutual exercise of their powers, agree as follows: 1. Name. The name of the co-operative powers entity shall be the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. (HCVOTF). 2. Defmitions: a. Officer — means a peace officer, employed by a Member, who is assigned to the Task Force full-time and has been approved by the Task Force Board. b. Board—means the governing board of the Task Force. C. Fiscal Agent — Hennepin County Sheriff's Office agrees to perform this function during the term of this Agreement. d. Member — means a governmental unit that is a signatory to this Agreement or a counterpart. e. Task Force—means the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. f. Task Force Commanders — means one (1) supervisor from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Future Task Force Commanders will be nominated and voted on by the Board. g. Non-Voting Member — means the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. h. Executive Director — means Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Inspector of Investigations Bureau or his/her designee. i. Director—means member of Governing Board. 3. Members. The current Members of the Task Force are the following governmental units: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Brooklyn Park Police Department Brooklyn Center Police Department Golden Valley Police Department Richfield Police Department Hennepin County Attorney's Office Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) 3.1 The Members shall cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure that the various provisions of the Agreement are fulfilled. The Members agree to act in good faith to undertake resolution of disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 4. Term. 4.1 The term of this Agreement shall be for seven years, commencing January 31, 2014 and terminating January 30, 2021, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of the indicated parties' governing bodies for one successive seven year term upon the same terms, conditions, and covenants,unless the Task Force is dissolved prior to expiration of the initial or successive term. 2 4.2 Upon dissolution of the Task Force, the Board shall provide for the distribution of all Task Force funds and assets in the following manner: (1) The Board may determine to sell and liquidate non-monetary assets prior to distribution; and (2) Assets and funds shall be distributed in proportion to the full-time staffing contributions and other financial contributions of each Member to the Task Force determined by the full time equivalent contributions of each current Member. Property owned by Members shall be returned to the Members upon dissolution. A Member whose membership terminates prior to dissolution of the Task Force is entitled to the return of its own property, but is not entitled to any share or portion of Task Force funds or assets. 5. Governing Board. 5.1 The Task Force shall be governed by a Governing Board("Board"). Members of the Board will be known as "Directors." Except as indicated herein, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer from each Member, or his or her designee, shall serve as a Director. Each Director and, accordingly, each Member agency is allowed no more than one (1) vote, regardless of the number of employees assigned to the Task Force or in attendance at any meeting from the respective Agency. The Director representing the Hennepin County Attorney's Office shall not vote on Board matters but instead shall make recommendations to the Board. 5.2 Directors shall not be deemed employees of, nor compensated by the Task Force. 5.3 The Hennepin County Sheriff shall be the chair of the Board. The Chair's responsibilities include but are not limited to the following: giving notice of meetings when scheduled or otherwise called; calling meetings to order and providing for their orderly and efficient conduct; and providing for the preparation of minutes. 5.4 The Board shall oversee the operational activities of the Task Force and by and through the Task Force Commander shall monitor the progress of the mission and goals established by the Board. 5.5 The Board shall meet on a quarterly basis or more frequently as needed. 5.6 The Board may take action based on the vote of a simple majority. A quorum shall exist, and votes may be taken, if a majority of the Directors or their designees are present. 3 5.7 The Board may recommend changes in this Agreement to its Members. Such changes shall not become effective until the governing body of each Member has, by resolution, approved such changes. 5.8 Non-Voting Members may attend Board meetings. 6. Powers and Duties of the Task Force. 6.1 To accomplish the objectives herein, all Task Force Members shall assign at least one peace officer licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 626.84, subd.1, or similar licensing statute or regulation, to the Task Force on a full-time basis. The assigned peace officer must comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.59,subd. 12. 6.2 A typical assignment to the Task Force should be for a minimum period of two years. However, assignments shall be at the pleasure of both the Task Force Board and the Officer's employing agency and may be terminated at any time. 6.3 The Task Force will direct investigative and enforcement activities based on intelligence provided by the Task Force Members with priority given to case investigations that directly impact the Members' Minnesota communities. 6.4 The initial Task Force Commander(s) will be nominated by the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office and approved by the Board. The Task Force Commander shall be responsible for the day to day operations of the Task Force and provide the overall direction and supervision of the Task Force officers. Future Task Force Commanders will be nominated by the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office and approved by the Board. The Task Force Commander's duties shall include,but not be limited to: (a) Guiding and directing the activities of personnel assigned to the Task Force; (b) Establishing and monitoring goals, priorities, budgets, operational policies and procedures and work assignments; (c) Reviewing and approving reports; (d) Scheduling assigned personnel; (e) Providing input on employee evaluations, if requested; (f) Allocating overtime work, if necessary. 6.5 The Task Force shall cooperate with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to accomplish the purpose for which the Task Force is organized. 4 6.6 The governmental unit serving as the Fiscal Agent shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of the Task Force and shall make and file a report to its Members which includes the following information: (a) The financial condition of the Task Force; (b) The status of all Task Force projects; (c) The business transacted by the Task Force; (d) Quarterly financial report; (e) Other matters which affect the interests of the Task Force. 6.7 The Task Force's books, reports, and records shall be open to inspection by its Members at all reasonable times. 6.8 Nothing herein is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting one of the Members as the agent, representative or employee of another Member for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Personnel assigned to the Task Force by one of the Members shall not be considered temporary or permanent employees of any other Member for any purpose whatsoever or be entitled to tenure rights or any rights or benefits by way of workers' compensation, re-employment insurance,medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, severance pay,PERA or any other right or benefit of another Member. 6.9 The Members acknowledge and agree that it is their sole responsibility to provide all salary compensation and fringe benefits to their separate employees. Benefits may include, but are not limited to: health care, disability insurance, life insurance, re-employment insurance, FICA,Medicare, and PERA. 6.10 The Members acknowledge and agree that it is their responsibility to provide the equipment necessary to enable their assigned employee to complete their duties. 6.11 The Members acknowledge and agree that Hennepin County will provide initial start-up funds,to include co-located headquarter space. 6.12 The parties acknowledge and agree that entering into and carrying out the terms and conditions of this Agreement will not violate or constitute a breach of any obligation binding the party and shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes § 471.59. 5 6.13 The Task Force adopts the policy and procedure guidelines established by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Gang and Drug Oversight Council. (See generally Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 299A.641, as amended or updated.) 6.14 The Task Force shall process all seized cash, physical assets and evidence through the normal evidence handling procedures within the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Seizures of cash, real property and personal property must be done in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The Task Force shall promptly report forfeitures in accordance with MN. Statute 609.5315, subd. 6. 7. Liability. 7.1 Each Member agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the acts of its officers and employees and any liability resulting therefrom to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other Member or any liability resulting therefrom. Each Member acknowledges and agrees that it is insured or self-insured consistent with the limits established in Minnesota state statute. Each Member agrees to promptly notify all other Members if it becomes aware of any potential Task Force related claims, or facts giving rise to such claims. 7.2 Each Member shall be responsible for injuries to or death of its own personnel. Each Member will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are assigned to the Task Force or are otherwise participating in or assisting with Task Force operations or activities. Each Member waives the right to, and agrees that it will not,bring any claim or suit against the Task Force or any other Member for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or dependents,that arise out of participation in or assistance with Task Force operations or activities,even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Member or its officers,employees, or volunteers. 7.3 Each Member shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Each Member waives the right to, and agrees that it will not,bring any claim or suit against the Task Force or any other Member for damages to or loss of its equipment arising out of participation in or assistance with Task Force operations or activities, even if the damages or 6 losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Members or its officers, employees,or volunteers. 7.4 As applicable, under no circumstances shall a party be required to pay any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any one party. The statutory limits of liability for some or all of the parties may not be added together or stacked to increase the maximum amount of liability for any party. 8. Finances. 8.1 Task Force operations will be financed from funds and resources contributed by Members. Members shall provide Officers to be assigned to the Task Force. 8.2 The Fiscal Agent shall serve as sole administrator of all funds contributed by Task Force Members or otherwise received by the Task Force, and in such capacity is authorized to receive all funds for deposit and make disbursements therefrom in accordance with Hennepin County policy and generally accepted accounting principles. In conjunction therewith,the Fiscal Agent shall maintain current and accurate records of all obligations and expenditures of Task Force funds in accordance with Hennepin County policy and generally accepted accounting principles. It shall also produce quarterly financial and statistical reports which shall be disseminated to the Board. The Task Force shall maintain all such reports and related records for a period of six (6)years after dissolution of the Task Force. 9. Officers. 9.1 The Task Force shall refer disciplinary matters or other instances of misconduct involving an Officer to the Officer's Chief Law Enforcement Officer for investigation, referral, or disposition. However, nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Task Force from reporting suspected criminal conduct directly to an outside agency for investigation. 9.2 Officers will be responsible for focused investigation on targeted violent offenders, including intelligence management, case development, and case charging. Officers may also assist other Officers in surveillance and undercover operations. Task Force Officers will work cooperatively with assisting agencies. Officers acting under this Agreement in the jurisdiction of another Member are acting in the line of duty and in the course of employment and are authorized to exercise the powers of a peace officer therein. 7 10. Forfeiture, Seizures and Fines. All proceeds generated by Task Force operations shall be returned to the Task Force. When the Task Force seizes property or funds in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies,the Task Force Board will negotiate the distribution of the forfeited funds with those agencies. 11. Additional Members and Change in Membership. 11.1 A governmental unit may join the Task Force and become a Member upon approval by the Governing Board and execution of a copy of this Agreement by its governing body. 11.2 The Governing Board may involuntarily terminate a Member if that Member has failed to provide a minimum of one Officer to staff the Task Force for more than 12 consecutive months. 11.3 In any case in which a party identified in paragraph 3 joins the Task Force after the effective date of this Agreement or any other governmental unit joins the Task Force pursuant to paragraph 11.1, contributions by and reimbursement to such Members shall be equitably determined and adjusted by the Board to reflect the participation by that Member for less than one full year. The decision of the Board shall be final. 11.4 A Member may, upon ninety (90) days' written notice to all other Members, withdraw and cancel its participation in this Agreement with or without cause. 12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of their governing bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed. (signatures continued on the following page) 8 HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE AGREEMENT CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY The Golden Valley City Council duly approved this Agreement on the day of 2014. City of Golden Valley Approved as to form and legality: By: Golden Valley City Attorney Its Mayor And: Its City Administrator (signatures continued on the following page) 9 C M t y V a kLoy l.a, � g 'dtt golden MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. I. Building Official Appointment Prepared By Thomas D. Burt, City Manager Summary The City Council previously appointed Building Inspector Jerold Frevel as Interim Building Official. State Statute requires each city that enforces the Building Code to have a designated Building Official on staff. Mr. Frevel has done an excellent job in performing his duties as Interim Building Official and I am recommending that the City Council approve the appointment of Jerold Frevel as Building Official effective June 30, 2014. Attachments • Resolution Appointing Jerold Frevel as Building Official (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Appointing Jerold Frevel as Building Official. Resolution 14-55 July 1, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING JEROLD FREVEL AS CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota ("City") has adopted the State Building Code most recently adopted by the Department of Administration; WHEREAS, in conjunction with the adoption of the State Building Code, the City is required to appoint a City Building Official; and WHEREAS, the Building Official is responsible for the enforcement of all construction-related codes including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code and State Plumbing Code; and WHEREAS, the Building Official shall coordinate, monitor and conduct plan reviews, approve building permits, conduct inspections and ensure code compliance actions related to building development; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to appoint Jerold Frevel as the City Building Official; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that Jerold Frevel is hereby appointed as the City Building Official for the City of Golden Valley, effective June 30, 2014, to serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. c tv 0�Vk�r 1 -6 -9 golden MEMORANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley city council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. J. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. "No person shall possess, display, consume or use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the Council." As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $25 to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations who have requested that option. Attachments • Beer and/or wine request list (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve the requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION CC DATE DATE TIME SHELTER APPROVED Tiffany Andriotto-Provost Bldg Ser. 07-20 11 am -4 pm small 07-01-14 Katie Usgaard 07-10 11 am -4 pm small 07-01-14 James Davis 07-08 5 pm - 10 pm small 07-01-14 Tyler Eichhorst 07-10 5 pm - 10 pm small 07-01-14 Lauren Meyer-Marriott Mpls West 07-13 5 pm - 10 pm large 07-01-14 Andy Amttson-Allianz 08-12 11 am -4 pm small 07-01-14 Madia Dade 08-09 5 pm - 10 pm small 07-01-14 Nataly Huerta 08-23 5 pm - 10 pm small 07-01-14 Derek Nelson-Liberty Mutual 08-19 11 am -4 pm small 07-01-14 Amanda Therrien-Spectrum Fin. 09-06 11 am -4 pm small 07-01-14 city 0 goldenl*,�4r valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. K. Receipt of May 2014 Financial Reports Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The monthly financial report provides a progress report of the following funds: General Fund Operations Conservation/Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund) Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund) Motor Vehicle Licensing (Enterprise Fund) Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) Equipment Replacement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) General Fund Operations: As of May 2014, the City uses $3,952,309 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments • May 2014 General Fund Financial Reports - (2 pages) • May 2014 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) • May 2014 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) • May 2014 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) • May 2014 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) • May 2014 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) • May 2014 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the May 2014 Financial Reports. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures May, 2014(unaudited) Over % 2014 May YTD (Under) Of Budget Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 001 Council $294,840 17,885 126,573 ($168,267) 42.93% 003 City Manager 762,980 66,843 242,921 (520,059) 31.84% 004 Transfers Out 294,710 0 0 (294,710) 0.00% (1) 005 Admin. Services 1,676,280 113,889 572,544 (1,103,736) 34.16% 006 Legal 135,000 8,428 33,574 (101,426) 24.87% (2) 007 Risk Management 300,000 309 135,411 (164,589) 45.14% 011 General Gov't. Bldgs. 556,990 41,564 207,223 (349,767) 37.20% 016 Planning 346,195 28,189 128,684 (217,511) 37.17% 018 Inspections 651,545 49,978 228,130 (423,415) 35.01% 022 Police 5,202,175 395,833 1,873,701 (3,328,474) 36.02% 023 Fire 1,200,190 83,994 446,106 (754,084) 37.17% 035 Physical Dev Admin 334,315 28,582 125,375 (208,940) 37.50% 036 Engineering 691,880 43,670 196,096 (495,784) 28.34% 037 Streets 1,429,410 79,847 547,739 (881,671) 38.32% 065 Community Center 74,100 3,888 20,359 (53,741) 27.48% 066 Park& Rec.Admin. 679,345 50,776 243,620 (435,725) 35.86% 067 Park Maintenance 1,051,490 85,458 376,613 (674,877) 35.82% 068 Recreation Programs 502,830 27,728 84,275 (418,555) 16.76% (3) TOTAL Expenditures $16,184,275 $1,126,861 $5,588,944 ($10,595,331) 34.53% (1)This transfer will be made in June, 2014. (2) Legal services are through April. (3)Tennis program expenditures are lower due to contractual arrangement. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Revenues May, 2014 Percentage Of Year Completed 42.00% Over % 2014 May YTD (Under) of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $12,358,005 0 9,821 ($12,348,184) 0.08% (1) Licenses 210,785 81,000 190,101 ($20,684) 90.19% Permits 725,000 88,397 560,161 ($164,839) 77.26% Federal Grants 0 0 7,500 $7,500 State Aid 255,390 4,375 5,453 ($249,937) 2.14% (2) Hennepin County Aid 31,205 20,000 20,000 ($11,205) (3) Charges For Services: General Government 45,050 1,413 5,181 ($39,869) 11.50% Public Safety 163,870 15,119 57,187 ($106,683) 34.90% Public Works 141,000 13,098 53,379 ($87,621) 37.86% Park& Rec 525,270 28,637 138,660 ($386,610) 26.40% (4) Other Funds 981,500 56,013 333,995 ($647,505) 34.03% Fines& Forfeitures 320,000 28,041 108,288 ($211,712) 33.84% (5) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (6) Miscellaneous Revenue 227,200 20,468 96,909 ($130,291) 42.65% Transfers In 100,000 8,333 50,000 ($50,000) 50.00% (7) TOTAL Revenue $16,184,275 $364,894 $1,636,635 ($14,547,640) 10.11% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January. (2) Police Training will be paid in August. Safe and Sober is billed on time spent. (3)Violent Offenders Task Force is run by Hennepin County. (4)Tennis progam was changed after budget was approved. (5) Fines/Forfeitures are through April 2014. (6) Investment income is allocated at year end. (7)Transfers are monthly. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund May 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 May YTD (Under) Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,500 0 0 (56,500) 0.00% Recycling Charges 332,400 28,604 102,727 (229,673) 30.90% Miscellaneous Revenues 9,000 0 0 (9,000) Interest on Investments 5,000 0 0 (5,000) 0.00% (1) Total Revenue 402,900 28,604 102,727 (300,173) 25.50% Expenses: Recycling 447,135 78,007 177,610 (269,525) 39.72% (2) Total Expenses 447,135 78,007 177,610 (269,525) 39.72% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Recycling Charges are through April. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund May, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 May YTD (Under) Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,251,750 271,921 1,126,572 (3,125,178) 26.50% Sewer Charges 3,300,970 272,720 1,139,015 (2,161,955) 34.51% Meter Sales 5,000 0 3,013 (1,987) 60.26% MCES Grant Program 118,730 0 0 (118,730) Penalties 110,000 12,365 42,205 (67,795) 38.37% Charges for Other Services 230,000 3,640 175,354 (54,646) 76.24% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,000 4,017 15,604 (29,396) 34.68% Certificate of Compliance 70,000 10,875 40,285 (29,715) 57.55% Interest Earnings 35,000 0 0 (35,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 8,166,450 575,538 2,542,048 (5,624,402) 31.13% Expenses: Utility Administration 1,377,255 45,572 438,384 (938,871) 31.83% Sewer Maintenance 2,488,530 208,831 1,071,980 (1,416,550) 43.08% Water Maintenance 4,363,650 247,841 1,665,255 (2,698,395) 38.16% Total Expenses 8,229,435 502,244 3,175,619 (5,053,816) 38.59% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund(3)(4) May, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 May YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 880,780 122,685 166,536 (714,244) 18.91% Driving Range Fees 105,000 19,958 27,227 (77,773) 25.93% Par 3 Fees 173,200 18,520 19,689 (153,511) 11.37% Lawn Bowling 18,730 0 0 (18,730) 0.00% Pro Shop Sales 78,500 11,790 16,116 (62,384) 20.53% Pro Shop Rentals 227,800 30,049 39,524 (188,276) 17.35% Concession Sales 215,200 30,726 41,725 (173,475) 19.39% Other Revenue 70,155 8,508 71,209 1,054 101.50% Interest Earnings 6,000 0 0 (6,000) 0.00% (1) Less:Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (35,000) (129) (424) 34,576 1.21% Total Revenue 1,740,365 242,107 381,602 (1,358,763) 21.93% Expenses: Golf Operations 655,995 62,800 258,009 (397,986) 39.33% (2) Course Maintenance 778,840 63,593 289,293 (489,547) 37.14% Pro Shop 105,705 9,232 57,910 (47,795) 54.78% Grill 177,910 34,455 50,777 (127,133) 28.54% Driving Range 48,075 4,313 7,999 (40,076) 16.64% Par 3 Course 3,500 1,865 2,286 (1,214) 65.31% Lawn Bowling 141,965 24,104 24,104 (117,861) 16.98% Total Expenses 1,911,990 200,362 690,378 (1,221,612) 36.11% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. (3) Course opened April 9. (4) Course closed on June 19 due to flooding. Reopened partially on June 25. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund May 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 May YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 3,800 0 0 (3,800) 0.00% (1) Charges for Services 396,410 33,887 149,841 (246,569) 37.80% Total Revenue 400,210 33,887 149,841 (250,369) 37.44% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 400,210 29,668 147,653 (252,557) 36.89% Total Expenses 400,210 29,668 147,653 (252,557) 36.89% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund May, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 May YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 45,000 0 0 (45,000) 0.00% (1) Storm Sewer Charges 2,226,920 192,239 891,131 (1,335,789) 40.02% Bassett Creek Watershed 9981800 0 0 (998,800) 0.00% Miscellaneous Receipts 200,000 1,200 27,368 (172,632) 13.68% State Grant-Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 3,470,720 193,439 918,499 (2,552,221) 26.46% Expenses: Storm Utility 2,474,535 68,794 432,263 (2,042,272) 17.47% (3) Street Cleaning 124,690 19,565 84,808 (39,882) 68.02% Environmental Control 309,225 18,995 87,429 (221,796) 28.27% Debt Service Payments 433,510 1,196,805 1,581,768 1,148,258 364.87% (4) Total Expenses 3,341,960 1,304,159 2,186,268 (1,155,692) 65.42% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2)MCES Grant (3) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. 2012 PMP and 2013 PMP are not complete. (3) Project Reimbursement. (4) Refunded 2004C Issuance 5 years early. 2014 Equipment Replacement Fund(CIP)-Fund 5700 2014 May YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Proceeds-Certificate of Indebtedness 750,000 0 0 (750,000) Sale of Assets 35,000 0 22,700 (12,300) Miscellaneous 0 56 56 56 Interest Earnings(allocated at year end) 17,394 0 0 (17,394) Total Revenues 802,394 56 22,756 (779,638) Expenditures: Program# Project Number Project Name Bond Expenditures 0 0 2,350 (2,350) 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars(Police) 35,000 1,331 34,270 730 (1) 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers(Finance) 60,000 362 18,911 41,089 5703 V&E-003 Imaging System(Finance) 26,000 0 0 26,000 5712 V&E-012 Asphalt Paver(Street) 100,000 0 86,800 13,200 V&E-019 Computer Servers 40,000 0 3,492 36,508 5742 V&E-069 Utility Tractor/Mower(Park) 25,000 0 0 25,000 V&E-071 Pickup Truck(Park) 45,000 0 0 45,000 5800 V&E-084 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus(Fire) 300,000 0 12,191 287,809 V&E-089 Sidewalk/Maintenance Tractor(Park) 158,000 0 0 158,000 V&E-101 Unmarked Police Vehicle(Police) 30,000 33,007 33,007 (3,007) V&E-111 Dump Truck(Street) 80,000 0 44,580 35,420 Total Expenditures 899,000 34,700 235,601 663,399 (1)Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. City of gold' MI!,Viv *� . Inspections Department 763-593-8090/763-593-3997 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. L. Authorization to Sign Renewal Agreement with Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc. for Electrical Inspection Services Prepared By Jerold Frevel, Building Official Summary The City has a consulting service agreement with Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc., to provide electrical inspection services. The service agreement is an annual agreement and requires Council approval. The last service agreement between the City and Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc. was entered into on July 17, 2013 and no changes are being proposed. Attachment • Consulting Services Agreement with Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc. (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager sign the consulting services agreement with Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc. for electrical inspections. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT This is an Agreement entered into the day of July, 2014 by and between the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "City"), and Stephen Tokle Inspections Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City desires to hire the Consultant to render certain technical and professional assistance to the City, including electrical inspection services based on the Minnesota State Building Code, and the Minnesota Electrical Act. NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement mutually agree as follows: 1. Scope of Service. The Consultant shall perform all the necessary professional services provided under this Agreement as follows: a. Promptly provide all required on-site inspection services in relation to each permit submitted to the City. b. Retain all pertinent records and copies of permits and correspondence related to each permit and make them available to the City upon request. 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon the approval date of the City Council and will continue until that date which is one year after the effective date. This Agreement will renew automatically unless one of the parties provides at least forty-five (45) days' written notice of termination to the other party prior to the end of the term. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason upon forty- five (45) days' written notice delivered to the other party. 3. Compensation. Subject to applicable local law and any limitations in Minnesota Statutes Section 326B.37, the fees payable for the services provided by the Consultant shall be seventy-five percent (75%) of the permit fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule, which shall be paid on a monthly basis and due within thirty (30) days of the close of any such permit and final inspection. The fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule will be reviewed and approved annually by the City Council, and may be changed by mutual agreement of the parties upon passage of an ordinance by the City Council. 4. