Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-05-14 CC Agenda Packet (entire)
AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber November 5, 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 - lead by the representatives from the VFW and American Legion C. Google Award Presentation - Open to Business D. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment: Mr. Andrew Ramlett, Human Rights Commission E. Oath of Office - Police Officer Beau Hartneck 3 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 for City Council Meeting - October 7, 2014 4-8 B. Approval of City Check Register 9 C. Licenses: 1. Solicitor's License - Friends of the Earth 10-12 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - September 22, 2014 13-23 2. Human Rights Commission - June 24, 2014 24-25 3. Environmental Commission - August 25, 2014 26-27 4. Joint Water Commission - August 6, 2014 28-29 5. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - September 18, 2014 30-40 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Authorize Agreements for 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project: 41-63 a. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission b. WSB & Associates, Inc. 2. Authorize Agreement Amendment with SEH, Inc. for TH 55 and Winnetka 64-68 Avenue Final Design 3. Award Contract for 2014 Fire Suppression Project 69 4. Authorize Agreements for Stream Bank Stabilization 70-90 F. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72 (Golden 91-95 Valley Senior Living) - Amendment No. 2 G. Acceptance of Grant for Hampshire Park Playground Equipment and Approval for 96-97 Play Structure Purchase and Installation 14-87 H. Resolution Modifying 2014 General Wages and Salaries for New Water Resources 98-99 Technician Position 14-88 3. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED I. Approval of Extension for Filing of Plat and Submitting Final PUD Plan Application - 100-103 PUD #107 - The Towers at West End - Southwest Quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100 - Duke Realty, Applicant J. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 104-108 (Twin Cities Automotive) - Amendment No. 3 K. Receipt of HKGi Professional Services Proposal for Residential Subdivision/Zoning 109-117 Ordinance Study L. Receive and file correspondence regarding Proposed Amendments to Ordinance 530 118-121 regarding Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7PM A. Continued Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Sunnyridge Woods - 200 122-145 Meadow Lane North B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Brunswick Estates - 108 Brunswick 146-163 Avenue North 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Amendment to Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit 164-166 Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components (Ordinance #530) B. Appointment to METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau) Corridor Management 167 Committee C. Announcements of Meetings D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT city of-' r grolde" n MEMORANDUM valley Police Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 1. E. Administration of Police Officer Oath of Office - Beau Hartneck Prepared By Stacy Carlson, Chief of Police Summary Officer Beau Hartneck will be present to take the oath of office as a Golden Valley police officer. Recommended Action Mayor Harris administers the oath of office to Officer Beau Hartneck. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA October 7, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Fonnest, Clausen, Schmidgall and Snope. 1B. Pledge of Allegiance lead by the Teen Committee Members Mayor Harris presented Certificates of Appointment to the Teen Committee Members which includes Olivia Behn, Brittany Blazar, Melanie Blazar, Sam Buttress, Sarah Carlson, Stella Haberman, Owen Hoeft, Jack Knudson, Shivani Nookala and Hannah Segelbaum and thanked the Park and Recreation staff for their service. 1C. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment Mayor Harris administered the oath of office to the following Commissioners: Mr. Andrew Johnson to the Planning Commission, Mr. Simon Gottlieb to the Human Rights Commission and Mr. Richard Orenstein to the Board of Zoning Appeals Commission. 1D. YES 281 Citizen Committee School District Referendum Ms. Robin Smothers, Ms. Jennifer Griffin-Wiesner and Ms. Andrea Wiley presented information on the 2014 - 281 School District Referendum. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda 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 October 7, 2014, as revised to remove items: 31-Resolution Acceptance of Donations and 3J-Resolution Authorizing Application for Hennepin Youth Sports Program Grant and the motion carried unanimously. 3A. Approve the Minutes of City Council Meeting - September 16, 2014. 3131. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3132. Approve Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C1. Approve Solicitor's License for Garbage Man, 3C2. Approve Solicitor's License for Budget Exteriors, Inc. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - August 25, 2014 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - August 26, 2014 3. Human Rights Commission - May 27, 2014 4. Joint Water Commission - July 2, 2014 5. Environmental Commission - July 28, 2014 6. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - July 17, 2014 3E1. Adopt Resolution 14-75 Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Sanitary Sewer Repairs in 2014. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- October 7, 2014 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA-Continued 3E2. Adopt Resolution 14-76 Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Sanitary Sewer Repairs that involve 2014 Street Improvements, 3F. Adopt Resolution 14-77 Appointment of Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for 2014 General Election. 3G. Receive and file Notice of Metropolitan Council Action regarding the General Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. 3H. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the 2014-2015 Police Sergeants (LELS Local #304) Labor Agreement. 31. Adopt Resolution 14 78 AGGepting Donations on behalf of the City of Golden Valley, 3j. Adopt Resolution 14 79 Authorizing Submittal of AppliGatien fE)F Hennepin Youth 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 31. Adopt Resolution 14-78 Accepting Donations on behalf of the City of Golden Valley. Park and Recreation Director Birno answered questions from Council. Council thanked the citizens and groups who donated on behalf of the City. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Resolution 14-78 Accepting Donations on behalf of the City of Golden Valley and the motion carried unanimously. 3J. Adopt Resolution 14-79 Authorizing Submittal of Application for Hennepin Youth Sports Program Grant. Park and Recreation Director Birno presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Resolution 14-79 Authorizing Submittal of Application for Hennepin Youth Sports Program Grant and the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4A. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance #527 - Rezoning 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. MOTION by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Ordinance No. 527, Rezoning 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from Single Family Residential (R-1) and 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3), Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant and the motion carried unanimously. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- October 7, 2014 4B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Sunnyridge Woods - 200 Meadow Lane Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. City Attorney Barnard answered questions from Council. There was much Council discussion regarding the Preliminary Plat Approval for Sunnyridge Woods located at 200 Meadow Lane. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded Council Member Clausen to table the item until November 5, 2014, upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen and Fonnest and the following voted against: Schmidgall and Snope and the motion carried. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded Council Member Clausen to direct staff to place on the agenda for October 21, 2014, consideration of amending ordinance 530 upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen and Fonnest and the following voted against: Schmidgall and Snope and the motion carried. 4C. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - 2014 Miscellaneous Charges Resolution 14-80 Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 14-80 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Miscellaneous Charges and the motion carried unanimously. 4D. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - 2014 Delinquent Utility Bills - Golden Valley Resolution 14-81 Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. Public Works Maintenance Manager Tracy answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened public hearing. Mr. Steven Little, Attorney for Weavewood Inc. of 840 Pennsylvania Avenue South, stated he was attending on behalf of Weavewood Inc. who has an outstanding utility bill with the City. He provided historical background information on the Weavewood Company in regard to property ownership and the outstanding utility bill. He stated his client felt the water bill was inaccurate and he would like to contest it. Mr. Howard Thompson, Property Owner of 840 Pennsylvania Avenue South, provided additional information on the history of the property in which Weavewood Inc. is located. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- October 7, 2014 4D. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - 2014 Delinquent Utility Bills - continued There was much Council discussion regarding the delinquent utility bill for Weavewood Inc. located at 840 Pennsylvania Avenue South. Staff was directed to work with Mr. Thompson of Weavewood Inc. on the outstanding utility bill. Motion made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Resolution 14-81 adopting and confirming Assessments for Delinquent Golden Valley Utility Billing and the motion carried unanimously. 4E. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - 2014 Delinquent Utility Bills - Minneapolis Resolution 14-82 Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Mayor Harris opened public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. Motion made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Resolution 14-82 adopting and confirming Assessments for Delinquent Minneapolis Utility Billing and the motion carried unanimously. 6. New Business 6A. First Consideration - Ordinance #531 - Addition of Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) Ordinance City Engineer Oliver presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Public Works Maintenance Tracy answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the addition of Fats, Oil and Grease Ordinance. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Ordinance #531, City of Golden Valley Ordinance Amending Section 3.01 and 3.32 of the City Code upon first consideration and the motion carried unanimously. 6B. Announcement of Meetings Some Council Members may attend the Human Rights Commission Conversations: Mental Health Awareness October 9, 2014, at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Historical Society: Civil Wars events on October 9, 2014, at 7 pm at the Golden Valley Historical Society. Mighty Tidy Day will be held on October 11, 2014, from 8 am to 1 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Kelly Drive Pumpkin Festival on October 11, 2014, from 11 am to 1 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Public Safety Open House for Families with Autism on October 11, 2014, from 2 pm to 4 pm. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- October 7, 2014 6B. Announcement of Meetings - continued The next Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting will be held on October 14, 2014, at 6:30 pm. The next Council/Manager Meeting will be held on October 14, 2014, following the HRA Meeting. The next City Council Meeting will be held on October 21, 2014, at 6:30 pm. 6C. Mayor and Council Communication Council Member Clausen provided an update on the Lee Avenue BBQ event. Mayor Harris provided an update on the Ribbon Cutting Event for the new 911 Center. Mayor Harris thanked the other Council Members who attended the quarterly Neighborhood Meeting. 7. Adjournment MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Fonnest and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 pm. Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city Of MEMORANDUM go I 'd en 1 11 valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 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 of V' o ld MEMORANDUM en , I valle City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) iv �- �t 77r,9��?::� ...�!�.,m-. 4 i?5r`�,` -'€x'.�.��_..�•. , .,`�g° ^...�"� ,»A?�' �k.r"':' .. .;: ._ ..�;�' °`.'.:.....:. ....... .. - - - .. _... Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Solicitor's License - Friends of the Earth 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 Friends of the Earth. 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 ©d TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler Solicitgr (circle one Enclose the sum of$ SO•oa 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. brie\ds C� *He Ea(JAA (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) 510-15 U3 4\o - Sol 16i_41 MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Business t,IoN-?9-o F tT (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) '1..1 n 44 Ske.te,n - Ave- (Address) ve.(Address) M(Vmea� ts, Mta ►-fn�t City, State and Zip Code) \ol'L' 010116- 001-OLk (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, .kLoj;;i Nuri c, Uiluoj hereby makes application for (Applicant Name) period of I t through 12/31/, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Co e. da (Signature f Applicant/Pdncipal 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): (;vV -A� kAmA iO\A& �(oAS of 0Jf �o e.!4AI,g iA Pvli-k C-1 Go I C_('0 \f4akc . 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: no (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF ��� ) )ss. COUNTY OF 4�-�7") 1, jAa!n!bt- M- U'JA0,4 of -V��eMAt 4 I-VU mar (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. (ar-- Signatuig of Applicant/Principal Officer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this AL1 BULHAN day of UPJ 2v — ' 20Notary Public =z; %' Minnesota My comm. Expires Jan 31, 2015 � '(Signature) Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 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, September 22, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes September 8, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to page 6 and stated that the motion made for the Sunnyridge Woods subdivision proposal should include the condition regarding shifting the west property on Lot 3, 5 feet further to the west. Baker referred to page 5 and stated that he did not suggest tabling the Sunnyridge Woods proposal. He said Chair Kluchka asked him if he was suggesting tabling the proposal, but he said no, he would be voting against the proposal due to the pending moratorium discussion by City Council. Waldhauser referred to the discussion regarding the Lock Up storage business and asked that her comment be clarified to state that there was an opportunity to rezone that property, however, the utility and access issues with this property would have been very expensive for the City to address. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 8, 2014, minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan Review — Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment#2 Applicant: Albert Miller Address: 7475 Country Club Drive Purpose: To convert the vacant 60-unit senior living facility into a 111-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to expand the existing vacant senior living facility from 60 units to 110 units, not 111 units as stated in the application materials. He stated that the proposed expansion includes two and three story additions with secure gardens/patios on the north and east ends of the existing building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 2 Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that there are currently 35 parking spaces on the property. He explained that 23 spaces are required and 28 spaces are being proposed. He stated that the applicant is also proposing additional screening for the single family home to the northeast and the multi-family buildings to the south. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and discussed how the proposal compares to the underlying zoning district requirements. He stated that the side yard setback along the west will be 12.5 feet instead of 50 feet with a 25 foot landscaped buffer, however it will be no closer to the west side property line than the current building. He stated that the setback along the south property line will be 25 feet rather than 33 feet and the front yard setback will be 31 feet rather than 35 feet which is consistent with the neighboring building. He stated that the new parking lot will be 17 feet from the side lot line rather than providing a 25 foot landscaped butter, and the lot coverage will be 27% rather than the 25% allowed in the Institutional zoning district. Segelbaum asked if the proposed amount of impervious surface changed between the Preliminary PUD review and the Final PUD review. Zimmerman stated that the amount of impervious surface increased slightly from the Preliminary Plan, but the applicant has stated that they are going to use pervious pavers wherever they can. Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson architects, discussed the amount of impervious surface on the site and stated that there will be an underground infiltration system installed. He referred to the number of proposed units and explained that the number of units has been reduced in order to have larger common areas in the building. Cera asked about the location of snow storage on the property. Wilson stated that there is some space on the east side of the property that can be used for snow storage. Otherwise, if there is a significant amount of snow they may have to haul it off site. Waldhauser asked Wilson to explain how the surface water will drain off the site. Wilson said the water flows from north to southeast on the site. He said they will be improving the rate control, and will be doing some terracing of the slope on the neighboring property and adding catch basins as well. Segelbaum noted that during the Preliminary PUD review it was mentioned that a portion of the residents would be eligible for subsidies. He asked if that has changed. Wilson said that has not changed. Baker asked Wilson if anything has changed in relation to the existing house to the north. Wilson said no, and added that he thinks they'll be able solve some of the erosion issues the neighboring property has been having. Blum asked Wilson to explain how they will prevent patient walkaways. Wilson said it is a misnomer that people can just walk away. He explained that the memory care units will be on the second and third floors with their own screened-in deck area. He said there is also Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 3 door security and a wrist band system so staff will know the residents whereabouts at all times. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said it is exciting to have a facility like this in Golden Valley and the applicant has done a good job of making it fit. Cera agreed and said he is glad a vacant facility will be used. Segelbaum agreed and commended the applicant for being a good neighbor. Kluchka said he is comfortable with the proposed snow storage areas and pervious surface techniques being proposed on the site. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment #2, 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. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Kass Wilson architects and submitted with the application on August 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 4 3. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods — 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue — PU-119 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the two existing single family properties into a new five-lot single family development Zimmerman explained the applicant's proposal to develop five single homes on two existing single family lots totaling 1.6 acres. He stated that the density would be 3.125 units per acre and that the R-2 zoning district allows up to 8 units per acre. He noted that all five proposed new homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue and that the applicant is proposing a tree conservation easement area on the back (north) half of the properties. Zimmerman discussed how this PUD proposal varies from the R-2 zoning district requirements. He stated that the lot width requirement in the R-2 zoning district is 100 feet. Four of the proposed lots would be 42 feet wide and one lot would be 55.2 feet wide. He stated that the side yard setback requirement in the R-2 zoning district is 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback on the west side, and an 8 foot setback on the east side of each lot. Zimmerman added that there is also a requirement in the PUD section of the Zoning Code not being met, which states that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line abutting a single family zoning district. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of the PUD proposal because it does not meet the necessary findings to approve a PUD. Specifically, it does not achieve a high quality of site planning, it fails to preserve high quality features, it does not demonstrate efficient use of land, and it does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision. Kluchka referred to the PUD language stating that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line and asked if the intent was not to have a building next to an R-1 property. Zimmerman stated that the City can't offer flexibility from the PUD requirements like it can from the underlying zoning code requirements. Segelbaum said it is an interpretation issue. He noted that the language says that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line abutting a single family zoning district. In this case the subject property abuts an R-2 zoning district. Zimmerman agreed that an interpretation is needed and added that both single family homes and twin homes are allowed in the R-2 zoning district. Segelbaum asked if it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer an interpretation. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked about the distance between the existing home at 7236 Harold Avenue and the proposed new house on Lot 1. Zimmerman said there would be approximately 15 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 5 feet between the existing house (7236 Harold Avenue) and the proposed new house on Lot 1. Segelbaum referred to the site plan and noted the staggered front yard setback lines. He asked if the applicant will have control over where the houses are placed on the lots, or if the City would just be approving a building envelope area. Zimmerman stated that the PUD Permit could say where the building envelopes can be located. Segelbaum asked if a cul-de-sac plan is viable. Zimmerman said staff has seen plans for a cul-de-sac with seven or eight homes. He said there is some concern about the neighbors objecting to the density and there has been some push-back from the applicant about the cost of the cul-de-sac plan, but a cul-de-sac would be staff's preference. Pete Knaeble, Applicant, said he has spent months trying to appropriately develop this site. He handed out drawings of other options he has proposed that were not looked at favorably by the City Council. He referred to the cul-de-sac option, and said he likes the idea of more density, but there are some significant issues that are not appropriate for this site, and the neighbors are adamant about not wanting a cul-de-sac. He added that the cul-de-sac option would also place the homes closer to Highway 55. He said there will be five unique, custom built homes and he already has three interested families who like the cluster of trees in the back, and the park in the front. He said he disagrees with staff comments especially that the proposal does not meet the findings necessary to approve a PUD. He said this type of project is a perfect use for a PUD and the neighbors will support this proposal because of the high home values. Knaeble referred to staff's concern about five curb cuts on Harold Avenue and said he would be able to build two twin homes on this property without any approvals, which tells him that he is entitled to four curb cuts. He is asking for one more curb cut which should not be an issue. Knaeble referred to the wooded area along Highway 55 on the north part of these properties and said he thinks it is an important buffer to this neighborhood that is being downplayed and discouraged. He added that he thinks this green area along Highway 55 should be protected from Glenwood Avenue to Winnetka Avenue because the green space is critical. He stated that these trees are not just low quality trees, there are some high quality trees that have a high value and are an important part of this proposal. He said 70% of the trees will remain and 60% of the trees would be in the proposed tree conservation easement area. Knaeble stated that another issue with the cul-de-sac would be the amount of impervious surface. He said he is proposing 16% impervious surface coverage, and the cul-de-sac would be double that amount. He stated that the City Engineer has said there are downstream flooding issues and he thinks adding additional impervious surface is not a correct response to that issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 6 Knaeble referred to staff's comment about the majority of the view of the proposed new homes from the street would be garage doors. He disagreed with that and showed the Commissioners drawings of possible types of homes that could be built and reiterated that the homes will be custom designed. Knaeble referred to the findings used to approve a PUD and said he disagrees with staff stating that he doesn't meet four of them. He said he thinks this is a unique project that does have a high quality site plan that preserves and protects site features by placing half of the property in an easement area, and protects wetland areas and steep slopes. He said he is shocked by staff's recommendation and he doesn't know what else he could do above and beyond what he is proposing. He stated that staff needs to remember the scenic view that will be protected along Highway 55. Knaeble referred to the finding regarding the efficient use of land and said the way he designed this proposal couldn't be any more efficient because he is using existing streets and utilities. He said from his perspective, he is being efficient because a cul-de-sac would be $250,000 and it is not necessary to spend that money for a cul-de-sac that the City would have to own and maintain forever. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to comment on the PUD language which states that no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line. Knaeble said he spoke with his attorney and other planners and engineers, and they all think that language pertains to taller buildings being placed next to single family residential properties. He said he thinks that part of the PUD language is not appropriate for this development. Segelbaum asked Knaeble about the distance between the houses. Knaeble said the distance varies from 13 to 20 feet. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to discuss other reasons he has discounted the cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said he wants to redevelop this property, and he may end up doing the cul-de-sac option, but he doesn't think it's appropriate in this case. He said the lot sizes wouldn't meet the standard in the R-1 zoning district, a cul-de-sac would double the amount of impervious surface, and would not be a good use of this site. He added that if Highway 55 wasn't an issue he would agree with the cul-de-sac option, but the homes won't be as valuable if they are placed closer to Highway 55 so he thinks his current proposal is better. Cera asked Knaeble if he has given any thought to acquiring additional lots. Knaeble said yes. He said the neighbors to the east are not in a position to sell, and he hasn't pursued the neighbor to the west. He reiterated that he thinks small, single family lots are the best way to develop this area, not multiple cul-de-sacs that remove the buffer of trees along Highway 55. Waldhauser asked Knaeble why the neighbors have said they don't like the cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said that the average value of the homes would be significantly lower with seven lots on a cul-de-sac, closer to Highway 55, than five smaller single family lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 7 Waldhauser asked about the size of the proposed homes. Knaeble said they would be approximately 2,000 to 2,400 square feet in size. Cera asked Knaeble if he has considered building a shorter cul-de-sac, further away from Highway 55. Knaeble said yes, but from a cost and design point of view, it is more efficient and better for the environment to develop five lots. Baker noted that Knaeble said he would not be able to sell the proposed homes because they would be closer to Highway 55, but then he said he wouldn't consider fewer homes in a shorter cul-de-sac format that would place the homes further away from Highway 55. Knaeble said the cul-de-sac would still have to be built, and he doesn't think that is a good trade off. He questioned building a new cul-de-sac to serve five homes when the infrastructure already exists on Harold Avenue. Baker stated that of the nine homes on the north side of Harold Avenue, only one of them is close to Highway 55 which tells him there is a desire to build away from Highway 55. Knaeble agreed and added that there is also a desire to save trees, and to build the homes closer to the park. Baker said there appears to be little market for homes close to Highway 55, so the idea of a tree conservation easement is not so much an amenity, as it is a necessity to make the proposed development marketable. Knaeble reiterated that the view of the trees along Highway 55 is important and should not be downplayed. Kluchka asked who currently owns the properties in this proposal. Knaeble said he owns the lot on the west at 7218 Harold Avenue and Fred Gross owns the lot on the east at 7200 Harold Avenue. Kluchka asked Knaeble if the City is asking him to develop these properties. Knaeble said no. Kluchka stated that nobody is asking for these properties to be redeveloped except for the people who own them. Knaeble said he doesn't think that's true because the City rezoned these properties to R-2 to encourage higher density and additional housing in this area. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said nobody in the neighborhood wants the cul-de- sac option. He said the ideal plan would be to tear down the two existing homes and build two new homes, but the properties are zoned R-2 and the City wants higher density. He said the houses will be very close together, but a good architect can make it look nice. He said he loves the existing buffer of trees on these properties and if they are cut down he will be able to see and hear every car on Highway 55. He said the proposed plan isn't perfect, but he supports it. Segelbaum asked Kueny if he is concerned about the parking situation in the neighborhood with the proposed additional curb cuts and the number of events that are held at Lions Park. Kueny said no. He stated that there are four softball tournaments a year and two or three soccer tournaments a year, but the parking is not a problem by his end of the park. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 8 Perry Thom, 320 Louisiana Avenue North, said he wouldn't be concerned about the parking issues with the addition of five driveways because parking isn't allowed on the north side of Harold Avenue so nothing would be affected. He said he really appreciates Knaeble's efforts to include the neighbors in this proposal. He said he loves the neighborhood and there is an opportunity to have a real gem here. He said homes in a cul-de-sac would be less than desirable. He said they would not be high valued homes and he sees that as nothing but a drag on the neighborhood, and a transient opportunity. He said the City forcing the community to take homes they don't want isn't appropriate and he doesn't appreciate the cul-de-sac idea because it will eliminate almost all of the trees and lower property values. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, said he has been renting out this property for the last 13 years. He said he is ambivalent about selling his house because if this proposal doesn't happen he will just continue to rent out the house. He said the irony of this whole thing is that the best time to approve a proposal is when you have a good proposal, even though it doesn't meet all of the requirements. He said there isn't one cottonwood tree on these properties and thinks this would be a wonderful project. Lynn Schneider, 310 Louisiana Avenue North, said she loves the wetland area and the buffer of the trees, and she thinks it's pretty when she sees trees on Highway 55. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, stated that the last proposal for this site was recommended for approval by staff but was denied unanimously by the Planning Commission, and now this proposal is being recommended for denial by staff. He said to look at the viability of the project and approve it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Cera said he thinks the Planning Commission's concerns are the width of the lots and the setbacks. He asked Knaeble if he had considered four lots instead of five. Knaeble said he did consider four lots, but he thinks five lots fit, are appropriate, and maximize the density. Cera asked if four lots would allow for larger setbacks. Knaeble said he doesn't think there is a setback issue. He said his proposal is not unlike the recent development on Rhode Island Avenue just down the street. Those homes are 15 feet apart, and his proposed homes would be 13 feet apart. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how they felt about four lots, versus five lots. Baker said he would like to hear about the applicant's other options. Segelbaum said this is the option the applicant prefers, and he would like to focus on this option in front of them. Waldhauser said she believes part of the reason the City is trying to encourage higher density is for affordability, not just for increased density. She said it concerns her that when the City has these opportunities to increase density they continue to keep trying to maintain the same size and the same price point for new homes as the homes in the surrounding neighborhood. She said she can understand why the developer and the neighbors don't want that, but it flies in the face of the goal of increasing density. She Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 9 said she would like to have a conversation as a City, and not just as each new development comes up. Baker agreed and said that is why he wants to see the other options. He said the City needs other affordable options. Segelbaum said he doesn't want to discourage the conversation, he just wants to explore the options amongst the Commission, not necessarily with the applicant, because the applicant has submitted what he wants to do. Kluchka said unless there is an economic incentive from the City, more affordable houses aren't going to be built. Baker said affordable housing has many euphemisms. He said he is not talking about low income, subsidized housing, just something other than $500,000 homes. Kluchka said the economic reality is that a house can't be torn down and replaced with a new $200,000 house and still be profitable to a developer. He added that the expectation of replacing homes with lower priced homes is not the right expectation to have. Cera asked about the price of the recently constructed homes on Rhode Island Avenue. Zimmerman said he thinks they were approximately $350,000 to $400,000. (Clarification after the fact, the homes referred to on Rhode Island Avenue sold for $400,000 to $450,000.) Kluchka asked about the width of lots and the setbacks in the Laurel Ponds proposal on Pennsylvania Avenue. Zimmerman said the lots in that proposal are 36 feet wide with 10 feet of separation between the houses. Cera stated that the Laurel Ponds proposal is a transitional site and that this proposal is in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood. Waldhauser said she understands the economic difficulties with the cul-de-sac, but it would seem much more appealing to her to have a couple of cul-de-sac developments than row housing. Baker said he is a fan of trees, and he believes they are a buffer for the neighborhood, but he feels that saving the trees isn't driving the decision to build the houses further away from Highway 55, there just isn't a desire to build the houses right next to the highway. Kluchka agreed and added that asking the City to maintain a tree conservation area isn't viable when the houses would more than likely be built further away from Highway 55 anyway. Zimmerman added that the City isn't saying that the trees aren't important or should be removed. The City just doesn't want to be responsible for the conservation easement when private covenants could accomplish the same goal. Kluchka asked the Commissioners how to interpret the language that states no building shall be closer than its height to the side yard property line. Waldhauser said she feels a residential PUD is very different from other types of PUDs. She questioned what should regulate height versus setback for this property because in the R-1 district there is a tie between the height and the setback so she is not sure what to use as a guideline in this case. Kluchka said there was two years of research and debate on correct setbacks and massing management, and the character of neighborhoods. He said he'd rather see a high quality development of the area as a whole, and he is not sure this proposal fits. Baker agreed and said having homes that are 13 feet apart is dramatically different from Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 10 what is there now. Kluchka said he thinks the PUD language regarding height and setbacks is relevant. Segelbaum said he thinks the height/setback language was meant for a larger development PUD next to a single family home. He said this isn't a large development, but it is right up next to a single family home. Baker said they need to think about ways to encourage overlay districts to make this type of development more possible, but this proposal doesn't fit today's situation. Kluchka questioned if the City would rather have this design, or a twin home design as intended in the R-2 zoning district. Baker said a twin home might be a more efficient use of the land. Kluchka agreed. Waldhauser stated that developers have said it is much more difficult to market a twin home than a small house on a small lot. Segelbaum said he's not sure what type of development would fit here. He said it is clear the neighbors don't want a cul-de-sac, but that doesn't mean there aren't other possible uses, including not developing it at all. Kluchka questioned if this proposal rises to the level of a PUD in terms of allowing flexibility, but also getting something for the City in return. He said for him, this proposal does not rise to that level and he would rather see the property used as intended for twin homes, or maybe four single family homes instead of five. Cera agreed that the development doesn't feel complete and maybe if the proposal included more properties he might feel differently. Waldhauser said she doesn't think that the City can ask a developer to wait until every property is for sale. Baker said that is why he is interested in overlay districts. He said in its current context, this proposal is hard to accept. Blum referred to the quality of site planning and design as required by the PUD ordinance and noted that the applicant has said that language is subjective. He said he thinks one way that could be more objective, is by comparing the proposal to other homes in the area. He said that this proposal doesn't rise to the same level of quality as other homes near the park. He added that this proposal also achieves no higher density, or at least the level of density the City would like to see. Kluchka summarized some of the potential findings including: the Planning Commission's interpretation relative to this proposal, is that Subdivision 3 in the PUD ordinance does not offer flexibility in this instance, the appropriateness of the setbacks for the planned height in an R-2 zoning district, and the proposed easement on the east side of the property needs to be wider than proposed. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of Preliminary PUD Plan for PUD #119, Marie's Woods based on the following findings: 1. The PUD plan does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design as it simply replaces two existing single family homes with five new single family homes on narrower lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2014 Page 11 2. The PUD plan does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and would likely result in conflict with at least one PUD ordinance provision of minimum required side yard setbacks for principal buildings. Also, the proposed easement on the east side of the property should be 25 feet in width as opposed to 20 feet as proposed. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman reported on the September 16 City Council meeting where the Council voted to approve a six-month moratorium on single family residential subdivisions and PUDs with a single family residential component. Waldhauser reported on a recent Bottineau meeting she attended. 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant MINUTES Human Rights Commission (HRC) City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Council Conference Room June 24, 2014 Commissioners present: Brian Cook, Chair Teresa Martin, Vice-Chair Adam Buttress Carla Johnson Payton Perkins (arr. 6:36 pm) Susan Phelps Michael Pristash Commissioners absent: Jonathan Burris Staff Liaison: Chantell Knauss Assistant City Manager The meeting was convened at 6:31 pm by Chair Cook. Approval of May 27, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Motion by Vice-Chair Martin, second by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes with the correction of the spelling of Hugh Aylward's name. Motion carried 6-0. HRC Conversations Event Planning — October 9 "Adults and Mental Illness" • Commissioner Burris is awaiting a return call from TouchStone to see if they would be able to provide a representative for the panel discussion (continued follow-up from May 27, 2014 meeting). • Vice-Chair Martin reported Hugh Aylward at Oasis confirmed he will serve as a panelist. • Vice-Chair Martin reported NAMI will have a representative on the panel, they will confirm at a later time the specific staff person that will be attending. • Commissioner Buttress reported that Executive Director Mary Weeks of the Walk-in Counseling Center confirmed they will have a representative attending and will confirm at a later time the specific staff person that will be attending. Commissioners agreed to have Ken Barlow, KSTP Meteorologist, as the first speaker for the event where he would present and address questions from attendees, then be able to leave due to his early morning work schedule. Human Rights Commission June 24,2014 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 September 11 Day of Service and Remembrance Event Planning Knauss will work with Commissioner Johnson to get the online volunteer registration link to Second Harvest Heartland for promotional materials. Commissioner Johnson reported there are 40 volunteer spaces reserved for Golden Valley HRC on September 11 from 6:00-8:00 pm. Adults and children ages 8 and older are welcome to register and volunteer at the event. New Business — Oath of Office Knauss explained that when Commissioner Pristash submitted the item for the agenda, staff reviewed the oath of office currently being used by the City. The current oath is the same one that was used by the State of Minnesota. The State's oath has been changed since the City last reviewed the oath of office language and it now offers a choice of alternate words, should the inductee desire. Commissioner Pristash wanted to bring this forward so that others who may have or in the future be uncomfortable with the language of the oath not be discouraged from serving or getting involved. Commissioners agreed the choice of alternative language is a good solution for future oaths of office. Communications Knauss will forward to the Commissioners events/activities in the Twin Cities area for the 50th Anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Adjourn Motion by Commissioner Pristash, second by Commissioner Buttress to adjourn the meeting at 6:51 pm. Motion carried 7— 0. Follow-up Items: • Commissioner Burris is awaiting a return call from Touchstone to see if they would be able to provide a representative for the panel discussion (continued follow-up from May 27, 2014 meeting). • Knauss will work with Commissioner Johnson to get the online volunteer registration link to Second Harvest Heartland for promotional materials. Brian Cook, Chair ATTEST: Chantell Knauss, Staff Liaison Approved by HRC: October 23, 2014 Human Rights Commission June 24,2014 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 25, 2014 Present: Commissioners Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Larry Johnson, Jim Stremel, Debra Yahle; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist, Veronica Anderson, SEH and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant Call to Order Stremel called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes — July 28, 2014 MOVED by Gitelis, seconded by Galonska, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2014 meeting. Natural Resource Management Plan Veronica Anderson handed out a draft survey for review (on-file). After completing the survey themselves, commissioners gave the following suggestions: • The introduction paragraphs are lengthy. • Question #7 feels more regulatory vs. preservation. Change the word "environment" to "natural resources". • Make questions #3 the first question • Create a place for free text. After the questions, have a text box with the question "why" • Question #4 — add 0 as a stand along option • Add a description next to the name of each nature area. If it is on the website, link to a map. • Add the choice of"Maybe" to the question regarding interest in volunteer opportunities. Suggestions for the delivery of the survey include the CityNews, Facebook and the city website. There is also a Facebook page called "I love Golden Valley" where one of the commissioners can post a link to the survey. Gitelis suggested handing out the survey at Golden Valley Days however due to staff constraints for entering the information and staffing the table at the event that may not be possible. Veronica Anderson also passed out a draft of the Table of Contents, a draft of the Goals, Objects and Policies and a sample of the individual site information (all on-file). These documents will be sent to the commissioners in a Word format so they can make changes and send back to staff. These items will be discussed at the October meeting as Veronica will not be in attendance. New Proposals for Greener Practices Commissioners shared ideas for greener practices. The ideas will be added to the current list and will be reviewed again. This item will be placed first on the agenda for the next meeting to allow additional time for discussion. Minutes of the Environmental Commission August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Program/Project Updates Summary on-file. Commission Member Council Reports None Other Business None Adjourn MOVED by Hill, seconded by Anderson, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. Lisa Nesbitt Administrative Assistant JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Meeting of August 6, 2014 The Golden Valley— Crystal — New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to order at 1:37 p.m. in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room. Commissioners Present Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal Staff Present Tom Mathisen, City Engineer, Crystal Randy Kloepper, Utilities Superintendent, Crystal Bernie Weber, Operations Manager, New Hope Dave Lemke, Utilities Supervisor, New Hope Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor, Golden Valley Mitch Hoeft, Utilities Engineer, Golden Valley Pat Schutrop, Administrative Assistant, Golden Valley Minutes of July 2, 2014 Meeting MOVED by McDonald and seconded by Norris to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2014 meeting as presented. Motion carried. Minutes of July 25, 2014 Special Meeting MOVED by McDonald and seconded by Norris to approve the minutes of the July 25, 2014 special meeting as presented. Motion carried. Emergency Backup Water Supply Prosect Update Traut Wells started work in Crystal. The Crystal Streets Department constructed the road to the other well site. The contract to relocate the Golden Valley generator has been completed and forwarded to Killmer Electric for signature. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) is finalizing the easement agreement. The MPRB has decided to remove the recommended water use portion of the agreement and may consider at a later date. Minneapolis has expressed it is willing to give the easement to Golden Valley at no charge. The next step is for a Golden Valley representative to attend a MPRB meeting to explain the purpose of the easement. Water Tower Inspections and Valve Replacements The North and South Towers are due to be inspected in 2014. The CIP includes $45,000 for these inspections. A valve replacement will be completed at the same time the tower is taken out of service for the inspection. SEH, Inc. and KLM Engineering, Inc. were interviewed and the TAC recommends awarding the inspection to KLM Engineering, Inc. at a not-to-exceed cost of$8,800. Joint Water Commission August 6, 2014 Page 2 of 2 MOVED by Norris and seconded by McDonald to approve the contact with KLM Engineering, Inc. in the amount of$8,800 to inspect the North and South Water Towers in the City of New Hope. Motion carried. County Road 9 Proiect Update Due to a number of issues with the pilings at the JWC mainline, delays by the subcontractor and numerous inspections, Stantec is requesting approval to increase the engineering budget by $30,000 to cover the cost of the remaining work. MOVED by Norris and seconded by McDonald to amend the 2014 construction project budget by $30,000 and requested the TAC to submit 2015 costs at the next JWC meeting. Motion carried. Crystal Pump Station Generator Proiiect Update The generator is now online with only minor punch list items remaining. The generator will be exercised on a monthly basis. Other Business None. Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 3, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Adiournment Chair Burt adjourned the meeting at 1:54 p.m. Thomas D. Burt, Chair ATTEST: Pat Schutrop, Recording Secretary ` Item 4A BCWMC 10-16-14 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting September 18,2014 Golden Valley'City Hall, 8:30 a.m. Commissioners and Staff Present: Crystal Guy Mueller, Vice President Robbinsdale Not represented Golden Valley Commissioner Stacy Hoschka, St. Louis Commissioner Jim de Lambert,Chair Treasurer Park Medicine Lake Commissioner Clint Carlson Administrator Laura Jester Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Kennedy&Graven Minnetonka Commissioner Jacob Millner, Engineer Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Co. Secretary New Hope Alternate Commissioner Pat Crough Recorder Amy Herbert Plymouth Commissioner Ginny Black Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) Members/Other Attendees Present: Derek Asche,TAC, City of Plymouth Laura Leonhardt,New Hope Daniel Bainey,New Hope Resident Linda Loomis, Chair, Plan Steering Committee Sandy Bainey,New Hope Resident Shawn Markham,City of New Hope, Chris Call, Landform Tom Mathisen, TAC, City of Crystal David Comb,Golden Valley Resident Richard McCoy, TAC City of Robbinsdale LeighAnn Comb,Golden Valley Resident Jane McDonald Black, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley Manfred Deutsch,New Hope Resident Mr. McKenna, City of New Hope Marjorie Deutsch,New Hope Resident Tony Miller, WSB&Associates Eric Eckman,TAC, City of Golden Valley Jake Newhall, WSB &Associates Andrea Feldman,New Hope Resident Jeff Oliver,TAC, City of Golden Valley Harvey Feldman,New Hope Resident John O'Toole,Alternate Commissioner, City of Medicine Lake Erick Francis,TAC,City of St. Louis Park Bob Paschke,TAC, City of New Hope Christopher Gise, Golden Valley Resident Tory Peterson, Perpich Center for the Arts 1 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes Jim Prom, City of Plymouth David Tobelman,Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth Brad Schleeter, Stantec Bernie Weber, City of New Hope Jim Spevacek,New Hope Resident Robert White,Northwood Lake;New Hope Resident Liz Stout,TAC, City of Minnetonka Pete Willenbring, WSB&Associates 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL On Thursday, September 18,2014, at 8:36 a.m. in the Council Chambers at Golden Valley City Hall,Chair de Lambert called to order the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission(BCWMC)and asked for roll call to be taken. The Cities of Minneapolis and Robbinsdale were absent from the roll call. 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No items were raised. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Black moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Minneapolis and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Black moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Urn a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Minneapolis and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [The following items were approved as part of the Consent Agenda: the August 11, 2014, Commission Workshop minutes,the August 21, 2014, Commission Meeting minutes,the monthly financial report,the payment of the invoices,Approval to set Technical Advisory Committee meeting for October 2,2014, and Approval of Winnetka Commons Project,New Hope.] The general and construction account balances reported in the Financial Report prepared for the September 18, 2014, meeting are as follows: Checking Account Balance $602,004.10 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $602,004.10 TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON- $3,056,153.98 HAND (9/09/14) CIP Projects Levied—Budget Remaining ($2,740,073.12) Closed Projects Remaining Balance $316,080.86 2 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes 2013 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $8,756.59 2014 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $428,419.50 Anticipated Closed Project Balance $753,256.95 5. PUBLIC HEARING Administrator Jester reminded the Commission that at its June 2014 meeting it approved the final feasibility study for this 2015 project to restore 1.8 miles of Bassett Creek in Golden Valley. She explained that today's public hearing is to receive public comments on the proposed project. Chair de Lambert opened the public hearing. Pete Willenbring of WSB&Associates said he assisted the City of Golden Valley in the development of the feasibility report for the 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project. He summarized that the project is similar to other Bassett Creek restoration projects that the Commission has undertaken. He said the project runs 9,400 linear feet of creek channel from a location just west of the Golden Valley Country Club and it continues east to Douglas Drive, on the west side of Highway 100. Mr. Willenbring described the inspection of the channel and the findings of bank failures as well as tree and canopy growth along the channel,which prevented vegetation from growing along the banks in some locations. He explained that the feasibility study provided two options for the project, depending on the restoration location. Mr. Willenbring described the first option as a soft armoring approach where the project would try to allow for more sunlight to penetrate along the creek channel and use more of a vegetative stabilization practice. He stated that the second option is more of a hard armoring approach, using more rock, which would be more present in areas where there is limited ability to shape the bank and very steep side slopes and less ability to provide light. Mr. Willenbring said that residents need to be involved in the final design to provide input on their preferences between the two options for locations on or near their property. Mr. Willenbring reported that right now the focus is on the option of doing soft armoring throughout the channel except in areas where light can't be provided. He said that in those areas a hybrid would be implemented and in no case is the project looking at only hard armoring without some type of vegetation. Chair de Lambert called for additional comments. Hearing none,Chair de Lambert closed the public hearing. Commissioner Black asked how residents are being informed about the tree removal that is part of the proposed project. Mr. Willenbring said that a public meeting with relatively good turnout was held,although not all of the residents attended that are along that reach of the channel. He said that at the meeting all of the objectives and options were presented, including the objective of removing all of the trees that are falling in or at risk of falling in to the creek. Mr. Willenbring said that those trees have been identified. He also reported that WSB and the City have just started the process of walking the properties along the channel with the residents. Commissioner Black asked for more information on the estimated project cost, which is indicated to be between 1.3 and 1.6 million dollars. Mr. Willenbring stated that access to the sites in channel restoration projects is difficult for the contractors and the ease or difficulty of the access can vary a lot from one part of 3 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes the creek to another. Mr. Willenbring explained the bidding process can help refine the project budget. He noted that the contract documents are drafted in such a way as to provide that type of flexibility. Commissioner Mueller asked if the project will be reviewed by any other agency. Administrator Jester responded that the Commission Engineer will review and the Commission will see the 50%plans and the 90%plans and that a permit is required for the project so the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will comment on the plans. She added that the Commission is not taking action today because there will be a public hearing on the project at the Commission's October meeting for the cities to comment. 6. BUSINESS A. Consider Resolution Approving Major Plan Amendment to Include 2015 CIP Project Administrator Jester explained that in order to put the 2015 Bassett Creek Restoration Project in the Commission's CIP,the Commission went through a major plan amendment process. She reported that the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources approved the Major Plan Amendment at its meeting in August. Administrator Jester stated that the final step is for the Commission to approve the Major Plan Amendment. Commissioner Black moved to adopt Resolution 14-04 Approving Watershed Plan Amendment. Commissioner Hoschka seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried unanimously 7-0 [Cities of Minneapolis and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. B. Consider Resolution Making Findings Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251 and Certifying Costs to Hennepin County Commissioner Black asked how the Commission is planning to cover the costs of the upcoming CIP projects. Administrator Jester said that the Commission's precedent has been to levy for its capital projects at an amount of approximately $1,000,000. She noted that the cost estimate for the 2015 Bassett Creek Restoration Project is$1,300,000-$1,600,000 and although a more exact figure won't be known until later, it is likely that this project will be more than$1,000,000. Administrator Jester explained that in the past in order to pay for projects and bring the levy down,the Commission has used funds from its Closed Project Account, which has an estimated balance of more than $700,000. She added that the Commission likes to keep$250,000 in its closed project account but not more than that amount. Administrator Jester recommended spending down the closed project account to$250,000 and if the 2015 Bassett Creek Restoration Project funds aren't fully used, the balance would stay in the Closed Project Account. She commented that the next two agenda items are also expensive, more than the Commission had anticipated, so the Commission may consider leaving more money in its Closed Project Account to pay for other projects. There was discussion. Commissioner Black moved to direct staff to certify to Hennepin County the levy of$1,000,000 for 2015 projects as laid out by the Resolution 14-05 and to approve the transfer of up to$503,000 from the Closed Project Account as needed for the 2015 CIP project. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Attorney LeFevere said that the Commission is just earmarking those Closed Project Account funds rather than transferring them. He explained that at next month's meeting,the Commission will take action on the 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Project and consider entering into an agreement with the City, which will identify the total reimbursable cost. Commissioner Black and Alternate Commissioner Crough indicated agreement to amending the motion to remove the direction to transfer the Closed Project Account funds. Upon a vote,the motion carried unanimously 7=0 [Cities of Minneapolis and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 4 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes C. Review Draft Feasibility Report for Northwood Lake Improvement Project(NL-1) Administrator Jester explained that the Commission is on an accelerated timeline for its 2016 projects in order to dovetail the Golden Valley project with a street reconstruction project. She introduced New Hope Director of Public Works Bob Paschke, who introduced Brad Schleeter of Stantec. Engineer Chandler reminded the Commission that it approved the project as part of its 2016—2020 CIP and that there are two separate components to this project,one on the east side of Northwood Lake and one on the west side. She said that the original total estimated cost for the two parts together was$595,000. Mr. Schleeter provided information on the three concepts proposed in the feasibility report for the Northwood Lake Improvement project. He explained Concept A as a combination of stormwater best management practices(BMPs). Mr. Schleeter stated that the proposal is to redirect existing storm sewer from Boone Avenue, install additional storm sewer along Boone Avenue, install an underground storage tank for runoff, and provide pretreatment through a structural stormwater BMP upstream of the tank to remove the bulk of the larger sediment coming through the storm sewer. He noted that the stormwater directed to the underground tank would be stored and ultimately pumped to irrigate approximately 0.64 acres of existing ball and soccer fields on the east side of Boone Avenue. Mr. Schleeter provided details on the process handling overflow from the tank and talked about installing a sump feature. He explained that this concept will provide high pollutant removal benefits including removal of total phosphorous(TP)and total suspended solids(TSS)as well as providing volume reduction benefits. He spoke about the aesthetic benefits to this concept and the water conservation benefits. Mr. Schleeter noted that this concept utilizes innovative practices and is the sort of project that would be favorable to grants. He said the downside of the project is the cost, which is high due to the storm sewer rerouting,the cost of the tank, and the cost of the piping for the irrigation of the ball fields. Mr. Schleeter introduced Concept B, which similar to Concept A is located in Northwood Park. He said this concept includes the construction of a water quality pond in a portion of the park. Mr. Schleeter remarked that it would be a standard water quality pond that would remove TP and TSS from the stormwater. He said the City would be familiar with the maintenance associated with the stormwater pond. He explained the drawbacks to this concept include no volume control benefits and the lack of public support due to use of parkland for a pond. Mr. Schleeter reported that Concept C is located on the west side of Northwood Lake adjacent to Jordan Avenue. He said it includes the construction of a water quality pond for approximately 19 acres of drainage. Again he said that the pond would be effective in reducing TP and TSS and the City is familiar with maintenance needs of a stormwater pond. Mr. Schleeter said that there isn't necessarily an aesthetic benefit to the pond since there aren't any trails going around the pond. Mr. Schleeter went through Tables 4, 5, and 6 from the draft feasibility report detailing the maintenance costs, the 30-year costs and associated phosphorous removal numbers, and potential funding sources. He said that they identified maintenance costs,spread over a 30-year lifespan,for Concept A as$531,000, maintenance costs of Concept B as $435,000, and maintenance cost of Concept C as$350,000. Administrator Jester pointed out that on page 2 of the Barr Engineering memo there is a table that summarizes the design costs and the phosphorous removal at an annualized cost per benefit. There was discussion of the costs of the three concepts and the timing of the city applying for and finding out about grants. Engineer Chandler pointed out that the Commission isn't eligible to apply for Clean Water Fund grants this round because of the status of its watershed management plan. She said that the City can apply for 5 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes a BWSR Clean Water Fund grant,the applications are due in approximately a week, and decisions are made in approximately December. [Commissioner Welch arrives] Commissioner Black asked about the timing of the Commission's action with this proposed project. Administrator Jester said that if the Commission wants to participate in this project,the Commission needs to get the project on its CIP by going through the plan amendment process. She said the Commission can't initiate the plan amendment process until it decides which option to pursue. There was extensive discussion of the options,combination of options, and costs versus benefits. Commissioner Tobelmann commented that he likes the innovation of Concept A and thinks the Commission needs to be innovative, but he also noted that Concept A provides a lot of benefit to the City of New Hope. He wondered if the City is willing to put up a greater share of the cost for Concept A. Mr. Schleeter said it is something that he could raise to the New Hope City Council. A resident commented on the runoff coming from 169 and asked if a project would happen on the other side of 169. Commissioner Black responded that the project on the west side of 169 has been delayed because of residents' objections to taking so many trees out of that area where the creek runs through, but the City of Plymouth is meeting with residents and working to decide what can be done. Mr. Asche provided more details about the project located in Plymouth. He explained that it treats a different drainage area than the Northwood Lake project, meaning that both projects will reduce phosphorous and will benefit Northwood Lake but the timing of the two aren't correlated. There was discussion of funding the Northwood Lake project and the project in the City of Plymouth. Administrator Jester remarked that the Commission has already levied for the project in the City of Plymouth. Commissioner Welch commented that the City of New Hope needs to look at the cost-sharing structure and investigate how the funding of this project could be different. Commissioner Tobelmann asked if there is a way to quantify the benefits of the project so that the Commission can review and decide which benefits it is willing to pay for and at what level. He added that he thinks the Commission needs to encourage innovative projects and he doesn't want to walk away from Concept A for this project. A resident commented that the park has aesthetic value to New Hope,and she didn't want to lose park space. A different resident spoke in favor of Concept A because it is innovative,allows the park to maintain maximum useful space, and optimizes the low space in the park that now can't optimally be used. Commissioner Carlson moved to approve the draft feasibility report without any limitations and to request that the City of New Hope provide information on project funding to be supplied from other sources besides the Commission. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. There was discussion. Commissioner Welch commented that at some point the Commission is going to need to make a choice, and he made an amendment to the motion to direct that the Commission Engineer's comments are incorporated. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. Commissioner Hoschka asked how long the water is held in the storage tank after a storm event. Mr. Schleeter responded two weeks. Commissioner Hoschka wondered how it works during wet periods in which the fields wouldn't need irrigation. Mr. Schleeter stated that it was sized to hold two weeks of irrigation at an inch and one-half of irrigation per week from mid-April to mid-October and was calculated to accommodate the anticipated dry and wet periods within those months. There was discussion. Engineer Chandler announced that she would like to add one more recommendation to its list of 6 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes recommendations for the draft feasibility study. She said she would like the feasibility report to include a definition of what's included in indirect costs. Chair de Lambert asked if anyone objects to including the additional Engineer recommendation to the recommendations included in Commissioner Welch's motion. Upon hearing no objections, Chair de Lambert announced that the additional recommendation is included in Commissioner Welch's motion. Chair de Lambert asked if there was any additional discussion for the motion on the table. Upon hearing none,Chair de Lambert called for a vote. Upon a vote,the motion to amend the motion carried unanimously 8-0 [Cities of Robbinsdale absent from vote]. There was discussion on Commissioner Carlson's motion. Commissioner Black suggested looking at the funding mechanism used by the Shingle Creek WMO. She said that it is critical to unpack the costs and benefits of the proposed Northwood Lake project and to identify who should be the primary payer of those costs. Mr. McCoy asked if a TMDL has been done on Northwood Lake. He asked if there is internal loading in the lake and if so, how much it's contributing to the problem. Mr. McCoy asked if it would be prudent to get the TMDL done to accurately determine the pollution sources. Ms. Chandler responded that a TMDL has not been done, but Northwood Lake is an impaired water. She explained that in 1994 the watershed did a lake study on Northw000d Lake and identified a number of projects to reduce the phosphorous loading including one of the project locations being considered along with other work the watershed has considered and New Hope has implemented. There was further discussion. Commissioner Black moved to amend Commissioner Carslon's motion by directing the costs and the benefits of the project to be unpacked particularly for Concept B (read: A), limiting the Commission's involvement in the project to$595,000, looking at how the remainder of the costs can be covered,and bringing into the discussion the Shingle Creek model for paying for the project. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Administrator Jester noted that the TAC and the Commission have previously talked about the Shingle Creek model and decided that it is easier for the Commission to pay for the projects in full. Commissioner Black said that it was discussed a long time ago and now projects cost more and it is worth looking at again. Upon a vote,the motion to amend Commissioner Carlson's motion carried unanimousl�7-0 [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote. City of Minneapolis abstained from vote]. Upon a vote, Commissioner Carlson's motion carried unanimously 7-0 [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote. City of Minneapolis abstained from vote]. Chair de Lambert called for a 10-minute recess. [Commissioner Millner departs the meeting] D. Review Draft Feasibility Report for Honeywell Pond Expansion (BC-4) At 10:55 a.m. Chair de Lambert called the meeting back to order. Mr. Oliver reported that this project is proposed to be done in conjunction with the City of Golden Valley's and Hennepin County's reconstruction of Douglas Drive between Medicine Lake Road and Trunk Highway 55. He said the intent of the request for Commission funding when this project was placed in the Commission's CIP was to help the City go above and beyond the water quality requirements of the project. Mr. Oliver said there are a lot of moving parts to the project and a menu of options available. He provided the example that the City has to acquire right-of-way from Honeywell for the roadway project,so some of the 7 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes options may or may not be feasible depending on how those negotiations proceed. He reported that the City has applied for a grant for converting the learning center's fields into a soccer complex,which is the impetus for the project's proposal for irrigation. Mr. Oliver noted that if the City doesn't receive that grant,then that part of the project comes off the table. Mr. Oliver said that the City's budget for the overall storm sewer and water quality is$900,000. He stated that at this point in time,the estimate is$375,000 for the cost of the storm sewer work as well as water quality improvements in other locations,which leaves the City with$525,000 available in its budget for additional water quality improvements. Mr. Oliver remarked that with the BCWMC funding,there is$810,000 available for water quality improvements. Mr. Oliver provided information about the existing Honeywell Pond and briefly introduced the different improvements that have been considered for this project. Ms. Chandler asked for clarification about whether the cost estimate included costs for hazardous material disposal. Mr. Willenbring responded that for the"muck"excavation,the project estimates a cost of$30 per yard,or total estimate of$180,000. He said that the estimate is based on the belief that the soils will be mostly clean with maybe a little bit of contamination since most of the excavation is in the upland area. Ms. Chandler asked if the cost could increase if contaminated soils are found. Mr. Willenbring responded that the excavation cost could go upwards of$60 per yard for contaminated soils. He pointed out that a 25% contingency cost is built into the project cost. Mr. Willenbring responded to questions and spoke about how the project ties in with the road reconstruction project. He displayed a map of the proposed project. Mr. Oliver reported on their communications with Honeywell and residents. Administrator Jester asked how the estimated pounds of phosphorous removed per year was calculated and if the Commission's models were used.Mr. Willenbring said that two models were used in this feasibility report to estimate some of the benefits of the project. He said that one model was the BCWM C's hydrologic model, and he explained the process used. There was discussion. Administrator Jester brought up recommendation No. 8 in the Commission Engineer's memo, which states that the feasibility study should provide more information about the methodology used to estimate the total phosphorous removed for each of the actions. She asked Engineer Chandler to elaborate on that recommendation. Engineer Chandler said that she understands that the P8 model was used for one or two of the options but that model or another methodology should be used and laid out in the feasibility study in order to be able to better judge the different options. She noted that the results or benefits of combined options aren't always additive, so modeling the scenarios would give an accurate picture of the anticipated results. Mr. Willenbring explained that a P8 model wasn't used to model the other scenarios because those scenarios include use of a pump to irrigate ball fields, or perhaps Honeywell could use it on their site,or perhaps a water gallery system that could be part of the project on the west side of Douglas Drive. He said that this type of pumping isn't something that is modeled in P8. He said that the phosphorous removal in these cases can be determined through a calculation and is predicated by how much water is taken off. There was discussion. Mr. Oliver requested that the City and WSB work with the Commission Engineer and discuss the issues raised and table this feasibility study for a month. Commissioner Black moved to table this discussion until the Commission's October meeting. Commissioner Hoschka seconded the motion. Administrator Jester asked if that motion includes bringing a revised draft feasibility study to the Commission for its October meeting.There was consensus from the Commission and 8 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes Mr. Oliver. Commissioner Welch recommended that the Commission Engineer and the feasibility study engineer sit down and work on the issues that have been raised. [Commissioner Crough departs the meeting) Upon a vote the motion carried unanimously 6-0 [Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope,and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]. E. Order Submittal of Plan Amendment to BWSR for 2016 Projects Administrator Jester announced that this item should be tabled until the Commission has more information on the Northwood Lake projects and the Honeywell Pond expansion project. She said that this item will come back to the Commission at its October meeting. F. Consider Approval of Briarwood/Dawnview Water Quality Improvement Project 90% Plans (BC-7) Administrator Jester stated that this is a 2014 CIP project and construction is slated to start soon. She reminded the Commission that the project treats stormwater from 184 acres of residential area. Administrator Jester pointed out that the option that the Commission chose,the iron-enhanced sand filter, is now estimated to remove less phosphorous than was previously estimated and presented to the Commission. Commissioner Black said that there are a number of recommendations identified in the Commission Engineer's memo and asked if recommendations are an issue for the project. Engineer Chandler responded that all of the comments are important details but the Commission Engineer does not have issues with the design of the project. Commissioner Black moved to approve the project with the inclusion of the Commission Engineer's recommendations. Commissioner Hoschka seconded the motion. There was discussion about the location of the closest house to the pond. Commissioner Welch commented about the huge change in design between the 50%plans and the 90%plans. He said that the option that the Commission selected is not the option that is designed to be built. There was a long discussion. Administrator Jester noted that the process needs to involve residents earlier. Upon a vote,the motion carried 5-1 [Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, Plymouth, and St. Louis Park in favor; City of Minneapolis opposed; Cities of Minnetonka,New Hope,and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]. G. Consider Moving Forward with Twin Lake Alum Treatment Item was deferred to the Commission's October meeting. H. Receive Update on Next Generation Watershed Management Plan Development: Plan Steering Committee Meeting Notes from 7/28/14; Input Needed to Update Implementation Tables; Plans for Upcoming Workshop (slated for 10/9/14) Administrator Jester announced that the Commission needs to set a date for another workshop. The Commission discussed and agreed to hold the workshop October 81h from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Administrator Jester listed the items that need to be discussed at the workshop. 7. COMMUNICATIONS A. Administrator: No Administrator Communications 9 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes B. Chair:No Chair Communications C. Commissioners: i. Commissioner Welch announced that the bid opening on the creek project in Minneapolis is on October 1. ii. Commissioner Hoschka reported on Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival and the Commission's participation in the event. iii. Commissioner Mueller reported on participating in the Walk-about along Medicine Lake. iv. Commissioner Carlson noted that the City of Medicine Lake has appointed him as the City's representative on the BCWMC TAC until such time as another candidate is appointed. D. TAC Members: No TAC Communications E. Committees: No Committee Communications F. Legal Counsel: No Legal Communications G. Engineer: i. Engineer Chandler reported that the 8410 Rule amendment is in process again. She said that if the BWSR Board approves it then on October 6 there will be a publication of the proposed rule amendment in the State Register. She explained that if there is no objection, such as in the form of a contested public hearing,then the amendment could be promulgated by the end of the year. Engineer Chandler pointed out that one of the big changes would be that the city local water management plans no longer would be tied into the schedule of the watershed management plans but to their comprehensive planning schedule. 8. INFORMATION ONLY (Available at http://www.bassettereekwmo.org/Meetings/2014/2014- September/2014 Septem berMeetingPacket.htm) A. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet B. WMWA June 2014 Meeting Minutes C. WCA Notices, Plymouth 9. ADJOURNMENT 10 BCWMC September 18, 2014, Meeting Minutes Chair de Lambert adjourned the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission meeting at 11:55 a.m. Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Date 11 City () 1�old . . l. 144' MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-80301763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Authorize Agreements for 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project: 1. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 2. WSB & Associates, Inc. Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission's (BCWMC) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) lists a number of water quality improvement projects that provide a benefit to the Bassett Creek watershed and its residents. The project listed as Restore Main Stem Channel (101 Ave to Duluth St)2015CR in the BCWMC CIP is identified for construction in 2015. The City has designated the 2015CR project as the 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project (#13-25). The project area covers 9,500 feet of stream from 101h Avenue to Duluth Street and matches into the 2012 Creek Restoration project at each end (see attached location map). The restoration project would stabilize eroding stream banks and repair deteriorating storm sewer pipe outlets, resulting in property protection and improved water quality in Bassett Creek. On October 16, 2014, the BCWMC received a feasibility report prepared by WSB for the project and adopted a resolution ordering the project. In addition, the resolution provided for funding in the amount of$1,503,000 for the project and directed the City of Golden Valley to construct the improvements. A copy of the feasibility report's Introduction is attached. For a review of the complete report, please visit the following link: htt : www,bassettcreekwmo.or Meetin s 2014 2014-June 6A-DRAFT-Feasibilit Re ort- 061014-20156assettCreekMainStem RestorationPro°ect.pff An agreement was developed between the City and BCWMC that requires the City of Golden Valley design and construct the project. The BCWMC will secure payment for the City's costs in an amount not to exceed $1,503,000. Staff has negotiated an agreement with WSB &Associates, Inc. (WSB) for the engineering and environmental work needed to complete the project. WSB has demonstrated that it has personnel with the appropriate skills and qualifications to perform the design and construction observation. The total cost of WSB's agreement is $199,219. If Council authorizes the project, the following is the proposed milestone schedule: Approve agreements with BCWMC and WSB November 5, 2014 Award construction contract Fall 2015 Project substantial completion Summer 2016 Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Introduction of Feasibility Report for 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project dated June 10, 2014 (4 pages) • Cooperative Agreement for Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek, Between the City of Golden Valley and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (4 pages) • Proposal from WSB &Associates, Inc. dated October 20, 2014 (12 pages) Recommended Action 1. Motion to authorize the Cooperative Agreement for Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek (10th Avenue to Duluth Street) with the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. 2. Motion to authorize the proposal from WSB in an amount not to exceed $199,219. O X1 N N anyaueZ 0 I Nit o � eta 0 6 . O O L M U L N o N ad sel6noQ r N ♦+ O � V N q �C cn o a� 0 2 O � ` _ E r c o N L O �bd v d d 0 oc9 U i 0 U Q� H m m N Rhode island ve N N u� N any a ;auu'M z T— E, O a N ny ui uoos'M c --_ N � 1 Introduction 1.1 Background/Need for Project The Main Stem of Bassett Creek extends from Rhode Island Avenue and 10`h Avenue to the south side of Duluth Street. This reach, located within the City of Golden Valley (See Figure 1) has been inspected and studied by the Watershed Commission and the City of Golden Valley and it has been noted the Creek is experiencing erosion and sedimentation to varying degrees along it's channel banks in selected locations. Pictures of many of these areas are also provided within this study providing further evidence of these problems. This erosion is undermining trees along the channel bank, creating side bank failures, downstream sedimentation,water quality impacts, and loss of habitat. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) Watershed Management Plan recognizes the need to restore stream reaches damaged by erosion or affected by sedimentation. Section 7 of the BCWMC Plan further indicates that one of the primary concerns of residents in the District is the maintenance of the natural beauty of the creek in residential and recreational areas. Section 7 of the BCWMC plan outlines the Commission's Goals and Policies relating to undertaking and funding channel restoration projects, the Commissions direction related to design of these projects, and highlights the benefit of stream restoration. In January 2007 the BCWMC's Technical Advisory Committee recommended that the Commission add stream channel restoration projects to the Commission's 10-Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The Commissions general stream restoration goals include implementing stream restoration measures whenever necessary to maintain health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the District, as well as maintain or enhance the natural beauty and wildlife habitat value of Bassett Creek. Additionally, the plan also indicates that as part of the design of any project, the benefit or impact of the proposed restoration measures on natural habitat, navigability, flood control, water quality, aesthetic qualities of the area, and ability to protect property, structures, and prevent future erosion should be considered. This study examines the feasibility of restoring sites along the Main Stem of Bassett Creek from Rhode Island Avenue and I 01 Avenue to the south side of Duluth Street, located within the City of Golden Valley (Figure 1). This feasibility study follows the protocols developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the BCWMC for projects within the BCWMC Resource Management Plan (RMP). This reach is included in the RMP. BASSETT CREEK MAIN STEM RESTORATION PROJECT DR#FT FEASIBILITY REPORT City of Golden Valley,MN W'SB Project No.2032-06 Page 1 Restoration of sites along this reach is proposed to be included as a group for design and construction in the BCWMC 2015 CIP. 1.2 General Project Description and Estimated Cost Measures identified for potential implementation in this reach consist of the following in selected areas along the channel: • Removal of hazard and invasive trees and vegetation a Reshaping and stabilization of eroded stream banks • Installation of a variety of stream stabilization measures and flow diversion methods to address erosion problems, including Rock Vanes, Bio-logs, boulders, riprap, live stakes, and native vegetation and plantings • Repair of storm sewer outfalls and other failing infrastructure along the creek • Establishing native vegetation, trees, and shrubs along the creek • Removal of miscellaneous debris from within the creek This study has identified two restoration design options for the project as well as a hybrid of the two options.These options include a bioengineering approach the uses stabilization techniques that rely primarily on vegetation, and their associated root structures to stabilize the creek bank, and a more structural approach using rock, or other non-vegetative materials to stabilize eroding shorelines. A design using a combination of these two options has also been considered and has been preliminarily selected as a preferred option in many areas needing restoration. The selection of the best option for a given steam reach will be based on a number of factors including but not limited to; ease of and ability to obtain access for installation and future maintenance, slope of creek bank, presence of mature trees in the area and need to remove trees, exposure of creek bank to sunlight, velocity of flow in channel reach, and property owners' preferences for type of treatment. Since selection of the type of treatment used in a given area, will need the support of the property owner, the City will need to finalize the design approach as a collaborative effort with the property owner. At this time, based on our review of the feasible options available and input from a number of property owners that attended a public informational meeting on the project, it is anticipated that either the vegetative or hybrid option would be selected for most areas of the channel requiring stabilization work. The do nothing option was fully considered as an option for many areas for which erosion is present to a limited degree. For many areas not included in this project for restoration, this option was selected as there was limited evidence of significant recent erosion occurring as BASSETT CREEK MAIN STEAL RESTORATION PROJECT DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT City of Golden Valley,AIN WSB Project No.2432-06 Page 2 would be observed from the presence of trees falling into the creek from eroding banks, creek bank slopes being undercut, evidence of historic migration/widening of the creek bank. It is also apparent that this project will likely present a one-time opportunity for access to many areas of the channel bank in the coming years. If limited erosion is present, the do nothing option was fully considered, if evidence is available that the creek bank is eroding at a higher rate, this option will have less weight. This weight this option was given at this stage of the evaluation also took into consideration the impact of potential further erosion on trees, yards, structures and other physical and natural features of concern, This do-nothing option will also be more fully examined during final design, when residents have an opportunity to; provide additional input into erosion that they have observed to be taking place, discuss and react to treatment options and anticipated future maintenance needs of these options, and actually provide needed access easements. This study identifies 29 locations for both restoration options, (Figure 2& 3) and (Table 2a & 2b) identifies the locations of the sites, and provides additional detail of the methods under consideration for use. As noted earlier in this report, based on preliminary input from residents, it is anticipated that a hybrid of a structural and non-structural methods will likely be used in many of these locations, with the non-structural vegetative component of this option being used to a maximum reasonable extent to assure the natural beauty and wildlife habitat benefits of this treatment practice can be fully developed. The estimated feasibility cost for the implementation for each of the restoration measures for the 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration project ranges from $1,319,109 to $1,659,434, as shown on (Table 3a & 3b). These estimated costs are currently greater than the project budget. Once the design options have been finalized and property owners engaged, the maintenance areas will be prioritized according to the following priorities until the budget amount is reached: 1. Stabilization of all stream crossing and storm sewer outfalls 2. Improvements on property currently owned by the City in Areas A and E. 3. Privately owned land in Area D with the most extreme erosion issues where land owners have provided access, 4. Most extreme areas located within golf course property, Temporary construction easements are not included in the opinion of cost at this time and are expected to have little or no effect on the total cost, even though the project it primarily located on private property. 1.3 Recommendations Stabilization of this reach of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek will provide downstream water quality improvement by restoring actively eroding stream banks, preventing erosion at other sites using preemptive protective measures, improving failing infrastructure, and improving the overall wildlife habitat along the Creek. BASSETT CREEK MAIN STEM RESTORATION PROTECT DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT City of Golden Valley,MN WSB Project No.2032-06 Page 3 This study identifies 29 locations for restoration (Figure 2 & 3) and (Table 2a & 2b) identifies the locations of the sites, and provides additional detail of the methods under consideration for use. Based on an evaluation of stabilization practices that was completed as part of this study and preliminary input from residents, it is anticipated that a hybrid of the two methods will likely be used in many of these locations, with the vegetative component of this option being used to a maximum reasonable extent to assure the natural beauty and wildlife habitat benefits of this treatment practice can be fully developed. It is recommended that the BCWMC CIP include restoration work on this reach of Main Stem of Bassett Creek for 2015. It is further recommended that the restoration of this reach of the Bassett Creek Main Stem proceed into the design and construction phase, BASSE'I'F CREEK MAIN STEM RESTORATION PROJECT DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT City of Golden Valley,MN WSB Project No.2032-06 Page 4 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of the 16th day of October, 2014, by and between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, a joint powers watershed management organization (hereinafter the "Commission"), and the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter the"City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Commission adopted the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan 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 a capital improvement program ("CIP") that lists a number of water quality project capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the water quality projects identified in the CIF include a capital improvement project described as Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek from 10th Avenue to Duluth Street in the City of Golden Valley, as more fully described in the feasibility report for the Project prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc., entitled "2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project" dated June 10,2014,which is attached and made a part hereof(the"Project");and WHEREAS,the cost estimate for the Project is between$1,300,000 and$1,600,000;and WHEREAS, the Plan specifies that the Project will be funded by a County tax levy under Minn.Stat., § 103B.251;and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2014, the Commission adopted a resolution ordering the Project and directing that it be constructed by the City;and WHEREAS, project costs were certified to Hennepin County, which will levy taxes throughout the watershed for the Project costs in 2014 for collection and settlement in 2015; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to construct 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 the Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek from 10th Avenue to Duluth Street,as described in the Feasibility Report for the Project. 2. The City will design the Project and prepare plans and specifications for construction of the Project. 90% plans and specifications, and any changes to such plans and 1 450822J2 CLL BA29549 specifications, shall be submitted to the Commission for approval. Minor change orders that do not materially change either the effectiveness of the Project to meet its intended purposes or the environmental impacts of the Project may be approved by the City 3. The City will advertise for bids and award contracts in accordance with the requirements of law. The City will award the contract and supervise and administer the construction of the Project to assure that it is completed in accordance with plans and specifications. The City will require the contractor to provide all payment and performance bonds required by law. The City will require that the Commission be named as additional insured on all liability policies required by the City of the contractor and be given the same notification of cancellation or non-renewal as is given to the City. The City will require that the contractor defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Commission and the City, their agents, officers, and employees, from all claims or actions arising from negligent acts,errors or omissions of the contractor. The City will supervise the work of the contractor. However, the Commission may observe and review the work of the Project until it is completed. The City will display a sign at the construction site stating "Paid for by the Taxpayers of the Bassett Creek Watershed". 