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain the following minimum insurance providing proof thereof to the City: a. Worker's compensation insurance as required by Minnesota law; I b. Electrical inspectors errors and omissions insurance with minimum limits of$1,500,000; and C. General liability insurance policies with minimum limits of $1,500,000 per occurrence for each negligent act, error or omission, and $2,000,000 minimum in the aggregate. d. The City shall be endorsed as an Additional Insured on the errors and omissions and general liability insurance policies. The Consultant shall deposit with the City a certificate evidencing the above insurance limits and that it is primary and non-contributory. In addition, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the additional insured endorsements mentioned above. Upon request by the City, the Consultant will provide a copy of the final insurance policies and/or copies of any endorsements under the policies. This Agreement was adopted by the City Council for Golden Valley, Minnesota on this day of July, 2014. Attest: City of Golden Valley Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Thomas D. Burt, City Manager This Agreement was accepted by on the day of , 2014. Stephen Tokle Inspections, Inc. By: Stephen Tokle 000090/480568/1353115_2 2 city 0go1den1!k-,\4r M E M 0 R A N D U M valley Public Warks Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 3. M. Authorize Amendment to Agreement for the Tree Planting Grant Funded by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Prepared By Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor Tim Teynor, Assistant City Forester Summary On March 21, 2012, the City of Golden Valley was awarded a second grant from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for tree planting within the City's public parks and golf course. The City requested the grant to assist in its efforts to mitigate tree removals from recent storm events and the implementation of its Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. The City entered into a contract with the DNR for the tree planting in June 2012. Work is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2014, This amendment will extend the contract expiration date to December 1, 2014 to include warranty tree planting to be completed within the completion date of the grant. The total grant amount was $15,000 with a $5,000 match provided by the City of Golden Valley. The City will be awarded the grant amount of$15,000 once the warranty trees have been replaced and the final compliance inspection has been completed. Attachments • Resolution Authorizing the Amendment to the Grant Agreement Between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the City of Golden Valley for the General Obligation Bond Proceeds Designated for Tree Planting on Public Property (1 page) • Amendment to the State of Minnesota General Obligation Bond Proceeds Grant Contract (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt the Resolution authorizing amendment to the Grant Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the City of Golden Valley for the General Obligation Bond proceeds designated for Tree Planting on Public Property. Resolution 14-56 July 1, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FOR THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROCEEDS DESIGNATED FOR TREE PLANTING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley submitted an application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for funds to assist with tree planting within the City's parks and golf course to mitigate tree removals from recent storm events and the implementation of its Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Shepard M. Harris, Mayor of the City of Golden Valley, and Thomas D. Burt, City Manager, are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute and enter into an amendment extending the completion date of the original agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to December 1, 2014. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member And upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. Contract Start Date: 07-24-12 Total Contract Amount: $15,000 Original Contract Expiration Date: 6-30-2014 Original Contract: $15,000 Current Contract Expiration Date: 6-30-2014 Previous Amendment(s)Total: $0 Requested Contract Expiration Date: 12-1-2014 This Amendment: $0 This amendment is by and between the State of Minnesota,through its Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources("State")and City of Golden Valley,7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427 ("Contractor"). Recitals 1. The State has a contract with the Contractor identified as#45163 ("Original Contract")to provide plant trees to increase community forest diversity. 2. Shortened growing season in 2013 because of delayed spring planting season(snow and frozen ground in April)and fall drought,and delay of 2014 spring planting season(snow and frozen ground in April). 3. The State and the Contractor are willing to amend the Original Contract as stated below. Contract Amendment REVISION 1.Clause 1."Term of Contract"is amended as follows: THIS AGREEMENT shall be effective as of April 2,2012 or upon the date that the final required signature is obtained by the State,pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sect. 16C.05,subd. 2,whichever occurs later,and shall remain in effect until ',, e�r.��^ T December 1,2014,or until all obligations set forth in this Grant Contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, or the Grant Contract has been cancelled,whichever occurs first,and is between City of Golden Valley, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota(the"Public Entity"),and the Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155 (the"DNR"). 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as Individual certifies the applicable provisions of Minn.Stat. required by Minn.Stat.§§16A.15 and 16C.05. §16C.08,subdivisions 2 and 3 are reaffirmed. Signed: By: (with delegated authority) Date: Title: Date: 2. CONTRACTOR The Contractor certifies that the appropriate person(s)have executed the contract on behalf of the Contractor as required by applicable articles,bylaws,resolutions,or ordinances. By: Title: Date: By: Distribution: Agency Title: Contractor State's Authorized Representative-Photo Copy Date: Rev.4/09 city 0 f go 1 d e n*i .�vr MEMORANDUM Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 "60 Days" Deadline:June 24, 2014 "60 Days" Extension:August 23, 2014 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing- Final Design Plan Approval -Tennant Company PUD No. 114- 701 Lilac Drive North - Tennant Company, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary Tennant Company is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit for the consolidation of its multiple parcels into one cohesive development site. As part of the negotiated conditions associated with the PUD Permit, agreement on a timetable for implementation of certain items was required prior to a public hearing before the City Council. At this time, the details of an agreement have not been finalized. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting this agenda item be tabled to the July 15 City Council meeting. Recommended Action Motion to table this item to the July 15, 2014 City Council meeting. city ofn4 goldenl*v*v4r � MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) % Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 "60 Days" Deadline: July 7, 2014 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plan for Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment#3 - 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard -Twin Cities Automotive DBA Golden Valley TCAP., LLC, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary Twin Cities Automotive is requesting an amendment to Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 to construct a new building to house the Porsche of Minneapolis. The original PUD permit for a new auto dealership was approved by the City Council on October 2, 2001. An amendment to add to the PUD a lot across the street for parking was approved in 2002. In April of 2014, an amendment to expand and renovate the existing Porsche facility was approved but no action was taken. The Applicant has decided to pursue the current request instead. The total lot area for the PUD is 9.9 acres; the property contains two dealerships-Audi of Minneapolis and Porsche of Minneapolis. The proposed PUD amendment would allow the Applicant to construct a new Porsche of Minneapolis building in the western parking lot used by the Audi dealership. The proposed two- story building would have a footprint of 24,240 square feet. The construction of the new building would require a reworking of the existing Audi parking lot and a reduction in the number of total parking spaces available. Under the Zoning Code, the proposal for the two dealerships would require 400 parking spaces (304 for Audi and 96 for Porsche). Based on the plans the Applicant has submitted, 556 parking spaces would be provided (375 for Audi, 181 for Porsche). It appears there would be a net loss of 64 spaces compared to the existing parking situation. The Applicant has stated that the existing Porsche building would remain, though it would only house internal Porsche and Audi operations and would not be utilized for a third franchise. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Applicant's Narrative (1 page) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2014 (4 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 2014 (5 pages) • Memo from Fire Department dated June 2, 2014 (1 page) • Memo from Public Works Department dated June 3, 2014 (3 pages) • Parking Diagram (1 page) • Site Plans (17 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plan for Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment#3, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Baker Associates and submitted with the application on May 8, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 2, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 3, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Parking in the lot south of Wayzata Boulevard shall be limited to inventory vehicles. Employee parking in this area will not be permitted. 5. The lighting plan shall be revised to bring the lighting levels of the entire site into conformance with the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73) within a period of five years. 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5(E): 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. � r+ t 5t Subject Property J r ri T T q rqt 71 f ,� �N. ST LOUIS PARK- May 8, 2014 Mark Grimes Porsche of Minneapolis Community Development Director 9191 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 City of Golden Valley P. 763-744-9191 F. 763-744-9109 7800 Golden Valley Road porscheofminneapolis.com Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes, On behalf of Twin Cities Automotive, I am writing to request a PUD Amendment and consideration for the construction of a new Porsche of Minneapolis facility. After much consideration, Twin Cities Automotive feels it is in the best interest of our company, Porsche Cars North America, and the Golden Valley dealership campus to build a new Porsche facility rather than renovate the existing building. The cost to build new is comparable to the cost of renovating. More importantly, the finished product will be more functional and attractive due to not having to work around existing building constraints. The new facility will be located to the west of the existing Audi dealership.This will minimize disruptions to our current operations and help ensure business remains strong as we make this significant investment. Lastly, relocating Porsche to the west end of the property provides maximum site flexibility for both Porsche and Audi as each business grows. The existing Porsche facility will be used to improve the internal operations of both the Porsche and Audi franchise. We have no intention of adding a third franchise to the property. We ask that you consider approving our plans for the new facility so that Porsche of Minneapolis can deliver strong sales growth to Porsche Cars North America, an unmatched experience to both existing and new customer, and additional job opportunities. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas O. Pohlad Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 8 Segelbaum said his preference would be toJaldhauser ve the properties remain R-1 unless the applicant can show that the property is justt selling with the current zoning designation. Cera said there are other R-2 perties in this neighborhood and that this p osal may be a viable option. Baker s he agrees with Commissioners and Cera that it is important-46 provide a lass expensive housing option. He said he appreciates the neighbors concerns that tk e se could be rental properti x s, but the City has no control over that. He added that he wobtcl have liked to have see better communication with the ,, neighborhood. gyp ' Grimes suggested that a tufnaround drivew area be addso cars don't have to back onto Lilac Drive. Waldhauser asked how tha`requirement'eould be attached to the property if someone builds there in the futur Grimes said the City can't require a turnaround driveway area, but it can be, , rec mmendation. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Cathy and, 'fin carried 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the Rezoning and Subdivision with Variande requests subject to the following conditions. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no. 1. A Variance regarding lot wider h is permitt d for Lot 2 allowing it to be 111.43 feet in width instead of the required 120 feet. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title eview is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3, The "Declaration`of Covenants, Restricti ns, and Conditions" shall be`a.pproved by the City Attorn `prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. A park d ication fee of $1,600 shall be aid prior to approval of the final plaL� �,,, 5. The Engineer's memorandum, date June 2, 2014, shall become part of this ap oval. 6. Subdivision Development Agreement ay be required. 7 All applicable City permits shall be obtai d prior to the development of the new lots. 5. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Carousel Automobiles (Porsche Dealership) PUD #95, Amendment#3 Applicant: Twin Cities Automotive (Porsche) Address: 9191 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new Porsche building. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to amend their existing PUD to allow for the construction of a new Porsche building in the existing parking lot located to the west of their Audi building. The proposed new building would be two stories with a footprint of 24,240 square feet. The first floor would be used for showroom space, sales offices, service areas and a car wash. The second Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 9 floor would be for employee facilities and parts storage. He showed renderings of the proposed new building and noted the fagade would be similar to the existing Porsche building with silver aluminum panels in front and grey precast panels on the sides and rear. He referred to the parking on the site and explained that there are currently 636 parking spaces. This proposal shows a reduction of 64 spaces for a total of 572 parking spaces. The applicant is also proposing to have 51-67 parking spaces in the "triangular lot" located across the street and up to 30 display spaces located entirely within the 35 foot front yard setback area along Wayzata Blvd. He added that the impervious surface area will increase slightly (69.9% to 74.8%) with this proposed amendment and the lighting levels will exceed the maximum allowed under City Code across the site. Baker asked how far the lighting level is above the City Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that the Code requires lighting levels not to exceed a maximum of 20 footcandles; current levels are as high as 73 footcandles. Under the proposed new lighting plan, the maximum levels would be 56.2, which is lower, but still above the maximum allowed. Nguyen Hoang, Baker and Associates, architect for the project, stated they realized that for a comparable price they could construct a new building instead of the previous proposal (Amendment #2) to remodel the existing Porsche building. He said the fagade will be the same as their previous proposal except for the north fagade which they are planning on modifying to match the other three sides of the building. He explained that placing the display area in the front setback area along Wayzata Blvd. will allow for better traffic flow and fire access, and will have pervious pavers as requested in their previous proposal. He noted that other dealerships in the area have the same or smaller front yard setback areas, with display cars parked there. He referred to the "triangular" lot across the street and stated that they would like to use that area for employee parking and he would like to have further conversations with staff about adding a crosswalk in this location. He referred to the lighting levels and asked that their property be grandfathered in because their properties are one PUD and it would be difficult to get the lighting level down to 20 footcandles. Segelbaum referred to the lighting in the "triangular" area and asked if the current light poles extend beyond the height of the existing wall. Hoang said they are not planning on modifying the lighting on the "triangular" lot. Segelbaum asked if they are planning on re-doing the lighting on the entire site. Hoang said they want to focus on the west side of the property with this new proposal. He said they are trying to make the lighting consistent on the entire site and they've already reduced the lighting significantly. He said eventually he thinks the site will be re-lit, but he doesn't want this new proposal to look different than the rest of the development. Waldhauser asked Hoang if they are adding new light poles. Hoang said they want to reuse the ones they have. Segelbaum asked about the use of the existing Porsche building. Hoang said it will probably be used as an expanded portion of Audi and Porsche, but it won't be used for sales space. He added that there are strategic reasons they are leaving the existing Porsche building where it is and building a new one. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 10 Segelbaum asked if the "triangular" parking lot can't be used for employee parking if they will have enough spaces on the other parking lot for employees. Hoang said he thinks the existing parking lot can be reconfigured to keep the employee parking on the main parking lot. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser questioned condition #5 in the staff report regarding the relocation of parking spaces along the front setback area. Zimmerman clarified that the proposal indicates parking spaces and display spaces in the front yard setback, and he is suggesting the parking spaces be relocated out of the front yard setback area. Kluchka asked why staff is proposing that the lighting levels in thenewconstruction area be brought into conformance, but not the rest of the site. Zimmerman said he is suggesting lighting levels on the proposed new portion of the site be brought into conformance as a way to start addressing the issue. Baker agreed that the ambient lighting has got to be brought down, and the issue needs to start being addressed. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that states that the applicant should work on bringing the lighting level down, but he thinks it would look haphazard to force the applicant to bring the lighting level down on just one section of the property. Cera suggested giving the applicant a timeframe in which to bring their lighting levels down. Segelbaum said he is not convinced that the "triangular" lot should not be used for employee parking and he would like that decision to be left up to the applicant. Waldhauser said there is also concern about noise in regard to the use of the "triangular" lot. She said she thinks employees parking there could be more disruptive to the neighbors. Grimes added that he is concerned about the safety of employees crossing the street in that location. MOVED by Baker to approve the applicant's request with all eight staff recommendations as stated in the staff report. Cera suggested the motion be amended to say that condition #6 requires lighting levels within the entire PUD be brought down over a period of five years. Baker said he would be okay with that amended motion. Waldhauser said she is not sure that condition #5 regarding the relocation of the parking spaces within the front setback is possible. Segelbaum agreed, and stated that many other lots in the area allow parking in the front setback area. Waldhauser asked if Baker's motion could be amended to delete condition #5. Baker said he is okay with that amendment. The amended motion was seconded by Cera, and approved unanimously subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 11 Findings 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. 9h Conditions ;, 1. The plans prepared by Baker Associates and submitted with the application on May 8, 2014, shall become a part of this approval 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 2, 2014, shall become a part of this approval 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined.in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 3, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Parking in the lot south of Wayzata Boulevard shall be limited to inventory vehicles. Employee parking in this area will not be permitted. 5. The lighting plan shall be revised to bring the lighting levels of the entire site into conformance with the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73) within a period of five years. 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Short Recess-- 6. orts on Meetingsif the-Housin and Redevelopment Authority, City Co cil, Board of Zo ing Appeals and otbarWeetings tet. No reports wer iven. 7. Other Business Baker said he d ap recate and overview of the City's approach to zoning and he would like ave a pro r c"ve approach to zoning. He asked how the City plans for a diver ousing stock. luchka said,he thinks the right time for that discussion is during t Comprehensive PI n update proces§ unless the City Council directs them city of go 1 d.cni MEMORANDUM Plannin Department ��, � g D e part e t 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 9, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing– Preliminary PUD Plan for Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment #3 –9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard–Twin Cities Automotive DBA Golden Valley TCA P., LLC, Applicant Background Twin Cities Automotive is requesting an amendment to Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 to construct a new building to house the Porsche of Minneapolis dealership. The original PUD permit for a new auto dealership was approved by the City Council on October 2, 2001. An amendment to add to the PUD a lot across the street for parking was approved in 2002. In April of 2014 an amendment to expand and renovate the existing Porsche facility was approved but no action was taken. The Applicant has decided to pursue the current request instead. The property is zoned "Commercial" and is guided for long-term "Retail/Service" use on the General Land Use Plan map. The total lot area for the PUD is 9.9 acres; it is bounded by Highway 169 to the west and Interstate 394 to the north. Wayzata Boulevard forms a partial southern boundary and also separates the auto dealerships to the north from a parking area to the south. The property is owned by the applicant, Twin Cities Automotive, and contains two dealerships— Audi of Minneapolis and Porsche of Minneapolis. Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD amendment would allow the Applicant to construct a new Porsche of Minneapolis building in the western parking lot used by the Audi dealership. The proposed two- story building would have a footprint of 24,240 square feet. The construction of the new building would require a reworking of the existing Audi parking lot and a reduction in the number of total parking spaces available. Under the Zoning Code, the proposal for the two dealerships would require 400 parking spaces (304 for Audi and 96 for Porsche). Based on the plans the Applicant has submitted, 556 parking spaces would be provided (375 for Audi, 181 for Porsche). It appears there would be a net loss of 64 spaces compared to the existing parking situation. The Applicant has stated that the existing Porsche building would remain, though it would only house internal Porsche and Audi operations and would not be utilized for a third franchise. - ts - 4 - _ rdv� 394- - - 6805 w 33 i 9191 {' d- 8393 r}" 8300 West Frenldm Ave,SLP • I � A - St. Louis Park PUD 95 - Site Map Proposed Building The applicant intends to construct a new building that would contain the Porsche operations. The first floor of 24,240 square feet would contain a showroom, sales offices, service areas, and a car wash. The second floor, with approximately 1,300 square feet of mezzanine space, would house employee facilities. As proposed, the new building would meet all setbacks as established by the underlying Commercial zoning district. The new building would have a similar appearance to the existing Porsche building, utilizing silver aluminum panels, glass, and illuminated signage. A long skylight on the roof would provide natural light to the second floor employee area as well as down to the first floor showroom. The Applicant has indicated that the appearance of the existing Porsche building would likely need to be modified to reduce the possibility of confusion with the new facility. Proposed Parking There are currently 193 parking spaces at the Porsche Dealership, 376 spaces at the Audi Dealership, and 67 spaces south of Wayzata Boulevard (though only 51 of these spaces are indicated on the site plan). The total number of parking spaces across the entire PUD is 636. The proposed amendment would reconfigure the parking in the existing Audi lot and ultimately reduce the number of parking spaces by 64 to 572. A diagram provided by the Applicant indicates which areas would provide parking for customers, employees, and display vehicles—though in reality there is a fair amount of room for flexibility in how these specific uses might be distributed. In the proposed plan, 51 parking spaces in the lot across Wayzata Boulevard have been targeted for employee parking. As part of the first PUD amendment in 1991, this area was approved for inventory parking. There are no crosswalks nearby—raising safety concerns for employees crossing Wayzata Boulevard—and the daily flow of employee vehicles into and out of this lot may pose noise issues for adjacent St. Louis Park residents. Under the proposed reconfiguration, 37 parking spaces would be added to the south property line in front of the new Porsche building. The first 5 feet of each of these space would fall within the setback area. In addition, three new display areas—constructed of pervious pavers—would be located entirely within the setback area and parked in tandem with the vehicles in the spaces to the north. If tightly parked, it appears these areas could contain as many as 30 vehicles, though the Applicant has indicated that many fewer vehicles would be displayed there. In addition, a large previous parking area is shown in the front yard setback near the existing Porsche building. The Applicant has since indicated they will not be pursuing this area for parking, but rather leaving it in its current configuration. Site Considerations The proposed plans call for the use of pervious pavers in two area currently containing turf and landscaping (though the one furthest to the east will not be constructed, as mentioned above). Though the use of pervious pavers will allow for infiltration, a small amount of impervious surfaces surrounding the pervious pavers will reduce infiltration in those areas. Conversely, along the back of the lot a number or parking spaces will be removed to create room for a drive aisle; some of this currently paved area is proposed to be returned to turf. A triangular island in the middle of the new Porsche parking area will also be constructed with pervious pavers, increasing the infiltration in an area previously covered with asphalt. Overall, the level of imperviousness on the site will increase. Landscaping plans submitted indicate the removal of trees within the front setback area to allow for the construction of the new display spaces. Clusters of new trees and shrubs are proposed to revegetate this area. In addition, landscaping would be added to the triangular island. No plantings are indicated around or along the foundation of the new building. A newly planted area is shown adjacent to the display area proposed in front of the existing Porsche building, but the Applicant has since indicated this area will not be disturbed. The existing lighting within the Audi parking lot is non-conforming with respect to the outdoor lighting ordinance adopting in 2007. For auto sales areas, the Zoning Code requires lighting levels not to exceed a maximum of 20 footcandles; current levels are as high as 73 footcandles. Under the proposed lighting plan, the maximum levels would be 56.2 footcandles—lower in intensity than the existing conditions but still above the maximum allowed. Public Works and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Public Works Department to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities and that traffic issues are resolved. A memorandum from the Public Works Department that addresses sanitary sewer and water services, stormwater management, and tree preservation and landscaping is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that an adequate water supply is provided and that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses fire hydrants and the location of a fire department connection is attached. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot. The City has previously determined that this PUD meets the standards established in the City Code; Staff believes that this application to amend the PUD is also consistent with these standards: • Achieves a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. • Encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. • Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities, and other public facilities. • Allow mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels. • Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. • Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment No. 3, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The plans prepared by Baker Associates and submitted with the application on May 8, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 2, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 3, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Parking in the lot south of Wayzata Boulevard shall be limited to inventory vehicles. Employee parking in this area will not be permitted. 5. The site plan shall be revised to relocate the parking lot spaces along the south portion of the lot near the proposed building outside of the front yard setback area. 6. The lighting plan shall be revised to bring the lighting levels within the area of disturbance into conformance with the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from Fire Department dated June 2, 2014 (1 page) Memo from Public Works Department dated June 3, 2014 (3 pages) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Parking Diagram (1 page) Site Plans (17 pages) c1 t 3t 4 f old valley Fire Department 763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Date: June 2, 2014 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development Cc: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer From: John Crel►y, Fire Chief Subject: Preliminary PUD—9191 Wayzata Blvd —Porsche of Minneapolis—Amendment#3 1 have reviewed the application for the Preliminary PUD application for Porsche of Minneapolis— Amendment#3 located at 9191 Wayzata Blvd. Listed below are my comments. 1. The installation and maintenance of any fire hydrant shall be in accordance with the City of Golden Valley Public Works Department. Private fire hydrants located on private property shall be identified with a red paint color. The installation of a fire hydrant shall be within 150 feet of any fire department sprinkler connection or standpipe connection located on the building. City Policy and Minnesota State Fire Code Section 9.3.3.7. Provide a fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building fire department connection (FDC). Also,the utility plan does not show an existing fire hydrant for the Audi dealership on the northwest corner of their building. 2. The fire department connection (FDC) shall be located within 150 feet of the hydrant. The plan does not indicate a location for the FDC. Please the FDC location on future utility plans 3. The storage of motor vehicles located in the show room shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code Section 314.4 If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or e-mail Lcrelly@goldenvalleymn.gov city Ofs . olden v Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: June 3, 2014 To: Wlark Grimes, Community Development Director From: Jeff Oliver, P.E., City Engineer Joe Fox, E.I.T., Water Resources Engineer Subject: Preliminary PUD Amendment#3—Twin Cities Automotive—Porsche Dealership (9191 Wayzata Boulevard) Public Works staff has reviewed the plans submitted by Twin Cities Automotive for the construction of a building and parking lot resurfacing at the Porsche Dealership, 9191 Wayzata Boulevard. The project is located southeast of the intersection of Interstate Highway 394 and State Highway 169, and north of Wayzata Boulevard (1-394 South Frontage Road). This memorandum discusses issues that must be addressed prior to approval of the final PUD by the City Council. The comments contained in this review are based on the plans submitted to the City on May 8, 2014. Site Plan The plans submitted for the development include the construction of an auto dealership on the west side of the existing lot. The two existing dealership buildings on site will remain. In addition, the parking lot in front of both the existing and proposed Porsche buildings will be expanded to the south to provide additional parking for display and customer parking. Utilities There is adequate capacity in the City's sanitary sewer and watermain systems to provide service to the proposed addition to the PUD amendment. The proposed plans include the extension of sanitary sewer from the existing on-site sanitary sewer at the southeast corner of the current PUD to the west, parallel to the south property line to provide service to the proposed building. The sanitary sewer within the existing and proposed PUD will be owned and maintained by the property owner. There is an existing City-owned watermain adjacent to this development that parallels the MnDOT ramp from State Highway 169 to Interstate Highway 394, and within Wayzata Boulevard along the south boundary of the PUD.The portion of the City watermain within the PUD is within \\gv-chl\engineering$\Developments-Private\Twin Cities Automotive-Porsche\Memos\Memo_PUD_prelim_6-2-14.docx a platted drainage and utility easement that must remain in place. The City will continue to own and maintain this watermain following development. The proposed water service to the new building is from the existing City main on the north and west side of the site. The property owner will own and maintain the water service from the valve closest to the City main to the building. The existing watermain within the site, which is located east of the proposed building, is owned and maintained by Twin Cities Automotive. The drainage and utility easement over this private watermain was vacated as part of the previous PUD amendment. The owner will be required to enter into a Utility Maintenance Agreement outlining the owner's responsibilities for the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer on site. This agreement will be prepared by the City and must be signed and returned to the City for recording, prior to approval of the PUD amendment by the City Council. A City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Permit is necessary for all work within a City easement or street right-of-way. The two buildings within the existing PUD are in compliance with Golden Valley's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. Stormwater Management This project is within the Main Stem subwatershed of the Bassett Creek watershed. The project will require a City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permit. However, based on the scope of the project, a review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission is not required. Plans show 5,504 square feet of pervious pavers to be installed on the Porsche site. The maintenance requirements for these pavers must be included in the maintenance agreement discussed earlier in this review. The proposed building and parking areas include the installation of storm sewers which drain to the existing pond on the east side of the property. Existing and proposed stormwater calculations must be supplied to the City showing that the proposed drainage changes do not exceed the design capacity of the existing pond in terms of rate, volume, or water quality. The Erosion Control Plans must be changed to show down-gradient perimeter protection across the paved area. This must be completed at the time of application for the City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permit. Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan City Forestry staff reviewed the Landscape Plan and determined that at least six significant trees (spruce) will be impacted by the proposed building and parking lot expansion. The proposed tree planting plan appears to meet City requirements. A Tree Preservation Permit will be required. The proposed landscape plans appear to meet minimum requirements. \\gv-chl\engineering$\Developments-Private\Twin Cities Automotive-Porsche\Memos\Memo_PUD_prelim_6-2-14.docx Prior to approval of the final plat, the Developer will be required to post a financial security as a guarantee that the landscaping will survive the two-year warranty period. In order to calculate the security, the Developer must submit to the City an estimate of the cost to furnish and install all landscape materials. Summary and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment for Twin Cities Automotive, subject to the comments contained in this review, summarized as follows: 1. The Owner or Contractor must obtain a Water Permit for connecting to City watermain. 2. The Owner must enter into a Utility Maintenance Agreement prior approval of the PUD Amendment by the Golden Valley City Council. 3. The Erosion Control Plans must be changed to show down-gradient perimeter protection across the paved area. This must be completed at the time of application for the City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permit. 4. The Owner or Contractor must obtain a City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Permit, if work is done within an easement or street Right-of-Way. 5. The Owner must obtain a City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation Permit. The Owner must submit costs for landscaping materials and labor. Approval is also subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and other City staff. Please feel free to call the Public Works Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mitch Hoeft, PE, Utilities Engineer Mark Ray, PE, Street Maintenance Supervisor Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist John Crelly, Fire Chief Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Finance Director \\gv-chl\engineering$\Developments-Private\Twin Cities Automotive-Porsche\Memos\Memo_PUD_prelim_6-2-14.docx 4 L BA BAKIM ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITE(:PS 1:A lii)1*Pll 1l}'1'II MPlih:iir _ Sl"ITF.HM HI\NE.fri)IJ!c,\IN.'r'HIC`-1riM1 •rlcirrlioi`E:s ).wml Porsche Parking Requirements Audi Parking Requirements E Porsche of Exterior DispJau-New Care Guatomer Parking-Aitersales Exterlloolr Dl/s lau-New Care Minneapolis Parking Required: 27 Sia lla Parking Required: 2 Stalls Parki Re wired: 170 Stalls H,} PLAT N0. L 7—�� Golden Vail y,MN 55926 Parking Provided: 65 Stalls Parking Provided= 2 Stalls Parking Provided: 1%Stalls I GH T OF WAY New Construction Exterior Dtsplay Pre-Owned Gare EmInlOuee Parking-Al F. Exterior Dtaplau Pre Owned Care TRACT C r+ou em.nul 2.wyamu Parking Required: 12 Stalls Parking Required: 12 eta II. 1� Parking Requlred: 42 Stalls NTERRATE HeH#rAY N0. 394 Parking Provided: 12 Stalls Parking Provided: 21 Stalle Parking Provided: Se eta Ile I — Cuetoner Parking-Sales (��� Employee Parking-sa lea -� Customer Parking-Salsa ... Parking L Required: 6 Stella iavJ Parking Required: 9 stella _❑ Parking Required: 14 eta Ile Parking Provided: 13 eta iia Parking Provided: 30 eta lis Parking Provided: 20 eta Ile Service Vehicle a Service Vehicle &ilii-tW� Parking"quired: 28 Stalls Parking Required: 78 Stalls _ V Is Parking Provided: Be Stall. Parking Provided: 104 Stalls rs n I) Z \� Jo o N rte' iFF�a%OD D Lj- -; ZQL- • LOT 1 Is aT jI • i::S.A 37,360 N•R � 5�- fFE�8W.00 D CL- Lj- W iYAYZATA BO LEVARD _ .,.� , . • III U) II Iltl. II •.4, LLJ e R � � fll � i i � 5 \ ` LOT 1 o e 41 WAYZATA > Par"Calculatlan 81te Plan A-001 3 4 a I u ♦ I I I 3 I i o U L BA RASTER ASSOC'IATR.S,INC. ARCHITECTS inneapolis I.wN P3 56W orsc e oTEorsche.fJ 9OPIUM AY .I,T39,.� E E Porsche of Minneapolis 9191 w.n•m R.pleYNd Coldcv VvSey.N.\55426 New Construction Sheet Index L� ".W"PID b iLy 204 G-001 Title Sheet Civil _ C-001: Civil Title Sheet ALTLA/ACSM: Land Title Survey (By Westwood Professional Services) C-100 Overall Existing Conditions C-200 Overall Site Plan C-201 Enlarged Site Plan C-301 Grading,Drainage,Paving& Erosion Control C-401 Utilities D C-402 Sanitary Sewer Layout D E-100 Existing Photometrics E-201 Proposed Photometrics L-101 Tree Preservation Plan L-200 Overall Landscape Plan L-201 Enlarged Landscape Plan Architectural A-101 First Floor Plan A-102 Second Floor Plan A-201 Exterior Elevations c Code Analysis Occupancy Diagram General Notes Location Map BE NINA M,e peM G..Ae_.Tm.tDMY.. .M,.,.., .+a+w 1:: eouw.b A1- v.iMy.Mry&&.m Groc « spnnxam: —n t THN PROEOT NAB EEEII DlAtlNlD b n.[txE3w9-WILD roup S,wnn aP.uaem: PROJECT TME CONT QPt ro IRBPOWIELC"T ��� FmpwM: Y .tA3 DESIrsN aFD CO.ISTRIICTION OF All NECFaeARr AFD a cumm.n F.N aE9mw rre.el: MEDUNED nEcwwIDAL,ELEciFSCAL AFD PIL'ePLG O p c. a«w..pma.rote.pa..emmum.m..mw.e-.m.emmmpe. Gm.peor s,whn spn.wm +wn re.`.wn.,) �= r T7 PORnoFIe cP THE r^IWaEcr. — nwtke IM Bu EBF—M—res 1.— 2. QTABTATE BOLOcroOEo7 REFER T06115C1UPgL @Y PEER'S STFWCN9AL PIE.NI.NeS coos �LOf6 PREPARED DY PALAFL545 ABSOCIAIES FOR iNE Manerom A¢waidsh coos mr 51RC1URAL IEdlll@4.NT5 CR M PROJECT. RnreesYrc Ted.1.17.1 Q 3. ALL CQEIIMDTIW SIL4LL COMRY BETH ALL STATE AND OH .. croup s,wNr me Aaweoe Peromupet reMe+roe.,., L.00.LWILDMG CODES. occup.ntFLa..A 4 OAl11M/l.TOIM 5cBt N OF 01TTE VERIFY AFD SE lB�l RESPVNBRfLE FOR ALL cOFIDIT10N5 AFD D.'E)EICNS OF TIE _ PROJEDT AND 511ALL NOTBI'711E p/CiN1ECT gEGAy®NG ANT /M{ Rr.mpw s.a..«ae.a rmYa.m nw.zo..lBc..m.m yam wn.me.. Fceu�P e.o ro.psr 7.ee3 nz ri�- sowwma %Y$$ c'aNDrrIOR REGunaaG rIDDPIurlaN ae clwrt TO tle MIXED OCCUFaNOY BUBDNG TO BE NONBEFARITED WE: Sw.Sro]] _ BL1AC C7Bd� ® �TM yam` T x O�wma SMALL!IE H.WD at UO ANY DQILILTM OR QYRSIO915 Occupant G'rs+Fa¢Tdar p�2,soa ' ¢u SI LE �PROCEEDN6 WITH TW WlORIC y Gr.up: —0-- B ,,,,, E a Fam 5. TME coNTRAcraR SHALL YIMT TME SITE TO AXRRTAN TIE Porsche of WIN pelNeof B «.3ro., uem0 rvhm.dz 4924 ts= s3O¢uwrm' B® COFDRIOlN LNDAMIWICH TIE UDIMG M15T eE P'E1FOR'ED. St to e.782 r o00= TK DaFlnracrae eHAI.L NOTPr TME A1GIrtECT Minneapolis B .3,1] 5 = s�YaRe FFEDIATELY Q DMCIEIPANCIES KTSD WRNM T1! q B senln Ome s1aN.31,] 2—% 98v.! CLN1511M1GTION DOOtdiS RELATIVE TO ACTL+L CONDMQIS G.Idm I'.mey.WJ58 = fGNIRACTOR b SOLELY pEMrOnIS1ELE FOR ACf.IIPAOT OF sevum Floor total. ]e o¢oa's DETaL6 AND FOR CQFIRIMG ND COOI®MArNG ALL f conmmann yw sw.roe] row awaa9 occupem Lasa: x,eoo.uwra PIBO ESSES,QiD1E�4N10�S OAF ABSbYMID �T p w memv,er BWNNR EYmmm: —W1 aE9lY wravy: e.le.f9.t PaEa�SAFE A1O bATISFACTORT Nwm Ru Re.n W ie croups G.rat Nr R=1,. wcuwn,$):2 ReY9 Mep�ul h rn a u wEmNan WW: T.Me R2 Prowwa. 2 b. ARCISTEGIURAL ALO ST911CTRAL DRNMraS ARE MENDED ST SHOW AND OES AR DETAILS FOR A COMPLETE Noire roan rm. Fae se m o n STNGTIFE PARTS AFD DETALLS NOT FULLY S To OR umm0.N.gNE e.M 9ro uemwy(un*n...nhmm}aeomw�.+sE,S n2'a¢ nu. reN.,Ns., EiAd PIMT 4lI�bV PbM DFJBCRSSED 6NALLGEE74 CNA ACCOIImNGTO STANDARD A=sr Anmvm.snarezPropcam:25ar wr ERu'�pmem Mer:enmz croups,: zs o«upanUR.11. f2 .E9 FIRST ClA66!'RAOTICE AND MAI'1eT1'4lE SMILAR TO MDN AtlwebM B A9 wn,a R 30o R'os TIE M-WT OF DETML.S SIIO.N ON M L9RAYRYd.P _ MwmM ewMuq An�: um Num&er ayRpt9na PtumMre F'vwne: reMe 2N2., p CONTRACTOR SN4LL FSD qNY COFDITON OR DETAL BFSOH a r ru Nrt+78.o RZ 17 ms mun.Figure mu mmwirm.yo¢vwngcup: NNMI OPNION MLNSd50,LNSAR,Ot[NOi WEATaM'ROOF, — �/ IE SMALL NOTIFY T1E AISC1NlECT M WRfTPEi OF SUCH maps 11 r 1 t—of Group. .N CONDMON OR DETAIL y=I(Fn=)-o sryyro a Gro.enlomwrsnowroom racwwory esamhhe acser mmnay G¢uw F- Pme.lt -son �st(RepeirGemgerservae waYuprpea smmge} ee t WILDING SECTI SHWN N THE ARCMM'LTURAL DRAWMGS If 111)" ee9n)"251WIW ' G. pcwp.ntsr2=73 McMe 7s F.m.b: W W W W W W WiL.DTOINI aSITQFIR TO eµCMAlL D1E4E dTArVR�N� i1=O73 3 M.N OItlBlTATION LOCATION AND DMICCTWN aF SRtlrn1VJ. w.paz: s.a.s.e] L-t camw Y 2'..a LRFIEeAD. Ie rot maa.Mtl.rrr e.uairq.. o�.a�Fopnmm. zMa servim saleR, + L fON11PACTQM SWILL CIE FSfSFY1F1559LE FOR ACOIIISITION OF A.Per RM(M) Bw.ero., croups,-88.pamer2=3--3e P.mei. L.�1 ALL IEy NQW PCA&TS AND APF1a7VAL5. AIIA [A't [At-D E B- eYrGawU R.auirm-. C'� t�t+r{ .Ecr«vnreae. .=(+7800a.1+7.soo+Oxo.7511,rsoo U.ED ,FeuM 3 PRO✓IDE CAULK OR SEALANT AT ALL FLATERIAL TIPANSITIONS aNxuasprn NID CONSTRUCTION JOMTS.PINVIID!C,e11LK AT STATkJNARy' w. 128.2.s&.a.o,¢ a Reauima JOINTS AND PROVIDE SEALANT AT ALL.IOIFIiS SLNECT t0 xwv«.r w.0 Ae=85.8254 S.—SAM Rpuirm: t FDV/3'EM. nIX FbcM v. woe:058254 CanGnea Plunsea9 F'utumccum reausmrpuam: b. IbLED5 OT11E19WSE NOTED,ALL DB'QJSIONS AM MNOMNAL 55 tO weYr case+ a Female of To SYFACE t1ASCNRT, CENTER G STIR,OR TO GLWD LSE. o a ..ora A 2m Faor AaowehY.e:i 825 n2 Pmwaea...e7.n2 ProwYa. 2 Mak(.2—)%4 Fanek% A 8 M1 PROVIDE EM%Y GROUT.ALL FLOOR TILE SNTALJJ,TbFE. �C10U10°Ot BMOfe Smv�Emwrmrw OrgrrFge:n F-7oA8 Levamram Pmpo 3Map 2Femeb weer rN Yutmmn wuleeo. % 2F.m.1% � Q Na Lim. F roam dom Rmww �� omewNay s. m9an: ..W Deewr,o—1-nna Tlttle&went p. z H,2�.« crowarcmw sr. ow r From s.m saM2 wesai.maann room(rrmn).NR euam Aura aP.nFN506.m Tetle.ro] Propoem. 2 3«.ON .mwha.maep.m.rplaw. aaMlmm., G-001 hE.nreWeNEro ePYm: 8...90.] rnicmb"Q'a_• mconbrmenm wm mMBBO�negerlN, ,.,. Automate Gpr per BPYmta pe neYlbO ecmaeq a3.ebn.o3.3.ri Cheger t36, 1►.E FbOr PLB ND OF OOOE PN,LLYeb r 1 I E BA BARER ABBOCUTE8,INC. AREA LOCATION MAP ARCHITECT'S GOLDEN VALLEY,MN Twin CAutomotive swcraBmosv3m.»R= nFTlf Bmxs r TH1.�310I61G-814.988.8®] Porsche of a Minneapolis W -1,IT111-BB1-1 ne a olis New Facility Porsche of Min A J. Pf�LPiMARx FUD B ttGT]0l6 Q Y .NF. Golden Valley, Minnesota �� AWATurAa.ET.ao s SITE =II �� 5e¢ BxBea TWIN CITIES OTIVE y Ab D: tin Pwn`/4w 0.•.aw �-•s-.._. cwnnu /"RA/ caxf0.a .�...„,� .�„. 5[ub+r LaNrtta FEBCE �p�A�� 03.45 pm EIEVANN �� FaH 0¢OIECnO.1 WNR.CF.xNTr PiB.I6D RN1 x4100 Tm.FWOE EW.e.m L(il Le�gauY�ai.mm Uw BBT SPm E1EVArpN )E i�D. rLfA�s. rrv••^"•• I A.u¢r/oeNBNNG A•`'0u wA"`�`NmE/u.°"` � ___.__. eANevr/avEeNANc rvs. O eaNce6rE -=J uuNeGeaw sTmmueE Brow BEBw�nn1 AAPO�¢OM �� YN �.vw BIiEHNOJ4 � CONCaffr BYMR aFYOlilE11 ICiLBTNACSB WDi111F SU�RNEx(BT WE51NWpPwFEa10NALSBRJMES) .ea/A.d9•e•us I•L • F LAWX'PPNG LONL T PFB NmE QEF[¢NY'E G100 RJEANLFJD5f0Ni Ca5B15WNJ O' f O•P'+r••M IX tAev.wm GZm OVEBALLBNFPUN IbAle/nodus O 4eAVd. '-T"FR— f94E DF PVEnwT O PMtWL STALL COJNT CID1 __TE_ efE bBor•mmt aN . PAVEe FLOEY �^~— �P ® GJot (BNOING,aWNNPG[PAVEG,BB105'ON CCUTe0. � �AW(AM.A.) �C4 / �� ¢li LARGE 9HFr ATAC CIBI IrtBITE9 B9tf. i'E NA`oede •mm PAVN:SLOE% ® NOOLSA¢frR.ETIJ6NG WALL O CoOeDIUfr PONT E. IX GPHOTWETRICS L.yL Gww.6nF O.C. P�c•.u. -R'JTS-».- rWJS 9EWFR WE eENBION-AORW✓t aElETµETL. E.., Wi0PL6ED RtlTOYRING4 Ll. w�c ee OD. PA•b Ahem m_>_ FE1D_AT RETAAaw WALL 'w"® ¢EVBED t-IDO RJBWI.IAl65CNEPIAN C1W. comeu h•oTT Tae �.E. OwrNeS EWnIX SANFARY SEWER TEE E%K LOCATION (� \t CA. ANG. PAvrNOYCH¢Wear LrvW —�R— OVERNEAp ELEmELEmIUC 0-0 tour 9TA•DAFa `..>-„` ^,,,�. AREA(TNs 65117 LIDf ENPACEO L4IIDSCPPEFLW [AF. IX Em"••+ PJ PONe POLf C.T. _ py IT. —Ur— uM[ttGRE1M rE1EPH0•E L00X SLOPE DBECroN EGgI Coi`mmm ��` % exxr Vim• —I4 LTOfRLYWND EtEmeC ..•. cn tco�:,m.ePPw PP. vi m Ph -c- GAs uE � �. CATLN BASH LONL. L (PxUvd) v9s. eo•rtPn Nw•Feu 4�•.tgv CMMT{BiwtS 1i T aE'8 T¢Adv 1.]oeaEiu 1111 1E w0. BYIDIw W9PH.T01B rMM10BBMAINBR LRx 6 GO..OEN VALLEY LrtY DF G0.DEN VALLEY CQbi. a'ommw euo•sA LPCVETF LLRB Q E IOY3BSe iw v CP OOEN VALLbr Mme! n C4DEN Y int!SNT LW.4. L a P.V} a w VIn.. a n Topeey PTI,vPE FauLNG n 50.1AR0 LAaT JONISON INH 4iM9 Pv"M.1.”` m �O �Izsrs�� s sraan sEWBe Dara. w:a:m DmNr v°EOE+a. P b -� HTu+c WNL A¢T sE -W.sTe rEl xs�iu-Baro rE�xa-sv-awa � aRo: �r>-� -BSAN->- sAw FAR]6s-srs-arsB FAc]v-vu-nrsB PRELIMINARY PUD Dm>v Pec. v yltlaa(Pmil TRUNc seN --6sn->- F«ce riAN aA. ,• wlrt. P�•mW o- FLAG PaE -6WD-»- eow DeAN snTEn ras ,�— MAY 8.2014 Pr• me. _ aNrEmn+r B+FFm arc aF colaEn vu.1Fx mr. �e^.ie wAlEerw+ eoR LASALLE AVFNF -repo GwFxY�r eD. e ucNr vaE '� IBAFAPLa6,rH ssasr-oosa sHn LaDFN Ed Rooi Dron �-!u TREES �6'F¢E�� F¢E IAF lF$EPMATE) EAP. V CN3F n0rouu 1FF 0.aT4 DEPT.cOAFcrRN sA1Fs HPHswrATAF .cm L A N O F O R M EA ° a4P S�Bim mmu LFA. ttt 6R-301-5X95 TFL']6J-SW-BaeO R50 ao.f m �'�0�-- 90.AADRM' FAR]6.1393-Jr6B NRwfMb fimb • P Fut. Re�nfmd -_- Lb UFyAOfRGROID �. ENr9tm H' N - A9- FAY. vD ° °/a....e --f%Ec-_- ELEcr¢e-LwEnceaww ��pE fosaNnF�Aw.. BI: Bfz.asmrB Lr _E_.ee we.e.v ee...me,.u. __xE�___ rEEEPNaF-uaERGzaE+o EEr^''mFEa ED'9pmN•me• ¢OW ce a/v `miner wov _ s1•F61J Fn efazalmrr s. -cAry-- _E_.C-/, �•FSN��+�f N'+r d'°b""."r E%6T. Exo.p SSAH ]Smw =x.99==== LAWN SPR-¢IFe SIEfvE FLAT by 60 • SEWOEv� D, yti �` x[1800-095-IW9 -% FVA. F�.I`5 Ce�metm 9�PE'L. gSgePe,�•o�F��eam A6-6116 rP maAN umew wa.nrt5. �BWO 11!Boa•rw Vd ON 9•vlm F�F4 x Elmun 9iRUGf. 9xx•W�o+i M1nkl. Fee sm s� *A.a() •� {a iw a va Ey wre.NAra ID16 GSE ce,.9•Fw..EW.mm �°b, v�Nmw ow,... n IVN ce �n v v��A FWN ♦� wN'veP ��v Par•Nw.PF• yesi: W«�en• �� Noe¢. a NTo N vm.b.e,w cme..-r W-W°�Febrc V VTF. tw(•) w•�`Fw�m X00 Yi n a�1]• CIVIL TITLE 61,1EET N..,.Ewe.m vr. •ok ro. ve Ye x•. , nWs.A6�osa 0-001 Ktlow whd's B810W. •2014 Call, I. youao. 811 or ca11811.com Common Ground Alliance I 8 I eowe,P.d v PLs rrs5 � _ _-----.--- _--_ 8 �°BOULEVARD T_—�— —–a �� WAYAZATAa':a o: s"° ____-------- ----- _ �_ 8 i --------____ Lot I,in C 1,Lor 1,91ock 7,and Ortlof A,dl;n Cwouse/AutwnaDdes P.U.O.No.95. —,-- I I_-- Hennepin County;t 1.Block -_ -Ti -._ -_----------- __- - T ' A i; Toners Prapa-ly — INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 394 T – I-- 71 n ^dam. ;' r I Ta drib Ce N6aa(.Na 1873854 _T- _ �n0-rnTlnn r � I`vvE7 r vi rvf�I I _ .T 8 _ ACl'rA Ar-AIT lir- rl\/-11 V.+, I -�� LEln In lr-^nTn 7 8 fl ihii..l 8 _ TI IVllr vl vi_..%vlrl UL,`r11\IlVll_Ivl L�� l,wr rrow 1-°/tea - ---��- 0 J Lnt18mH,lido Np.52516)-1 -__ � � 1 _ - - I e7°O5'oS�E _ �_g"' NpdBB \ --N 4 22 E -8399 - f -- a i 1) This sure,was prepared using Sfewarf R(le Guaranty Company Tile Commitment Number 35937 fy h.0,q on effsefim dole of Aly 17,2012,fine is additional tea estate dese Pied in id Rtk -f- c,i,La,q roar ,E__3409-- _+ rood I commf:Lt then r,shaven a,this surrey. This aYr.�ey address as the real Krole described in Parcel 1006'00 -� i I I of said RHP commitment. 1)S'bjec(propmfy appears fo be d,,,,'red ole Zone X when scaled lram Flood/nmronce Rote Map —4. - oro:�oge me UNdy Eaam�e+i I I Community-Mop Number 27053C0332E,Panel Number OJJX,effectim doh Seplember Z 1004 05 \ ''wlonoDLn P.UO.Ma 5 3)Subject prtpa fy Mains 139,7141 Sq.Ff.Or 10.103 oe Podry I 4)No daai g dowif tion pro~by Stewort 77fle Guaranty Compony of time of surrey, the fdkwinq 046 s I 8 setback kdormot-is from the Gly of Gam Volley Zo knq Map. Subject poverty h z ed Commerclal,for setback information see Golden VOBey My Code, Seeiian 71.30 5)Subject Praperfy conhins 191 total porkmg s1a7x;nGvtling 6 handicapped slollx 6)The&ro ,gx henmrnryjor makes noad eq guarantees that the underground ut Vbbs shown comprise as such I \ ! tp ufdities kn the wed.either in ePr k.or abandoned. The-w,-further does no(war 1 that the I - I sH° y \\� I Yl I underground,fell(ps shown we in the Ham f location 1 dicofed although he does f,lily that they wal..man rprm.°I _ /fiI Pw aaa.N°.sten 2 \\ located fe underground ufliti-(Caphw State One bWmofr Coll Ticket No.122171302 has of physicoey No.aO----- •% A $ \ I 7 The bean shown on this surre based on Henn Count Cawdi ote System a Lpin 1 qs r One rok r rib The foffowin fes refer to Table A Hems 17, 19 and 20 J _') i I e , Pb n61112r24n026 9 no s wz1 Poxne \� i `� cJ o ¢ 9r xnpate 6oulewe - I 17 As of the dare al this surra Noe Pre no ed Chan f (r hr of wo line;based on e tt.9a.P sy(____ _ . ) t propos gds in.tee q y - s s bo •� a / ,� ( rsr.9s- °` sas of Glen Volley his-. Management Program Mop lfu nce As of the dare the Geld work Q' I �o' $ i 0 �3 I was eampleled la this entre,,Nae«os n0 abervab/e evidence of racert street a smewdk F- �� onstr-Oo ar r.pairs 3 19)fie Surreyor is not quoli0ed(o make o derermkrafion regwdmq Me exiafence of wet/ands, fie ,qlj \ "-' 4 mraeyor h not owoe of any recon(wellond ddinrofims f.A:k g place on Ne sub)k f p,.p y.A weH d delineation was no(port of the mope o/ices la this entre,. M1 ---a'� 20)Based on the i tdnn,fim contohPd withn title Commitment listed obore and a physical;ns thMUM e, LOT 1 ,- Lti I of thesnom cl pw�e toe the au,w1w h not aware of any off site eose,men/s w ser rola,acro i ' 'e I ,/ cafNq ra.,°e // II \\ .�niawmlo eowe,ere \ \\ •: The/Glowing notes carrespond to the numbering system of Schedule B o/the obore mentioned tick -_ _ canm7fmonl. h prppwly IYa \\ A n r/1 A A/1•�11 r- J�/' ���•' L- pap• I7 Easements fa uf7,'tim d*O/no os shown on the recorded plot of Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. ^C sur___-, / '-f-.ar.w \ e nvI vlvlvL.lL.0 nib / gyp, punaLay.a�ra, ) qe vol No.91(Affects Pwcel l),APPEARS TO AFFECT SLMXCT PROPERTY,AS SHOWN HEREON. b50'03'W °a ,(� 12)Easwnent far electric lpurpose;in purpin fawn of Northern St.(-Power Company; r Minnesota coqPorof/on,o woofed k document doted February 15, 1965,/ded March A 1965,oar °r a Document No 801210. (Affects Pwcel 1),APPEARS TO AFFECT 5(/B.ECi PROPERTY,AS STIOWN S / dor/ `3 O ,�J r ' m a41'43p _ __T__ T-- HEREON. dolion +P$ / ' N 8' B4° °eAt IJ)LosenRight of tfar wall Nby Plot No.maintenance 27-24 tiedrposes Ps December d13'Cfed on 1985, MDocum(o Department of p Document No 1697697 and asahmm on the recorded plot of Cwouse/Aulwnobdes RUD Na 95(Affects Pace I),APPEARS TO AFFECT SUB.ECT PROPERTY,AS SHOWN HEREON. / �Vqv 141Access t of Way Plot No 17-24 Red rDecember IJ,ions as depicted 19A P Documrent No,1691592(Aff-1.Parcel 1on ),APPEARSTo AFFECT r fit SUB.ECT PROPERTYWN,AS SHOHEREON. �">I' , O.i1 ` // /nvlV. v rSpp - 15)T a and conditions 2. 0 Stam Wbfer Quality Treatment F(Afify s parcel Agreement,APPEARS dated T _ _ =aakwge and UUNE, > b� 9,1001,fled may 1,2002.as Dacume,j Na 3338662 (Alkets Parcel i),APPEARS 7D5 AFFECT / Eozmad pm tM rj+ .�. SUB..ECT PROPERTY,NOi GRAPHICALLY SHOIMJ,BLANKET/N NATURE. and w2ify E°vemml iviemm°O°se a / /// / 2ea P.U.D. Yf / ` j' 1�0 // Wiper fn�pot°/MNrtl Ha 95 'f // N I I6)Document Na81991Profie,A CoAPPEARS doted September 3,OPER wed September 7,/965,a o„ P.ua a 95 �'M1 L,btb Document a 819911,APPEARS TO AFFECT SUB.ECT PROPERTY,N07 GRAPHICALLY SHOINJ. r1/ LOT 1 W le M9 WW 11 __ -- --------_ - - --�-� ,// /�•K`�o a ®/ � Oar Mpo °�r -I r'----------------------- L�l h1��rypp0 Ifi aPromeOrcLvanX up/450ar lLeW n P r Au1 ra n P.UO.Na 93 h ' T . 58Ba4979 E 539.08 Ate° Naasmfslofo�ro... I s _T.'s� L_W,R4YZATA ,o$ Np-1hwn51daPp^szw—°eB9ULEV RD 2 11 17101 -,sen � rw r•-- / �- 5'puM/Me a/�Ireaf i - ± p fpL,cgiq eM 1_ _2r�-21 rlWOy pO aHOr - -_---_--_--JL21'L1ne nw r 4 , llf--- rw 1w ere a i I - ------------ ------------ ------------- ---1--- -- ----- - __ I / \ �'---- °a caPpad x vne__/ «- S66a49'29'E 363.72 / / I Lkm Np.12WJ ,d S C �o;l NmJ Vla°c]TO ,PV LpuY PvrY P10 wit \ Ye u el 1 / AI I I�ww 41 L_ y ---- 7 certif cadam To,TCA Red Eshta.U.C.its successesm and oss/gns,Camacia Partners Tiflp and e 511 TWO Cuwwfy CMPM vlcnq Y MAP LBGEW This is to-lily that this map a plot and the surrey an«kh if is based wap made in-ca-eance Not b Sr d. d / M Lu.KAR X wren the 2011 Mhknam standard Oehd Req k-snra la ALTA/ACSM Lon`MelS,rKn.)�fly19 and zo aIRFEi bri/T (3yVtliFiE SUkFAfF d established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS,and hdudes 8—I.2.4 6b,$9, (b, !X)afFM)tb i1�' Our PRE C� dNKt suafACE GAS taE of Toole A thereof. The field was completed on August 24 2012. OEfMB000a TREE .d PoIIER PSE S__ =ter- PaWm a— 4114��//� ® nib- PaIKA WYFIXSIRp &'s 8/31112 NLAANa ©O ELLCIMC ear - pp mEPtlO\F BOX Mink R.Solo Doh aiEELYwaT1 Pas/ ® LLLCIMC YEIFiP aRr- yWIAPY AeLR Mknemfo License Na 4J933 12 J .. 9141-1R.1rrK/bI1KR ® EIECIPIC YAMptE -aro-- SraW SEIICR ® 1R.IiiLC IbVIRBL BBF a,SWV-h Amq,a ® EILCmeL'mrP la HAND NSL -mom }FIFA'/SAE a W" MW RR_EDenotes/ran Monument Ser 1j WAYZATA BLVD ® YAs eOr ® SANlAPY YAwpIL „¢, IRAFiIC upr CQ HANSCAPIYO.TALL ® MwPr Gm_wQr .CLL • Dentes Iran Man Mon(Found W Q Si �.� uELE ry Q Omafes Cast Iran Monument Found n� f a ST G IYRL/LS/ ® Bf[K G/OI BA59V a HKW 1 -x I/��)> � r5< ® YaVIP9Ha r[it ® ural GAAP 0 su B09`'c 0' 50' 100' 150' g g [� nrEP,F,Em A a ® (:ANE N BOr 4 plA2ED LND 9rCMN w - KticE LM aQ lYBB SFOP BOF •a R — MTRu— "� E EP 0 E UNBERRaXN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 69 4 FLOCp uwr 20121152-01 ATi9l.eaq D 8/31/12 me 1 MPlop. foic 1 Carousel Audi TCA Real Estate, LLC Carousel Porsche AI Landnd Title Survey Y... .Lr. =0 wA7 t 9-&-Mm.mea,ae:.aa.a,w I ts1•...r.YM4we Yle•a02•ly,IN10Bemlw 65306 CYelden V a 1elammta I 1111slwood .ww...r.� I I B e�aHa a� s awe B ea s e�:er weBrvWP PRr6 BA A ON MB4 2RH tau,EYP¢E59LT rPe T P¢0.4a1;¢E A.µeFIReM?loN Feat L.VUFoaY f»EMda.ffl G+rv,Y]ND, I veaav�'PEes.a-cox,+prices' vrn kwrr�, z ssEp vprrEn fOesEevee ARCM ABBOCIAT�9.INC. I ectarwmu�pEo Br mtE49. B rBra I—Cofnrlor6}W1L aE sceren AHCIiITECT6 1 pato rvBvco srw�i�aarexfuaa�eces�eaaasrraaas.ea avaoes I N 1 Iso 1wvm11 a•Ilmlx BmxxWc $ I sUlTc lass -_I naxxsweo1.16,nzx ssas-Isro Original Centerline nato�_\\ Bouleword Per RLS 1156 8 _ _-,- ---__— _--_------ ------------ BOULEVARD — 1----�— ne of wo t ' ---yl Porsche o /�. Minneapolis ---- TA scam Row;; r=a a—� � ------- ------ 1 I 9191 Wayuh Hwkvvd WAYAZA ------ ---------- I 6ourevard ver RL51f56 ------------------._____-_- Gddm V4Wey,I.ff155426 ______________L___-___- _-___--__-__- - ------------- ---------------- ------- T"—------- ------------------------- —"— NewFaeility _____________________ -T_ I I ..�p1pyARY qp BnAT 1014 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO_394 —_—_ ---- ------------------------- jV p p- ----------------------- ---------- OF VVA Y PLAT IV 0. 2 7—24 I — — RIGHT g r� - - MINNESOTA CEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION g o TRACT C N $ sz so„tht,Ny ROW Ime If Flnd I INTERSTATE HIGHWAY N0. 994 a — CerhV cote,Jcc No 57518] ----- - _ 1 -------------- ------------ ----------- - i / \_SoufneNy ROW line oI NgFwoY C rale = per Loc No .`58949 p�owogx rut"-Tr t �.•� 1 _ _ �� �\ s t,Mt, PUO N 5 Pod v ..� 1 jsr 1 I n Fo r p-Do :moo I I Per c Nn 5I81217�\ i 1 1 / ^'^ e '1. I Owner Luther I r_F–�I R.G 9P UyafaBouewld \•r�w i -Y LP �� j I PID 0611721240026 1 %/ 12994 s9./t. 131 05 3 I 1 nFF� 898.00 zz jh j I i L4 I 4 f ao i i WW 'y/ LOT 1 - ' CAROUSEL r / u 1 9J9J 7,36 to Boulevard .-r y \\ I I E+rshng Fen. J],J60 sq.1L t _ --/ '" re�•w•e l 1 / ee 1 northwest fFE-901.00 J - I _ 1 praPerey ren y',: 1 �� :l..:��,r.-"- d 1 ___ ,1 26 �- - ....L^� /N _L—Found d Iran Fi -- .OJ l �--;�. DD ,- A U To,M oBIL Es ;�, �"� .�-,-" � :� .I��------ r 1 r I , W t - License No 10945 p , WAYZATA'BOffLEVARD coPPe ( , / Acc / i 1 per \� ' d' / / / q _r-________ �/.1LlJ �'f' � � I Found Mn DOT , p/ B4f4 1 r i y .. �,o 6.40 I PRELIMINARY PUD i i s r } ► /' o MAY 8.2014 0. / F \ ..0 m9 d Ut f i L !. N L, . O R M tl ty E of Mk Autom 6le 1. j / /,' F / ail I rmm Aleb h • e LOT 1eionro9 W I s•,m cmA...re r•. Btz.za4ms ..ti 1 /93 i. -, // ^ c�,Ae}�9 '• n r,o/d;t,Eusame PID 0611212<GOIB j rsu r., etzasxarnr / / �, '4 E, / f I Bineepdw,wesset wee: Imreann.4e1 j ,„ I /St Louis Pork w / / / t• r �'^"'%'.. -" _,:!'^ - '. .., ... _ �w r /�� /f% Aufnmobfa PL(.DYNo.95 , j Garden A Northam sPafesOo romurmmw wanxre w � I N 15.00 •" o .:.. - -. _- ..• /f Pond1- zsoo WAYZATA oto SmT .a Eaeeme� �; ' j Per O.C_A'.:..801710 1 W 11 M t I �t I r " Er•hog / h f Per Mn JOT r I wr4.Ev, E --------------------------- _____ ___ ____________ .111 1 f lot,� 1( 9 1 f! `1------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- 14 4laO swm -s ff I Found Copped Iron Pipe_ i I 1 I _____---- / 1 License No. 1204) m 1 44�V 1 z Found H—ok__I Owner CrtY o/St Louis Pork each is I I Count Cost Iron FID 0611]71420002 �S Owner Village of St Louis Pork r 1� Monumnet CO �_________________� 1 / PID OEf 1721320029 1 I 1 Ownx Lori Green/e!d I srm 06 11]21320092 G I OVERALL EXWIN f .+ 1 'rte X10 ---------------- ' CONDITIONS ------------ NORTH aa• C-100 f KIIOW N'hdY® 10W. � OmN Cdll beton you ep. 0 40 80 BA Z. i.E u rJ.E.AxcESCEEtvEe�iiNµF vF�itz� Lit s.w.l a BAKER ABBOOL/T�.MO. oaOeA Cly.fun . Ftt.9wii eE Caro ,o luR i°o¢/.wCz ARCHITEC" o xApLt. IJ. tY!