4. The City will pay the contractor and all other expenses related to the construction of the Project and keep and maintain complete records of such costs incurred. 5. The Commission will reimburse Five Hundred Three Thousand Dollars ($503,000) of Project expenses from its Capital Improvement Program Closed Project Account. The Commission will use its best efforts to secure payment from the County in accordance with Minn. Stat., § 103B.251 in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) by tax levy in 2014 for collection in 2015. The total reimbursement will not exceed One Million Five Hundred Three Thousand Dollars ($1,503,000), less Commission expenses. Out-of-pocket costs related to the Project, incurred and paid by the Commission including, but not limited to, feasibility studies, publication of notices, securing County tax levy, preparation of contracts, review of proposed contract documents, administration of this contract and a 2.5%administrative charge shall be repaid from the amount specified above from the Commission's Capital Improvement"Program Closed Project Account and from funds received in the tax settlement from Hennepin County. All such funds in excess of such expenses are available for reimbursement to the City for costs incurred by the City in the design and construction of the Project. Reimbursement to the City will be made as soon as funds are available provided a request for payment has been received from the City providing such detailed information as may be requested by the Commission to substantiate costs and expenses. 6. Reimbursement to the City will not exceed the amount specified above from the Capital Improvement Program Closed Project Account and the amount received 2 450822v2 CLL BA29549 from the County for the Project less any amounts retained by the Commission for Commission expenses. Reimbursement will not be increased by grants or other revenues received by the Commission for the Project. Reimbursement will not exceed the costs and expenses incurred by the City for the Project, less any amounts the City receives for the Project as grants from other sources. All costs of the Project incurred by the City in excess of such reimbursement shall be borne by the City or secured by the City from other sources. 7. All City boobs, records,documents, and accounting procedures related to the Project are subject to examination by the Commission. 8. The City will perform all necessary investigations of site contamination and secure all necessary local, state, or federal permits required for the construction of the Project and will not proceed with the Project until any required environmental review and remediation of site contamination is completed or a plan for remediation is approved by appropriate regulatory agencies. Upon completion of the Project,the City will assume responsibility for its maintenance. 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 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMIS ON By: s Chair 6And by: 4 't+ lts,Secre ary ftcollt 3 450822v2 CLL BA29549 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Its Mayor And by: Its Manager 4 450822v2 CLL BA295-49 A WSB EJB en i rin °planning°ertvir'oniv nt (-con tniction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 October 27, 2014 Mr. Jeff Oliver City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: 2015 Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek Dear Mr, Oliver: We are pleased to submit to you a scope of work dated October 27, 2014 to provide professional services necessary to develop final plans and specifications for the 2015 Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek. Our Scope of Services, schedule, and cost to complete this project are attached. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. If you wish to authorize us to proceed, please sign where indicated below and return a copy to our office. 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. City of Golden Valley Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com WAPn1rtva1AGn1d,.Va11,)\L1*R N mtt C—k P-p-1 10162014,d— A Proposal to Provide Final Design Services for the 2015 Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek October 27, 2014 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING It is our understanding that the City of Golden Valley, is requesting improvements to the Main Stem of Bassett Creek, over a reach that extends from Rhode Island Avenue and 10th Avenue, to the south side of Duluth Street. It is also understood that the proposed improvements should be generally consistent with the improvements and design direction outlined in a feasibility report for the 2015 Restoration of the Main Stem of Basset Creek dated June 2, 2014 and the work needed will generally include the following activities: • Gathering and analyzing background information for the area, and preparing a Preliminary Plan. • Meeting with City staff and residents in project areas to define the stabilization practices that can best reduce channel erosion utilizing bio-stabilization practices to a maximum practical extent to keep the channel as natural as possible. • The estimated project budget is approximately $1,500,000. • Permit applications, and supportive exhibits will need to be prepared and submitted to the Corps of Engineers, DNR, and Bassett Creek Watershed District. This activity will also require responding to questions and providing follow up information as requested. • Additional Environmental Assessment work may be required due to the possible existence of contaminated materials; however, if this is encountered, services related to this effort will be an extra to the scope of work. • A tree removal and tree planting plan shall be incorporated into this section of the plans and specifications. • An extended warranty (3 years) on vegetation including maintenance will be required to be incorporated into the plans and specifications unless this warranty concern is addressed as part of another program. • Proposed improvements to the reach are identified in the feasibility report. Additional improvements may also be added, in addition to those currently shown in the feasibility report, but if they require significant additional design effort, this work will be an extra to the scope of work. • Construction Observation Services are included as part of this work plan and an estimate for the time required has been provided, but actual costs will be based on the actual time required by the contractor to complete the work, and the corresponding time required to provide these services. PROJECT APPROACH/WORK PLAN The tasks and scope of work outlined below have been specifically developed to provide design, permitting, construction and other related services that will be needed to address the erosion problems identified within the reach under consideration. Task 1: Gather Background Information WSB will gather background information about the Main Stem of Bassett Creek and the surrounding watershed, which will include: • Gather GIS data and record drawing of the properties and existing utilities within the project corridor. • Complete inspection and develop photographic record of the channel to locate eroded areas, existing utilities, and infrastructure within the project corridor. • Generally define size and location of trees in areas where work is proposed. • Develop contact database of residents, agencies, and organizations that will become stakeholders of the project. • Incorporate property owner input gathered as part of Feasibility Report and during Final Design process • Provide a project kickoff meeting. Deliverables: • Base map, containing information gathered as part of Task 1 activities. • Contacts database of agencies/organization and provide list to City • Hold project kickoff meeting Task 2: Complete Review and Analysis of Background Information WSB will review the information collected in Task 1 in the following manner: • Analyze GIS data, record drawings, and preliminary survey data information to refine our data base. o Compare the BCWMC Feasibility Study to the data collected as part of Tasks 1 to identify any additional work needed or changes that have occurred within the channel since the completion of the study. • Define the extent to which tree removals will be required to allow for access to the creek and to provide improvements to the eroded stream banks within the project corridor. • Review the design concepts for the project with City staff to determine their sustainability and their short and long term maintenance requirements. • Evaluate permitting agency policies to determine the permits required and time line to initiate the project. • Develop Check List and inspect/document conditions in each channel reach for which improvements are proposed that justify the selection of the Stabilization Practice that is proposed in this area. Deliverables: • Meeting with stakeholders to review and discuss findings from data collection and review and analysis effort. • Provide memorandum outlining findings, including information on permits required to complete the project and an approximate schedule to obtain permits Task 3: Develop Preliminary Construction Plan Based on the information developed as part of Tasks 1 and 2, a preliminary construction plan will be developed and will include: 0 Estimated project limits. • Proposed project access routes. • Estimated tree removal quantities. • Recommended locations for stream bank repair, stabilization, and restoration within the project corridor along with infrastructure repairs and other selected improvements. • Preliminary estimate of project cost. The preliminary plans will not be suitable for bidding purposes. However, they will be adequate to define the project scope, further define access routes, tree removals, project costs, and will be suitable to support permit submittals. Deliverables: • Preliminary plan • Preliminary cost estimate for the project • Timeline for scheduling public meetings, obtain permits, completion of final plans, bidding, and construction timeline. Task 4: Define Right of Way and Easement Acquisition Needs Once the preliminary plan is prepared, the options available to gain access to the channel will be identified as part of this task, and we will further define the right of way needed to gain access to the creek as well as the areas that will require rights of entry or temporary easements to facilitate construction. The task will include: • Meeting with property owners to discuss access and right of entry needs. • Prepare rights of entry agreements for parcels that will be impacted by the project. • Prepare temporary easement figures and descriptions to the extent needed for parcels that will be impacted by the project. • Additional assistance from our Right of Way Group, if required, to facilitate securing easements or rights of entry, will be provided as an extra to this scope of work. It is anticipated that City staff will facilitate securing easements or rights of entry. Deliverables: • Right of entry and temporary easement figures, descriptions, and agreements. Task S:Review Preliminary Plan with Stakeholders This task will include: • Review preliminary plan with the City. • Hold up to three public information meetings to review and discuss the project with the adjacent land owners • Provide up to two informational presentations to discuss the project. • Provide one-on-one contact with affected property owners as needed. Upon completion of this review and receipt of comments, the 50%preliminary plans will be completed. Deliverables: • Hold meetings to review the preliminary plan with the City staff, public, and BCWMC Board. Task 6: Submit Permit Applications WSB will complete permit applications, supportive exhibits, and the preliminary plan to the following permitting agencies: • Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, plan review • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Work in Public Waters Permit • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act • Wetland Conservation Act, Administered by Local Governing Unit Deliverables: • Submittal of permit applications to regulatory agencies Task 7: Provide Permit Application Follow Up WSB will follow up with all of the permitting agencies to assure the following occurs: • Timely posting of plans for public comment period. • Response to comments received from the permitting agencies during the public comment period. o Continued dialog with permitting agencies has been proven to expedite the permitting process. Deliverables: • Submittal and posting of the plans for public comment • Response to comments received from permitting agencies. • Request additional meetings with regulatory agencies if needed. Task 8:Develop Final Plans and Specifications Once permitting agencies have responded to our permit applications, we have had an opportunity to reply to their comments, we have received a response to our reply, and if it appears that no significant issues have come up that would question the ability of the project to receive permits in the future, WSB will initiate work to complete final plans and specifications for the project that may likely reflect changes based on the comments received from the permitting agencies. This work will include preparation of the following: • Finalized construction limits and access routes. • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. • Native vegetation restoration plan. • Construction plans based on the preliminary plans and revised to reflect comments from stakeholders. • Project specifications, front-end documentation, and prequalification of contractor information. • Cost estimates. • Estimated construction timeline. Deliverables: • Final plans and specifications for the project • Construction cost estimate • Construction schedule Task 9:Submit Final Plans and Specifications for Approval WSB will: • Submit final plans and specifications to the City of Golden Valley, Permit Agencies, and Bassett Creek Watershed for approval. • Submit final project cost estimate • Submit final project schedule Deliverables: • Submittals of finalized plans, specifications, cost estimate, schedule, and attendance at meetings for City Council and other stakeholder approval of the project. Task 10: Complete Bid Process and Award Project WSB will coordinate the bidding and award of the project, which will include: • Prepare an Advertisement for Bids for the project. • Open the project for bidding. • Hold a pre-bid meeting where WSB staff will be available to answer contractor's questions. This non-mandatory pre-bid meeting is important to discuss the bidding requirements and project approach. • Send out any necessary addendums. • Prepare recommendation for award. Deliverables: • Provide ad for bid • Hold pre-bid meeting • Complete typical contract management documents. • Attend meeting for pre- and post-bid bidder review and final recommendation meetings • Attend City Council meeting for the contract award Task 11: Provide Construction Services As part of this task, WSB will provide construction services for the project, which will include the following: 0 Finalize contact documents and conduct pre-construction meeting. • Provide field staking o Provide construction observation and project management services. • Conduct progress meetings. • Prepare contractor payments, preferably using RT Vision OneOffice software • Prepare record drawings upon project completion of the project. • Complete project closeout. Deliverables: • Hold construction progress meetings with contractor and staff • Process pay vouchers • Provide final record drawings for the project. PROJECT TIMELINE Begin Final Design: November, 2014. Submit Permit Applications: Fall 2014/Winter 2015 Complete Final Plans: Summer, 2015 Receive Bids: Fall, 2015 Construction: Fall 2015/Winter 2016 Substantial Completion: Summer, 2016 KEY PERSONNEL Pete Willenbring, PE Project Manager/Day-to-Day Contact Pete will serve as the Project Manager and Day-to-Day Contact. His extensive experience working on a broad spectrum of water resource and environmental engineering projects, and his specific expertise in channel stabilization will be used to manage this project, direct WSB staff, and communicate with City staff while completing the erosion control project. Pete is a principal and co-founder of WSB & Associates, Inc. Since starting the firm in 1995, he has developed and managed the Water Resources and Environmental Engineering group and selected day-to-day operations of the firm. Prior to starting WSB, he worked for two other water resource consulting engineering firms. Pete is a registered professional engineer, with 30 years of experience providing consulting services to more than 100 city, county, state, and federal clients. He has expertise in most aspects of civil engineering, but is widely recognized to have developed special expertise in water resource and environmental engineering, project management, design, and planning. Pete received national recognition in 2010 as the "Water Resource Manager of the Year" by the American Public Works Association. Over the course of his career, he has managed water resource related projects or regulatory programs for more than 50 cities or watershed districts within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Pete has reviewed, analyzed, designed, or managed the construction of more than 1,000 projects that were built to manage stormwater runoff rates, volumes, or quality in lakes, streams, or drainage systems throughout Minnesota. Value to the City • Pete has served or is serving as project manager on five previous channel stabilization projects completed on behalf of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. He understands the perspective of the Board regarding channel stabilization improvements. • He has completed dozens of successful channel stabilization projects, some of which have received multiple awards for excellence. • Pete has 30 years of experience designing, bidding, and managing the construction of water resource projects. This experience allows the WSB team to anticipate potential construction issues, address these concerns in the plans and specification, and as a result, provide added assurances that projects will be constructed on time, within budget, and with limited change orders. Joseph Abramson Engineer/Construction Inspector Joey will be a design engineer and primary construction observer for the project and will provide direction for the contractor to implement the improvements in a manner consistent with the plans and specifications. He has experience in stream restoration, storm water pond maintenance, water quality and quantity monitoring, chemical surface water treatment, and vegetation management. He has experience in project permitting, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, and local watersheds. He also has experience in construction observation, and has technical skills in AutoCAD and GIS programs. Ed Youngquist Project Designer In addition to Joseph, Ed will also serve as a designer preparing the CADD drawings needed for the erosion control project. He has more than 15 years of civil engineering design experience, including an extensive background in grading design, street and utility plans, SWPPP and MPCA permits, specifications, and construction administration. Ed has managed CADD technicians and worked directly with clients to maintain clear and thorough communications for all projects. He has worked with both the public and private sector on site design, roadway reconstruction, and construction staging. Ed is very proficient on the use of current CADD technology, including Autodesk Land Desktop/Civil 3D and Micro Station/GeoPAK, Andi Moffatt, PWS Permitting Andi's regulatory expertise and good working relationships with permitting agencies will help the team design the project is designed so that permits can be obtained. She leads WSB's environmental and natural resource group and has more than 16 years of experience in environmental assessment, wetland delineations and assessment, natural resource management plans, permitting, mitigation plans, and wind energy projects. Andi thoroughly understands the State and Federal environmental review process through MEPA and NEPA. She has extensive experience with state and federal wetland and stormwater management rules such as the Wetland Conservation Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the NPDES Storm Water Rules. Ryan Spencer Environmental and Remediation Scientist Ryan has seven years of experience in the environmental consulting and engineering industry. He is proficient in Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments, tank removal documentation, hazardous materials building surveys, asbestos and lead-based paint building inspections, radon sampling, and mold sampling. Ryan also has been involved in numerous rehabilitation projects involving the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and MPCA Brownfield, Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund (Petrofund), and Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) programs. In addition, he has experience in various biological stream monitoring data collection and wildlife management techniques. Candace Amberg, RLA Landscape Architect Candace has been doing landscape planning and design since 1996. She has created numerous plans that incorporate designs that appropriately fit into their particular environment and are aesthetically pleasing. Candace creates plans that allow the natural landscape to blend into a more manicured setting in a harmonious manner, paying special attention to more highly visible areas that may come under greater scrutiny. Cost Estimate for Engineering, Construction Observation, and Project Management Services for the Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek, City of Golden Valley Approximate Task Estimated Hours Billing Rate Subtotal Principal 8 $147 $1,176 Project Manager 6 $119 $714 Graduate Engineer 12 $87 $1,044 GIS Specialist 10 $83 $830 Survey Crew 60 $155 $9,300 Subtotal 96 $13,064 Principal 24 $147 $3,528 Project Manager 24 $119 $2,856 Graduate Engineer 40 $87 $3,480 CAD Technician 8 $113 $904 GIS Specialist 32 $83 $2,656 Subtotal 1 128 13,424 Principal 40 $147 $5,880 Project Manager 40 $119 $4,760 Landscape Architect 24 $107 $2,568 Graduate Engineer 30 $87 $2,610 CAD Technician 40 $113 $4,520 GIS Specialist 40 $83 $3,320 Subtotal 214 $23,658 Principal 24 $147 $3,528 Project Manager 8 $119 $952 Graduate Engineer 60 $87 $5,220 GIS Specialist 8 $83 $664 Subtotal 100 $10,364 5;ReAdeWR*MnftIaryPIaq with Stake HolderslAg"to�OpMerAffeCted�9�o"O"S Principal 40 $147 $5,880 Project Manager 40 $119 $4,760 Graduate Engineer 40 $87 $3,480 CAD Technician 40 $113 $4,520 GIS Specialist 16 $83 $1,328 Subtotal 176 $19,966 Principal 40 $147 $5,880 Project Manager 8 $119 $952 Graduate Engineer 40 $87 $3,480 GIS Specialist 40 $83 1 $3,320 Subtotal 1 128 $13,632 ftovide Principal 24 $147 $3,528 Project Manager 40 $119 $4,760 Graduate Engineer 24 $87 $2,088 GIS Specialist 16 $83 $1,328 Subtotal 104 11,704 is „ , •: , Principal 40 $147 $5,880 Project Manager 8 $119 $952 Graduate Engineer 60 $87 $5,220 GIS Specialist 40 $83 $3,320 Subtotal 148 15,372 Principal 40 $147 $5,880 Project Manager 8 $119 $952 Graduate Engineer 8 $87 $696 GIS Specialist 16 $83 $1,328 sumotal 72 $8,856 10,Coqo�OtO�Bid p Principal 16 $147 $2,352 Project Manager 20 $119 $2,380 Graduate Engineer 20 $87 $1,740 GIS Specialist 0 $83 $0 Nubtotal 56 $6,472 LIZ Principal 50 $147 $7,350 Project Manager 45 $119 $5,355 Construction Observer(10-12 weeks) 500 $100 $50,000 s -• • • r Please note the costs for construction services will be dependent on the contractors schedule and will be estimated at 500 hours using the fee schedule identified above until a schedule can be finalized. *In the event that contaminated materials are encountered during construction any Environmental Assessment investigation work will be considered an extra to the project and the costs for the assessment work will be evaluated at that time. city of golde` n�� MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Authorize Agreement Amendment with SEH, Inc. for TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue Final Design Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Seaburg, EIT, Engineer Summary At its January 7, 2014 meeting, the City Council authorized a contract with SEH, Inc. for final design of the TH 55/Winnetka Avenue Intersection Improvement Project No. 12-03. The project was awarded FY 2015 MnDOT Metro Municipal Agreement Program (MMAP) grant funding through the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The table below represents the anticipated cost splits between the City and MnDOT at the time of initiation of final design based on MnDOT's cost-sharing policy: MnDOT City Total Construction $541,420.00 $402,089.50 $943,509.50 Engineering and Contingency $47,080.00 $195,885.11 $242,965.11 Contingency $0.00 $88,350.95 $88,350.95 Total $588,500.00 $686,325.56 $1,274,825.56 Since authorization of the design contract, MnDOT identified several additions to the originally planned project, including the following items: 1. Replacement of existing State-owned traffic signal 2. New ADA compliant pedestrian crossings at TH 55 3. Public Interest Finding (PIF) Letter 4. Traffic Management Plan (TMP) 5. Intersection Control Evaluation Report (ICE) 6. Environmental Review and Technical Memo 7. Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental Report, Dependent on Findings of Environmental Review Funding for construction or implementation of these new project elements has been identified through a number of different sources. Construction funding has been provided by MnDOT to construct the pedestrian ramps at the TH 55 intersection. The new traffic signal at the intersection of TH 55 and Winnetka will be funded by a cost split, including 50% by MnDOT and 25% each by Hennepin County and the City. The City will be using Municipal State Aid funding on its portion of the new signal costs. Additionally, through the final design process, City staff has identified improvements that can be made concurrently with this project. These improvements are listed below. Funding for utilities improvements is available in 2015 through the 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), (W&SS-051, page 88). Funding for the asphalt trail replacement is available via State Aid construction funding. 1. Lining of City-owned sanitary sewer 2. Replacement of City-owned watermain As the lead for this project, the City and its consultant are responsible for the design and implementation of the added elements and requirements. However, since these items were not in the original scope of work, an addendum to the original contract has been requested by SEH. As identified in the attached Contract Amendment Request, the additional fees requested by SEH are in amount of$45,700. It should be noted that $17,000 of the requested amount is designated for environmental review that may or may not be needed. Staff is working with MnDOT staff to determine if funding is available for the State portions of the additional work added to the project. If approved, funding for these additional design and administrative expenses will be paid using State Aid funds and the Sewer and Water CIP project discussed above for the cost of design for the sanitary sewer and water rehabilitation. The total use of State Aid funds for design of the project would increase from $141,000 to $186,700. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the request by SEH and found the additional compensation requested for the work not included in their original proposal to be reasonable and appropriate. Attachments • Contract Amendment Request with SEH, Inc. (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Contract Amendment Request with SEH, Inc. for final design of the TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue Intersection Improvement Project in the amount not to exceed $45,700. SEH Building a Better World for All of Us* September 15, 2014 RE: Contract Amendment Request TH 55 and Winnetka Intersection Improvement—MnDOT Cooperative Agreement No. 04853 S.P. 2723-117 Jeff Oliver 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 to design geometric and operational improvements at the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and T.H. 55. The purpose of this letter is to request additional compensation for supplemental services for work beyond the original contract scope. The requested increase includes the remaining anticipated extra work and remaining time in the original contract to complete the plans and get them ready for bidding, anticipating two more MnDOT reviews. The cost of the extra work spent through August 31, 2014 is $14,200. The total increase we are requesting is$45,700. At this time, the contract documents have been through a preliminary review by the City, County, and MnDOT. We understand that the plan review and approval schedule is critical to the City of Golden Valley and other projects in the area. We intend to make the revisions and return the plans to MnDOT to ensure an early spring letting. SEH is committed to the success of the project and will continue to work as we discuss payment for the extra work. The project has undergone many changes not anticipated by SEH or the City since the original scope was developed in October 2013. The major changes added to the project include ADA Improvements and full signal replacement at the intersection of TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue that were requested by MnDOT, environmental work requested by MnDOT, the existing trail replacement and realignment along the west side of Winnetka Avenue, sanitary sewer lining along Winnetka, water main replacement along Winnetka, and utility work involving high pressure gas main replacement by CenterPoint Energy The information in the following paragraphs describe in more detail the additional services requested mostly by MnDOT, that have and/or are proposed to be provided to the City of Golden Valley. General: ($21,600) Added MnDOT ADA crossings ADA meetings with MnDOT Public Interest Finding (PIF) letter Added SAP's and cost splitting Addressing additional MnDOT comments Trail replacement and connection to TH 55 and Winnetka intersection Private utilities—CenterPoint gas main replacement coordination Engineers I Architects I Planners I Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,3535 Vadnais Center Drive,St.Paul,MN 55110-5196 SEH is 100%employee-owned I sehinc.com 1 651.490.2000 1 800.325.2055 1 888.908.8166 fax Jeff Oliver September 15, 2014 Page 2 Traffic: ($8,600) Signing and striping north of TH 55 Detour signing Traffic Management Plan (TMP) Signals: ($4,800) Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) report Full signal replacement Environmental: ($17,000) File review and technical memorandum Phase I Phase II Utility Repairs (7,900): Sanitary sewer lining Water main replacement The General items requested by MnDOT consist of adding at grade ADA crossings to the project around the intersection of TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue, adding a new pedestrian trail connection from the trail along the west side Winnetka to the TH 55 intersection, developing and submission of a PIF, added SAP numbers and cost splitting as the project progressed, and addressing additional MnDOT comments as a result of the added work to the contract. Other general items added to the project include replacing and realigning of the trail along the west side of Winnetka Avenue and additional meetings and survey resulting from the high pressure gas main replacement by CenterPoint Energy. The Traffic items consist of additional striping and signing north of TH 55, development of a full detour plan, and creating and completing a TMP requested by MnDOT. Signal items consist of preparation of an ICE report and the design of a full signal system per the request of MnDOT. Environmental items consist of a file review and technical memorandum per the request of MnDOT, a Phase II evaluation if contamination is found from the environmental review, and a Phase I evaluation if necessary depending on the results of the Phase II. If the file review work finds that a Phase II and Phase I are not necessary then $15,400 can be deducted from the total amount of extra services. Utility repair items consist of sanitary sewer lining both north and south of Winnetka along with water main replacement along Winnetka between TH 55 and Brookview Parkway North. COMPENSATION SEH requests to be compensated for the work described in this contract amendment on an hourly basis. Compensation will be based on the hourly cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses, including reproductions, mileage and equipment. We have estimated the total contract amendment for engineering services is$45,700. The summary of the proposed amendment is as follows: COST BREAKDOWN Original contract amount: $141,000 Spent to date(thru August 31, 2014) $129,900 * includes$14,200 extra services Contract amount remaining $11,200 Jeff Oliver September 15, 2014 Page 3 Original contract amount: $141,000 Extra services to finish $45,700 Total revised contract amount $186,700 Total Amendment Amount: $45,700 This contract amendment is an understanding of the project to date. If this document satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of the contract amendment, please sign in the space below and return one copy to our office. We look forward to continuing our work with you, your staff and the community on this project. Thanks for the opportunity to continue our work with the City of Golden Valley. Respectively submitted, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. san M. Mason, PE Principal Approved this day of , 2014 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Thomas D. Burt, City Manager c: Mike Kotila, John Gray, Dan Erickson s1fj\g\go1dv\126905\1-genl\10-contracts\contract ammendment\contractammendment_091014.docx V 6wg 1 ) gold' e' n , M E r 0 Y ,01A. N D U M valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. 3. Award Contract for 2014 Fire Suppression Project (Streets and Utilities Maintenance Buildings), City Improvement Project No. 14-24 Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer John Crelly, Fire Chief R.J. Kakach, EIT, Engineer Summary The Street and Utility Maintenance buildings on City Hall Campus are currently not protected by fire suppression sprinkler systems. In order to protect the City's assets inside the buildings, staff solicited quotes for the 2014 Fire Suppression Project (Streets and Utilities Maintenance Buildings). Proposals included base bids to install fire suppression systems in the Street and Utility Maintenance buildings. Funding for the 2014 Fire Suppression Project was reviewed and included in reviewing the 2015- 2019 Capital Improvement Program, Building Fund and Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund. The project will be funded from the Building Fund for$26,955 and Utility Fund for $24,390. Quotes for the 2014 Fire Suppression Project were opened on October 7, 2014. The following Base Bids were received: Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. $51,345.00 LifeSafer Fire Protection $53,630.00 Summit Fire Protection $116,000.00 Midwest Fire Protection, Inc. $130,298.00 Recommended Action Motion to award the contract for the 2014 Fire Suppression Project (Streets and Utilities Maintenance Buildings) to the lowest responsible contractor, Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co., for the Base Bid amount of$51,345. citly Of PkIr MEMORANDUM go I d c nl!,. I valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. 4. Authorize Agreements for Stream Bank Stabilization with: 1. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 2. Robert Marrs at 4840 Markay Ridge 3. Tyson Lien at 4820 Markay Ridge Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary As part of its Watershed Management Plan, Stream Restoration Policies, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) has established a program to provide partial funding for stream bank stabilization and restoration projects along the trunk system of Bassett Creek. The trunk system in Golden Valley includes the Main Stem and Sweeney Lake Branch of Bassett Creek. Upon implementation of this program, the Golden Valley City Council directed staff to make these funds available to residents to offset costs for stabilization on private property on the condition that the property owners provide 50 percent of the funding. In spring of 2014, the City was approached by property owners on Markay Ridge requesting assistance in stabilizing their eroding stream banks. These properties are located in a meandering section of the stream that have experienced significant erosion and property loss over the years. The ongoing bank erosion has contributed to sediment deposition in downstream areas of the creek. The City applied for and received permission to utilize up to $75,000 in channel maintenance funds as outlined in the attached agreement with BCWMC. The 2014 agreement with BCWMC is consistent with agreements authorized in 2004, 2005 and 2012 for similar projects, and includes a process for reimbursing the City for construction of such projects. The City may complete the work itself or enter into agreements with property owners and provide reimbursement to the owners to complete the work. In this case, the owners are proposing to complete the work themselves. The agreement with BCWMC must be approved prior to consideration of the agreements with the property owners. The two property owners proposing the project have agreed to partner together to complete the project and split all project costs in half. The total estimated cost for construction, engineering, and project review is $69,495, of which 50 percent (up to $34,747.50) is reimbursable by BCWMC. Since the two property owners are splitting all project costs in half, they would each be eligible to receive up to $17,373.75 in reimbursement. The stream bank stabilization project includes the installation of fieldstone boulders, fabric encapsulated soil lifts and vegetation establishment to stabilize the eroding bank of Bassett Creek. The property owner reimbursements shall not exceed the above amounts. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Agreement for Channel Maintenance - 2014, City of Golden Valley (12 pages) • Agreement for Stream Bank Stabilization with Robert Marrs (3 pages) • Agreement for Stream Bank Stabilization with Tyson Lien (3 pages) Recommended Action 1. Motion to authorize entering into agreement for stream bank stabilization with the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. 2. Motion to authorize entering into agreement for stream bank stabilization with Robert Marrs at 4840 Markay Ridge. 3. Motion to authorize entering into agreement for stream bank stabilization with Tyson Lien at 4820 Markay Ridge. I I j ' II e n Area $ i Ii ` I E � L �f Z (� i I ► ; a O Z Q CD i CL Q V) m Say _. 4 4; II , �� `-----i J Vt, y �. o\, z - -H 55 Scheid ! _ _ Park a - CZfy Of Print Date: 10/24/2014 Sources: go l d enL O C �'O M Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Vallev- Property Goldinesen Valley o Aerial Photography(2012). -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 150 300 600 L I I Feet AGREEMENT FOR CHANNEL MAINTENANCE—2014 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY This Agreement is made this JL�day of a*b& , 2014,by and between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, a Minnesota joint powers organization ("Commission") and the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Commission has established a program to work in cooperation with member cities to fund channel maintenance projects; and WHEREAS, the City has applied to the Commission for funds for a channel maintenance project in the City, a description of which is attached as Attachment One, which is inadc a part of this Agreement(the"Project"); and WHEREAS, the Commission is willing to provide fielding for the City's Project in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth,the parties hereto agree as follows: I. The City will undertake the work of the Project as described in Attachment One. The City may request a change in the Project, which may be authorized, in writing, by the Commission's Engineer. 2. The plans for the Project shall be reviewed by the Commission's Engineer, who may approve or require modifications to the Plans. Project design, construction and maintenance will conform to all conditions of approval imposed by the Commission. 4482390 CLL BA295-9 I 3. The City shall require that engineers, architects and contractors for the work of each part of the Project have liability insurance in the amount of current statutory limits specified in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, and that the Commission and the Commission's Engineer are named as additional insureds on such policies. Before commencing construction of the Project, the City shall provide to the Commission a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating compliance with this requirement. The Certificate shall provide that the insurance may not be cancelled without giving the certificate holder the same notice of cancellation as is given to the policyholder. 4. The City shall undertake, or cause to be undertaken, the Project in accordance with the approved plans. Contracts will be awarded by the City in accordance with all applicable public bidding and contracting requirements. 5. The City shall be responsible for securing, or causing to be secured,all necessary permits for the work of the Project. 6. Upon completion of the work of the Project, the City shall secure record drawings, with a certification by the design engineer or architect that the work was completed according to record drawings. A copy of the certification shall be forwarded to the Commission's Engineer. 7. The City will submit invoices to the Coma-fission, no more frequently than monthly, for partial reimbursement for the work of the Project. Reimbursable expenses include out-of- pocket costs incurred for construction, and costs of design, engineering, and contract administration. Reimbursement will be made subject to the following limitations: a) Total reimbursement for the work of the Project will not exceed $75,000, and no reimbursement will be made for costs paid to the City by other parties. 448239v]CLL BA295A 2 b) Reimbursement will be made from that part of the Commission's Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund (the "Channel Maintenance Fund") allocated to channel maintenance in the City. If the cost of the Project exceeds $75,000, the City may apply to the Commission for additional reimbursement from funds allocated to the City in the Channel Maintenance Fund. 8. Claims by the City for reimbursement shall be accompanied by such proof of expenses as may reasonably be requested by the Commission, and the books and records of the City shall be available for inspection by the Commission upon reasonable notice during normal business hours. If the City will seek reimbursement for design, engineering and contract administration by City staff, it will maintain and provide to the Commission detailed time records showing daily records of time spent, description of activity, staff personnel involved and rate of total compensation. Hourly rates charged will include pro-rated salary and fringe benefits in accordance with the schedule of rates attached to this Agreement as Attachment Two,which rates are subject to annual adjustment commensurate with changes in City costs of salary and benefits. 9. The Commission shall reimburse the City for eligible expenses in accordance with this Agreement within 45 days of receipt of an invoice therefor. 10. This Agreement will terminate on the third anniversary of the date of this Agreement unless extended by mutual agreement of the City and the Commission. The Commission will have no obligation to reimburse claims not submitted prior to the termination date. 11. The parties agree that the Commission's participation in the Project is limited to the payment of channel maintenance grant finds in accordance with this Agreement. This Agreement does not make the Commission a partner, agent or co-venturer in the City's Project and the Commission will incur no responsibility or liability for the work of the City's Project. 4482390 CLL B 295-9 3 BASSETT CREEK WATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION By: Oh. Azld by: i cool" Secretary CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Mayor And by: Manager 448239v1 CLL 13A295-9 4 MARKAY RIDGE STREAMBANK STABILIZATION TYSON LIEN & BOB MARRS GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 2014 GENERAL NOTES LOCATION MAP SHEET INDEX EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY DATA: 10....................................................................INDEX AND COVER SHEET i EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED FROM AVAILABLE 2011 LIDAR DATA FROM THE 0..........................................................................EXISTING CONDITIONS MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. PARCEL AND PLANIMETRIC DATA 3.0.........................................................PROPOSED RESTORATION PLAN IS FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND HENNEPIN 4.0........................................................................CONSTRUCTION NOTES COUNTY GIS. ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF RECENT AREAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS UTILIZED 5.0 to 8.0..........................................................................................DETAILS TO SUPPLEMENT AND REVISE DATA. CONTRACOTR SHOULD VERIFY EXISTING ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. - NOTES: 1. THE OWNER AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE NOTIFIED 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. 2. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE RITA WEAVER OR DAN MIELKE AND CAN BE REACHED AT:OFFICE:(651)644-4389. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITY JL COMPANIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES AND THEIR PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT(800)252-1166 OR(651)454-0002. OR PI OJ2Ct LOCBtIOtI http://mnticketentry.korterraweb.com AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF EXCAVATION. NO FIELD LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES WAS CONDUCTED FOR THIS PLAN SET. 4. IF UTILITIES ARE ENCOUNTERED THAT CONFLICT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. _ Markay Ridge 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ENTER ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY UNLESS Golden Valley,MN AUTHORIZED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. 6. POINT COORDINATES AND VERTICAL DATAM - HORIZONTAL COORDINATES STATED IN THIS PLAN ARE IN NAD 1983 STATEPLANE MINNESOTA SOUTH(US FEET). - VERTICAL:ALL ELEVATIONS ARE GIVEN IN NAVD88 DATUM. Service Layer Credits:Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrid,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Sources:Esri,De Lorme,NAVTEQ,TomTom,Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO,,USGS,FAO,NPS, NRCAN,Geo Base,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong), swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Drawn B MSL Job Date: 2014 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THATTHIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED INDEX AND COVER SHEET SHEET NO. Y BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Approved: DWM Job Number: 20140037 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. GIS Date: 9/22/2014 9:53:02 AM MARKAY RIDGE 1.0 GIS File: Markay Ridge.mxd SIGNATURE: STREAMBANK STABILIZATION DATE: 9/22/2014 DANIEL MIELKE REG.NO. 50925 HRGreen PLOT:9:53:43 AM 9122/2014 FILE:1lhrgspnasldata1201400371GISIMXD1Markay Ridge.mxd . " x , v + , a x 551— -850- 06 S -850— �s. +X tt Approximate Project Limit4' a 842 Approximate Project Limit , 840 �842 ` • f 8 � Looking South _/ 6 Y 846 88 $i� � '� 3 � �.• g0 , j, 6CA a � o �+ . A MOW 0 ,""��'_ 886 • f t � -- • � t c d , m i 8> Legend Co Co Bassett Creek Approx. Centerline . Looking Downstream _ .. - - .� Appox. BCWMC Regulated 100yr Elev. (839.5ft) # , Contours (2ft) �8 1 -- Project�_—� ,,.� � � ct Parcels -� . I -8190 .4.. l• I / Parcels Drawn B MSL Job Date: 2014 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THATTHIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED EXISTING CONDITIONS Fe ° SHEET NO. Y BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Approved: DWM Job Number: 20140037 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. GIS Date: 9/22/2014 9:53:02 AM MARKAY RIDGE 2.0 GIS File: Markay Ridge.mxd SIGNATURE: STREAMBANK STABILIZATION 1 inch=100 feet DATE: 9/22/2014 DANIEL MIELKE REG.NO. 50925 HRGreen PLOT:9:53:57 AM 9/22/2014 FILE:\\hrgspnas\data\20140037\GIS\MXD\Markay Ridge.mxd 860 It- w� NIL I � ' 85 s r INSTALL HEAVY DUTY FLOTATION852 850 SILT CURTAIN SURROUNDING " �J _. _... _...... 846; WORK AREA WITH ADDITIONAL _ CONSTRUCTION ACCESS40 s46 REINFORCEMENTAT DOWNSTREAM w END OF PROJECT. SEE DETAILS . SHEET 8. V 846 z' ' E , : 840 1+ ' \ 848 % , 5 - •; ry""" � \ STREAM ACCESS k S A " 1 # SEE ROCK CONSTRUCTION u _a ENTRANCE DETAIL SHEET 8 s a _ 1k.APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF �. IN-STREAM WEIR. SEE DETAIL . 