<�F tl,H 9X9MN AFE i0 FALF LF 41P9 ND E%T[AOR FACE eF BIADII.IG LNE49 .E¢WF. 1&1 BOO1'EI PIF H B'PRBE]P I4, tfLEEn'IF vAfIX¢C S,N15 VrtH A{._.W'OF WN,E OANfED S1¢FE.CEUEA,E BOl1T 74715 _ — LH9�NF1-lq�WIR�ST¢vF9 IB NC1E4 RI GENrtY ND GIINNGPOI168 S.IN 659P1-lap —-- _ I i TRLYPtiONS ]B.�B.BBD1 — SQ n vnVFt9 AW CCNCRE,E A108t VAYTA,A eLw TO pE 76TN1P0 W,H MB PAX:a51.99B.f.888 — _____ —–I Porsche of --— --—-- BOULEVARD ------------------------- --I Minneapolis --- WAYAZATA ---------------- --------------- _ _ ¢ 9191W.ymaauleN —_——— _ -1 � erF s,Ai1 vEn J EKID,EtS_e0/J. So EA Ne Vaery,6ai 55476 __ -------- _ _ __— — --- _ IJ,NA PFA 4094F. ———————— WAY NO• —3—P — New Facility — --------- NTERSTATE HIGH _ — — — AT N0. 27-24 I e,K.ABNtJ,ALL fftFED mEA• _ OF bVA Y PL _ RIGH T _ I FIO,WO.A.L.L� PAR TMEN T OF TRANSPORTATION I amae¢,Ernw EE e,n 5 EA MINNESOTA OE TRACT " 'tom SSEA N0. 394 IN NIGHIPAY -_---- ___ _ --� —._—. Vp9 335Y! SF. IO.Y. �— __ —•d'"aIV—M'F `\ —— 1'RAYITM I,.BGt 9s60oX ® ( As) Ua .— arEfeE'% -- OE¢VgA 7L b 5F. _ I vERVITA PAV[YS S?b G_ II I I I / I P—d.o/NinmeoPol. I 1 ¢EFE¢ A.994 I w sEEr a zo Fo¢ ' 9191 B ,.w,d I I is9 ou,f. ro I®I I I I EBA¢tEo v¢w `. ' / FFE:898.00 ; • I ' I I ' LOT 1 >' I II I aoei oed..nP I �. 9393 ol9 Bou/eva°d 1 ' ✓-/� / 1 3],zj6760.q.I! �I / Aar.+•rl 474 FFEs901.00 WAYZATA BOIYLEVARD —�— / / \ / •® 1' I PRELIMINARY PUD MAY 8.2014 ' I L. A N U F O R M LOT t ! I �D�eo.FFA.ee ,: e,zss wo _ _ ------------ 4 __________ � EO..yd717w.r310i V14 S'I.gbm.M �T . – _ �i�� .� A WA YZA TA ---\------ -----r------------------------ ��11,, CC . .tt ,,`` --------- [ IV�C�� I VV ovsRAu sltE fxaN NORTH / I nm0-200 e.As4 / I I(now whop.Below. eml. —L Call before you dg. 0 40 80 EBTNJ NL NiCASARr P—T9 FOR LabiRULTYM wil•J,O2 USE OF,W0.G o K R� a •Ar. BA I i ' /' � R ce NG wtaFVKIG OL aeT�E�'EwWI..�Rr... E.�K�.ER9 K�af� SABER ASSOCIA'B6.INC. Z— ARCFIITECTS I / '' � \�'M:1 \\ P00R i0 ST�Ii'FCTE aWTK FIE,9HKL EF CQ9ARfa rP TIE MPllLTU¢K pRAWN49 ,, _ i�' \.,UA .� \\ _ 3. R£FBpb SNOWN 1RF TO FILE(F QRS ND EEifOM FALE OF BU.ONG LNLE% /\//+,''R NTEO OIK¢YLE. 1S0 BOD14i MMPH t9PRYtll' I. DELNFATE PAMNG MNL•vmH A 1 NM m'OE wRf PANTED SrRPE.R1mEATF BUlAIll4N6APOLlt3,P1N 55104-!SW / ATLE99 A. WrtH 1tiW'N WDE YM1E PANRO STgPE3 B NQH ai LEM[¢ArD ,� � \; AHaE is GRELrwH�rRAw �I.R�»OI.T�:B]f.�4.�1 rex:es4.sse.se� sp PERvlas vAwes un caucRere KONG vAttArA xw rP eE wrAUEP wrn rH5 Porsche of Minneapolis 9191w"—B••ke w 1 �7 ,' 111 Ernmee! - J I F OR lTA P•S . 0„ bE. C"{/� / � QE STKt PTR q00 SF. , � 06PMr AREA.rs,ms/loop- n Eu New Facility —� I / � /' B �, I - TOrK PKO>1G STALL!IEgRl9 RS EA' pRE�HMORY FUD B I'dY)0K I I I �" / �' 1 ,'� .IOFa rP cuLw,TE RfaREo uvAwn aP AaesselE muss I , � I laawen rAewe / QAT��/FVLOTE£MKLS IfI EA {' j i� lAIS•lTKI! I , rmK PARING WALLS PROERI9 � I 5�°• � ���i, i��� , EPH qS`.R,«EO,INW A6A) ,/ �., IrcRwas 'Hare !F. Earo: 1 , K lz.lE K) ues ao.a4 I I ti°% �� /' � wtoPPsn lvSHR oarumEo AREA] I �/' PKreRs aSO' nP.P4 �'' R9.5 , 1'PERVRU! .39a 9F. ' K(P3L A<) lues I /''� // y � O GtSlR SPACE(fANJSLAPE AREA) I 9 I o `� LOT 1 ` � R La ruga s o \ A!, -� ���F�ro.�aH�A!Fa.awl za Fr.! Audi Dealership ,— 11 9393 Wayzata Boulevard \ ENG=eF:' 37,360 sq. ft. / 01 FFE=901.00 N o PORSCHE OF MINNEAPOLIS ,/ FFE=9SF 0 01 / 24,240 SF � e e -C i m �o Ap0 A® PRELIMINARY PUD MAY 8,2014 N ° Mp. s aDC � / L F. N L ' O R M � � Emm sa.a ftnEA i / i �e 4 > IP°F ve alvAR.iroi // 3msmrelAmmu r.A ETzaasmr / % e arM! / / O trTv.) / '/ Ivm.�Ei.,exleEm wa r:ee•n.lr / — __ _ __ __ _______—__—_ _—_ Pe u 4114— -- — -- —mm I / —1—4— .lttv.). '" ,P Evm Am•eAA oeP.RP! ! a - i s B�•� GAR AMY4»IA S88'49'WE 539.08 I � v coNs�� TSA YZA TA �~ ENLARGED SIiE PLAN ■ r 1 A y NORTH � !•G! C-201 Know what's B910W. *2014 C011 before you dy. 0 20 40 B oNEATo uwrr swvaE warvus�FOR FBIn�ocAraN cF sERvaE.s n Hrnas � n waR ro eED]ea<ORAONe. J� n�AiEcem>YTO 1.c¢ vAi¢eOeDir rB AmTnNnt rFcenAmN ON eAeefw. BAFMRABSOCiATHB.INC. 11`\ l/ ¢EroVE i0P50.F¢Rt LRAONC A¢EAS AND 9TOCCNE 9sFILEM OIANrIrI'FO¢ ARCH=C78 • / - q��"� ��f. REu3E.M1ATEWVS fNT BE INFO fRRI LP,GSCA➢F 1REA9 FCe 15E W sttE INO r � _ ¢EPucFn rrN Exas3 ORCArac nr.TERu�WxN v¢IOR oAUNL AFNLwu. 'v, �� >sw �. • ve0n e ) To n / waFACE am A4a,w WAree won ExcAVAnoN3 uFTs a iso eovaH rima axasvr 9rIeLE FgfDATaJ 1Y.1E¢LAL E E%POSEO 90L4 ARE WET OM Ll6TA&x�. 6�,�1445_, FEiT) rnAOE Bina Pw NaEs BELOW FBelc9 noon eLEvnTaN(Fw7. naaxrAroriB•n¢•r - / s`sTsrxoxa mv�.eeBi s r0 sreucrcea 9P[LFOArpE FOe EAziw✓o¢%cfauzErexrs Fo¢Bu,>Hc rwx:eus�sem \� A D P o9. M T=T.a�I.T Vw W�1A Porsche of yW 0 A&=X ms. CORRfcTRM I!D cG9ALTNM/M P¢UVOE GE¢IOO1C FEPL4r3 RAc NLL ix�s�3 n T o Sa T Minneapolis I .�;� •\� TENt N PAVES A¢EAs aFcsoiE aF nACxn%H ceY DEN51(T Si 1A¢o 9191 W�BOabvN Goldin V ,AIIi 55126 /p / o¢ASAOm owegOFxcEvr TIE TOP]FEET Wwcra A,ra.L eE eoroncria TO n wox c oENsn w«fazE FE.E oEPrH ExCEE99 a FEET New Facility aj a.AVW SOL C019ALtION OF•FL1RATgN PRALtt'Es. M"! OieIENE IaSED N /. NFLTRA1aN A¢EA9 SNO].D eE 9fNll SCALED AW i¢AC%ED. /.%� /� fRELATMAFY Fi17 E HAY P0U SPOT D / y L HE 1 1.�Ar CIRIXlY3 N]DA1E� Unf35 NDEED Oil(RWL'E. SEE sEtt ca ELEvnras OF cAT ra a ka;.a j ©IEET—..—E%BTNC cLaB.P¢OeaE a FOOT T¢AVwraa PAVEa usECEa 9 1—cuc,++r wro STI.ocean 2-1(nmor ossa sPvs..z.oe) `g9 E i isa cont(Mppi PSST) �l(_r0]G�0 F�1908) �g1T '9• '� a druwus PABrlruan(�WFA¢ln+oo*1-0 SPWEAz•w, rACe COAs(MOOT 0]37) �3=BwIRNW4 BASE (_ P360 SPwMz30B) GOCFEGTE BASE(fYDOi 3LSB.CLAA9 3) l � � � Al AB-.1 Ii+DOi 3138 GWS+7 \ e ONCAEIE LRrvE3 14000 PA 5 8INOIR R 9¢AKD.N.%..•9LUV o D Wiw¢EB.¢AT a NCEB oc ¢ E ,It C-NCN AOGOAt�BASE(HOOT 3138.ttA53 3) / 13' \\ :,\ .PEEPE¢va19 Payer y�s'rwt Ii9 IT— "N' TONE"N \ I ♦ 1 of 3 AS 5H AL41 AD¢D33 SD W�9 PA E m Audi Dealership `- 9393 Wayzata Boulevard 37,360 sq. ft. \� �"T�a TO o ,aM*PA�a SMSsµB ` TO B S DNOE PAN"f.9 N1D NDINAILY E0.N1 AREAS UiE33 9Hw'N \ E o -,0�.—I3 •^ \ IX PA=T ODNT k 9DfW/LLKS-BTO D FEET:CERHS ANO APRONS iP / y� ys1 ♦ FFE=901.00 E) Fein aeeox coca TO o.n nae Aw wrirx OLs3r \\ \L� ®iw•N+roN non wn curse Aw curtw is eNO cu¢e Aro Ovrrw. p ♦ i� oD 0, oz.n 90La0 ` \ 0. PEaretts SEUEur cw Pince To eECNNNc—1Aw nuNTAa 1., / Po-' � .,� ♦v � � �"^V. —AT.OF mrm�uo o1sP�o�as v�rf.AeEu c01m¢e+nne RUN aF / / / a �: 'p9 ♦\ ° // eRrtR0.5 ATO1.W1¢x FaAA'NO LHIi9 SHOWN 9CNEAAE OPEW,IOE9 TO "�, 1 \ fhEf>) � Ev�laE aC 01911RBE9 A¢EAS. 00. O2.D �® \ \�QI V � /�/ n SHOWW ARE rIE H.B11 REtlF.fiENT N4 ALL AW nAMAN / /• /i /� -�`\\® 9Eg4M cAYHD BT WD 0¢WAIEOLY95 TO PREVEM E¢09aN Arp cONi40l / / .,a ° ec .\\\® �� M.FECpNE1NC ntARKNEAw MEWTH TEI904RDOi 9BYB SOD WrtWe R HOURS OF LLL \ PL SEtO,900.N.CN MD nRreaEe SH1L.IEET TIE FAJ.OWia SPECFICATaN9,As o ,. ` o PORSCHE OF MINNEAPOLIS noL00 ors oea It dr `�� ��:. r"N: zs-u o ao eine Frt'wM°+1 00 �, ,/ - a.,• 01 ° FFE=001.00 ase• ��� a, � �\ eW(HOOi TYPE a a TON/Ae7 24,240 SF °°°� G 'I a.9fE LANoseAPes sTs FaR vEmwENr ruRP rsrr,xewErrr. m •% / OL00 IOLOO ' g \`"'� �\> > v} �. �y \\ ' ]9.SCRAPE ADJA[ENI STPS£T9 nEAN OAiY u,0 SWEEP 0.EAN MEEttY. D (tewyy ♦v - VSV � PrvaEv¢nVsas n]a -1 nsw an wero000 se % s z E i ( reo anN 1 - xOlOo o „ W 00 oLoa rz cue o 0 os„ (T7.) M SAWCUi OL00 ^9 O• y.• %/ lPODe e `n �,y'f�R / TREE P¢otECttN O.1. 01 .w O.Ad w a I _c/> / 11 es e °) 1 I i i t,m� PRELIMINARY FUD �x 005 a9I MAY 8.2014 / BM1 ,� f a oleo _ � a� � I tl e 3o Ho v p I '2 T e o Ea _ •sr, T e* \ '� .zd°saeE iw(n) cr -� .•s rER(rn.) 9 o'C.d' _< .=jj I l ) .m ,' Fmm sL N i) F T. atO R M cu �a I � m r ece . na I ;w—W m a s°° a w-oi3R� g^� B Y-ao .w I I I - �°e zamsom o u] I I 0 0 a°`♦.o,� r wmE ali „ 00.00 1 \\ � r S uEmmenai.,NN SBFB( wet IaaE,BB.neL BvrrER(rrP Fo ,> � � oOwl �>a uT •"'< oLE 030 h enm urs 0 qz' _...I I -.\ .P waest vamw omaerta. v OC ,s,c' 1 021 a. 90 0133 0 \` O •'0/ ° ,.I _�._. e._.._....m... _..�._. _gym....„,.... �. ..__. ......... .......... .,°::._. .... ..%^�.....`._ ... _.. .e 0¢i09T NS uLFO WAT4aoF• II 0,,.•. eoe sx - wilaBMGE MNFAN UMLL FNN.LaeT3C B T YSP reAC IAO ° ..-.>.,. -.•Bo -_.MT._.__.-....�.y,.7 q•pO) � s' NSTN.L T4[£woT[ciall OfVaES w n.bs aaz ROrFCDW I a 0 _ ---. - - / AT IT-Q 63 r-POST. n R/t.F.POMae ORaAE. P., _I Pa E EiTN i R� ES Pw �1,M " 1 Po9T. a& a o D¢ ANDE TREE PROTECTION .es°` eEs Bw e. —ate E e, e° es< '� NO SCNE ,p ^a"" % GRADING,DRAINAGE, .e A A 'a _'• i0` • .B, ,,,eo .° PAVING,1 EROSION „es es B°> >,•� CONTROL '- NORTH mV. C-301 Know whdy�OYII. m om14w CON bNon you CIO. 0 20 40 i _ \ w vr>E vAN ov aAss s2 IANw Aa151/AWWA cnp BA i`J N}4 L 9f0¢n 9EWE¢ B C�X.'IEWIE 0 IASTN STMDAR03 0909.,02669, �'//,'/ /nr su1rARY SEWER we so4 a6 lAsm siwgARDs D309a,Diss.Fe9p BABES ASSOCIATES,INC. a. c NRvce vegvass FD¢NE1D LocATaN a:9ERVY[s 2a Nags ARCHITECJ.'S v¢�Ta B�LHw9L 1gnN9ERVKF9fr 0ME�S qT0¢ROYDF LLECrNK.eNNRILL LAS.AW V All -Rbw 1 A 1O� RIMPH®PAffi` � /� 5 G40VDE 14AN9 AW N6A9XF9 10 F¢ttEtt AOYLENf F¢LPE¢TT FROh DAMAGE SQNNB.IYOLIB,IYPi�-]8110 � afOG UrinT NsiAL{w,gN T8f.8P1IOlW8:018.800.8001 / 0¢EE IJR Htal CHttE4 6 Si¢LCitaE TO LFNfL OF sTRUCtIRE Y: ]8.S9B.EBBB N IA :IMA9 RF�u¢BNTB Porsche of e w R L R W�W H LL Na aD E L0E9 Minneapolis --�� a caAELY ro cirT u,urts N AccoaDAYLE WnN crtY o2 GOIDEN vu1RY srArmA¢Ds. 9191 WES�hBoulevd /, / a rJMAu B.0 r-FEi of covER ai WATE¢ Colgm V fty 55N 554]6 9 �0n WA RYTD N, o ca D a.RI .A— ENi.AT New Facility GLNfK FRE LENLTW TO PRWDE—Al-ATE9f SFOA¢ATpJ BETWEEN scxaD9e cce iwswL Nm ar�9suRF Tisf.svEergw F�Lmuvun-r.D B nar emu �`.- p WAT6e A,q sFWrR vgE9 Nro N9D4m vE rEc« u DRAWEes .qN A°.o Rare Bu�c srow'�"`DRANs xm cwvcci is croen sFNacWxc.w»wLO. u. eD cr ra DDW'acaur WrcN TRArortgN TD B�cN we AxD RwrF iD sicen N ALL—AmON 9LEEV09 FU¢N9K0 0T R¢IGAigN WTRACIOR. T.— .1 ¢Arm2D�E4 ANp HOED ,IE Y T,F vOWT EftLTRIL iRlflSRiE¢AYE PROVEED AND NnTAl1ED LDWFe Y xeEL EeERGY. rN0 xD DE9gN n vRa Br Inure Aw T:11ke vw DFr Acr urErcY w. r1E ov E>o9'INL srcan EN /� � R'�-v0 can ucrgN B Br n.T calrRAc . ca+r t0 900.20 l3i -g9 E SELamART ElECOG ANO GOngNi9 SMALL BE NSTAl1FD BY 11E HECT¢gAL _ cONIRAttOR. Tj£ RM=900.520 �// ,` ®LTMERPONT ENERGY Wk F02N9N Aro EnTALL 6A9 9ERVgF FPNL F¢aT THE � �SEWivtl�9V90 j/ }A, A b�T BY�i1E�RLHxrKN.COVI¢ALTOR SFRVGE kal TIE IEre¢SMALL BE I—11C s.✓ �' `LONEttgl9WxeD ILONYNMTION OF SE¢ S WBNH BLEONL.LOLATgN9 GF SERVILE N=900.10 O 0.50% 9E1)Fa92 r > QN£ ®PROYOE COrA1(9 FGR LABLF TFLFHPOu AW OmE4 EtECT¢6NL LanJNLAigI. —Tt)n2BVILE LEF IA4i TEOAN�ALGO¢DNILE WiM,ATA 10. 1� �O 0.5 / :.` f'y` 20 LE�irt n B2NG TEIENAE 9ERVgE A9 AIOAil. LOORONAIE¢ttOLAMM WNH I ¢ a0 U0 /�� _ \ FROR2Y AN]/02 POJ15T ExO,BIG LILYn 20.E N I OROCR'0 MnTALL SANNART SEWE¢� 9EQVCE. 1N-052A�1 � p �RELOCATE NONBENT 9N.N N 0¢OE¢i0 hniN.t SAN,A¢Y YNE¢9ERNCc. lsE�899 X74 R)•092 I KISL n \ \ J _ a • Audi Dealership 7 9393 Wayzata Boulevard 37,360 sq. ft. FFE=901.00 I 0'4.90190 6�i �g $ N{sek59s.N � � H2I�._!Lm la �/ \ o // � ¢ELOCAFafrEEYS,NG / ��_�•� PORSCHE OF MINNEAPOLIS , CT TD E B n �� % i FFE=901.00 ry e 5� "`v /• cWATr�,wv1/ nw s c arf / / Iry-0Q3ss 24,240 SF D V A o / aa6•reE W/s• v xgDHq MI.) Dxtt vuvF Hv ,/ •� N ew D ¢M 09910 / PRELIMINARY PUD \ MAY 8,2014 0 i - 6{ 'vv=• v �'�[' 'rr - Li 1. A N D F O R M / n zoLv __ _ « a »! ._LA— imm Seem Fnsh 6 / � ¢�OV. • i.« 6T 90�'WL O 09pXw5T9 050% \-1- --o A9- -- --- --------� \\ j,4". • / \ \.. LLA99 B FNE�� � �` \- REH3_Tq0 9HEE�T 10584 F•IAnws TY: 012-]529020 / �1� 88111DMH@__ SIImY,b�ltl Fn: aua32w21 RET-Bw TO q0 9`N�3rP�RT 9MFWR W NN56Y11 W6A IagWmM RE1.09950 i / R-fi9a-FL `1- n 89239 I y�-p 72 42-A IEm2 A. rR madr x9mwx F9wxnA J L/ -- - \ � k 10. ``\ W n / 4 f r �s TSA YZA TA tt Li UTILITIES BOULEVARD - .9 .: --_ __.. _:- _ -::._ __ -° i NORTH Bd. r.2e„ - C-401 �,�22 -_ _ E� 0FY 04-0D m C-YQ I O M DAAnm99 KnW. 02014 ------------------------------ ----------- Call- 1w ywcog. 0 20 a0 :. / f ,ND, ED vEPtiED) PnE W EauN BA CD 0.A53 52(NSI Ai3/AWwA CIS) ��" 9TORH!EY[4 PVL 9aeaAe AD(ASin SiANDAR03.OJOJI,00665. R07 DR s we PsriR BAKER ABSOCIATE B,MO. (u ET D'EP E ED) a ANTA¢T 9EWE¢ W yASTtI JrNOA®S D3033 DN55 PB91) — LT mm BERVIG4112— TDARCBITECl'B { cCN T a ss� ❑ " a auc L Tp B ¢Nv FI i°nl)EB OtC.M-1,W.Ti.RIJ.LAs. P AW _ asaEwvmFa eBrre erat� t�.. ecZsa�.�X\ a FSP PfD) P¢ovIOE IEAN6 nrD FEAalII.S TO ( ED E RNFGY/aJAaiNT PROPL tt teat DAeNai B�xx aa8a Porsche of Minneapolis afWG R NRN"�" �$DaB�x AX: 9791 Woyzo to Boulevard 5 o L T.B OwN eI ea N e L STRIK�CF rD �ER DE ITR„LTueE FnJs.aaB.smB ce Ew w Ew ceLna.L 72,994 sq. ft. ` 0, W.1 q�p�BeE°aµTFMS Porsche of Minneapolis � 1 B. �D"cT T 9191 w.3—Bmd—. D�E L DH<aa E D R3. FFE=898.00 To a Y DrnT:3 N tL RDN f w H T o La�BH DAL T ST anaD3. r a NA„vw B wnrce. s.mmv.BBy,nes saaae r / Ecr wArEs T°nANrAe m-Nw rvexl wr3oE SEnAnAr LN AT JENrE4 °' casNcs. a xEe P E L N 3 TO PRP OE LREAT 3r S PneA mN BE wEEN New Facility 49 =—1,rnr oP canEx v I,vioLlC woees cePNnrta�T.AT FTAMM44Y FUD B MAr 10u scieo�r°aw3Hxe N+D vacsSuxB re3T.aPettaxs ,� "� �w�e`L",�Bu�DNc'Rsiaa+ow�n�NrD Lea�PPs rewN+ci DeAwxca. .iDN �. Aw sTcen SEVH rv,wu.e. To DPaNSPart WTH T¢NdILTi TO 6-Naa PVC AVD Ral1E TO$TLWT # ��/ t*„ H. TAll YTl4ATI0x_Iv.—0 BY e+RCAfIW CLMRALYaY ®Bl. LYt FNE¢LY, rHEAI'FS 0¢SILN 6 P¢°vroE�BT THE VfLrtY E9 � t! � DN91RUL1Yai B BY rIR LRRTWCrOR CONTACT Ufµtt faR PAD pETAI. j( s�ONDARY ELELI9L AW LOrDIAT9 91ULL BF WTALeO BT THE ELECTRICAL 1 `f1'� R SAN Ha IDO I RACfOR. A. ` ®aHLEePONf EIL4.O1 ANDD M tER4 B LA9 Y4v4'1 FRat 1 E1CIETEQ 9ULL BE LOT 1R. D ED,% Sw,BBG.M ]KD ERFY N T O BY M CWN K GON R OR !L(W)�555/(- Y)) Lqµ,,TE VrtH LELIMNCAL AW EE£CtRKIJ.PL.wNG9 Pce LanrpM OF 9EKNLE # w lPErm L•evrl coaEcrLxn Aro c°xrwnnw aP sEnL�cEs wrtHN aa°rc. i e( 7 Dz p caa.�cay.Ar3 Pce cnele ruswox No mree EucrRa.c ca+uacATlaA '_„ - ri oT ED vEP+uc7 ( AEt.Pceraa a•TwE sraBt sEwER SYBreL LxATED wTHx D PEET a— PE nut BE rEsr6o N nccwDAv t:wrN Iwcwrn Audi Dealership a �. _. _ > p DG�AE B NL rE�P aE 5Ee E s wN c°DeDNA E Ra DLA„DN wnH 9393 Wayzata Boulevard o p r0 eE .. 5 ND/a2 AD.AUT ExBiNC LILtrt Pat N OItOf¢ BSTALL—1-1 SEWER 37,360 sq. ft. LOC ti ` 6 °' ._ � '� ..• O6,B � � ALE HOHaENI 5a1 N—I r0 9 µ3rNJ. ANTMY SEWEe SE¢N0= .w ( )= n RE FFE=901.00 �¢r WAYZATA BOULEVARD , y. 5/ l � td ABN � E 69t1 � ;✓ a/ z j EE.B PRELIMINARY PUD • � MAY 6.2014 4 . LOT 1 11—IT CIO, ,,4 . . sArRrAeT sEwEa - // j - L A N C AF O R M / ® 1058M FIFArp.q TI: a12ffi.901a sN.na Fn nRaszmn �a�BTNA�ERE,Ane ® aNrr.SANITARY 9EILER ' LAYOUT a _ ..._.. , ,_. NORTH C-402 KnowwhdY�l)Yfl. �� emu Cdll i m youdg. 0 20 40 zo LLI � � z zo"<; � sg°g�8 8zg o�R993 po ` • �g Y�� � 30 0 'c �'�'� pp iligia 1 gUt z m ' s G �4-A All ��sa s; Q L, Q � - - 0 d7j LI nt � ry nS a � LL1 a xpt, - .H� a mgr n � R`; -a� O 31 o m if!rlkv m CJ . O m ' r � _ o Ca 16 1 E. lla 1 100 ss e z alb - R xt"@ x d tt3 Stx € + � � i� Fid � c }�$ 3[ dax r'9n�l�} ��xi $! IRS x � p 8 t [ �rdag iE�' � �= E � [[a 6x�g HOP S�R� 9�y� a �t {3 # e5tglqH[@d rxsx 5 1V �i.��Fc 7�����.P'}AiR�la��'+d9§��1i s� C�3�i� � .. 5E Nt � � < {X3 1 xds #g _Y Ilk Er I r m AH a}� 3,� �t +.d a�Et fit JUL & d # #� '3xtE 'aii' s 9' f E q t�t d} ' •• � yy .tttt #s t.3ttt � 3#iJx{ ppE xu rt} Et�� law o f P��S��r 3� $Pt2 Hk11P� p1hH�#3tEi�iti Of lid Am LN ill ................................_ .� C } r + - n y a q r e, m MAI e m t 0 ^ n n m + + + 2 ry m I d m m a U � _ 0 m R „ m _ < r „ " n ^ e n. „ gal $ AJuly g � _ • " s a�� „o l �0 a ills Pail W � . ffI I I a aaa 1111111i till 0 s s � Y "Bil R ° Z 0 iij � m # KAU Gq„�RFRFm^s axRRrWx ami B:x^sax^xswx as acss�'tta z - xaxmax saaa�sxs�s ^D D0^` • r i i V ✓J// r' �� ���.. � ,� � ,,� `. �per, � o 4 m A 0 _ w 8 e, m t. v 0 r Nati. v,•w� �� \Xj 1, PON TO e ' �\' \ fes) �s'�/ � ♦p%/ p� x. ��1�� S 1 a Y �: ^ 3 HOW R 0 SI>( S � m§ low)i \ r � ry g5. Ingo u g ��� -it CRUNCH � �� D �m3 �•�, � � Q Z� �� 3��1 � � JJ �9 U Gp' r 0 m1� Q2 ° -------------------N I ----------- ------ II I I I ------------------ -.1 UlKJ - II 1 1 I \I I Ix I I _ 1 \ i o , HIAOS I I N I III o N LYAAIJA V O V79 11 n �� ` I I L--J W I � I I I`o I I ��---Q------- — ------- I O I I h I I I I I I � I I \ I �� �— -�vv - \ \ I PartAm uarlYR FRWPf49 FLP LPGATaH aF 9��GE812 HaIIS FmPR iP BEa.AG BA €s eoaaP.A1E Nsluuna+vrtH eoHrwmaas vEaeOanue REurEP Wcee Swrl G01EaRn To THEA.ssauleN aV N TrtN A ce v`FL s oHSirE` F BAHSR'CIAMES,INC. r----1 / scrla.Le Aw.TESTA PArwcE,AFo POFra.RA iE ceAWxc sHul cP+le. ARCIEUMC S wu[ ixr BaroxrAie Nmnricwe lY¢NRG rEAxIwEeE I .Mmes Aran To eE souan �.. _ a4on oesFASE y�a.m aH ire ceA.a-w' Fce oecav of aF Rauh ,« ELu a1R.wsc axmraus Hcevalrrus'B.LE civ rrH.,w n coHr. �A.rER �� '' °nooE"�o.FR ae'e�AZPoasT a.rAR19 TOHOE To i Nazi aEAT�.,a,9'nTN n va.,w9 of oon,Fea,L FER,une PONTEeQA iREH S9 F(Te) 1RMUPLANlW 90FUGE -A SP 1 ,ON%20W 9'Hf. C BNB �D � �, 1i090UTH FlFF9L EIPH&®P US 9H2UBS 3l RAGL -lOW FRPO4Nfr 5-, R ARS I-'LA0-iAW .SW MS CONI. � `�� 5. RE9P¢EMlSrOLVIEP TOPS0.TO A If911r1 OEP1H a,NpE9 MPORT ACPIIU.AL T0050I AS FttOEU t0 I1AEE W BU2�2{1G \ ^ 9P]ALL 1LiF A4FAS C6ruReEP Br CRaSiRUGTVM A�N�,��0.a���-24� PEGflU0U9 TREES PIAF COLUrClA2 FN0.EN OAL aERC16 OaX VAR.FKEPATA . 6. SPREAD A tN111 OF 1 1HPEs 6 TOP90.A+U 500 ALL iWF A¢EAS ON114BfP BT Ca3TRUmpI T81.SPHOIiH:818.39B.Ba01 DECUWI9 TREES 2 AC(T4) T4ArbKAN1ED M1W.E ACHe SPEPH MH.25W 3'CAL BNB D / ]. SEE OETAr3 FOR PrsIH w OUNiNO 50. F'�:0)H.B�.SBBB OFGOUOVS ieEES vAOEe¢NW BEMA OAOYI6[RA 4PH v 90W 3 BNB / censsEs FEA1.t.R eHP Grznss w c -A- e. vuDE HANTS A.—TP IT-wires FaoPEe N2rwa.SPACNn. Porsche Of �' OLE 9NRUB BEO9 WrtH 6-WGH&AGC VNn G9CNC(BIACC an1'UW CR APPR-EPUL)E T WERE AOJAGE.T TO ,FfA D QaNG.W L5 m BP DH 5 Minneapolis / A SHa_O ePWDPP B RA H PBH ePNP T4EH HP1 Hut(1/2').cH erv[a-1 tulP+orFR WEEP eARa1Ex FABeC(TC A EEttH aF TNxt(9•).aEs). 9191 W"u B-k-d -e Fs PD P E 4 aA oWro«A9KUBaR N F.tu9sso t 26 PE4ENWl OLAMNO PED. TO AealTreGTcevwOe IIAxce-A a H1a AVE AetAs.®cATwH o.reAmce To B.srrt SHDv N.�L �!� / \ p snE AVE BPxnER svt Aro Y TO 4'WUE PFFIIMNARY PJO 0 MAT W. (3A.37)Ea]'L-STLAM 9R6 / (33)Ex 5 M..PL '��'a' •...• ,��/; \ Ptt P 00.4EN VALLEY.FN Girl r •• A UiREMENTS C_ - ST E % ) uvn YYY (32)Ex. Lm LunsCAPro W11H vEctTATUN.Pim.0 SHrmE TR.EFS.EACH a LP_u E cuF (rYP.>\; °° / � /y iaR ENr of 1.E NrEA a Tess P.AR.ND AN]9CAOF BRE,s oairz AwRPxrurElr ErERr 1WE.rY{ota l20 sPKEs -OW s`LaUsf 10 �Rm neEA P]s< N.Aec' �. °o° ltrv.) EFovoEo.rEeex LAwscAVE w..ra x p `r�. ,D v.(o�) 'i�sT � B w4 eEn.nanwr r�r¢R ro s�cer L-w1 tl7 r (TYP) �/� /y i[ nolaRE� Paw�acnKErt.r (T>DJ �/ N cocePNAfE vRovwEP aEtacnr.a neiNc reEH eoNr TOe n carceAcrce.srKrre a Teri SPAPHe Aw¢uacnTlPN �1 Y Of T S nrED vnPE 0.PAC� TO MT� BHT 9TA41H0ve0 9'O r `M iO AA,O PBRI.-TO MI. AN E tliNt IEAITHF AW VOBIIrT OF I-MLN1�LmfWL-ATIW ON SITE BFRTWATEeN6. s �'� \\ E. FNLL SE{TNC aF RELOCATED rffH 5.N1 BF cFTERroFP Wrtx TIE FPJ.MwC vARArE1ER5 N Mb \]ES-_1 A f1�fW ORICNAL OQEMAfION R TIER. EXGTNG N]RfH FAGTIO SUE a TOFF sNPLL BE NOaTN FAGNG 90E R toff TUN Audi DealershipG _A_PF ERB N UL.— 9393 Wayzata Boulevard A, P F a TRE 9 A BF A� 9 P r A PP 8 E 1D ry A,FGTP a MAN P P a a A�10 TA.P SPL G0� TO. AT. E _ 37,360 sq. ft. P. 1—B Re o� aEEN TKOEP AHP/oz PA.iBP GN 9rtE TACE CA 0 N=p1N6 TRH9 g0 MNMYE DAIIKE t0 1E94 L NEALTHTO OR r FCL� 1 7-TOOK TORE [` RE9POrHBIE HHI EPMAIFNT eE0.A Mr OFAPMACf9 T¢EE. 'AEL BE yae5�.� • � FFE=901.00 n NsvErnw ua cweA.rEe a aeLaATrn ra.Es neE ns PEr.Fo.uwscArE rEPHCATwre 1 20 Ail NSPVWIED OEC[Lq.6/GGNFERPUS T¢EH ARE TO Bt i4CrtY9 GF ALL OEK WPJP AEU FRaEO 10 W.NRAL AW LNF0R1 / PP 1e N N D a\ aola,s TREES Re.DGArzn.VLOFsreuvvENPLK—A-AREAS ARE rP BE farRED E-B'Feat ` n,E GRAND 10 iNf LWESi BfIAMEM / \ SPADE DIAMETER SPADE DEPTH \ W ,'CAIDfR 4- 30. AT / ,D - L 9 xu/ /. ` \\\ � j 5•cNFee 5D•INvn a.. 9E'-.a• j... \\ Q 6'GALGER 60'MMM PA 49'(PP1HK SPIRE) TO.rWN'YNi Gu. 5]'IPViF✓l 90AOE) FE s•evar�naE ce varE(trv) PORSCHE OF MINNEAPOLIS ((`'P rc.Fe�r wLE SieAv f:v.j` FFE-901.00 •� i v�� / ZZ ( EKN TREE 10 W.vE IEEE(9)B-0'STEFL STAKH sO.-H NAPLL 24,240 SF Bu�re_O aro ea TO se Pa1ce iaAme Srt NIEGY4NGALLY$OARED Hat EE /. • /moi d� m AANPE WOOF STALE SET ( •/ 9 CALF • �/ % .P MLC.TO 0.N CWiK1-TeLNK ATgb) ems/ 0.ININ0 90.(SEF SPECEfG 9 i Y LE BPGNG GaUtMTI /�/' �\�ei 1 MSTEM APLE � ``���• \ �� \®\ FC6�1NC 5_BORIDE j >F � ` I �� T A wAfcvca woes aH.acArnx W / £ E cw.af.novE aAvrAi e- nvna`ai�ReoeTss:°�'�'r ! A 9 c„A` V .�•/ i FLL u.t ACAs emasNc, I-ROOT ms 1 V �_ 9 JEG LNE l)YEAR AFTER OJWiRC,IONFOe \ ,/-11PRELIMINARY PUD le - ��/ H�Dva o°nwH➢ MAY 8.2014 l 11 SPADE-RELOCATION FOR CONIFEROUVDECIDUOUS TREE NOSE L A N 0 F O R M v /�� (irva • E cGCf �� S. lime / nE cAEF A ( V.) • (nOJ • \ / FI PLACt .T AS SHDWN ON RIN W.010 Fa- 612-ffiADri q I—— f12-ffiJON 90. (B2/5 1AKE 2 { 4 �+x RA0. P H °NBA CRU cD AGN P m RAW N PPP , ,uNco Q� �a TO LA.PxraE PLAN Fce �° (B,)s HA ':..I o yv cA�LF � _ FNSELn caADE E�avEa omnE aR1e eFo w""Ae'B1ro+I P E _ ° iNG aEGRADE EG CP SG l _.c•r,- :O NOTES. t (rrV.) vD99aE WnHarr ce reoYNc sel rocs 5 ` HOLHOEP 9LBORAOE ' �Q►�'��O p1A WA � p qq' SHRUB PLANTING 6'�T /I� ZA TA ® ENLAfd'aEP LANDSCAPE 7W 7�/1L11N1 , PLAN ._ 1 Dolt- .9m'Aram MORn+ � L-201 ICIIDW WHOP!® � w. 02019 Call m, youdig. 0 20 40 J I I Y I 3 BA BAKER ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTS I.SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 1 35 TELHO—6NN 53b2.130D HONE:012.938.8801 FAXE 612.998.5888 E Porsche of E a/FT Minneapolis 9191 WaymU Boulevard I Golden Valley,M 55426 © i 1 1 I I i New Construction 1 I I I anrr Faaa/wry llp MHp]Mt i 1 I I j n L_J L_J L_J I I I I I 1 L I _ '�•�' 'ir I l� ® � I ---------- 0 1 , D 1 I w• :I d 0 ~I I I 1 I 1 ® ® I L7=tW I — I r ti r ® 01—or B B I � I I I / _ --------- -- -�_ _____J _ N�o7le�W 5' A ewx A axnanoor YIOt FMt Floor Plan A-101 4 5 I H f 3 J I - I 3 I 4I i B L BA BARER ASSOCIATES.INC. ARCIIITECTS I.- F TH STREET 3[IIJNEAPOLIS.NN 5 310 3-1 30 0 TELEPHONE:813.3%.8901 F.Lti:813.330.3998 E E Porsche of Minneapolis 9191 Way—B9W9 d Gulden Valley,MN 55426 YY1 New Construction I,.rw.ync •royrw el.aual - - 0941wM © O Er D D El q.ir w �O.Mla91 II I I I I O C 0 Liu I 1I L I I i LJ A -------------------------------- 1 II II I I I I i t I I i t I I I I I I I I I I II II I 1 I I I I �wr i I cy�r I I I I I I sale. I I I I I I II II I II II I g II 1 I II I J II B II L I L____J I II J -- Gi NORIM v+ m 4 fA7a.P.pe A Bn A MNq/A001 �M� BlC011G FIOQ PIM A-102 -14 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I— lib Y N 44* 00, a otwi s fb Im Im a Ll w ® a - W II 3 yy pp pp 1 �l ,1 EM P � 1 I fi u9 g all w m -ji ZOI M city 0,f �a 11*410, golden MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 "60 Days" Deadline:July 7, 2014 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing- Ordinance#519 - Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) - 1001 Lilac Drive North - Max Zelayaran, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary Coinciding with his request to subdivide the property at 1001 Lilac Drive North,the Applicant is proposing to rezone the eastern portion of the lot from Single Family (R-1)to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in order to construct two twin homes. Residential properties to the north and west are zoned R-1, while two properties directly to the south across Lindsay Street are zoned R-2 and contain two twin homes. The proposed rezoning is not out of character with the neighboring properties and is consistent with the Low Density land use designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attachment • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2013 (5 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 2013 (1 page) • City Code Section 11.22: Medium Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District (4 pages) • Site Plan (1 page) • Official Zoning Map (1 page) • Ordinance#519, Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1)to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2), 1001 Lilac Drive North, Max Zelayaran, Applicant (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 519, Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1)to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2), 1001 Lilac Drive North, Max Zelayaran, Applicant. 1119 a 1102 1240 1231x 1230 1231 Alhk 1109 MP Y j.. - 1It 7 8 122o 123( +¢ x &.e 1221 12207u a ` 1 �y D 7600 53,0 : 1627 . . `.' Subject Property: 1700 72" _ 1R01 S 2 �r f200 1201 1001 Lilac Drive North P°^pflix5161 n 3 1U tyy 1190 1147 f 7,30 „31 tui /���� 1p 1130161 ` 1104 C..—•.-�� 7889 690 y620 ` to 3600 2 1120 1121 > 112 1,29 1121 o,` M40 7320 330011 p0 72110 Dth11 < "4L IU; 7607 t • N i� 1000 - 6607 ` 1w _ 5TJ6 \\ ThnU RU 25 £„x, �• 7341 3321; S7U1 5221 1041 1040 b vW � 75373533 55173323 "A �" 1020 L 30 z � . 1f 9t 8YO; 1025 >; • > % Fz^ 800 \ S 'tib z .----_.� __ � 1901 949 ""----_`_--.•_ � 1.`L � 933 c ta?E # s L-/ 921 920 901 Y,pOn --------------------- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 4 The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent d Purpose provision and all other D rdinance provisions. Conditio 1. The pla dated April 25, 2014 prepa d by LHB submitted ' the application shall become a fto of this approval. 2. The recomme tions and requirem is outlined in th emo from the Fire Department to M Grimes, Commu ity Developm ' Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become part o s approval. 3. The recommendations requirem , is outli d in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grime , Commu ity D elopment Director, dated May 23, 2014, shall become a part of this app val. 4. The implementation of the fire ac ss striping shall be completed:prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 5. The Applicant shall work with the ire `partment to reach an agreement regarding the timing for implementation he Fi a Pr65tgptionRlan prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 6. The Applicant shall constr t surface Itration (ra ngiardens) as part of the walkway construction authorized rider the Fin h PUD Plan. 7. The Applicant shall i all a stormwat r filtration chamber�within three years of the execution date of t Final PUD Plan. 8. The Applicant s I demolish the vacs t building located on PardeL5 and shall remove the s ary sewer up to the sin prior to,approval of the Fil I PUD Plan. 9. The Applica shall submit a revised. rking plan that meets accessibi requirem is with respect to the num; er and,location of handicapped pa g spaces to the s isfaction of the,City's Buildin Official prior to approval of the Final D Plan. 10.The al Plat shall include "P.U.D. N 114" in its title. 11.All -nage must meet the requirement of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 12. is approval is subject to all other sta , federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or aws with authority over this developm t. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Subdivision — 1001 Lilac Drive North —Golden V,alley:Homes,—,SU12-15 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Addresses: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing property which would allow for the construction of two new twin homes and one new single family home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 5 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes —ZO12-19 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Address: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To rezone a portion of the existing property from R-1 Single-Family residential to R-2 Moderate Density residential to allow for the construction of two twin homes. The Informal Public Hearing for Items 3 and 4 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the currently vacant lot it into five separate lots. One R-1 Single Family Residential lot would remain and four lots would be rezoned to R-2 Moderate Density Residential to allow for the construction of four twin home units. All of the proposed new lots meet the area requirements of the Zoning Code,; however, Lots 2 & 3 would be 116.43 feet wide instead of the required 120 feet:;The City is also requiring an additional 5-foot dedication of right-of-way to bring,LindsayStreet into compliance so the applicant is requesting an 8.57 foot variance to allow the width to be 111.43 feet. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal'as it is compatible with the two existing twin homes directly south across Lindsay Street and it is consistent with the density designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked if the property line between the two proposed R-2 lots could be moved further north in order to obtain additional lot width. Zimmerman stated that the lot to the north meets the width requirement and there isn't enough overall width to make both lots conform. Cera asked about the hardship for allowing Lot 2 to be smaller than required. Zimmerman stated that hardship doesn't have to be proven; the standard is to consider practical difficulties.:Cera questioned the process and asked which action has to happen first,the subdivision or the rezoning. Zimmerman stated that the two can be considered concurrently. Segelbaum asked how many lots could be created if the property remained R-1 Single Family residential. Zimmerman said there could possibly be three single family lots created.'He,added that the applicant could also have one single family lot and 1 twin home lot. Grimes stated that the City Code requires each unit to have its own sewer and water. Also, in order for each twin home to have a separate tax I.D. number, there needs to be a lot line through the middle of the two units and a covenant agreement in place. Max Zelayaran, Applicant, stated he is proposing to have one single family home and two, two-family homes, but he is willing to be flexible and build two single family homes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 6 and one two-family home. He stated that if he builds two twin homes there will be a chance for more families to live here. Kluchka asked the applicant if he can sell the size of house he is proposing right next to Highway 100. Zelayaran stated that there is a sound wall and that it is a very convenient and peaceful area. Waldhauser asked about the steep grade of the property. Zelayaran stated that the single family home will be set back further on the property and that the grade of the property isn't going to be a problem. Kluchka asked the applicant if he plans to build the houses and then sell them or to build custom homes, or to use the homes for rental properties. Zelayaran said that the homes will not be luxury homes. Baker asked the applicant if will sell;the vacant lots or if he intends to build the houses. Zelayaran said he plans to build the tingle family home first and see what happens with the market after that. t Cera asked the applicant if he had a neighborhood meeting. Zelayaran said no. Segelbaum asked about the price of the proposed homes. Zelayaran said the homes would be $180,000 to $200,000. Segelbaum asked the applicant how long he has owned the property. Zelayaran said he has owned the property for ten years. Segelbaum asked the applicant why he hasn't developed the property until now. Zelayaran said the economy was too bad. Kluchka asked the applicant when he wants to start construction. Zelayaran stated he'd like to start construction as soon as he gets approval. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said this property used to be a fire station and an area where kids played. He said the neighborhood is starting to turn over and there are no parks nearby, so he thinks this property would be good for a park, not for homes. He said there is freeway noise and it is going to be loud. He said he understands development, but he is opposed to two sets of twin homes because they become rentals which are not;always the best thing. He said he is also concerned about the grade of„the'lot and k �*6 cars backing out onto the frontage road. He said a neighborhood'meeting would have been nice and that he would prefer a single family home and one twin home. Ronald Garant,'5540 Lindsay Street, asked how the drainage for this proposed development would work because it sits a lot higher than his property and he doesn't want to get flooded out. He said he doesn't have too much against the proposal, but it seems that the property isn't big enough for all that is being proposed, He reiterated that his main concern is the drainage. Michael Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, said he is opposed to allowing two twin homes and he would rather see two single family homes and one twin home because there are already two twin homes across the street from this property that aren't being Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 7 maintained. Kluchka asked Garant if the existing twin homes on Lindsay are rental properties. Garant said yes. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street, said Lindsay Street is supposed to be reconstructed in 2016 and questioned if this proposal fits with those plans especially if the corner is straightened out. He stated that cars coming from the west screech around this corner and the lot to the north of this property is owned by MnDOT and doesn't get mowed. David O'Donnell, 1107 Welcome Avenue, said he doesn't like this project. He said he doesn't mind single family homes, but this is creating a neighborhood of,rentals and nobody is going to build their dream house next to a highway. He said he is also concerned about the traffic. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka questioned if this is the right place for R-2 zoning. Segelbaum stated that generally, changes in zoning should be done with longer range planning, with Comprehensive Plan updates or when a property can't be developed under its current zoning classification. He added that the area surrounding this proposal is mostly R-1. Zimmerman noted that R-1 and R-2 zoned properties are consistent with the low density Comprehensive Plan designation. Cera said he doesn't typically like "spot zoning" or rezoning property for a specific development, but questioned if building three homes in the $400,000 range would sell in this location. He stated that there are also many double bungalows that are owner occupied, not rentals. Kluchka agreed and stated that the City has stronger rental licensing laws than it has in the past. Grimes said he doesn't see this proposal as "spot zoning" because R-1: and R-2 properties are permitted in the low density category in the Comprehensive Plan. Waldhauser asked there,have been staff discussions about straightening out Lindsay Street. Zimmerman,said not to his knowledge. Baker asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Zimmerman stated that this application pre-dated the City's new neighborhood meeting policy. Kluchka.askedabout the drainage concerns mentioned by the neighbors. Zimmerman explained that the City has requirements about not adversely altering drainage during development. He said that a grading plan will be required during the building permit process. Grimes referred to the City Engineer's staff report and stated that each lot will be required to have separate stormwater management permits, and that the developer must be sure that existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts. Waldhauser said it is encouraging that the houses are in a more affordable range, but the traffic at the corner concerns her. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 8 Segelbaum said his preference would be to have the properties remain R-1 unless the applicant can show that the property is just not selling with the current zoning designation. Cera said there are other R-2 properties in this neighborhood and that this proposal may be a viable option. Baker said he agrees with Commissioners Waldhauser and Cera that it is important to provide a less expensive housing option. He said he appreciates the neighbor's concerns that these could be rental properties, but the City has no control over that. He added that he would have liked to have seen better communication with,tlhp: neighborhood. Grimes suggested that a turnaround driveway area be added so cars don't.have to back onto Lilac Drive. Waldhauser asked how that requirement could be attached to the property if someone builds there in the future. Grimes said the City can't require a turnaround driveway area, but it can be a recommendation. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Cathy and motion carried 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the Rezoning and Subdivision with Variance requests subject to.the following conditions. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no.. 1. A Variance regarding lot width is permitted for Lot,2 allowing it to be 111.43 feet in width instead of the required 120 feet. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issupnoe of any building permits. 4. A park dedication fee of'$1,6`00 sh=all be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 5. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 6. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 7. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 5. Informal Public Hear g — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Carousel utomobiles (Porsch Dealership) PUD #95, Amendment#3 App nt: Twin Citie Automotive (Porsche) Address: 191 Wa ata Blvd. Purpose: To a e construction of a new Porsche building. Zimmermanrefer to a sit p of the property and explained the applicant's request to amend th ' existing PUD o all for the construction of a new Porsche building in the exi i g parking lot locat d to the t of their Audi building. The proposed new b i ng would be two storie with a footp of 24,240 square feet. The first floor would e used for showroom spac sales offices, s ice areas and a car wash. The second city of Plannin De artment goldc' n MEMORANDUM valley g P 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 9, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Rezoning Petition— 1001 Lilac Drive North— Max Zelayaran, Applicant Background The Applicant, Max Zelayaran, is petitioning to rezone a portion of his lot at 1001 Lilac Drive North from Single Family(R-1) Residential Zoning District to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District. As part of his development plans, the Applicant intends to subdivide the existing 1.05 acre lot into three lots. The lot to the west would be 17,642 square feet and would remain as a single family home; the two lots to the east (15,149 square feet and 13,014 square feet)would be rezoned and two twin homes would be constructed. These twin homes would be subdivided further with zero lot lines through the structures and properties, resulting in a total of five lots at this location. Residential properties to the north and west are zoned R-1, while two properties directly to the south across Lindsay Street are zoned R-2 and contain two twin homes. To the west, Lilac Drive North separates the property from Highway 100. The proposed rezoning is not out of character with the neighboring properties and is consistent with the Low Density land use designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning Petition, rezoning the easternmost portion of 1001 Lilac Drive North from Single Family (R-1) Residential Zoning District to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District in order to accommodate the future development of two twin homes. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District Section of City Code (4 pages) Site Plan (1 page) Official Zoning Map (1 page) § 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 of 4 § 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 Residential 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 S. 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. 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. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 4 § 11.22 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 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 Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 4 § 11.22 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 H. Photovoltaic Modules. Free-standing Photovoltaic modules, including solar panels and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three (3) square feet shall meet the same setback, location and height requirements as accessory structures. Source: Ordinance No. 443, 2nd Series Effective Date: 8-13-10 Subdivision 12. Garden Structures Garden Structures shall be located no closer than five (5) feet to any property line. Garden Structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. Source: Ordinance No. 433, 2nd Series Effective Date: 2-26-10 Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OF~ GOLDEN VALLEY HOMES -for- Max Zelayaran I ; JIB -; E PROPERTY DESCRIPTION E Commencing at a point of the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, t `�"1, 1I _ ,,; \ •�� , to Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast comer of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; 111 1 - thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to �. ` 1 °O said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet thence a1 right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, occixding to the United 4; - °7a States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. a . '` to I 1 Y , 4 ^91 W Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Deportment of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. i 11 -Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.' A/ 1 Q I � z I NORTH - 4 ar 211.59 -. .� S89°48'57"W ------------ I ` - ---12136- ------ 6t.00 o r•vna 9to' tao 59 e ' 1«1 IF ` 1 - mw+wtlm LOU)iiea- - - - _ -_ norm 1. a+am.nt Inv,10 300 r-ya'maeom�l.ne.�(earyaaJ ( _._...) - __ `_. Me.o.e -to �In..-6na...l ,� GRAPHIC SCALE BENCHMARK '-`4` I 6 ,o I W 1 �_ t.. 6 c _ ' i1 . BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS ,` 7 ..'•x'..�r _ _ {�[ t ``�D+ MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA ���1• r x - _n DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION VRSNETWORK) +`,, t�v', _ i ,'+.' n IN FEET)It BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY M t COORDINATE SYSTEM. ' R2 Lot oz9 i Twin Home n > N > N� IF r 17,6423'q.fL (a4o ec«) 3 Top tae My m _ © I --. -.- -t7 0143«sq.ft:- --067.12 I L (o.ao a «) J 10 LEGEND I 1 I • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND f� �/ aw 29.69 O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET © t0 *ewe DENOTES UTILITY BOX 1 �.- O DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE I Q DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN - pQ DENOTES GATE VALVE c o DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT h - R2 Lot N m . . DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR I Ig $ - Twin Home.1 Y C o 1` R1 Lot - z t •n- DENOTES OVERHEAD MARE O ISlaIll�Htwe• 1 1493 aq.R DENOTES SANITARY �: \ 5_. ->r--DENOTES STORM SEWER 'x10n.s DENOTES EXISTING SEWER 10N. \ _II- r �'o .17 _x-DENOTES EXISTING FENCE d DENOTES BITUMINOUS \ - - 6 61 - - - - _ - d. v DENOTES CONCRETE \ 4f° a ' L vM 1 o ,Qe{M• 1 An 1 W Is"' 47 \ 8n" '• on. a„ + _ 121.J6 \e\ Ino, I. a. - 61.00 S8 8'57" 16 .89 `,rI89°51'32„E -- - - Mo'"e 0p,P�os+n9�P / Development Data: \ \ xb" \ LINDSAY STREET� Ivoo°os'3s W in ; i -Proposed Zoning-RI lot(Lot 1) 1 in,-871.01• %09,5 %09,9 %0829 %8019 %004 %Bg'9A RI Requirements Nv.-674.1• aMlmmum Let Area 10,000 sq fl. a"ciP w ter Motn _1. --y,�=iis+ -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50% -Setback Requirements: e\ Front Setback=35' - 78.29 Decks and porches with no screens=30' �� - ' -- ---- - ------ `lop Hui-e-5 < �� °' -�-- -Itp9.6s -Rear Yard Setback=20%of Int depth < < •Side Yard Setback=12.5'for structures 15'm height or less r^- 4.31 -vCP Sewer Mo; hY 877.69 VC Sewer Main v.-674.31 Y+v.-07Q79 -Side Yard Setback=high. 0.5'(each additional I foot in height over IS'feet high. \ n -Proposed Zoning-R2(Lot's 2&3) I n -R2 Requirements: I -Minimum Lot Area=11,000 sq.fl. -Minimum Lot Width=100' Ex.Nou« Ex.Hou« Ex.Hau« ErzMtwiN -Impen sous surface shall not exceed 50% -Setback Requirements: i• t r !; /j,v I -Front Setback=35' -Decks and porches with no screens=30' -Rear Yard Setback=20%of lot depth ' t , "lr1lirl �l.i Side Yard Setback=15' -Overall Area=46,095±sq.R.(1.06 acres) -Existing Zoning=Single Family Residential(RI) I NOTES -Field survey completed 04/01/14. I Rev.05/08/14, add easements I hereby certify that this survey, pion or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under DRAWN BY.ERV JOB N0: 1412461 DATE:04/10/14 the laws of the State of Minnesota. CHECK Br: ery SCANNED❑ ACRE LAND SURVEYING;; 05/08/14 add easements ERV T'WYI (d•VC z os/zs/14 my comment letter os/18 ERv ERIC R.VICKARYOUS 2 3 7 -28 7 acrelandsurve(Og ail. o J�#14�4 No. DATE DEscRIPnaN er Date:Aorll 11th.2014 Reg.No. 44125 G\Lona Projects 2008\14124rax-\dw0V4124bt.dttg 5/29/2014 1204-04 PM CDT 4-1 xa� r'1 N 1 E E V '^c u .�.y p € E 8 4-j N N - p y 'E = v N ens"B�x N = d� ry'1`y�, Mn o 42 i�t9� tceF M t� y,..vr,,.,,.,y 9�•}V^�xfi _CNn•.J_ �.0,x�F��!°.e cO>r•-„C •,� 3 y .�m Io" xC x4 �+ey�x/�iE_•�ip,B8`o,`.R,,aoa'/a.�.aa�:at z x >C..�-..` Ia w_"`JQa.jJ9 nQ,• _n f���lA1IIffioSIS'j39I` J'b - C5�tiI,xa nmt,zVq-WWN,. ` , ,ru g1-0 W Q) Q 'mo A _ No c b 0oEPar ' C Z( Cn (n� Cn v C oO U o - 0!zp^^ II i�aiI7 { ,Y +4, 4Nz -WVoI? Bs 2 ¢ Cn O f WL)� „ o ; O oCL w zD Q~OozO ZON � O '`o> IN 1pd\' NNI1,11 30 LlIJ SI1OdV9NNIW30 [lIJ MAMF p SI10dV9NNIWdO ILI.2 41VUSNIa90u 71 ,.'- --------------— 1V.LSlBJ30.lTJ p ...... 'EMEN111 RM ■m . am zp s ' o u ^ x.• 'E'- s j, H.LIIO1Yi1d 30,CliJ c � '- ' ,% Illrlowxl�a�„ Ixxtla SIR07'is' - � � _ oma U S iO AlIJ 30 AlIJ c o - m o a US�U'n� ORDINANCE NO. 519, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) 1001 Lilac Drive North Max Zelayaran, 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, by changing the zoning designation of the easternmost 129.69 feet of certain tracts of land from Single Family Residential 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: Commencing at a point on the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast corner of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part of the above- described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. 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 1 st day of July, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city 0 go lden MEMORANDUM �T,`, .,' Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 4. D. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat Approval -Golden Valley Homes- 1001 Lilac Drive North Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the June 9, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of a subdivision of the property located at 1001 Lilac Drive North (Golden Valley Homes). The proposal would create five lots from the existing 1.05 acre lot-one single family lot and two twin home lots which would utilize zero lot lines for further subdivision as allowed under Subdivision 2 of the Subdivision Code. One lot requires a variance from the corner lot width requirements outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code. Staff believes the requested variance is acceptable in that it allows for two twin homes to be constructed in an area that is accommodating of additional density. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2014 (5 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from the Public Works Department dated June 2, 2014 (4 pages) • Site Plans (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Golden Valley Homes, 1001 Lilac Drive North, 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. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. A park dedication fee of$1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 5. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 6. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Further, the City Council approves a waiver from Section 12:20, Subd. 5(B) of City Code, finding that: • The proposed Lot 2 would measure 116.43 feet in width along the east front setback line. • A required 5 foot right-of-way dedication would reduce that width to 111.43 feet. • Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(B) of City Code requires that corner lots in the R-2 zoning district measure at least 120 feet in width along the front setback lines. • Reducing the corner lot width requirement by 8.57 feet allows for the construction of a twin home which is consistent with other uses in the area and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Ila ... Itre 1 / iil .'�'. Y102.. .. -..1240 1281 Taf A w Y 7108 ° 11,0#7 0 2 -7220" 1255 .s•. '-q� &'�C',' "1105 Cr .^'.,�\ ^ G` p,m 7221 5600 Subject Property: z720o �. l' • PhOkY11X=uI G -' 1001 Lilac Drive North 10 11-01 t 1 1131 1130 1131 1130 1137 Kms.•.•-1 3880 3040 3820 2 t 3800 r 1720 7121 h. 1120 1121 1110 . 4irldsay 5l s,.- 5340 3340 5320 $300 1100 3200 110 }l 384,S y.3625 5E.�07�p • ,y i 70a0 - 5 Thotiand Rd 5341 5311 X01 5221 1041 1040 5537 533 i53- 27532 I 1030101, ..a. 010 �._.._-._._.......-. �' � 1 7025 z� � ♦ ieaNil 940 , 931 0 93 1I 9 Jj 921 20 ""'_-+.,_� �_^+-•�"".'_ i.rfOc Loo 801 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 4 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Int nt and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Co ditions 1. T plans dated April 25, 2014 pre ared by LHB submitted with the�p kation shall beco e a part of this approval. 2. The red Tmendations and require ents outlined in the memo-from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development DiGre 'or, dated May 19, 2014, shall become rt of this approval. 3. The recommend Vons and requirgments outlined in4 a memo from the Public Works Department to Mark rimes, Community Develgpfnent Director, dated May 23, 2014, shall become a part oft approval. A , 4. The implementation of the Np access restrromg shall be completed;prior to Final PUD Plan approval. „"' 5. The Applicant shall work with the re`'Department to reach an agreement regarding the timing for implementation of+� _ a Protection Plan prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 6. The Applicant shall construgsurf ce filtra ' n (rain gardens)as part of the walkway construction authorized uderthe,;Final PUD n. 7. The Applicant shall ins a'll a storm mater filtration amber within three years of the execution date of tZemolish final PUD F+.Ian. 8. The Applicant sh the vacant building locate' ' n Parcel 5 and shall remove the san ry sewer up to t o main.prior toapproval the Final PUD Plan. 9. The Applicant hall submit a revised parking plan that meets a . ssibility requireme t2i with respect to the umber and location of handicap d parking spaces to the sa ' faction of the City's Bu ding Official prior to approval of the nal PUD Plan. 10.The Fi. I Plat shall include "P.U. No. 114" in its title. 11.All s' nage must meet the require ents of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 12.T approval is subject to all oth state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or s with authority over this Bevel pment. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Subdivision — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes;- SU12-15 Applicant: ; Max Zelayaran Addresses: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing property which would allow for the construction of two new twin homes and one new single family home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 5 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes —ZO12-19 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Address: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To rezone a portion of the existing property from R-1 Single-Family residential to R-2 Moderate Density residential to allow,for the construction of two twin homes. The Informal Public Hearing for Items 3 and 4 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the currently vacant lot it into five separate lots. One R-1 Single Family Residential lot would remain and four lots would be rezoned to R-2 Moderate Density Residential to allow for the construction of four twin home units. All of the proposed new lots meet the area requirements of the Zoning Code; however, Lots 2 & 3 would be 116.43 feet wide instead of the required 120 feet. The City is also requiring an additional 5-foot dedication of right-of-way to bring Lindsay Street into compliance so the applicant is requesting an 8.57 foot variance to allow the width to be 111.43 feet. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal as it is compatible with the two existing twin homes directly south across Lindsay Street and it is consistent with the density designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked if the property line between the two proposed R-2 lots could be moved further north in order to obtain additional lot width. Zimmerman stated that the lot to the north meets the width requirement and there isn't enough overall width to make both lots conform. Cera asked about the=hardship for allowing Lot 2 to be smaller than required. Zimmerman stated that hardship doesn't have to be proven; the standard is to consider practical difficulties. Cera questioned the process and asked which action has to happen first, the subdivision or the rezoning. Zimmerman stated that the two can be considered concurrently. Segelbaum asked how many lots could be created if the property remained R-1 Single Family residential. Zimmerman said there could possibly be three single family lots created. He added that the applicant could also have one single family lot and 1 twin home lot. Grimes stated that the City Code requires each unit to have its own sewer and water. Also, in order for each twin home to have a separate tax I.D. number, there needs to be a lot line through the middle of the two units and a covenant agreement in place. Max Zelayaran, Applicant, stated he is proposing to have one single family home and two, two-family homes, but he is willing to be flexible and build two single family homes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 6 and one two-family home. He stated that if he builds two twin homes there will be a chance for more families to live here. Kluchka asked the applicant if he can sell the size of house he is proposing right next to Highway 100. Zelayaran stated that there is a sound wall and that it is a very convenient and peaceful area. Waldhauser asked about the steep grade of the property. Zelayaran stated that the single family home will be set back further on the property and that the grade of the property isn't going to be a problem. Kluchka asked the applicant if he plans to build the houses and then sell them or to build custom homes, or to use the homes for rental properties. Zelayaran said that the homes will not be luxury homes. Baker asked the applicant if will sell the vacant lots or if he intends to build the houses. Zelayaran said he plans to build thesingle family home first and see what happens with the market after that. Cera asked the applicant if he had a neighborhood mbeting. Zelayaran said no. Segelbaum asked about the price of the proposed homes. Zelayaran said the homes would be $180,000 to $200,000. Segelbaum asked the applicant how long he has owned the property. Zelayaran said he has owned the property for ten years. Segelbaum asked the applicant why he hasn't developed the property until now. Zelayaran said the economy was too bad. Kluchka asked the applicant when he wants to start construction. Zelayaran stated he'd like to start construction as soon as he gets approval. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said this property used to be a fire station and an area where kids,played. He said the neighborhood is starting to turn over and there are no parks nearby,'so he thinks,this property would be good for a park, not for homes. He said there is freeway noise and it is going to be loud. He said he understands development, but he is opposed to two sets of twin homes because they become rentals which are not always the best thing. He said he is also concerned about the grade of the lot and having cars backing out onto the frontage road. He said a neighborhood meeting would have been nice and that he would prefer a single family home and one twin,home. Ronald Garant,,5540 Lindsay Street, asked how the drainage for this proposed development would work because it sits a lot higher than his property and he doesn't want to get flooded out. He said he doesn't have too much against the proposal, but it seems that the property isn't big enough for all that is being proposed, He reiterated that his main concern is the drainage. Michael Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, said he is opposed to allowing two twin homes and he would rather see two single family homes and one twin home because there are already two twin homes across the street from this property that aren't being Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 7 maintained. Kluchka asked Garant if the existing twin homes on Lindsay are rental properties. Garant said yes. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street, said Lindsay Street is supposed to be reconstructed in 2016 and questioned if this proposal fits with those plans especially if the corner is straightened out. He stated that cars coming from the west screech around this corner and the lot to the north of this property is owned by MnDOT and doesn't get mowed. David O'Donnell, 1107 Welcome Avenue, said he doesn't like this project. He said he doesn't mind single family homes, but this is creating a neighborhood of rentals and nobody is going to build their dream house next to a highway. He-said he is also concerned about the traffic. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka questioned if this is the right place for R-2 zoning. 'Segelbaum stated that generally, changes in zoning should be done with longer range planning, with Comprehensive Plan updates or when a property can't be developed under its current zoning classification. He added that the area surrounding this proposal is mostly R-1. Zimmerman noted that R-1 and R-2 zoned properties are consistent with the low density Comprehensive Plan designation. Cera said he doesn't typically like"spot zoning" or rezoning property for a specific development, but questioned if bulding.three homes in the $400,000 range would sell in this location. He stated that there are also many double bungalows that are owner occupied, not rentals. Kluchka agreed and stated that the City has stronger rental licensing laws than it has in the past. Grimes said he doesn't see this proposal as "spot zoning" because R-1 and R-2 properties are permitted in the low density category in the Comprehensive Plan. Waldhauser asked there have been staff discussions about straightening out Lindsay Street. Zimmerman said<not to his knowledge. Baker asked ifa.neig bo°rhood meeting was held. Zimmerman stated that this application pre-dated the City's new neighborhood meeting policy. Kluchka asked about the drainage concerns mentioned by the neighbors. Zimmerman explained that the City has requirements about not adversely altering drainage during development. He said that a grading plan will be required during the building permit process. Grimes referred to the City Engineer's staff report and stated that each lot will be required to have separate stormwater management permits, and that the developer must be sure that existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts. Waldhauser said it is encouraging that the houses are in a more affordable range, but the traffic at the corner concerns her. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 8 Segelbaum said his preference would be to have the properties remain R-1 unless the applicant can show that the property is just not selling with the current zoning designation. Cera said there are other R-2 properties in this neighborhood and that this proposal may be a viable option. Baker said he agrees with Commissioners Waldhauser and Cera that it is important to provide a less expensive housing option. He said he appreciates the neighbor's concerns that these could be rental properties, but the City has no control over that. He added that he would have liked to have seen better communication with.the,,, . neighborhood. Grimes suggested that a turnaround driveway area be added so cars don't have to back onto Lilac Drive. Waldhauser asked how that requirement could, be attached,to the property if someone builds there in the future. Grimes said the City can't require a turnaround driveway area, but it can be a recommendation. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Cathy and motion carried 4.to 1 to recommend approval of the Rezoning and Subdivision with Variance requests.subject tolhe following conditions. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no.' 1. A Variance regarding lot width is permitted for Lot 2 allowing it to be 111.43 feet in width instead of the required 120 feet. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to theissuance of any building permits. 4. A park dedication fee of$1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 5. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 6. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 7. All applicable City perrriat ,shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Informal Public Hearing Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Carousel Automobiles (Porsche alership) PUD #95, Amendment#3 Ap ant: Twin Cities tomotive (Porsc Address: 1 Wayz a BI Purpose: To all a construction of a new Porsche building. Zimmerman re fe - to a sit plan of th operty and explained the applicant's request to amend t existing PUD o allow for the struction of a new Porsche building in the exis ' parking lot loca d to the west of thea di building. The proposed new buil i g would be two stori with a footprint of 24,240 a e feet. The first floor would used for showroom spa , sales offices, service areas and a car wash. The second city 0rf 0 goldcn .1�rMEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 9, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Subdivision of 1001 Lilac Drive North —Max Zelayaran, Applicant 3: ..x.