4 L AND M, SHEET 7. FINAL x — :.:, DIRECTED BY r � LOCATION AS � - a will FIELD ENGINEER 'r co �. lar M ` , Y B 88p f "_ m ro � _____ - z Legend 866 , BANK IMPORVEMENT STREAMBED TO ELEVATION 841. SEE DETAILS ` Bassett Creek Approx. Centerline '�8� ATHROUGH K SHEETS 5 -6. �p FINAL EXTENTS AS RECOMMENDED Contours (2ft) ��) � � BY FIELD ENGINEER. � J-Hook WeirCP Appox. BCWMC Regulated 100yr Elev. (839.5ft) \ 8 O, a � ; Bank Improvement Project Parcels '- Q , Parcels t . x _ Drawn B MSL Job Date: 2014 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED PROPOSED RESTORATION PLAN Q Y BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED X11 Fee _ SHEET NO. Approved: DWM Job Number: 20140037 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. GIS Date: 9/22/2014 9:53:02 AMMARKAY RIDGE 3.0 GIS File: Markay Ridge.mxd SIGNATURE: STREAMBANK STABILIZATION 1 inch=80 feet DATE: 9/22/2014 DANIEL MIELKE REG.NO. 50925 HRGreen PLOT:9:54:17 AM 9/22/2014 FILE:\\hrgspnas\data\20140037\G I S\MXD\Markay Ridge.mxd CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 9. DEWATERING WILL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO EXCAVATION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST AND WILL ADHERE TO REGULATORY STANDARDS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. IF DEWATERING IS NECESSARY, THE 2. WORK DESCRIBED HEREIN CONSISTS OF FURNISHING AND TRANSPORTING ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO OPERATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO STABILIZE STREAM BANK EROSION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH, TRANSPORT, AND RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NECESSARY DEWATERING PERMITS. INSTALL ALL SEED,AND PERFORM ALL SOIL PREPARATION AND SUCH AUXILIARY WORK AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 10. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE LOAD EXCEEDING 50,000 POUNDS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE CHURCH FURNISH ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, LABOR, AND INCIDENTALS, UNLESS OTHERWISE PARKING LOT WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE OWNER AND OWNER REPRESENTATIVE. ANY PROVIDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OR PLANS. DISTURBANCES TO THE PAVEMENT, LANDSCAPING, ETC. WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. ANY DEEMED IMPROVEMENTS TO AMEND DISTRUBANCES MUST BE COMPLETED 3. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CHURCH AND PARKING LOT OWNER AND SHALL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SHALL PREVAIL: CONTRACTOR. A. ALL PERTINENT CODES, STANDARDS, ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY AND BASSET CREEEK 11. ANY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, IN ADDITION TO THOSE OUTLINED IN THE PLANS AND WHICH ARE WATERSHED COMMISSION WHERE APPLICABLE. DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE OWNER AND/OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE B. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION (MNDOT SPECIFICATIONS) CONTRACTOR. 2014 EDITION BY THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; C. OSHA AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE SAFETY STANDARDS. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT, MAINTAIN, 4. UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE WITHIN THIS PLAN SET, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW THE AND DOCUMENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL MATERIALS. IN THE EVENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND THESE SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE 13. THE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PLACE EFFECTIVELY UNTIL ALL THE PERMANENT OWNER AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE CONTINUING WORK SO THAT THE EROSION CONTROL ITEMS ARE FULLY FUNCTIONAL. INCONSISTENCIES MAY BE RESOLVED. THE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 14. SOILS TRACKED FROM THE SITE BY MOTOR VEHICLES MUST BE CLEANED DAILY (OR MORE FREQUENTLY, AS NECESSARY) FROM PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 5. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EXCEPT FOR BASSETT CREEK'S WATERSHED PERMIT AND CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYS STORMWATER 15. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 14 DAYS MANAGEMENT PERMIT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. MAINTENANCE OF EROSION CONTROL AND ADEQUATE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE AND WARNING DEVICES TO INFORM AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC WATERS. 16. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT MULCH TO BE UNIFORMLY APPLIED BY MECHANICAL OR HYDRAULIC MEANS AND STABILIZED BY DISC-ANCHORING OR USE OF HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZERS. 6. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT,AND THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S ROW PERMIT REQUIRED FOR TEMPORARY ACCESS. 17. TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER MUST CONSIST OF A SUITABLE, FAST-GROWING, DENSE GRASS SEED MIX SPREAD AT 1.5 TIMES THE USUAL RATE PER ACRE. IF TEMPORARY COVER IS TO REMAIN IN PLACE BEYOND THE 7. CONTRACTOR IS PRIOR TO BIDDING, RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING HIS OR HER OWN ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL PRESENT GROWING SEASON,TWO-THIRDS OF THE SEED MIX SHALL BE COMPOSED OF PERENNIAL GRASSES. QUANTITIES, BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS. 18. PERMANENT VEGETATION COVER CONSISTING MUST BE SOD, A SUITABLE GRASS-SEED MIXTURE, OR A 8. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. COMBINATION THEREOF. SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE EITHER MULCHED OR COVERED BY FIBROUS BLANKETS TO PROTECT SEEDS AND LIMIT EROSION. 9. ALL EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS, UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING OR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGES 19. IF MORE THAN 3 ROCK LIFTS ARE NEEDED (TOTAL HEIGHT > 6 FEET ABOVE STREAMBED) CONTRACTOR IS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST AND SHALL MEET THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER AND THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBLE FOR A GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF STABILITY. REPRESENTATIVE. Drawn By: MSL Job Date: 2014 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED PROPOSED RESTORATION SHEET NO. BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Approved: DWM Job Number: 20140037PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CONSTRUCTION NOTES GIS Date: 9/22/2014 95302 AM MARKAY RIDGE 4.0 SIGNATURE: HRGreen STREAMBANK STABILIZATION GIS File: Markay Ridge.mxd DATE: 9/22/2014 DANIEL MIELKE REG.NO. 50925 PLOT:9:54:24 AM 9/22/2014 FILE:\\hrgspnas\data\20140037\GIS\MXD\Markay Ridge.mxd SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS FINISHED GROUND SURFACE ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS KEY TRENCH EXISTING GROUND SURFACE SOIL ENCAPSULATED BY AlIll WOVEN AND NON—WOVEN COIR FABRIC LAYERS FABRIC ' N ENCAPSULATED 2 , W w SOIL LIFT 1 NATIVE GROUND s cr. IN LOCATIONS AS x > RECOMMENDED BY OWNER MATERIAL Q REPRESENTATIVE m LOWER OF 841 OR TOP OF EROSION LINE � WOODEN STAKE W COMPACTED FILL TO MATCH DENSITY OF 1 NATIVE GROUND MATERIAL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ------------------- --- ------- ------ COARSE GRANULAR FILTER MATERIAL 2—FT DIA. 3—FT MIN OR TO ROCK BOULDERS BEDROCK ROCK BOULDERS MUST NOT BE PLACED .r INTO THE STREAM MORE THAN THREE EXISTING STREAMBED FEET FROM EXISTING BANK EL. VARIES ANY SCOUR HOLES ADJACENT TO ROCK BOULDERS TO BE FILLED WITH CLASS V RIPRAP TO STREAMBED AND SOIL FILLED WITH GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL CROSS SECTION: STREAM BANK STABILIZATION A NOT TO SCALE Drawn By: MSL Job Date: 2014 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED PROPOSED RESTORATION BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED SHEET NO. Approved: DWM Job Number: 20140037 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DETAILS GIS Date: 9/22/2014 9:53:02 AM MARKAY RIDGE 5.0 GIS File: Markay Ridge.mxd SIGNATURE: STREAMBANK STABILIZATION DATE: 9/22/2014 DANIELMIELKE REG.NO. 50925 HRGreen PLOT:9:54:29 AM 9/22/2014 FILE:\\h rgspnas\data\20140037\G I S\MXD\Markay Ridge.mxd WOVEN COIR OUTER M TRENCH INTO UPPER SLOPE FABRIC(SEE PLANS AND DOM 1 FT.(AIN.) SPI�ICAT10N5) UPPER SLOPE TREATMENT INNER FABRIC(SEE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS) 3 FT.(AK) ok NON-WOVEN COIR INNER FABRIC(SEE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS) 214 SM OUT TO RIP DIAOCNALLY Flmsm STAKES 24 N. LONG KEY TRENCH DEPTH 1 Fr. (MN.) TYPICAL DETAIL- FABRIC LAYERING: a DETAILS: WOODEN STAKE CONSTRUCTION NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE FES TREATMENT COIR FABRIC(SEE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS) DOWNSTREAM EXISTING MATERIAL EWE Of FAB EXISTING GROUND UPPER SLOPE TREATMENT FES TREATMENT SURFACE INNER FABRIC(SEE PLANS FES(FABRIC FES TREATMENT AND SPECIFICATIONS) f?ICAPlY1LATED MR FABRIC(SEE PLANS MR FABRIC(SEE PIANS SOIL) LIFT 2124124 IN.WOODEN STANCE AND SPECIFICATIONS) 1 Fr. AND SPGCIFlCAIMS) 1 FT. MIN- MN, TOPSOIL. FES TREATMENT 0 N-(MN-) 9 IN. (MN.) DEPTH FES TREA7LR?ti DEPTH INNER FABRIC(SWANS INNER FABRIC(gE PLANS AND SPECIF1CATI0NS) TOPSOIL AND SFEdF10ATIGiS� TOPSOIL INMR FABRIC (SEE 2K24K24 IN.WOODEN STAKE SPECIFICATIONS) 2K24K24 IN.WOODEN STAKE THROUGH BOTH STAKE THROUGH BOTH LAYERS OF FABRIC LAYERS OF FABRIC ISOMETRIC: FES CONSTRUCTED UFT KEY TRENCH FABRIC OVERLAP NOT TO SCALE ` NOT TO SCAU E F NOT TO SCALE UPSTREAM FABRIC OVERLAPS DOWNSTREAM FABRIC 3 I.IMIN. OVFfRAP FES TREATMENT CON FABRIC(SEE PIANS AND SPECIFICATIONS) FES TREATMENT LIN.- FLOW MAIN. t FT. NNQT FABRIC(SEE PLANS MN. AND SPECIFICATIONS) O D D 0 D B 9 IN. : DfYM UPSTREAM FABRIC LAPS STREAM FABRIC UPS 3 STAKE TNROUM BOTH TOPSOIL UNDERNEAT}i n LAYERS OFT STAKE THROWN BOTH LAYERS CF B REE DETAIL TAKE 0 STAKE THROUGH BOTH FABRIC DOWNSTREAM MOE OF FABRIC LAYERS OF FABRIC FABRIC OVERLAP FABRIC OVERLAP_ �1 L D DOWNSTREAM NOT 70 SCALE NOT 10 SCALE FLOW UPSTREAM FABRIC ABRIC EXISTING CROUND SURFACE AS NEEDED IF BANK EXPOSED WIDTH FES TREATMENT WIDTH WARES �t INNER FABRIC(SEE COIR FSPECIFICATIONS) ' OONSTRUCIION FORM DETAILS: FABRIC STAKING PLAN VIEW CATI (SEE TRENCH DEPT SPECIFICATIONS) H T FT.�IN-) / \ \�\ \ NOT TO SCALE INNER FAS6C(SEE STAKE TFR OUCH REF DETAIL G \� SPECIFICATIONS) FABRIC OVE]TLAP / FES(FABRK: KEY TRENCH INTO UPPER SLOPE ENCAPSULATED UEFM 1 FT.(MN.). SOL)LFT FACE MIFJriRT I FT-(MIN.) / MATLTTNL REF DETAILO \ 2K24K24 IN. WOODEN STAKE TOPSOIL �y F TYPICAL CROSS—SECTION: FES FABRIC ENCAPSULATED SOIL LIFT TREATMENT , NOT TO SCALE NJ Drawn By: MSL Job Date: 2014 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED PROPOSED RESTORATION SHEET NO. BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Approved: DWM Job Number: 20140037 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DETAILS GIS Date: 9/22/2014 9:53:02 AM MARKAY RIDGE 6.0 GIS File: Markay Ridge.mxd SIGNATURE: STREAMBANK STABILIZATION DATE: 9/22/2014 DANIEL MIELKE REG.NO. 50925 H RGreen PLOT:9:54:35 AM 9/22/2014 FILE:\\hrgspnas\data\20140037\GIS\MXD\Markay Ridge.mxd CLAS$V RIPRAP TOE OF STREAM BED 1f3 STREAM DTH 1I I FLC f DETAIL L J4100K VANE PLAN VIEW 213 STREAM WIDTH &FT M ' ti i NATIVE MATERIAL f LASS V RIPRAP LACE RIPRAP ON 6-INCH COURSE FILTER AQQREQATE -TOE OF EXISTING STREAM BED DETAIL M J-HOOK VANE CROSS SECTION Drawn By: MSL Job Date: 2014 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED PROPOSED RESTORATION SHEET NO. BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED DETAILS Approved: DWM Job Number: 20140037 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MARKAY RIDGE 7.0 GIS Date: 9/22/2014 9:53:02 AM SIGNATURE: t STREAMBANK STABILIZATION GIS File: Markay Ridge.mxd DATE: 9/22/2014 DANIELMIELKE REG.NO. 50925 -�RGreen PLOT:9:54:42 AM 9/22/2014 FILE:\\h rgspnas\data\20140037\G IS\MXD\Markay Ridge.mxd FLOW OF WATERWAY CARRIER FLOAT -PUBME RIBAB STEEL TENSION CABLC WATER SURFACE PARKING LOT LESS THAN 1/3 _ .:— THE STREAM/RIVER u _ — W10TH o m \ VARIABLE LENGTH CURTAIN FABRIC STREAM BANK Z o 7 RADIUS AS RIPER BANK ANCHOR CABLE � REQUIRED U N 5' R TEMPORARY BOTTOM \� QQ ANCHOR O ROCK BERM POINT WHERE FILL f 6" MIN.DEPTH f MEETS WATER SURFACE CURTAIN WEIGHT pF I" TO 2" r CRUSHED ROCK UNDERWATER ANCHOR(1 FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN ' (TYP. OF TION CURTAIN) I I BRIDGE ABUTMENT. I CULVERT EXT., TEMPORARY FILL ORI I WORK AREA I I BUOY (TYP.)O I I I I I i • SEDIMENT ENTRANCE WIDTH FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN OR MATS AS REQUIRED 5' "® SILT FENCE TYPE TB EXCAVATION"` AREA EDGE OF STREAM ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Q • ••• TO STREAM STEEL FENCE POS STAKE AT 4' INTERVALS ANCHOR TO LAND (TYP.) • 2' A /.•• A PLAN VIEW FOR STREAM j) INSTREAM • ••DISTURBANCE• • 4' MIN.DOWNSTREAM COVERAGE OF STREAM FLOW SEDIMENT MATS FOR EACH FT./SEC. OF • WATER VELOCITY 2' • EDGE OF STREAM • '"EXCAREAION-� `u .'. W J PLAN VIEW NOTES: IU FOR ANCHOR SPACING AND WEIGHT REOUIREMENTS.SEE SPEC.2573. � O MINIMUM WATER DEPTH APPLIES TO THE DEEPEST POINT ALONG THE FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN OR SILT FENCE TYPE TB FOR DETERMINING APPLICABILITY OF FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN OR g 6" MIN.OVERLAP SILT FENCE TYPE TB. Lu _ _ _ — _ — _ — _ — — — (I)SILT CURTAIN SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE AREA CONTRIBUTING DIRECT RUNOFF HAS BEEN FLOW-�- — — — TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. SILT CURTAIN SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED BEFORE WINTER IF ICE UP OR ICE FLOW IS ANTICIPATED. STREAM BED 18" MIN.DEPTH INSTREAM DISTURBANCE SECTION A-A SEDIMENT MAT TYPICAL STREAM BED INSTALLATION STANDARO SHEET NO. TITLES DESIGN GUIDELINES: 5-297.405 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL Z� MAXIMUM FLOW VELOCITY: 5 FT./SEC. STANDARD APPROVED, MAXIMUM FLOW DEPTHS 2 FT. MARCH 29.2012 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS SHEET NO. 8 OF 8 AGREEMENT FOR STREAM BANK STABILIZATION THIS AGREEMENT FOR STREAM BANK STABILIZATION ("Agreement") made this day of , 2014, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), located at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota and Robert Marrs ("Owner") with reference to the following facts and circumstances: WHEREAS, the Owner is the fee owner of certain real property situated in the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 18, Block 4, Westurban, City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property"). WHEREAS, the City and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission ("Commission") have agreed to undertake channel maintenance improvements and stream bank stabilization along the Main Stem of Bassett Creek (the "Main Stem") for projects which have been approved by the City and the Commission. WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement for Channel Maintenance — 2014, City of Golden Valley, between the City and the Commission (the "Channel Maintenance Agreement") and various corresponding policies and procedures the City can seek from the Commission a partial reimbursement for a property owner's expenses for stream bank stabilization projects on the Main Stem, for projects which have been approved by the City and Commission. WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to perform such stream bank stabilization at the subject property as described in Attachment One. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. The Owner will prepare plans for a stream bank stabilization project on the Property that are in accordance with the standards of the City, the Commission, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and submit the plans for approval of these parties. 2. The plans shall be reviewed by the City, the Commission's Engineer, and the DNR, who may approve or require modifications to the plans. 3. Upon, receipt of the necessary governmental approvals of the plans by the City and the Commission the Owner shall obtain a Stormwater Management permit from the City. 4, The Owner shall acquire bids or quotes to construct the project and shall undertake to have the contractor with the lowest responsible bid or quote construct the project according to the approved plans. 5. The Owner shall pay the contractor in full for the work performed and provide the City with proof of expenses and a final unconditional lien-waiver for the work and materials. 000090/4805 68/1513 003_2 6. Upon receipt of the final unconditional lien-waiver from the Owner, the City shall invoice the Commission for an amount not-to-exceed 50% of the Owner out-of-pocket construction costs for the project, including engineering and plan review costs. This amount shall not exceed Seventeen Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars and 75 Cents ($17,373.75). 7. The City shall deliver to the Owner any reimbursement received from the Commission for the Owner's eligible project expenses in accordance with this Agreement. 8. The parties agree that the City's and Commission's participation in the project is limited to the payment of stream bank stabilization grant funds in accordance with this Agreement and the Channel Maintenance Agreement. This Agreement does not make the City or Commission partners, agents or co-venturers with the Owner and that the City and Commission will incur no responsibility or liability for the work of the Owner's project. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above. Robert Marrs CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By Thomas D. Burt, City Manager 000090/480568/1513003_2 Attachment One 000090/480568/1513003_2 AGREEMENT FOR STREAM BANK STABILIZATION THIS AGREEMENT FOR STREAM BANK STABILIZATION ("Agreement") made this day of , 2014, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), located at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota and Tyson Lien ("Owner") with reference to the following facts and circumstances: WHEREAS, the Owner is the fee owner of certain real property situated in the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 17, Block 4, Westurban, City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property"). WHEREAS, the City and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission ("Commission") have agreed to undertake channel maintenance improvements and stream bank stabilization along the Main Stem of Bassett Creek (the "Main Stem") for projects which have been approved by the City and the Commission. WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement for Channel Maintenance — 2014, City of Golden Valley, between the City and the Commission (the "Channel Maintenance Agreement") and various corresponding policies and procedures the City can seek from the Commission a partial reimbursement for a property owner's expenses for stream bank stabilization projects on the Main Stem, for projects which have been approved by the City and Commission. WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to perform such stream bank stabilization at the subject property as described in Attachment One. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. The Owner will prepare plans for a stream bank stabilization project on the Property that are in accordance with the standards of the City, the Commission, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and submit the plans for approval of these parties. 2. The plans shall be reviewed by the City, the Commission's Engineer, and the DNR, who may approve or require modifications to the plans. 3. Upon, receipt of the necessary governmental approvals of the plans by the City and the Commission the Owner shall obtain a Stormwater Management permit from the City. 4. The Owner shall acquire bids or quotes to construct the project and shall undertake to have the contractor with the lowest responsible bid or quote construct the project according to the approved plans. 5. The Owner shall pay the contractor in full for the work performed and provide the City with proof of expenses and a final unconditional lien-waiver for the work and materials. 000090/480568/1513003 2 6. Upon receipt of the final unconditional lien-waiver from the Owner, the City shall invoice the Commission for an amount not-to-exceed 50% of the Owner out-of-pocket construction costs for the project, including engineering and plan review costs. This amount shall not exceed Seventeen Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars and 75 Cents ($17,373.75). 7. The City shall deliver to the Owner any reimbursement received from the Commission for the Owner's eligible project expenses in accordance with this Agreement. 8. The parties agree that the City's and Commission's participation in the project is limited to the payment of stream bank stabilization grant funds in accordance with this Agreement and the Channel Maintenance Agreement. This Agreement does not make the City or Commission partners, agents or co-venturers with the Owner and that the City and Commission will incur no responsibility or liability for the work of the Owner's project. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above. Tyson Lien CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By Thomas D. Burt, City Manager 000090/480568/1513003_2 Attachment One 000090/480568/1513003_2 city 0� ... .y golde- valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) u. r Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. F. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72 (Golden Valley Senior Living) - Amendment No. 2 Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the October 21, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the Final PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment #2. After the hearing, the Council approved the Final Plan. The PUD Permit has been prepared for consideration. Attachments • Underlined/Overstruck PUD Permit - Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment #2 (4 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amended PUD Permit for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 95, Amendment No. 2. Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72 — Amendment No. 2 City Council Approval: October 21, 2014 Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72 — Amendment No. 1 City Council Approval: April 1 , 1997 Trevilla of Golden Valley P.U.D. 72 — Original P.U.D. City Council Approval: April 2, 1996 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Project Name: Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72 (formerly known as Trevilla of Golden Valley) Location: 7475 and 7505 Country Club Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota Legal Description: Tract R Registered Land Survey No. 935 Files of Registrar of Titles, (�Hennepin o„n+ai Let 47 "Auditor's d,unhpvcinn +�Acr Hennepin COURt Minnesota," a� vo the plat thereof OR filo or of reGE)rd iT the offices of the Registrar of Titles and Register of Deeds in and a for said County. That part of Lot 1, Block eastrlii of Nino described as follows—ComrPef�;g at the No C+ „�eF of Lot 1, Block 1 thence East along the North lino of Lot 1 a rdis}ance of 60 feet-to the point of beginning; thence South OVI 14' 16" East rdistance �v—ry �cr-.rra-a rorcarrcc of 110 feet more Or less to the i,.nttersection with the Southerly line of Lot 1, BloF.L� Lot t 2, BIOGk 1 Skyline Plaza, aa.ecordiRg to the plat thereof OR file Or of recOrr•d in the Office of the Registrar of a T'tles 'R and for said COURty. That paFt of vacated 51 Ave.No.,Skyline Plaza that liesNortherly Of Line n aR d Easterly of I ipe R described belowe I pp �,I'k 5th Ave. NE). the West line of Lot 3, dIOG2, Sk Alin zaca; ti ee-rnrce North along the West line of Lot 3 a !•di tante of 25 feet to the point of beginning; thence on a hearing of West 269 feet more or less to the intersection with Line R described belo,ni , Skyline Plaza; thence Gast along the North line of Lot 1 a , v a_usa along the North u, n,,�. v, wc....,-aa distance of 60 feet to the p0iRt of thence South A-4- beginning; 16" East to the South line of .5th Ave. No Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72, Amendment #2 Page 2 GGOrdino to the plot hereof on filo or of record in the offine of the Registrar of Titles in and for said COURt Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72 Applicant: Unicare Homes Inn. Albert Miller — Golden Valley Senior Living Address: 105 W. MiGhigaR StFeet, Milwaukee VVI 532 2631 Quentin Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Owner: Unicare Homes, Inc. - 7505 Country Club Drive Country Villa Aid Propco LLC - 7475 Country Club Drive Address: Unicare Homes, Inc. - 105 W. Michigan Street, Milwaukee WI 53203 Country Villa Aid Propco, LLC - 330 N. Wabash, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60611 Zoning District: 1-3 Institutional Permitted Uses: A 230 bed nursing home at 7505 Country Club Drive and a 69- 110-unit assisted living facility at 7475 Country Club Drive Components: A. Land Use 1. The overall site plan, sheet C 100, prepared by PDC Design Group, Inc. and dated 2/7/96 shall become a part of the P.U.D. approval and shall be attached to the P.U.D. permit by reference. 