+..."s Summary of Request The Applicant, Max Zelayaran, is proposing to subdivide his vacant property located at 1001 Lilac Drive North to create five new lots. It is bounded to the south by Lindsay Street and to the east by Lilac Drive North. Highway 100 is located just east of Lilac Drive. Design Features of the Subdivision As part of his development plans, the Applicant intends to subdivide the existing 1.05 acre lot into three lots. The lot to the west would remain as a single family home; the two lots to the east would be rezoned and two twin homes would be constructed. These twin homes would be subdivided further with zero lot lines through the structures and properties, resulting in a total of five lots at this location. The single family home and one of the twin home lots would have access from Lindsay Street;the other twin home lot would have access from Lilac Drive. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the Single Family (R-1) Residential Zoning District. Lot 1 to the west would be 17,642 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of frontage at the front setback line and 80 feet of mean width. Lot 1 would have 81 feet of frontage at the front setback line and 81 feet of mean width. In the Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District, City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 11,000 square feet. Lots 2 and 3 would be 15,149 square feet and 13,014 square feet respectively. In the R-2 Zoning District, City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 100 feet of frontage at the front setback line. As proposed, Lot 2, a corner lot, would have 116.43 feet of frontage at one front setback line and 128.63 feet of frontage at the other. Lot 3 would have 100 feet of frontage. Under the City's Subdivision Code, corner lots must have an additional 20 feet of width. Lot 2 is a corner lot and as proposed would be 3.57 feet short of the required 120 feet along the east property line. The Applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting to further subdivide Lots 2 and 3 in order to split the two proposed twin homes and provide individual ownership of each of the four units, as allowed under Subdivision 5 of the Subdivision Code. Each of the properties and structures would be split into two substantially equal sections and a "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" has been submitted for each property for review. Qualifications Governing Approval as a Subdivision According to Section 12.12 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of subdivisions: 1. The Council may require such changes or revisions as it deems necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the City. 2. The approval of a preliminary plat is tentative only, involving merely the general acceptability of the layout as submitted. 3. Prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the Council, approval by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction will be required of the engineering proposals pertaining to water supply, storm drainage, sewerage and sewage disposal, roadway widths and the surfacing of streets. 4. No plat will be approved for subdivision which covers an area subject to periodic flooding or which contains extremely poor drainage facilities and which would make adequate drainage of the streets and lots difficult or impossible, unless the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area completely safe for occupancy, and provide adequate street and lot drainage. 5. No plat will be approved for subdivision that does not meet the requirements specified in Section 12.20, Minimum Subdivision Design Standards, and Section 12.30, Public Sites and Open Spaces. Variance Request The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: • Section 12.20, Subd. 5 Lots City Code requires corner lots be platted at least 20 feet wider than the required minimum lot width. The Applicant is requesting 3.57 feet off of the required 120 feet to a width of 116.43 feet for Lot 2. Public Works, in their memo dated June 2, 2014, has indicated that an additional 5 feet of right-of- way will be required to be dedicated to the City along Lindsay Street in order to meet the width requirements for collector streets. This further reduces the proposed width of Lot 2 to 111.43 feet, requiring a variance of 8.57 feet off of the required 120 feet. The City may grant variances from the Subdivision Code if all of the following conditions outlined in Section 12.54 of the City Code exist: 1. There are special circumstances that would create unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Staff believes the requested variance is acceptable in that it allows for two twin homes to be constructed in an area that is accommodating of additional density. Although right-of-way would be required to be dedicated to the City, reducing the width of Lot 2, it is unlikely that traffic levels would rise to a level that would necessitate the expansion of Lindsay Street. The construction of the two twin homes would be consistent with the existing twin homes located on the south side of Lindsay Street and the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff Findings Staff has reviewed the request for the subdivision and finds it to be acceptable. The proposed subdivision would create five new lots consisting of one single family home and two twin homes. These lots meet all of the requirements for lots in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Lot 2 fails to meet the additional lot width requirement for corner lots as required by the Subdivision Code, but Staff finds the Applicant's variance request to be acceptable. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision 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. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. A park dedication fee of$1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 5. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 6. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from Public Works Department, dated June 2, 2014 (4 pages) Site Plans (3 pages) city 0f Aden 4 MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: June 2, 2014 To: 1,dark Grimes, Director of Community Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist ri Subject: Minor Subdivision Review—Golden Valley Homes—1001 Lilac Drive North Public Works staff has reviewed plans for the minor subdivision of the property located at 1001 Lilac Drive North. The development is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lilac Drive North and Lindsay Street. The comments contained in this review are based on plans submitted to the City on May 8, 2014. Site Plan and Access The Developer proposes to subdivide the subject property into three parcels. Lot 1 is a single family home located on the west side of the development, with access onto Lindsay Street. Lot 2 is a twin home located on the corner of Lilac and Lindsay, with access onto Lindsay Street. Lot 3 is a twin home located in the northeast portion of the development, with access onto Lilac Drive. The driveways for each set of twin homes will be combined, but the water and sewer services will be separate. The final design and location of the driveways will be determined at the time of permitting for home construction. The new driveways must meet City standards including the installation of concrete aprons. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. Preliminary Plat The property proposed for development is not part of a previous plat, and the City has no record of public easements located within the boundaries of the development. The Developer has submitted a preliminary plat called Golden Valley Homes and is proposing to dedicate public drainage and utility easements. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and 12-foot easements centered on all interior lot lines. The final plat for this development must include easements on all property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo_PW_MinorSubdivision_Review.docx The existing right-of-way width of Lindsay Street is 60 feet. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 70 feet of street right-of-way width for collector streets. Lindsay Street is a municipal state aid street and a major collector in the City's roadway functional classification system. A total of 10 feet of right-of-way is needed, 5 feet on each side of Lindsay Street,to fulfill the width requirement. The final plat for Golden Valley Homes must show a dedication of 5 feet of additional right-of-way adjacent to Lindsay Street in order to meet this requirement. Utilities The City's water and sanitary sewer systems that provide service to these properties have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The Developer has submitted a preliminary grading and utility plan which demonstrates that water and sewer services can be extended into the properties to serve the proposed homes. Final details regarding the locations of these services will be determined at the time of permitting. The sanitary sewer service to the south half of Lot 3 crosses under the shared driveway and also under the north half of the duplex property. The location of the sewer service and maintenance responsibility must be outlined in the documents being prepared by the Developer for each duplex property. Alternatively, the Developer may draft and record a private sanitary sewer easement between owners of the south half and north half of Lot 3. Before any permits are issued by the City, the Developer must submit to the City a copy of the document describing the easement/agreement and maintenance responsibility for the sewer service. City records show that the sanitary sewer main along Lindsay Street is located within a public easement in the boulevard south of the street. The Developer should consider moving the west sewer service connection for Lot 2 to the west in order to avoid the driveway at 5525 Lindsay Street. The plans show the excavation of both Lilac Drive and Lindsay Street in order construct the utility services. Right-of-Way Management Permits are required for each excavation to ensure that streets and boulevards are restored in accordance with City standards. The City has a Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction Ordinance. All sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. Grading and Stormwater Management The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. However, due to the size of the development,the project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water for nutrients (phosphorus) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Review of this development by the City will include an evaluation for compliance with the Sweeney Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan.The Developer is encouraged to incorporate permanent stormwater best management practices, such as rain gardens, sand filters, or vegetated swales, into the site design to help the City meet its phosphorus reduction goals for Sweeney Lake. G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo_PW_MinorSubdivision_Review.docx The Developer has submitted a preliminary grading and utility plan for the development.The plan shows little change in the overall site grades. However, the development sits several feet higher than the adjacent properties to the west and north. Therefore,the Developer and contractor must ensure that the existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts during and after construction. The Developer or contractor will be required to obtain separate City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permits for each lot at the time of permitting for home construction. A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of each Stormwater Management Permit submittal. City records show that the City has storm sewer facilities within Lilac Drive near the development, including a catch basin on the west side of Lilac Drive near the lot line between Lots 2 and 3. Staff recommends that the Developer install drain tile along Lilac Drive, connect it to the City's catch basin, and provide stubs to serve future sump pump discharge from Lots 2 and 3. Although there is no storm sewer within Lindsay Street in this area, a drain tile could also be extended west to Lot 1 through the drainage and utility easement, if necessary. This development is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of this permit must be provided to the City, prior to issuance of any permits to begin work on site. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance.The survey submitted by the Developer shows there are no trees on the property. The City Forester will visit the site and review the plans in more detail to determine whether Tree Preservation permits are required for each lot. Recommendation Based upon a review of the materials submitted by the Developer, Public Works staff recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision of 1001 Lilac Drive called Golden Valley Homes, subject to the comments contained in this review, summarized as follows: 1. The Developer must dedicate drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The Developer must dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way adjacent to Lindsay Street in order to meet the right-of-way width requirement for collector streets, as discussed in this review. 3. The Developer must submit to the City a copy of the document describing the easement/agreement and maintenance responsibility for the sewer service to the south duplex unit on Lot 3 as discussed in this review. 4. The Developer must consider moving the west sewer service connection for Lot 2 to the west in order to avoid the driveway at 5525 Lindsay Street. 5. All sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo_PW_MinorSubdivision Review.docx 6. The Developer is encouraged to incorporate permanent stormwater best management practices, such as rain gardens, sand filters, or vegetated swales, into the site design,to assist the City in meeting its phosphorus reduction goals for Sweeney Lake. 7. Staff recommends the Developer install drain tile along Lilac Drive, connect it to the City's catch basin, and provide stubs to serve future sump pump discharge from the homes. 8. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail to determine if Tree Preservation permits are required for each lot. 9. The Developer must obtain Stormwater Management, Right-of-Way Management, Tree Preservation, and Sewer and Water permits, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other agencies. Please feel free to call the Public Works Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mitch Hoeft, PE, Utilities Engineer Mark Ray, PE, Street Maintenance Supervisor Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer John Crelly, Fire Chief Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Finance Director G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo_PW_Minorsubdivision_Review.docx BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Property Address: 1001 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, MN -for- Max Zelayaran I � --------------- s - _I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Commencing at a point on the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast comer of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; •�` / *BB'B n3 E uv y thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to t'�y 1 *BBZD r-. said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; *ABB a °1 thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. �- Z Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department _ 3 see ' T`+ of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. *pO�B B+s e`" a. ` �I *Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.' W4 *� 11 A* am � NORTH 1 tL�r*Be.z *BBB.' o-S89°4f;5TW BBB" 211.59 pOB� ------ ------ z n , BB,? BBBB I e00B Found � BBB.z came YNDOT 'u o ' r=_I BBB? tio'awxix•aria%Kead,n<v) tewd,t.ao7 tHo.-t P" -2 BENCHMARK .. ;%• BBB` b BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD RR(VIA REAL TIME GPS <"� -/ r'1`. 8 `�* GRAPHIC SCALE MLASURHMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA ,�/ +"�,``-� *BBBB ' , -� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY 1:.", - x802? -. u Q ( h FEET) M I COORDINATE SYSTEM. 1 inch = 30 it. 5 115 Tap wt Hywmt tBOBB 55n7 *Bi. Bp7.12 +� BCAPBPV 1 ,9 *888 fes`.-t`�� LEGEND *BB„ kBe 0 • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND ��PPP,.V 1G' OO O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET 1 ,� U DENOTES UTILITY BOX 5 DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE �a�e .1.c i`p01 1c ® DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE ' -� xBBZB \�1? �` ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN p4 DENOTES GATE VALVE N i DENOTES FIRE HYDRANTo DENOTES EAST1NG CONTOURc0a anPPiz y' I B z .e9z°8912* p 9 i �B• DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE \ C z / *BBi.B BBB.9* e0ss'. i N. 03s -> 4. DENOTES SANITARY SEWER �%sx�\ aBppaPPPA ++ >r--DENOTES STORM SEWER yBe.� \ Rq�x� ,5 i5 *B,°°s .x 'e +- 13 DENOTES EXISTING FENCE .1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. DENOTES GRAVEL 9><drwy 9.5><erwy., ........ p9,zP 001e i a' - \/� Lie �1 ' *BB° 9eDENOTES CONCRETE \ ? B �� ` e..... = 1z1.ae——eee `. g°51'32"TSB + B++ NJ \\M m x01 BB°BB1ea,z 001'889° 8'57"W 9c' se4 16289 a \ e 1C 3 6�'� a, ' 805+ LINDSAY S`42EET� �©o os3s�w.., �t RI— W-01• In-874.1- NOTES -Field survey completed 04/01/14. 1`s1 .eeS J 1 1. eB 9 ee,� BBQ+BB,. 08g5 9� A 1 We, ae, Bec c t een. BB 0 Tcz .c ° �TBp Nut Nldrant BCB • .876�9. �B % \� -__ -__-___- .89.85 < < BB 5\ Yn•l81.J1 i8"VCP Sewer Moi Rim-887.89 , < 8"VCP<5<wer Main a.51 v..874.31 1,..875.39 BBQ ^ eee, �., B 3 6B ? " mem B"0 ,B 0 1 eez? BBz? mb gej0 BB•0 Ex.Hcuse BB 1 Ex.Houw -House Ex.Hause I I 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY:ERV JOB NO: 1412461 DATE:D4/10/14 ACRE LAND SURVEYING;' CHECK BY: ery SCANNED❑ ��v7Z Twi1 M�� - •' 1 05/08/14 REVISE BOUNDARY ERV ERIC R. VICKARYOUS vim•-•\IvN•Rd bsy011d z 783.4-2997 acrelandstrve 40 all. o 3 Date:Aoril 11th.2014 Reg.No. 44125 Job*14124 N0. DATE DESCRRTION Br O\LSnd Protects 2008\14124nox-\deg\34124bt.tlep 5/8/2014 124140 PN CDT PRELIMINARY PLAT -OF~ GOLDEN VALLEY HOMES -for- Max Zelayaran I � a € E PROPERTY DESCRIPTION r _ I E`•yt• n t of the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township iib, Commencing at a poinSouth of Northeast comer o1 - i Range 2t, 835.9 feet f said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; r_ .•'J 1 - 9 thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; r _J thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, occording to the United •tYi; �, States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. nra�•n Al- " Except that part of the above—described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. 1 -Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.• NORTH —.—.— ' S89°48'57'VV 21159 o Found I&VOT 13069 m ,: r ,_ 121.38 0 81.00 — — — — pp8eTT 1 �h9ok fma ttwonument'CappW mmumeneep►•d iRYn�883.80 t ,(b°d t J I. t.mq (Ne.a9Y)I 10 W.-M.2 16 10 GRAPHIC W G A SCALE 120 BENCHMARK ,_ 1., ` 6 BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS `,•y J ^.`x•ter !' �� t `•, MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA •• a r '-- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) •• •• r-x•� I i - ( IN FEET) v r'xv�1 I S I �I `.`•yJ _ 1 inch= 30 ft. BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM. r n4 C M y I TwIn Lot N Home a ti \ 17,642±eq.fL 3W Net H7�rwi (0.40 aeras) 13"M4Y-eq:fL T-Netts —(0.30 acres) — _J 10 LEGEND m — — _ • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND 29.69 o - m ; O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET I . - - - - -; - - - , * eo. `1 ` © DENOTES UTILITY BOX I 6 f .. +' z \ -n 10 9) DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 0 DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN p4 DENOTES GATE VALVE J a DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT I— R2 Lot o ".DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR r, Twin Hame m i' \ p .. Single Hauw $ 1,149±eq•fL m z °n•-DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE \ I( �I 2 `' - (b.35 aeras) • —>—DENOTES SANITARY SEWER - ->�—DENOTES STORM SEWER \ ems' �• \ i ���' .-.I'>.. ", �.aB .t3 „ —*—DENOTES EXISTING FENCE •1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. r \\ DENOTES BITUMINOUS \�< \ g ,\ \,` 8 61 _ - - - - - - - - - DENOTES CONCRETE \ \ „y - S - - J L- - J 10 ,yw f1Yn.8ea47 s \ kT 6n t n. °n. L m. — + _—_�o .121.36 • �' o an an m,. \ ti, 871= �� o et.00 89°51'32"E ov — c'l S8 8'57" 16 .89 \`N Development Data: wI LNDSAY STREET N00°08L95T ' V -Proposed Zoning-RI Ioi(Lot l) Mm-6m.O1• \ + % :q xea'" $ xee7e x8aj9. "�•• � w�'o A -RI Requirements. M.=e7a.1• { Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq.fl. s'\r j 8"OP Water Mom `C.o\ �i �1---t1 1--1----11---1—�I—��I {—^y.,�—I�f 51 -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50"'o SK\ 1 -Setback Requirements. 1 -Front Setback=35' P! BBS Decks and porches with no screens=30' o,� Tap 6ydimt < Mv.-676.z9 e---�,e,�_- __ __ ____ ________ < -Rear Yard Setback=20%oflot depth Yn.ee1.71 8-VCP Sewer Mal < Rye-'87.69 < -Side Yard Setback-12.5'for structures 15'in height or less v-87a 311975.30 < I e"vCP Sewer M°In -Side Yard Setback=12.5'+0.5'for each additional I foot in bv.971p height over 15'feet high. \ d -Proposed Zoning-R2(Lots 2&3) I m -R2 Requirements: I o -Minimum Lot Area=11,000 sq.fl. -Minimum Lot Width=100' Ex.Houae Ex.House Ex.House ExMouw -lmpenms surface shell not exceed 50". I r 1 r� I -Setback Requirements: -Front Setback 35' j-i \��j.���• t `/ -Decks and pmebm with no screens=30' I s 1 -Rear Yard Setback=20%of lot depth r�1 11`1 -Side Yard Setback=15' t`y r -Overall Area=45,0951 sq.fl.(1.06 acres) -Existing Zoning=Single Family Residential(RI) NOTES -Field survey completed 04/01/14. I Rev. 05/08/14, add easements I I hereby certify that this survey,plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulIOy Registered Land Surveyor under DRAWN BY:ERV JOB N0: 14124bt DATE:04/10/14 the ws of the State of Minnesota. CHECK BY ery SCANNED❑ LAND " 05/08/14 add easements ERV f��x 2=C;=� all•!AA•tr0 - .• 2 D5/2s/14 coy comment lever 05/IB ERv ERIC R. VICKARYOUS •rN•Ild b•yoftet 3 acrelandeurve 01g fill. O JOb 1�4 G\Land Projects 2006\14124Nox-\dwg\14124bt.dwg 5/29/2014 12,04,04 PM CDT No. DATEDE5CR1PilON BY Date:Aarll 11th.2014 Reg.No. 44125EA83-45i N � 5 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN & UTILITY PLAN -for- Max Zelayaran -OF- GOLDEN VALLEY HOMES I ' --------------- PROPERTY DESCRIPTION I Commencing of o point of the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, , 1 E / ' E Range 21. 835.9 feet South of Northeast comer of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to sold East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; thence of right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United i States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department r� of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. , 8g2 %Bel° -Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.* w 1 dt NORTH 89°4 '57"W BBea 211.59 BBBs 51 BB'8' -.0 141.36 �F --- '°- 1 1r1e1111111t1117�OP�-Bad(- _ F-1-MNoe�T.e 1 rc \ 1 &a -L0'chaha*1_ .�(wdotaJ -I < asa') II:= �'\ BENCHMARK LEGEND GRAPHIC SCALE BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND r_ 1%• \ \\ BBB`BMJ I ti \\ a 11 MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET (�\ -y 1 r^\ I _ - - tTOP C9.1111115.5 \``�" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) p DENOTES UTILITY BOX \\\�•\`/ `�\\\ '\ 1� Imp = E 31W S7U4'e7< ("\\\ BBJd %oOj9 1 %BBB 8 � gp9 BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HEN COUNTY © DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE \\�� (-\\yy _ _ E SAN O M .14 -� IN FEET) DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE \*%\�, (VE18F'Q i 1 inch= 30 rt. COORDINATE SYSTEM. _ TOP BLOCK�89f1 M Q ' ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN ��� o I OM.M.•ee7.4 ce.)�� _ X DENOTES GATE VALVE y 00 p I I aW `$ e ��---yrnurySERVIM!i DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT iDENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR p (VE7tlF10 `��'s I 3 e9�' NatN •' �• DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE VA.B 11x1 ep7.t E SAN• 17 ->-DENOTES SANITARY SEWER caBPe^PCJ %� 1 _ - -- /• e4° Ny leB]9 %BBBa ®�- - �- - -% %Bsz u. »--DENOTES STORM SEWERS? %�'? I / .BBs" _ c ; -t-DENOTES EXISTING FENCE ' as-101, _ _ -_ -.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. - DENOTES BITUMINOUS 1 zED ae�B o DENOTES CONCRETE --- UTILITY NOTES: --->-DENOTES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ]' ;•, - N + } 12 b boeemant 1.WATER SERVICES SHALL BE I"AND INSTALLED PER CITY -I�•DENOTES PROPOSED WATER SERVICE U791TY gRW015 -- -- TOP BLOCK-N9.1 ' C , ( DETAILS GV-WMA30&GV-WMA31 %aez_ 12 ca basement GAR.l4R.�88&0(dn 1 a.) N , ® DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. z P\E �eBi>o0P eLOCK�887.1 LOW t.LR-881.0 eez•,°F 1, m , 2.SANITARY SERVICES SHALL BE 4"AND INSTALLED PER CITY IE SAN SAXI.M40BB3 P GAR-iLR.�886.0(dn 1 cs) e 1 r DETAILS GV-SSA30&GV-SS-040 DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. � �ICIIIN�674.75 ca. p LOW FLR�879.0 i� %B" B B �g a",, z v GBJa 3.ALL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION MUST BE N ACCORDANCE WITH s 2 `�A�Ai, THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY AND THE ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION � u�\ ca a^,4; ' sr OF MINNESOTA STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Development Data: Proposed Zoning-R]lot(Lot)) \ '`., \\ Ap2 meq? aJ�E { ll �, X413 ' -RI Re uiremene i. \ i, ._. - -- r tilArrHls PiwN q BBn1 1- \ `,...: { ® REP°RT WERreYPAREU RBPECIFIGAT dpi -Minimum Lot Area-10,0(10 sq.fi. ASPRE HOER MY -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50"/o \ \ y ENGINEER UNDER THE uws or TNe BATE°r MINNI:soTA. 1 aUPERV6KKJ ANo THAT1 AM A nU VnLICENSEn PROFEasb - � BBB 91 drwy 9.SX awy....... Bsiz: �e 1 � _ -Setback Requirements: fr From Setback=35' \ 4 eBo� ;' - aim \ - _ �J s- - - - , -Decks and porches with no screens 30 `mw B�\ ea]s + -Rear Yard Setback 20%ofloi depth 1+eo Ren.s8a47 BBd -Side Yard Setback=12 5'f r structures 15'm height or less \ ha�e7Ltri �'f o '5 ` Be T - r -Side Yard Sethack=125'+OS'tor each addinonall tool in \\V,m % 6 BBB'at1 A 857° egz' 884 -89 {�Ja 9�5T32 TeB e`"B c o' o height m er 15'feet high. 0 p\P�osn9�Pe ,�,i� °c\ alz; sq MArrNEWR Exsr xo.E. \\ q'J OnTE 518/ 14 44M -Proposed Zoning-R2(Lot's 2&3) ?6e z t LIN � QL� Q�° s \ ",-a,- 777 -R2 Requirements: 100-861.01. E - ° -MWmum Lot Area-11,000 sq.0. in, \ \ y.Be\5 �BB17 t. za ef4 xtB�4 rt,°B'' .�S BBB' ��vff���� -Minimum Lot Width=100' cq q° r i, 1�" a".GIP watt Mair �1--- L��!!���,___444��- -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50% o - I r'---- ',�-1 I v a a - SetbackR Requirements: SP BB\ �i eBgS rB'+`j3 "BBBa $B4r`, BB^ d R O u - Front Seth ck 35' �° 1c 0. BBy Beza'Fa BBJ B>\"BMJ. , :"0 Bs' tB`5, s�u ea°o S7 tL U PARK,SURE 200 -Decks and porches with no screens=30' ' �� ee+` B�6 I c --- �- BTW Nut Qydrmt BBc M762e MN 55476 -Rear Yard Setback-20"/0 of int depth ___ _- - --- 1r'epi. esa civilSiteGroup.com -Side Yard Setback=15' o BB\, - - 6� Man PaveN Pat Sarver 061.71 8"VCP Sewer Moi RYII�!&7.C9 1 8'VCP Sew{r Main ]63.213-3944 952-250-2003 -Orerall Area=46 095±sq.fl.(1.06 acres) nv.-874.31 hv.ee7i3D Bs+ fin. ` sm -Existing Zoning=Single Family Residential(RI) SEMM u pec a40 SAN ce A 1C �.8 \ A e^ "' E SAN O MlI9F87839 E SAN STAB-8760 am ��z (VEAFh ( E SAN O MAN-976M GRADING NOTES: m � sax? m.O a', ems. ha,J. Be'° FxHouse BaAT FxHwss 1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT. Dc E.H-. I I m 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SITE PREPARATION INFORMATION,SOIL CORRECTION,TYPE OF BACKFILL OR t 1♦t 1 I1 \ ` REQUIREMENTS. 3.EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. j v i ` tI 4.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ' I POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT REQUIREMENTS&PER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEERILANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOP-SOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES. NOTES 7.EXCESS FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED AND LEGALLY DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTOR -Feld survey completed 04/01/14. OFFSITE. &PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. I I hereby certify that this survey,plan 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIP,STOCKPILE AND RE-SPREAD SUFFICF..Et7 TOP SOIL TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM or report was prepared by me or under 4"COMPACTED DEPTH TO DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED OR SODDED. my direct supervision and that I am a duty Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. LtRsa' BY:ERV JOB N0: 141240 DATE:04/10/14 ACRE LAND SURVEYING CHECK e �Y SCANNED[I ERIC R. VICKARYOUS gervtlp TWIn f,Nls•M•M0 = •rea arld t»ytxld 2 763 q'JB-2087 acrelandmjrve is ail. J� �4 3 0\LOnd Projects 2008\t4124mx-\deg\14124bt.de0 5/9/2014 12121110 PK CDT Date:Mav 8th.2014 Reg.No. 44125 N0. DA 1F DESCTdiF^ION Br City a� golden MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) i vv4iH y�'d�w: iv.r s �.,.... � I,uvrT�; e.. ,., .", `w' s�:».... ¢n�,G�,4,,, F'.I� �.. := u5 .,..,,, -., tlai.....°-'vgr�.n�lla�d��ilu�i 7„_'.. .;�`,.~5'. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 4. E. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat Approval - Olson Tralee- 125 Cutacross Road Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the May 24, 2014, Planning Commission meeting,the Commission voted to recommend approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 125 Cutacross Road (Olson Tralee). The proposal would create two lots from the existing lot, each meeting the necessary lot area and lot width requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code. The existing home would be demolished. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated May 24, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated March 17, 2014 (2 pages) • Site Plans (5 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Olson Tralee, 125 Cutacross 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 of$1,400 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. .. .,._.. as.a 250m 324 0 308 3- i 287 ,�- 24 0 285 235 35 � 230 .220 { 277 227 209 4 216 211210 217, / c 29 7R 208 \? 'P j� 200 208 221= , `ti Subject Property: 205 211 125 Cutacross Road !!! 117124 125 124 125 116 109 112 v 75r 115 fps, f Jj „ 70 2531 26 26' 50 J 15 G.. r 'I 6320x.a 6030 j614 6010 5924, 5910 06f0 y. -max N 3 237 X1006145 g,6101� X105; 120, _ 111 6015 110 u .,115 x 125 120 425 1403 131 �. O ka.,. 130 135 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 2014 Page 5 The Applicant shall submit lighting plan. 5. bicycle rack shall be adde to the property. 6. Ac s to the newly created Lot 2 must be macoed via a driveway easement. 7. The in lat shall include ' U.D. No. 1 in its title. 8. The City Aft shall dete ine if rk dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan roval. 9. The final design shall b ed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 10. All signage must meet t ements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 11. The design shall be iew or s to improve the consistency of the facade from the front, west, east. 12. Trees shall b lanted at a inimum of 1 tr er 50' of landscaped frontage along Pennsylv a Avenue. 13. The a scant shall conside ways to increase the am of pervious surface on the pro rty. 14. is approval is subject to a other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over t s development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 125 Cutacross Road — Olson Tralee — SU12-14 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Addresses: 125 Cutacross Road Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Olson explained the applicant's request to subdivide the property at 125 Cutacross Road into two new lots. He referred to a site plan and noted that Lot 1 would be 15,548 square feet in size and 99 feet wide at the front setback line and Lot 2 would be 14,561 square feet in size and 114 feet wide at the front setback line. Cera asked if variances are required to make these buildable lots. Olson stated no, variances are not being requested as a part of this proposal. Kluchka asked if the existing home would be demolished. Olson said yes. Kluchka asked if the existing home would have to be removed before the subdivision is approved. Olson said the existing house would have to be removed before building permits are issued for the proposed new homes. Segelbaum asked about the building envelope area. Olson referred to the site plan and pointed out the building envelope on each new lot. Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, Applicant, stated that his family will be selling the property this summer and that he concurs with the conditions listed the staff reports. He gave the Commissioners a colored rendering of the site and a copy the original plat for the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 2014 Page 6 area which showed several lots that have been subdivided in the past. He added that the homes he is proposing will be custom built for each site. Kluchka asked if a builder is developing the properties of if private families would build their own homes. Knaeble stated that families would design their own homes and work with their own builders. Segelbaum referred to the plat of the area that Knaeble handed out and asked when each lot was subdivided. Knaeble talked about several of the subdivisions and when they occurred. Kluchka opened the public hearing. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, said he is more concerned about the next item on the agenda. He asked about the City's policies regarding subdivisions and asked what subdividing property does to other properties around it. Jim Fredkove, 26 Paisley Lane, said he is concerned that he will be put in the same position and will have to subdivide his property in order to recover his investment. He said that one reason he bought his property was the large lot size. He asked if the City's plan is to allow everyone to subdivide their properties. David Spencer, 211 Cutacross Road, said the existing house faces Meander Road and is welcoming to the neighborhood. He said he is concerned that people will be looking at the side of the proposed new house and he wants to make sure that the new house is positioned toward Meander Road. He stated that he subdivided his lot in 2005 and thinks subdivisions will increase the overall values of the properties in the neighborhood and added that no one will be required to subdivide their lots. Grimes explained that this property is guided on the City's Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development up to 5 units per acre and is zoned Single Family Residential. So the plan for the City is to allow lots that are 10,000 square feet or greater in size. He said people are not required to subdivide their lots, but they have the opportunity to do so if their property is large enough. He added that neighbors could get together and enter into a covenant agreement regarding lot sizes. Kluchka added that subdividing is a property owner's opportunity to maximize their investment as long as they do so within the City's rules and ordinances. Grimes agreed and added that the proposed new lots will be 1 Y2 times larger than the City Code requires. Segelbaum asked how neighboring property owners are protected. Grimes stated that there are height requirements, setback requirements, and articulation requirements among others in the City Code to protect neighborhoods. He added that the proposed homes will be quality-built homes that will benefit Golden Valley as a whole. Segelbaum referred to the comment regarding the orientation of the houses on the lots and said he didn't think the City could control the location of the house. Kluchka agreed that the house could be built as the owner sees fit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 2014 Page 7 Zimmerman noted that the park dedication fees should be $1,400 for one new lot, not $2,800 as listed in his staff report. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision at 125 Cutacross 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 of$1,400 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum. 5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Informal Public Hearing — inor Subdivision — 221 Sunnyridge Lane — Kate's Woods — SU08-11 plicant: David Knaeble Ad sses: 221 Sunnyridg Lane Purpos To reconfigur the existing single family resid lot into two new single family r sidential lots. Zimmerman stated t staff and he applicant pre o table this public hearing in order to allow more time to disc s a zon ng interpreta ' issue that has come up and needs to be taken care of first. MOVED by Kluchka, second y gelbaum and motion carried unanimously to table this public to the next Planning Co fission meeting. 5. Informal Publi earin — Mi r Subdivision — 7218 Harold Avenue — Marie's Woods — SU -11 Applican . Peter Knae le Add r sses: 7218 Harol Avenue P rpose: To reconfi ure the existing sing family residential lot into two new single fam y residential lots. Vari ces from the Subdivision Code are also being requested for this Minor ubdivision. ty 901dcn MEMORANDUM Vall EMORAN UM Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: March 17, 2014 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Iff Joe Fox, EIT, Water Resource ngineer Subject: Minor Subdivision —Olson Tralee—125 Cutacross Road Public Works Staff has reviewed the application for a minor subdivision to be named Olson Tralee. The subdivision is located at 125 Cutacross Road. The property has a deferred assessment of$4,900 against it for the 2010 Pavement Management Program. This must be paid at the time of application for the final plat. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan The proposed subdivision includes dividing the existing single-family parcel into two single-family lots with frontage on Cutacross Road. The Developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Management Permit for the installation of driveway aprons onto Cutacross Road. The existing home and unattached garage will be torn down. A City of Golden Valley Demolition Permit will be required along with Sewer and Water Cutoff Permits. Utilities There are existing sanitary and water services for both new houses. These services were installed during the 2010 PMP project and the costs were assessed to the property owner. There were no easements dedicated on the original Tralee plat in 1939. The preliminary plat for the current proposed subdivision shows six-foot drainage and utility easements along the sides of the new parcels and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and back of the new parcels. These easements are acceptable as drawn. The existing home at 125 Cutacross Road is not compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. The Developer has entered into an Escrow Agreement and has submitted the G:\Developments-Private\Olson Tralee Addition-125 Cutacross Road\Memo_PW_Minor5ubd.docx necessary deposit with the City for the I&I repairs. Both new homes must be compliant with this ordinance before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Stormwater Management The proposed subdivision is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. This project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). The Developer will be required to obtain individual City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permits for each lot at the time of home construction. At the time of permit application, Grading and Erosion Control Plans that meet City standards must be submitted. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because each lot will be custom-graded at the time of home construction, the project will be considered a single-lot development, in which a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot. The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan which will assist in the review of each permit application. Recommendation Based upon a review of the materials submitted by the Developer and appropriate City ordinances and standards, Public Works staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision for Olson Tralee. Approval is subject to the Developer obtaining the required permits as described above and becoming compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Fire Chief John Crelly, Deputy Fire Chief Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Jerry Frevel, Interim Building Official N � N N a M C y N N X C_ (tc, O g In .vy C7 m Obi a> iti GfB •`r`f ��� ti Y MINOR SUBDIVISION PLANS W • FOR: L TRALEE taureldvee e OSON GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA LCSAWD P-M. LOCAMON YAP SITE DEFt A.L. NO SCALE J ncaLA ED v.uc c §a SHEET INDEX E a cZ. SHEET DESCRIPTION � s W 1. COVER SHEET / SHEET INDEX $ Z a 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANa A = 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT ;a' S y=' 4. UTILITY & GRADING PLAN i E rs 5. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN `" StD rA 18 rnM ENGINEER Z LAW PLANNER APPILICMIT z TERRA ENGINEERING INC. ROBERTA KNAEBLE & PATRICIA BENKUSKY 6001 GLENWOOD AVE. 6001 GLENWOOD AVE. GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 } 763-593-9325 W KNAEBLE PETER KNAEBLE, P.E. 763-54 ��yy,JJ peterknaeble®gmail.com ROBERTA KNAEBLE w x J rknaeble®gmail.com W W Q SURVEYORwz �� RENDER & ASSOCIATES INC. Z 3440 FEDERAL DRIVE, X1110 EAGAN, MN 55122 651-452-50510 = J GREG GENTZ, RLS V 0 0 GGentz®rehder.com SITE ADDRESS: 125 CUTACROSS ROAD, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN D+rc SITE AREA: 30,109 SF 2/15/14 PRaXCr Aa LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 4, BLOCK 5, TRALEE a.,,, •s� 13-124 r7l LTLU LT9 6f�L :x�� ,LFA EO` �:)� tarr ro•►e�w:q■1 YY4f1 Oli 'c+y �I917�"�°V &~,] NW j/w+�' ��/� N',� d w«+�H 'r+ted I ZZv54 olasouu W's ioaeouu)yy ,� ``/"4-- u 81 SM .y�y N n, onuany pooMualo Too9 ° /, •oyosowpl h�5 -V ejWOW 40)iayuw.�w ,r, ,.n+w#1/01/y v �w �1(q pw W wig yO�dW NVld SNOLLIaNO3 JNLLSpQ W N J w DA CID \ o ZSR rraois W Ir W gq ggg , o y / t - 01 _egg s f�i a 4 , f ` /40 b- a. 060 LO � 02 �, �b.Ja 611(5 CO CP liz "Ot i -- ; AN 006' C4� \\ V ti ry R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDS, N o MIN. 10,000 SF LOTS \ \ 80' LOT WIDTH (100' CORNER) (MEAS. AT 35' FSB) U) \ \ 35' FRONT SETBACK (OPEN PORCH 30' FSB) (INCL. CORNER LOTS) 20% REAR SETBACK ° ~ 12.5' SIDE SETBACK (<100' LOT WIDTH) (SEE HT. RULES) a LL \ 15' SIDE SETBACK ()100' LOT WIDTH) (SEE HT. RULES) 3 N ` MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 28' \ MAX. STRAIGHT WALL 32' (THEN 2' SHIFT FOR B')\ 6 c)EAVES CAN PROJECT MAX. 2.5' INTO SETBACKS d a M DRIVEWAY 3' SSB) MAX. 40% COVERAGE IN FRONT YARDID a0 \ cl ID o m LOl1 \ \ >B,R7 SF O w BLOCK 1 11R'?XZ H/LLS ROW 1 LOl2 /% ` 6 15,630 S' ,� � XSJGWD P.JX. h / � ,�. C)catTD P-m LOT 1 .162.3,3 SF / /' \ \ s ' # .9q• // /��/� \ c� oE4vo ,N�AN LO,� /DTH=80.64' \ `�" z`-2 \ sem' <e�Jrs \ Y '!i � / SBS w '� x� E. ' \m v ��857 SF°p — —. _ .cl�9rY10-DrI0�i'52aa'— . — -)s 7 I O� --------------- 1160 10'DSU EASE. 0 B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING Z 46.45' 1B972' ——————— DENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING LIMIT 589'45'39 236.17 Q — —1056— — DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —7055— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS >>—>>— DENOTES STORM SEWER g > I >—>— DENOTES SANITARY SEWER 0- WDENOTES WATERMAIN LJL�JJ DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION Xlo10556.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION < r ; E�♦10WO DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION Q Z Z W W Ncl: N O CL o0 IW E DA Tr I 2/15/14 116 20 0 S 20 40 Pra"T ma WAMI i � SCALE IN FEET 13-124 THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILIES AREI IN AN WAY ONLY EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL TI ETERMI EH OWN THE EXACT LOCATIXON IMATE OF .nccr Na FULLYXRESPONS BLLE FOR EANYEAND ALL DAMAGES NG XWH CH MIGHT ET OCCASIONED B OR AGREES TO PE 3 FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. LTLO Lis£94:XVJ 9L£6£69£9L *+r D� �r eP � rn►r yn � �rirrio ~~ NYV A3 T iVA N3� t wtMuN3 MA 9'd %MN T+Md t LL655 e�oneuul►y ipodeeuulw - v N enuany poOMualo Too9 «nw�w«�� �l ,�MR..rA-Fft � � � �;,W'�° °��;. r�rnd ONiava� aNrr unun kN H Am Ile w Igi a IR F' n) = N W1 ..�- -X+ � N oo ■ Zi-�a ,LIY1N �>-1 N V:i I W la RC moms r 91 9. o. O//moo J -- - - - LO �J f� t r,♦ � / co �ry --- S3LLf111n ON1owou 0 m iw ONV kw 3N0smw tONY 31YOOl Al1OYx3 OL 3Uf w-1 SIHIS 03NOSV000 36 IHM MOM 53OYIIYO TW OW ANY SW 31MNOc9M ATNL! I 39 OL mw UOlOYU1N00 xa H"01K101 wo 3110330 sxmn OMLSDO Tw AD NOLLYOOI IOVM 3N1 31100130 TMS M74U NM ONILYAYMG 3NI 'AW AY111 3LYMOUddV NY M NMONS 3W S3UrUA O10MM30M ONUM SNOMV001 3Nl i,z 133! N 3W% a i O► OZ O 0Z %/S VZ s 9S/IOH X 3 M N ply-119,0110-91y JW S3LON30 o�eoot•r�oo � I pJO1rU� NMVA3U MOI*MW AO100ULS113 D �1 J T NOLLYATM lOdS O3SOdDUd S31MM 0.990E X (� I -7-7 F-=Jt NNIVA3D lOdS OMM S31MM , N1 vQmvM S3LON30 9 U3*M AUYIOM MON30 U31M MUMS MOM SWMN00 63SOdMW S310N30 O SUn01WO ONUSDO S310MM —==SG.t Z inn ONTO W-VN3!17S S3LOOM — — — --��__ ONRW lOS S310N30 �9 f-9 Q 4u/t �— ,09 ln m 48 l0St ..75110E X u V of o+ i el / e L121 -/S SK6F it .2r ` tt �` �aaiay a , so N 0s IR>< X10 9 / , 107 S77/H79 X-7 \ v / \ YS/ 107! T. w ! \ ,Oaoy ssoAov7n0 60l a, ao �asuadS ;o�y sso�w7n,� 00l \ \ la6vy m \ U C � ; d a �S/IOH :Y9 J O C �iv Y i U \i O � r r+ city .....:.... golden MEMORANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 6. A. First Consideration - Ordinance#520-Water Fee on City Utility Bill for Emergency Water Supply Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary On January 9, the three cities of Golden Valley, Crystal and New Hope met and decided to go ahead with construction of wells near the Joint Water Commission's reservoirs (1 in Golden Valley and 2 in Crystal) and restoring a fourth well that exists in New Hope. By this action, the cities would have an emergency water supply system. Bonds were going to be sold to help finance the joint water costs, but the cities decided to finance their own portion of the bill. Council reviewed the rate increase and funding at the Council/Manager Meeting on June 10, 2014. In order for the Water and Sewer Utility Fund to make that payment, staff is suggesting an additional water fee of 20 cents per 1,000 gallons to fund the Emergency Water Supply. This charge will be a separate line item on the utility bill called Emergency Water Supply. The collection of this fee will pay the annual payment for the internal loan from the Storm Utility Fund to the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. This loan will be considered at the July 15 Council Meeting. The fee will be applied to all water bills after October 1. Second consideration of the Ordinance will occur at the July 15 meeting. An article about the financing will be in the upcoming City News. Attachments • Ordinance#520, Amendment to the Master Fee Schedule for City Utility Bill Water Fee for Emergency Water Supply (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt First Consideration, Ordinance#520, Amendment to the Master Fee Schedule for City Utility Bill Water Fee for Emergency Water Supply. ORDINANCE NO. 520, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendment to the Master Fee Schedule City Utility Bill Water Fee for Emergency Water Supply The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The Master Fee Schedule in Chapter 25 of the City Code is hereby amended effective October 1, 2014, by adding the following: Emergency Water Supply Based on 1,000 Gallons of Water $ .20/1,000 Section 2. 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 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of July, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A Luedke Kristine A Luedke, City Clerk city of 9 ldcntlii�lr vallda"IT %."Y City Administration/Council 763-593-3989/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 Agenda Item 6. B. First Consideration - Ordinance#521 - Amending, Ratifying and Readopting Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections Prepared By Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager Summary In July 2011, when the State of Minnesota was in the midst of a shutdown, the City entered into a consulting service agreement for electrical permits and inspections, which were previously contracted with the State. In order to contract the service with a consultant,the City amended its Code at that time and included a sunset (Subdvision 8), in which Section 4.07 would be revoked once the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry was funded for the 2011 fiscal year. The proposed amendment would amend Section 4.07 by rescinding Subdivision 8. Sunset,to allow the City flexibility in using contracted services for electrical permits and inspections without being required to contract those services with the State of Minnesota. Subdivision 7. Violations and Penalties, is being rescinded because it is already covered by Section 4.99. Ratifying and Readopting the remainder of Section 4.07 will adopt the revisions to the State Statutes that have been passed by the Legislature since the City originally adopted Section 4.07 in 2011. Attachment • City Code 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections, underlined/overstruck version (1 page) • Ordinance#521, Amending, Ratifying and Readopting Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on First Consideration, Ordinance #521, Amending, Ratifying and Readopting Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections. § 4.07 Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of this amendment is to establish an electrical inspections program in the City that is administered and enforced by the City. Subdivision 2. Authority to Inspect The City hereby provides for the inspection of all electrical installations, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 326B.36, subd. 6. Subdivision 3. Adopted by Reference The Minnesota Electrical Act, as adopted by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 326B, Sections 3268.31 to 3266.3991. The Minneseta EleCtFical Aet is hereby incorporated into this Section as if fully set out herein. The Minnesota State Building Code incorporates by reference the National Electrical Code pursuant to Minnesota Rule 1315.0200. All such codes incorporated herein by reference constitute the electrical code of the City. Subdivision 4. Compliance All electrical installations shall comply with the requirements of the electrical code of the City and this Section. Subdivision S. Permits and Fees The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as authorized in Minnesota Statutes section 326B.37. Any inspection or handling fees will be payable to the City. Subdivision 6. Notice and Appeal All notices of violations and orders issued under this Section shall be in conformance with Minnesota Statutes section 326B.36, subd. 4. Subdivision S. Sunset. Source: Ordinance No. 465, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-30-11 Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. 521, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending, Ratifying and Readopting Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Code is hereby amended in Section 4.07 of Chapter 4 by changing Subdivision 3 to read as follows: Subdivision 3. Adopted by Reference The Minnesota Electrical Act, as adopted by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 3268, Section 3268.31 to 32613.399, is hereby incorporated into this Section as if fully set out herein. The Minnesota State Building Code incorporates by reference the National Electrical Code pursuant to Minnesota Rule 1315.0200. All such codes incorporated herein by reference constitute the electrical code of the City. Section 2. The City Code is hereby amended in Section 4.07 of Chapter 4 by deleting Subdivisions 7 and 8 in their entirety. Section 3. The City Code is hereby amended in Chapter 4 by ratifying and readopting Section 4.07, Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provision and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation is a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as through repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of July, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk MEMORANDUM�� �� �� J� �� �� � � �� city 0 ��� ���� �� ���� � � �� d�� ��� �~� �� ���� goldeni!, -v a- - ePlanning Du artment 763-593-8O95/763-693-0109(fax) ������K��^���� ���������� ���� ���~��� Executive-~ .~ ''''''~-' � For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 1^ 2014 Agenda Item 6. C. Consideration of Recycling Centers as a Permitted Use inthe Industrial and Light Industrial Zoning Districts; and Option to Establish a Moratorium for Additional Study Prepared By Mark Grimes, Community Development Director Summary City staff has become aware that Scrap Metal Processors, Inc. is considering the purchase of the former SIFCO building located at 2430 Winnetka Avenue, north of 2311 Avenue. SIFCO vacated the property in late 2013 and it has been on the market since that time. Staff was informed by the real estate agent that Scrap Metal Processors, Inc. was interested in the building and that they wanted to meet with City staff to go over site details. As of June 24, 2014, they had not entered into a purchase agreement on the building. They are still going through the due diligence phase and would like tomake sure the building and site works for their use. The property is zoned Light Industrial and has been so since SIFCO built there in the 1960s. The site is also guided on the General Land Use Plan map for Light Industrial uses. The property surrounding the building includes: a park to the east of Rhode Island Ave., Public Storage to the south, commercial uses to the north and residential to the west on the other side ofVVinnetka Avenue. After hearing about the proposed use and meeting with Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., staff recommends that the City Council rE'view if the placing of a scrap metal recycler such as Scrap Metal Processors, Inc. remains an appropriate use in the Light Industrial orIndustrial zoning districts. In our meeting with Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., we learned that the processing of scrap will only occur in the building!ittp://scrapmetalprocessors.com/. Outside storage would be screened and would belimited torecycling containers that are distributed tothe commercial customers that bring their scrap to 0em. They do not allow individuals to bring scrap for recycling. There would be up to 3Otruck trips a day including large semi-trucks. The large overhead doors will be open in warm weather. Some noise may be heard when scrap is transferred. They would store six trucks on the site which they own. They would like to do some minor repair of trucks at the site. Their hours of operation would be 7 am-3:30 pm with two or three hours of operation on Saturday. As noted on their website, they are now located at 4800 East River Rd. in Fridley. The building in Fridley is being torn down so they have to find a new location. Staff is asking the City Council to either accept the recycling use as currently written in the City Code which would allow Scrap Metal Processors, Inc. to operate at the SIFCO site; or if the City Council believes that additional study is needed to determine whether recycling centers remain appropriate in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts, staff suggests that the City Council pass the attached moratorium ordinance that gives the City time to study if it is appropriate to have recycling centers or what conditions or restrictions are necessary to allow the use. Also, the City Council may want to review the definition of a Recycling Center in order to determine if it is appropriate. (It includes the crushing of automobiles.) Attachments • Location Map of SIFCO site (1 page) • Aerial Photo of Property (1 page) • Moratorium Ordinance (1 page) • Current Zoning Definition of Recycling Center (1 page) • Light Industrial Zoning Code (10 pages) • Industrial Zoning Code (8 pages) • Zoning Map (1 page) • General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) Recommended Action Direct staff to continue administering the Zoning Code as currently written permitting Recycling Centers in the Industrial and Light Industrial Zoning districts; or adopt the attached moratorium ordinance that allows for up to 12 months to determine if recycling centers are appropriate in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts. NEW HOPE ..�..�.Medicilie lake Rd........r................................................................................�..�..����..�..�.��..�..���.. 2550 7825 7775 7751 2'252:252 2575 • 8.25 25252'2`2'253 2548'255623 2` 2550 2558,6425?` 7759 (2 560 25th Ave N 2552 7 2562 2514 2480 25543 2568 2512 2480 2485 2500 2566 25 2 445 2 400 2440 2445 Z 2450 a Subject Property N 2440 y 2 485 Z7 Q 8020 2425 a a 8040 > 2480 A 2400 y d 2415 z 0 Jonellen or 8045 8015 8005 7979 2409 Z a� :I soao $olo sono o 2430 JI 7980 23373 a rc 4 .� ." . 2 045 8015 2315 > 2320 2325 �'= < 41 I � lldu Vdl r1UU ICJJ ' � • ■ � �.l +-� _ ` .Irv_ � �� � NEW HOPE 3 ;0 - _ r ,. ;'u�n�■■�Yn�u�■ u�■�o■�n�n�n�n�■uu�n�n�n�n�n�n�n�a�n�nin�u�n�u�n� �il�■Ti�n�n c � � .... MM . .- tit • "1 i � I ~ � a i ♦ir�++moi � ! ! r Q 14 i x A 7 47 rw j� t,i �. .r ,.' �; � gip► i �ar� '�c ►� ft:. t.... .� m as-:e., .� rte 1. - '�• t!y . � £ Y f ` �• k 3 d 1 gy r s �'jW1 � z , J d a "c Val« ,r� > C t ►. r� a , c June 26, 2014 1:4,575 b3869a5689ac4f8d86c4772559157f5O Residential MultiFam ■■ City Limit Residential SingleFam • Utility f Public Property Parcel Master • Vacant Copyright:©2014 E sn • Building Shell F-1 Surrounding Parcels Hennepn County Business ^ Parcel Outline&HennCo Link ORDINANCE NO. , 2ND SERIES AN INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Imposing a Twelve Month Moratorium on Recycling Centers The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City finds that Recycling Centers, as defined in Section 11.03 of the City Code, may be an inappropriate use for the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts; that such a use may involve a greater amount of truck traffic, outside storage of materials and noise than is appropriate for the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Accordingly, City staff is hereby directed to undertake a study, in coordination with the Planning Commission, to determine whether, or to what extent, such Recycling Centers ought to be permitted in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts of the City. Section 2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, subd. 4 and Golden Valley City Code, Chapters 11 and 12, a twelve (12) month moratorium is hereby imposed within the City of Golden Valley prohibiting the establishment of any new Recycling Centers in the Light Industrial and Industrial Districts. During this twelve (12) month moratorium period, no new or existing applications that would permit a Recycling Center use shall be considered or approved by the City. This Interim Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley this 1 st day of July, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk §11.03 B. Pickup coach means a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation, and vacation. C. Motor home means a portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation, and vacation, constructed as an integral part of a self- propelled vehicle. D. Camping trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation use. 79. Recycling Center: Any area or structure, whether privately or publicly owned and operated, that engages in recycling or reclamation of metals, paper, or other materials including crushing, shredding, baling or compacting materials such as auto bodies, scrap metal, etc. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 80. Residential Facility: Any facility licensed by the State of Minnesota (except for foster family homes) public or private, which for gain or otherwise, provides one (1) or more persons twenty-four (24) hour per day care including food, lodging, training, education, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation and treatment they need. Residential facilities include but are not limited to State institutions under the control of the Commissioner of Public Welfare, residential treatment centers, maternity shelters, group homes, halfway houses, residential programs or schools for handicapped children. Source: Ordinance No. 653 Effective Date: 4-12-85 81. Restaurant, Class I: Any traditional type restaurant where food is served to a customer and consumed while seated at a counter or table, including cafeterias where food is selected by a customer while going through a service line and taken to a table for consumption 82. Restaurant, Class II: Fast-food type restaurants where customers order and are served at a counter and take it to a table or counter, or off the premises where the food is consumed. A "Class II" restaurant also includes "drive-in" restaurants where some or all customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, and further includes carry-out and delivery restaurants where food is prepared for consumption off the premises only. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 83. Restaurant, Class III: Any type of night club, tavern, restaurant or other facility providing entertainment, food and/or beverage that provides sit-down service but may also provide standup bar service and standup tables within the premises. Golden Valley City Code Page 13 of 17 § 11.35 Section 11.35: Light Industrial Zoning District Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the Light Industrial Zoning District is to provide for the establishment of warehousing, offices and light industrial developments. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Light Industrial 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 11.35, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.35 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 Light Industrial 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 others shall be considered permitted uses within the Light Industrial Zoning District: A. Offices B. Warehouses C. Wholesale-Retail distribution centers D. Electronics manufacturing E. Food packaging and processing; provided, however, that no processing shall involve any cooking, heating, smoking, soaking or marinating procedures Source: Ordinance No. 546 Effective Date: 9-18-81 F. Assembly and/or fabricating exclusive of sheet metal or steel fabricating, foundries and similar uses except for the fabricating of sheet metal as it is used for the heating, ventilation and air conditioning business (which types of sheet metal fabricating shall be permitted uses Source: Ordinance No. 674 Effective Date: 12-27-85 G. Recycling centers, including the recycling of metals and other materials Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 10 § 11.35 H. Other light manufacturing uses that would not constitute a nuisance or health hazard to surrounding or adjacent residential or commercial districts Source: Ordinance No. 546 Effective Date: 9-18-81 I. Essential Services - Class I and Class III Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 J. Temporary Retail Sales in accordance with Subdivision 12 of this section Source: Ordinance No. 118, 2nd Series Effective Date: 9-22-94 K. Sexually Oriented Businesses Source: Ordinance No. 326, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-15-05 Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed as Conditional Uses after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Building materials yard (including inside and outside storage) B. Public garages for repairing and storing motor vehicles C. Laundries and dry-cleaning plants D. Animal hospital where domestic animals are received for treatment, care and cure by a duly licensed veterinary physician and surgeon in the customary and ordinary pursuit of his profession E. Ball fields and other recreation facilities F. Research and development laboratories and pilot plant operations incidental thereto G. Greenhouses with no outside storage, including an outside growing area no larger than the greenhouse building area. Retail sales may be permitted only where located inside and incidental to a wholesale business. H. Packaging and/or bottling of soft drinks or dairy products I. Bakeries (commercial-wholesale) Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 10 § 11.35 I Day care facilities provided that said facilities serve only dependents of persons employed on the same premises as are otherwise permitted by this Chapter Source: Ordinance No. 546 Effective Date: 9-18-81 K. Health, fitness and/or exercise facilities, including dance studio, gymnastic training, weight lifting studio, aerobic exercise and gymnasiums Source: Ordinance No. 573 Effective Date: 8-27-82 L. Heliports, as herein defined Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 M. Food packaging and processing that involves cooking, heating, smoking, soaking or marinating procedures Source: Ordinance No. 664 Effective Date: 7-12-85 N. Child Care Facilities, as defined in this Chapter Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6-23-88 O. Truck/Van Terminals Source: Ordinance No. 50, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-21-90 P. Medical clinics Source: Ordinance No. 82, 2nd Series Effective Date: 2-27-92 Q. Trade Schools or Training Centers Source: Ordinance No. 252, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-26-01 R. Adult Day Care Center Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-13-01 S. Drive-in bank facilities with frontage on a collector or minor arterial street Source: Ordinance No. 274, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-27-02 Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 10 § 11.35 T. Accessory retail services and/or sales incidental to a permitted use, conducted in an area less than ten percent (10%) of the building's footprint Source: Ordinance No. 283, 2nd Series Effective Date: 9-12-03 Subdivision S. Prohibited Uses No building, structure, or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be erected, altered or enlarged which is intended or designed, for any of the following uses: A. Residential dwellings B. Hotels, motels, rooming houses, or tourist homes C. Institutional uses Source: Ordinance No. 546 Effective Date: 9-18-81 D. Except as provided herein, retail commercial uses, such as shopping centers Source: Ordinance No. 326, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-15-05 Deleted Loading & Parking Requirements Source: Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-1-06 *Subdivision 6. Yard Requirements Front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks shall be required in the Light Industrial Zoning District as follows: A. In the case of premises abutting a public street front yard setbacks shall be at least thirty-five (35) feet from the right-of-way line of said street. All front yard setbacks shall be maintained as landscaped green areas. In the case of corner lots all portions of said lot abutting a public street shall be deemed to be a front yard. B. In the case of premises facing a Residential Zoning District or an R-2 Zoning District across a public street, the yard abutting that street shall not be less than seventy-five (75) feet from the right-of-way line of the street to the structure. C. Other side and rear yard setbacks shall be as follows: 1. In the case of premises adjoining a Residential Zoning District or an R-2 District required side and rear yard setbacks shall be not less than one hundred (100) feet in depth. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 10 § 11.35 2. In the case of premises adjoining a Multiple Dwelling, Business and Professional Office, or Institutional Zoning Districts, required side and rear yard setbacks shall not be less than fifty (50) feet in depth. Source: Ordinance No. 546 Effective Date: 9-18-81 3. In the case of premises adjoining a Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial, or Railroad Zoning District, required side and rear yard setbacks shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in depth. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 4. One-half (0.5) of the required side and rear yards, as measured from the lot line, shall be landscaped, planted, and maintained as a buffer zone. Source: Ordinance No. 546 Effective Date: 9-I8-81 *Subdivision 7. Use Qualifications A. Landscaping. All open areas of any site, lot, tract or parcel shall be so graded so as to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives, or storage, shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with a landscape plan that conforms to City standards and is approved by the City Manager or his or her designee. Source: Ordinance No. 427, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-25-09 B. Storage. All raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed building, or within the confines of a one hundred percent (100%) opaque wall or fence not less than six (6) feet in height. C. Screening. All principal, accessory, and conditional uses, except business signs, which are situated within fifty (50) feet of a Residential Zoning District or an R-2 Zoning District shall be screened and buffered from such Zoning District by a separation of open space which shall have a minimum depth of thirty (30) feet, and shall include a required fence or vegetative screening of not less than ninety percent (90%) opacity, and not less than six (6) feet in height above the level of the said Residential or R-2 Zoning District. Source: Ordinance No. 546 Effective Date: 9-18-81 Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 10 § 11.35 *Subdivision S. Building Height No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures as provided for in Section 11.71 of this Code and lighting fixtures, shall be erected to exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet in the Light Industrial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 *Subdivision 9. Lot Coverage No building or structure, or group thereof, shall occupy more than fifty percent (50%) of the total land area of any lot or parcel in a Light Industrial Zoning District. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 *Subdivision 10. Accessory Uses The following are permitted accessory uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class II Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 *Subdivision 11. Temporary Retail Sales A. Temporary retail sales shall include only the retail sales contemplated by the permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning District. Retail sales contemplated by the conditional uses in the Commercial Zoning District are excluded. B. Any person seeking to operate a temporary retail sale in an industrial district shall apply for a permit therefore from the Chief of Fire and Inspections Services. A completed application must be submitted at least two (2) weeks prior to the commencement of the temporary retail sale. The Chief of Fire and Inspections Services will issue a permit only after it is determined that the application meets all requirements of this subdivision. The permit application shall include the following: 1. The person(s) operating the retail sale and his or its address and telephone number. If a corporation, the state of incorporation shall be provided along with a list of the names and addresses of the officers and principal shareholders thereof. 2. The names and addresses of the owner(s) of the lot or site on which the sale is to take place (sales premises) and proof that the owner(s) has authorized the temporary retail sale. 3. The exact dates and hours of operation of the proposed sale. Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 10 § 11.35 4. The name of the person who will manage the temporary sale on the site and the names of employees who will work at it. 5. A parking plan which indicates adequate available parking on the sale premises during its proposed hours of operation. The plan must also indicate adequate parking for any other businesses located on the same sale premises. If adequate parking is not indicated on the parking plan in the opinion of the Chief of Fire and Inspections Services, a permit will not be issued for the temporary retail sale. 6. A vehicle circulation and street access plan which shall be submitted for review by the Director of Public Safety. It shall include acceptable methods of access to the sale premises and acceptable traffic control measures to ensure safety of those entering and exiting the sale premises. The operator of the sale must provide at his or her cost all traffic control measures recommended by the Director of Public Safety which may include the hiring of qualified persons to control traffic. If an acceptable vehicle circulation and street access plan is not provided in the opinion of the Director of Public Safety, a permit will not be issued for the temporary retail sale. 7. A non-refundable permit fee, established by City Council Resolution. 8. A written authorization for the sale from the property owner(s), together with the property owner's certification that he has given notification of the sale to all other tenants of the building or site in which the sale is to take place. 9. Proof that all applicable licenses and approvals from the City, Hennepin County or other governmental units have been obtained. C. No site may be used for a temporary retail sale for more than five (5) consecutive days and a total of fifteen (15) days in any one (1) calendar year. D. The plans for the temporary retail sale shall be approved by the Fire Marshal in order to insure that all fire and safety codes are met. If they are not so approved, a permit for such sale will not be issued. E. The temporary retail sale shall not interrupt vehicular circulation on the site or obstruct parking spaces needed by permanent businesses established on the site. F. The temporary retail sale shall take place only inside a building. *G. Sale hours shall be between 9 am and 9 pm. Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 10 § 11.35 *H. The permit for a temporary retail sale shall be immediately revoked by the Chief of Fire and Inspections Services or his designee if any of the following occur: 1. Failure to meet any conditions of the permit; 2. Failure to provide adequate off-street parking for the sale, which off- street parking does not impede the operation of other businesses on the premises; 3. Failure to provide safe ingress and egress to the site; 4. Failure to provide fire and safety provisions required by the City Code; 5. Failure to obtain all applicable licenses and approvals from governmental units; or 6. Failure to comply with any provisions of this subdivision. Source: Ordinance No. 118, 2nd Series Effective Date: 9-22-94 *Renumbering Source (G-H): Ordinance 272, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-25-02 *Subdivision 12. Accessory Uses The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class I B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this 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 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. Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 10 § 11.35 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from an alley. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. 8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1000) square feet or less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling, except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building code. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District require a building permit. Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 10 § 11.35 11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series Effective Date: 05-25-06 * Renumbering Source (Subd. 6-12): Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-1-06 Golden Valley City Code Page 10 of 10 § 11.36 Section 11.36: Industrial Zoning District Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the Industrial Zoning District is to provide for the establishment of industrial and manufacturing development and uses along with directly related and complementary uses which, because of the nature of the product or character of activity, requires isolation from residential and commercial areas. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Industrial 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 11.36, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.36 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 Industrial 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 are permitted in the Industrial Zoning District: A. All uses permitted in the Light Industrial Zoning District B. Lumber yard, including outside storage C. Building materials yard, including outside storage D. Battery and tire service E. Blacksmith, repair, machine shop, or tin shop F. Animal kennels where animals are customarily kept, boarded, cared for, trained, or fed, or bought and sold, as a business G. General manufacturing uses, including the compounding, assembly or treatment of articles or materials H. Hotels and motor hotels I. Class I restaurants J. Metal fabrication and assembly Source: Ordinance No. 551 Effective Date: 9-11-81 Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 8 § 11.36 K. Temporary Retail Sales in accordance with Subdivision 11 of this section. Source: Ordinance No. 79, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-10-91 L. Sexually Oriented Businesses. Source: Ordinance No. 326, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-15-05 Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. All conditional uses as provided for in the Light Industrial Zoning District B. Car wash C. Structures and premises for automobile, or other motor vehicle sales and showrooms, with incidental accessory service and repair facilities D. Gasoline service stations E. Bulk storage of gas, fuel oil, chemicals, and other liquid or solid materials which may be considered hazardous or toxic F. Mortuaries G. Off-street parking lots for adjacent Commercial or Industrial uses H. Outdoor sales including motor vehicle and equipment rental I. Drive-in retail establishments, such as banks, cleaners, photo shops, restaurants (Class II), and similar uses J. Unattended business operations, such as vending machines and equipment K. Temporary structures such as tents or air-supported structures L. Railroad yards, railroad tracks and rights-of-way in such yards, railroad shops, round houses, and any other use which shall be for railroads M. Automobile repair shops, auto body repair and/or painting, and auto cleaning and reconditioning Source: Ordinance No. 641 Effective Date: I1-16-84 N. Heliports, as herein defined Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 8 § 11.36 O. Child Care Facilities, as defined in this Chapter Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6-23-88 P. Trade Schools or Training Centers Source: Ordinance No. 53, 2nd Series Effective Date: 1-23-91 Q. Adult Day Care Center Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-13-02 Subdivision S. Building Height No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures as provided for in Section 11.71 of this Code shall be erected to exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet in the Industrial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. Source: Ordinance No. 365, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-23-07 Subdivision 6. Yard Requirements Front, side and rear yard setbacks shall be required within the Industrial Zoning District as follows: A. In the case of premises abutting a public street front yard setbacks shall be at least thirty-five (35) feet from the right-of-way line of said street. All front yard setbacks shall be maintained as landscaped green areas. In the case of corner lots all portions of said lot abutting a public street shall be deemed to be a front yard. B. In the case of premises facing a Residential Zoning District or an R-2 Zoning District across a street, the yard abutting that street shall not be less than seventy-five (75) feet in depth. C. Other side and rear yard setbacks shall be as follows: 1. In the case of premises adjoining a Residential Zoning District or an R-2 District, required side and rear yard setbacks shall be not less than one hundred (100) feet in depth. 2. In the case of premises adjoining a Multiple Dwelling, Business and Professional Office, or Institutional Zoning District, required side and rear yard setbacks shall be not less than fifty (50) feet in depth. Source: Ordinance No. 551 Effective Date: 9-11-81 Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 8 § 11.36 3. In the case of premises adjoining a Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial, or Railroad Zoning District, side and rear yard setbacks shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in depth. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 4. All required front yard setbacks shall be landscaped, and one-half (1/2) of the required side and rear yard setbacks shall be landscaped. Source: Ordinance No. 551 Effective Date: 9-11-81 *Subdivision 7. Landscaping and Screening A. All required yards shall be landscaped according to a landscape plan that conforms to City standards and is approved by the City Manager or his or her designee. Source: Ordinance No. 427, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-25-09 B. A solid screen, consisting of either a solid fence or wall not less than six (6) feet in height, or a planted landscape screen providing at least ninety percent (90%) opacity and at least six (6) feet in height at the time of planting, shall be installed and maintained along all property lines separating an Industrial Zoning District from any Residential, Multiple Dwelling, or Institutional Zoning District. C. All waste material, debris, refuse, junk or damaged vehicles shall be either kept entirely within an enclosed building, or completely screened from public streets and adjacent property. D. In the Industrial Zoning District, no materials or equipment shall be stored outside, unless screened in such a manner as not to be visible from adjacent properties or streets. No storage shall be permitted within the required landscaped area. Source: Ordinance No. 551 Effective Date: 9-11-81 *Subdivision S. Lot Coverage No building or structure, or group thereof, shall occupy more than fifty percent (50%) of the total land area of any lot or parcel in an Industrial Zoning District. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11-11-83 *Subdivision 9. Temporary Retail Sales Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 8 § 11.36 A. Temporary retail sales shall include only the retail sales contemplated by the permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning District. Retail sales contemplated by the conditional uses in the Commercial Zoning District are excluded. B. Any person seeking to operate a temporary retail sale in an industrial district shall apply for a permit therefore from the Director of Zoning and Community Services. A completed application must be submitted at least two (2) weeks prior to the commencement of the temporary retail sale. The Director of Zoning and Community Services will issue a permit only after it is determined that the application meets all requirements of this subdivision. The permit application shall include the following: 1. The person(s) operating the retail sale and his or its address and telephone number. If a corporation, the state of incorporation shall be provided along with a list of the names and addresses of the officers and principal shareholders thereof. 2. The names and addresses of the owner(s) of the lot or site on which the sale is to take place (sales premises) and proof that the owner(s) has authorized the temporary retail sale. 3. The exact dates and hours of operation of the proposed sale. 4. The name of the person who will manage the temporary sale on the site and the names of employees who will work at it. 5. A parking plan which indicates adequate available parking on the sale premises during its proposed hours of operation. The plan must also indicate adequate parking for any other businesses located on the same sale premises. If adequate parking is not indicated on the parking plan in the opinion of the Director of Zoning and Community Services, a permit will not be issued for the temporary retail sale. 6. A vehicle circulation and street access plan which shall be submitted for review by the Director of Public Safety. It shall include acceptable methods of access to the sale premises and acceptable traffic control measures to ensure safety of those entering and exiting the sale premises. The operator of the sale must provide at his or her cost all traffic control measures recommended by the Director of Public Safety which may include the hiring of qualified persons to control traffic. If an acceptable vehicle circulation and street access plan is not provided in the opinion of the Director of Public Safety, a permit will not be issued for the temporary retail sale. 7. A non-refundable permit fee, established by City Council Resolution. 8. A written authorization for the sale from the property owner(s), together with the property owner's certification that he has given notification of the Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 8 § 11.36 sale to all other tenants of the building or site in which the sale is to take place. 9. Proof that all applicable licenses and approvals from the City, Hennepin County or other governmental units have been obtained. C. No site may be used for a temporary retail sale for more than five (5) consecutive days and a total of fifteen (15) days in any one (1) calendar year. D. The plans for the temporary retail sale shall be approved by the Fire Marshal in order to insure that all fire and safety codes are met. If they are not so approved, a permit for such sale will not be issued. E. The temporary retail sale shall not interrupt vehicular circulation on the site or obstruct parking spaces needed by permanent businesses established on the site. F. The temporary retail sale shall take place only inside a building. Source: Ordinance No. 79, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-10-91 G. Sale hours shall be between 9 am and 9 pm. H. The permit for a temporary retail sale shall be immediately revoked by the Director of Zoning and Community Services or his/or her designee if any of the following occur: 1. Failure to meet any conditions of the permit. 2. Failure to provide adequate off-street parking for the sale, which off- street parking does not impede the operation of other businesses on the premises. 3. Failure to provide safe ingress and egress to the site. 4. Failure to provide fire and safety provisions required by the City Code. 5. Failure to obtain all applicable licenses and approvals from governmental units. 6. Failure to comply with any provisions of this subdivision. Source: Ordinance No. 272, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-25-02 *Subdivision 10. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in this District: Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 8 § 11.36 A. Essential Services - Class II B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this 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 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 the required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from an alley. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. 8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1,000) square feet or less than one hundred-twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 8 § 11.36 structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling, except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building code. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series Effective Date: 05-25-06 *Renumbering Source (Subd.7-10): Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-1-06 Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 8 olds n , jw iit:0 �en an Districts Zoning 0100 e„ro R. , I Single Family(R-1) Map ' a ,a . a Moderate Density(R-2)Residential Official Zonin Medium Density(R-3)Residential CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY OF NEW HOPE i CITY OF CRYSTAL I t a " Dens Residential � t � a � ® High Density(R-4)R li a 77' 'n«6;-s m a,° 9 a'^z„y� 3 �I t x.w.aa a.� I ----_—_—__CITY Oma- F--ROBBINSDALE • 94 Mixed Use - ' 8 3. Subdistrict A P I I f tb.ley, • : � j//� Low Rise-u to 3 stories `s ae + > " ,)O Mid Rise to6stor as 30$ _ P.l Subject Property ,Ny _ o II <4k. R"`°"" �,,,. iJ la V��� SubdistrictB D r 4 as a ». S a• �' S5 v ., ,.�s.` I _a r .^1af11 clwr.ew�� «I Z j/j� High Rise- to to stories 4 i3 aae r Subdistrict C g -up a O 36 r,..° ap+' ..,� ..,,,x .. Perk i z H i Commercial a al N n tri w...e. a.ap. . Light Industrial °.,w I r ' c `'•4 . 1'�•naaaoeu N Industrial s Median .v i Lake I;I �°^^' - ''d,. `°�ao, 9 �` ! Business&Professional Offices i ,�`s ,I r•va an. r,a.� .. aver I� nal Foram .k of ..con eaaa waammlm nuroa e _ rw.artn ' a'a'•^°°t•• A "'..,,xc �I� - T aee Glu p'11 d ne C Code Mktl land Use Re lelwn Nvm Ae. .. \ 3Gup,.. r _ Pter ay 9u Rona9) n; � � ^.^..,a Institutional I^ 're•yy�. w, a rYMo*/I^v xm°.n.,,.• %e PM ,°M sa ori c v a � � , - - 1C hurche schools etc) „ I u is l s (I 1)S b D' ir' t 63 •"�•; tl^.a,ba - - fr - '" ...," �` - - i - U - LStrlct(rbradea museums and colleges,etc) l = em,ea al o i (I- )Sub-District homes,Dnva[e clubs and a,r ° sYi. 74 r cots,atn) .,e,,,, - - �,� - �' •�� 1 0 3 S = Ocours-,parks,playgrounds end a £ �I � (90 Par p ay9roun ' Theodore tMrtb I-4 Sub-District government offices, m) , 0� 3. i Regional Park 1 l ) i s 6 _ - (Mpls Park&Rec Board) _ - Sub-District(cemeteries etc) i a�..1r �•_ � d Development U a eaa / 8 . . i P1 Unit Planned ru eve p ant(P D) , i iy d FN z Il ave 1vew ss • „• I ',. I-394 Overlay Zoning District(Zones A,B,C) Flood Plain Management Zoning Overlay District I e i "^^^" • '—'6'---"'-""-' —�'-'�--�=F--r—--- 93 1 e ' iC See the'Olficul Flood Zone Profile and Map'on fla xilh the City-The cobclion of flood profiles 96 cunhimed in the Flood Insurance study.Volumes 1 of 2 ark 2 of 2 Hennepin County Minmsotz �{ .M. :_ 1 F 1 all pried ctuns.dated September 2 4'ndudin9 the Fbod Imurance Rate Maps form.Cly 4 26 46 of Golden sky,Panel.2705360194 E,2705300213 E.2705300214E Z7053CO332 E, I 5t 5 2705300351 E,2705300352 E and 2705300354 E.dated September 2 2004 H, li 6 P� 61 ea Shoreland Overlay District •• LJ a I 71 59 33 See seta k a stance Shorebird rn rs 1 w 1 S 79 7OiF 1 , , ..m..•,.r+s. _ rnu ^c...l w'r - -5S m __ Point Dare.1211012013 1 i I sra,rym z ana+y,re Sources c tt )t nfG County Surveyorsthe yfor ens yLines(2013). Y � +w^ i• ; 4 aarao°`o�Rf „a 'r '25 dy of GOMen Valrey/or all other lays ae h D • � _ •s o a corn z a - ¢ aka 0 0 400 900 1,600 2.400 3.200 at e Z O O �r��a /Boa F°° t \ 3 j i Approved Amendments: Official Zoning Map s I' 4 N44m, t E 7 rn. l 'us Ordinance Number Ci Council Comments .pv. - O Ado tion Date _ lit ' :.n n. '4 P" �" .° a "0\ �-� ¢4 w, 8 c `f^ I Vsit the Planning Depa ment at City Hall for a list of amendments approved since adoption " 9 to A a«aa. # s s I ORDINANCE NO.271,2ND SERIES .r r,,, 'TM I �•. q 'w This is to certify that this is the OfficialZoning Map referred to in Section 17.11 �} �,. —--_. I. " • �`/ z of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code of the City of Golden Valley. �j_ j ,� `j/// j LLRR��•�� „ I� Adopted this 22nd day of November 2002. 67 /I////• �1 e noro�rNa: r 5 I O_ �j r �%C. ���////� unda �iQoYoar>ua �� cuE. : j /N F I gyp MAYOR _. --- h_____----- -- ---- ---' - - — I U LINDA R.LOOMIS, M s J ,I CITY OF 9 Westwood - ST.LOUIS PARK -,i 1 oaa � j; Lake CITY OF ST.LOUIS PARK Attest DONALD G.TAYLOR,CITY CLERK 'y1 q,nttYd3t Ci ty of Golden Valley I A ''• ?"''fie J *^ 1 Brownie Planning Department ,y 7800 Golden Valley Road '> -9 Lake Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 763-593-8095 1:1MapsZoningM p.pdf www.9oldenvaleymn.gov Q m > J a m IL W w N o m O ^LLI J N a v > � m of M r v O N `o = `m rn g N z C C m m o a ._� — N m C7 w N c CD N _ N J 'h N > C O c t d 1 1 C N fA 0- R f6 to O •p- 7 o a m v a a L i U = j NN L N I hm W = 3 y rn m rn o x Q a� n z a J _ O H c O N d cn O i v LU ao0 oNv2 SOU 1,I101\ANNIIV 101.1.1,) ' Rc Ni _. s .A ° I yam• T'�"„,. 4Ypa� 3 4� � � 3� f W r 1 ? a 1 �y s SI103"3NNI1'V;10.C.LIJ � F4 y 2 liwe 11VOSNUIROIT-:10 A11D T ad - _d - - ^• -•_ ! ti i a ; ��'9.. , p $ E x tl mx f L= k 1 a v .mw §, f $ � .., � � 4'�8 � s t� ��• , 2�a � ?[ J zl ,....i.M: e a x •.„o a ,a � 4a 5 M 3 , sm = I nx � . � ! p -. 4'a , a x.�' ,n ., >.•'`�_ ,... , a �\ �- ik IVIS111J 301ZIJ xw.,” • - '•A ® £ \IOWA, q,r b B r Q Ham" j goomm a' Nay • � - nN a`\�` I a \ a I I � � rSk MONNO b MOO Ni e ,Yslf x.h� r M u = E r' : d J � ,i \'�\ ( IMMIN,1\ 5 a i t -A m LIZ- 4-P vl ` 2R Tr i W P, _ 1 x..•r,.3 t o I•,',x HIflOI•V11d 40 kill) � � x '..1.ro!14VIL yVj stro"•mss oIa u 0''m= 0 0l dol Unt7n