2. The elevation design prepared by Rehder and Associates, Inc. and dated 1/2/96 shall become a part of the P.U.D. approval and shall be attached to the P.U.D. permit by reference, except that it shall be superseded as indicated by the proposed apartment addition exterior elevations, Sheet A 300, prepared by PDC Design Group, Inc. and dated 3/7/96, which shall also become a part of the P.U.D. approval and shall be attached to the P.U.D. Permit by reference. 3. The landscaping plan, Sheet C 120, prepared by PDC Design Group, Inc. and dated 3/7/96, shall also become a part of the P.U.D. approval and shall be attached to the P.U.D. permit by reference, subjent t„ SUGh nha Rges as bending as ordered by that Beard7 4. Amendment 2 allows for the expansion of the assisted living facility at 7475 Country Club Drive to 110 units. Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72, Amendment #2 Page 3 5. The Plans prepared by Kaas Wilson Architects for the assisted living facility at 7475 Country Club Drive and dated 8/21/14 shall become a part of the P.U.D. approval. 6. The addition to the nursing home may be built at a later date to be determined-b�y B. Circulation Component: 1. Access drives, parking, and walkways shall be constructed as per the overall site plan. The property owner may defer construction of some parking areas indefinitely, provided that the reduced number of parking spaces shall not cause on-site parking congestion, and that the deferred construction areas are appropriately landscaped. The City may at any time order full build-out of parking areas if a parking problem is found to exist on the site. C. Subdivision 1. The final plat of Trevilla Complex, which shall include in its title the designation "P.U.D. No. 72" shall be filed by the applicant with Hennepin County with the least possible delay, and proof of such filing shall be presented to staff before any new construction permits are issued. D. Services and Facilities 1. The grading plan prepared by Rehder and Associates, Inc. and dated 1/2/96 shall become a part of the P.U.D. approval and shall be attached to the P.U.D. permit by reference, except that it shall be superseded by the grading plan, sheet C 110, prepared by PDC Design Group, Inc. and dated 3/7/96 for those areas covered by the latter plan, which shall also become a part of the P.U.D. approval and shall be attached to the P.U.D. permit by reference. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15 2014, shall become part of the P.U.D. approval for Amendment #2. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated September 15, 2014, shall become a part of the P.U.D. approval for Amendment #2. 4. All required storm water management improvements shall be made with the approval of the City Engineer. 5. Sewer and water service connection to the assisted living facility shall conform to City utility standards. 6. All trash containers shall be screened or placed within a building. Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72, Amendment #2 Page 4 7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). It is hereby understood and agreed that this amended P.U.D. Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on April 2, 1996, April 1, 1997, and October 21, 2014. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for Trevilla Complex P.U.D. No. 72 shall require an amendment. COUNTRY VILLA AID PROPCO, LLC Witness: By: Title.- Date: itle:Date: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Witness: By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Date.- Witness: ate:Witness: By: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager Date: Warning: This permit is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. C I t Vo (Toft"' C111 E R .: F - Valley Park and Recreation Department 763-512-2345/763-512-2344(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. G. Hampshire Park Playground Equipment Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation Summary The 2014-2019 Capital Improvement Program Park Section includes $50,000 for New Playground Equipment & Curbing (P-003). Hampshire Park is scheduled for replacement of its 16 year old playground equipment and was identified by an independent playground safety inspection consultant in 2013 as a top priority for replacement. The Hampshire Park neighborhood participated in a public meeting on October 28th to select one of the play structure proposal options designed by Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground with play equipment from GameTime, Inc. GameTime awarded a grant to the City of Golden Valley of$17,665.34 if they were to upfront the cost of the equipment by a payment that would be made before the end of 2014. Installation of the new equipment is scheduled for spring of 2015 and conforms to all ADA and Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines. This amount would allow more playground equipment to be added to Hampshire Park. The total project expense is $67,665.34. The Grant will bring the actual out of pocket cost to $50,000. Staff recommends the purchase of playground equipment from U.S. Communities buying group contract # 416005190 with GameTime for a total of$67,665.34 less $17,665.34. Attachments: • Resolution Accepting Grant from GameTime on Behalf of the City of Golden Valley (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve Resolution Accepting a Grant from GameTime for $17,665.34. Motion to authorize the purchase and installation of playground equipment from Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground through U.S. Communities buying group contract#416005190 for$67,665.34. Resolution 14-87 November 5, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants; and WHEREAS, the Resolution said grants must be accepted by resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following grant on behalf of its citizens: $17,665.34 from GameTime, Inc. for a new play structure at Hampshire Park. 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. ,' P✓ d R , el"'v IleX City Administration/Council 763-593-3989/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council/Manager Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. H. Resolution Modifying 2014 General Wages and Salary to include Water Resources Technician position Prepared By Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager Summary Recently, the City recruited to fill the Water and Natural Resources Engineer vacancy when the incumbent took the opportunity to accept a position at a private consulting firm. Instead of filling the position with an Engineer, staff created a Water Resources Technician position. The total number of full-time staff remains the same. This resolution establishes the wages for the non- exempt, non-union Water Resources Technician position. Recommended Action Motion to approve Resolution Modifying 2014 General Wages and Salary to include Water Resources Technician position. Resolution 14-88 November 5, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION MODIFYING 2014 GENERAL WAGES AND SALARY TO INCLUDE WATER RESOURCES TECHNICIAN POSITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it hereby adopts the following amendment to Resolution 13-112, modifying the general wages and salary schedule to include the new personnel named herein effective November 5, 2014: NON-EXEMPT Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Water Resources Technician $24.55 $25.72 $26.89 $28.06 $29.23 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. golden city 0f µ. ORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. I. Approval of Full Extension for Filing of Plat and Submitting Final PUD Plan Application - PUD #107 - The Towers at West End - Southwest Quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100 - Duke Realty, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the September 16, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council approved a motion to extend the submission date until January 14, 2015, (180 days) for the Final PUD application and final plat for The Towers at West End PUD No. 107. The extension was subject to four conditions. Condition No. 3 requires that City staff would report back to the City Council 60 days after the September 16, 2014, approval about whether or not Duke was demonstrating that it was making efforts to work with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) about locating a permanent lift station for the construction of I-GV-461 Reliever on The Towers at West End site. If City staff found that Duke was making efforts to work with the MCES, the final 120 days of the extension would be approved by the City Council. If effort was not being made, the City Council could revoke the extension beyond 60 days. Public Works staff has been involved in meetings and has been monitoring correspondence between MCES and Duke regarding the placement of the lift station and associated infrastructure needed for the construction of I-GV-461 Reliever. Based on the discussions that are underway, staff believes that efforts are being made by the MCES and Duke to site the lift station on the Duke property. Attachments 0 Executive Summary For Action dated September 16, 2014 (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve full extension for filing of Final Plat and submitting Final PUD Plan Application for The Towers at West End PUD No. 107 to January 15, 2015, because City staff has determined that Duke has demonstrated it is making good faith efforts to work with MCES to locate a lift station for I-GV-461 on The Towers at West End property. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Duke shall submit cash deposits as requested by the City to cover legal and engineering costs incurred by the City for consideration of the Preliminary Plan. 2. Duke will be financially responsible for road construction under TH 100 and intersection improvements on the east side of TH 100 and traffic calming along the frontage road east of TH 100, to occur at the time building permits are applied for by Duke. 3. Duke shall cooperate with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) in the construction of the 1-GV-461 Reliever project. The Reliever project is required to be constructed by MCES to increase sanitary sewer capacity to serve Duke's West End development and other future development in certain parts of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. MCES and Duke to reach a conclusion on the permanent location of the lift station, the force main alignment, and all other appurtenances needed for the construction of the 1-GV- 461 force main within the vicinity of the Duke property. All temporary and permanent easements shall be identified, and all land shall be transferred in connection with the project. If the City or MCES determines that there has not been adequate cooperation from Duke, the City retains the right to place additional conditions on future extensions to the Preliminary PUD Plan or the Final PUD Plan. C1 ty- C)f , golden v MEMORANDUM g valleyPlanning Department nnin 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 16, 2014 Agenda Item 3. G. Approval of Conditional Extension for Filing of Plat and Submitting Final PUD Plan Application - PUD #107 -The Towers at West End - Southwest Quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100- Duke Realty, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the March 3, 2009, City Council meeting, the Council approved the Preliminary PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat for The Towers at West End PUD No. 107.The Council has approved eleven 180-day extensions since the original Preliminary PUD approval. The Preliminary PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat provide for the construction of a 4,000+ space parking deck attached to several office buildings that are located in St. Louis Park. Due to market conditions, Duke is requesting an extension for the filing of their applications for the Final PUD Plan and the Final Plat. At this time, staff recommends that the extension of the PUD approval be a conditional 180 days. Staff will monitor the efforts by MCES and Duke to reach a conclusion on the permanent location of the lift station, the forcemain alignment, and all other appurtenances needed for the construction of the 1-GV-461 forcemain within the vicinity of the Duke property. All temporary and permanent easements shall be identified, and all land shall be transferred in connection with the project. Duke shall demonstrate to the City of Golden Valley its good faith efforts to act in accordance with the requirements of the PUD. Staff will report the status of Duke's progress with the MCES in 60 days (November 15, 2014). If adequate progress is being made to meet the terms of the PUD, the Council may extend the PUD for an additional term not to exceed 120 days (January 14, 2015). If adequate progress is not being made to meet the terms of the PUD, the Council may revoke any further extension of the PUD preliminary approval beyond the first approximate 60 days. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Letter from Duke Realty requesting an extension dated September 2, 2014 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve an extension for submittal of the Final PUD Plan application and the Final Plat for The Towers at West End, PUD No. 107 until January 14, 2015, subject to the following conditions: 1. Duke shall submit cash deposits as requested by the City to cover legal and engineering costs incurred by the City for consideration of the Preliminary Plan. 2. Duke will be financially responsible for road construction under TH 100 and intersection improvements on the east side of TH 100 and traffic calming along the frontage road east of TH 100,to occur at the time building permits are applied for by Duke. 3. Duke shall cooperate with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) in the construction of the 1-GV-461 Reliever project. The Reliever project is required to be constructed by MCES to increase sanitary sewer capacity to serve Duke's West End development and other future development in certain parts of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. MCES and Duke to reach a conclusion on the permanent location of the lift station, the force main alignment, and all other appurtenances needed for the construction of the 1-GV-461 force main within the vicinity of the Duke property. All temporary and permanent easements shall be identified, and all land shall be transferred in connection with the project. If the City or MCES determines that there has not been adequate cooperation from Duke, the City retains the right to place additional conditions on future extensions to the Preliminary PUD Plan or the Final PUD Plan. 4. Duke shall demonstrate to the City of Golden Valley its good faith efforts to act in accordance with the requirements of the PUD. Staff will report the status of Duke's progress with the MCES in 60 days. If adequate progress is being made to meet the terms of the PUD, the Council may extend the PUD for an additional term not to exceed 120 days. If adequate progress is not being made to meet the terms of the PUD, the Council may revoke any further extension of the PUD preliminary approval beyond the first approximate 60 days. If Council finds that adequate progress is being made to meet the terms of the PUD,the Council may permit the extension of the PUD preliminary approval to continue for the remaining approximate 120 days. city of '" golde, M E AP, 0' RANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095 l 763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. J. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 (Twin Cities Automotive) - Amendment No. 3 Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the September 16, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the Final PUD Plan for Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment #3. After the hearing, the Council approved the Final Plan. The PUD Permit has been prepared for consideration. Attachments • Underlined/Overstruck PUD Permit - Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment #3 (4 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amended PUD Permit for Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95, Amendment No. 3. Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 —Amendment No. 3 City Council Approval: September 16, 2014 Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 —Amendment No. 2 City Council Approval: April 1, 2014 Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 —Amendment No. 1 City Council Approval: March 4, 2002 Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 — Original PUD City Council Approval: October 2, 2001 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Project Name: Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 Amendment —Amendment No. 3 Location: 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Blvd. Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlot A Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 Applicant: Twin Cities Automotive Address: 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN 55426 Owner: TCA Real Estate LLC Address: 15802 Wayzata Blvd, Minnetonka, MN 55391 Zoning District: Commercial Permitted Uses: Development shall be limited to not more than 2-new three buildings for the automobile service and outside display of vehicles. en ene let. A storm water retention pond and storage parking lot for new automobiles is allowed on the triangular piece of property located south of Miller Street. Components: A. Land Use Component: 1. Land uses permitted within P.U.D. No. 95 shall be as indicated on the approved site plans prepared by Landform and dated August 31, 2001, which are attached to the PUD permit by reference. Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 - Amendment No. 3 Page 2 2. Amendment 3 allows for the construction of a new Porsche of Minneapolis building inthe_western parking lot, approximately 24,000 square feet in size, as indicated on the approved site plans prepared by Baker Associates and dated July 10, 2014, which are attached to the PUD permit by reference. 3. Allowed uses for the two three buildings on the site shall be for auto sales and service. A storm water retention pond and storage parking lot for new automobiles is allowed on the triangular piece of property located south of Miller Street. Uses other than specified above shall not be allowed except by amendment of the PUD permit. B. Construction 1. An as-built survey shall be completed for each structure as soon as the foundation is substantially in place. If there is an incomplete match between lot lines and unit walls, the developer shall either relocate the foundation or request City approval of a PUD amendment to replat the affected lots. No certificates of occupancy will be issued for a building that fails to align with an underlying lot boundary. 2. Except as otherwise specified in the conditions of Final Plan approval, all phases of site development shall be subject to the standards, approvals, fees, and other requirements that would arise in connection with a similar project outside of a PUD. 3. The buildings shall be constructed as per the floor and elevation plans prepared by Landform and dated August 31, 2001, and the plans prepared by Baker Associates dated July 10, 2014, which are attached to the PUD permit by reference. 4. The developer shall comply with all instructions outlined in the recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, in the Inspections Department's General Plan of Development review memo dated August 1, 2001. 5. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department dated August 18, 2014, shall become a part of the approval for Amendment 3. 6. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division dated August 18 2014, shall become a part of the approval for Amendment 3. 7. All signs must meet the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 - Amendment No. 3 Page 3 9. There shall be no exterior public address system for any uses on the site. 10. The lighting in the main parking lot areas shall conform to the requirements of the City's Inspection Department, and shall be deflected away from residential areas. In the triangular piece of property located south of Miller Street, the height of the light poles shall be limited to 12 feet in height. 11. The lighting surrounding the new Porsche of Minneapolis building in the western parking lot shall conform to the updated requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting ordinance as shown on the plans prepared by Baker Associates dated July 10, 2014 which are attached to the PUD permit by reference. C. Utilities and Grading 1 . Before any grading or utility permits are issued, the developer shall provide the City with acceptable plans, information, and other submittals as identified in all points of the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion Control" sections of the Engineering Department's Final Plan review memos dated August 14, 2001, February 25, 2002, and August 18, 2014, and attached to the PUD permit by reference. 2. During and after construction, the developer shall comply with all instructions outlined in the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion Control" sections of the Engineering Department's Final Plan review memos dated August 14, 2001, February 25, 2002 and August 18, 2014. D. Circulation Component: 1. Access drives and parking shall be constructed per the site plan prepared by Landform dated August 31, 2001, and the plans prepared by Baker Associates dated July 10 2014. 2. There shall be RE) vehiGle display areas within the setbaGk areas of the site. E. Services and Facilities 1. The hours of operation shall be from 7 am to 12 pm, Monday through Saturday, for the service department; and for the sales department from 8 am to 9 pm, Monday through Thursday and until 6 pm on Friday and Saturday. It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on October 2, 2001, March 4, 2002, and September 16, 2014. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 shall require an amendment. Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 - Amendment No. 3 Page 4 TCA Real Estate LLC Witness: By.- Title: y:Title: Date: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Witness: By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Date: Witness: By: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager Date: Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. city of )roldenll MEs va %y Planning Department 763-593-8095 /763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 3. K. Receipt of HKGi Professional Services Proposal for Residential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Study Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary As directed by the City Council as part of the Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components, Staff has begun the process of securing consulting services to undertake a study to evaluate and consider revisions to the Golden Valley Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The attached proposed work scope and preliminary schedule was drafted with the consultation of Staff and attempts to address, within the six month time frame, the concerns raised by residents and Council that prompted the adoption of the moratorium. Key tasks include meeting with Staff, Planning Commission, and Council to understand background information and relevant issues; conducting listening sessions with neighborhoods, developers, and builders; and researching and identifying potential changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Attachments • HKGi Professional Services Proposal for Residential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Study (8 pages) Recommended Action Receive and file HKGi Professional Services Proposal for Residential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Study. October 28,2014 INN Jason Zimmerman,Planning Manager ffin City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley,MN 55427 RE:HKGi Professional Services Proposal for Residential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Study Dear Jason, On behalf of Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi), thank you for inviting us to submit a letter proposal for the Residential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Study. Based on our discussion with City Staff at last week's meeting,we are pleased to provide this letter proposal for HKGi's professional planning services for this study. Our proposed project approach is essentially aimed toward clarifiying the issues,exploring potential solutions,and recommending effective subdivision/zoning ordinance revisions. The approach is organized into four major tasks: • Understand Project Background • Clarify Community Issues • Explore Potential Strategies • Develop Ordinance Revisions We feel this project is a greatfitfor HKGi's planning,zoning,and community engagement expertise.The HKGi team brings extensive experience working with communities toward creating plans and regulations that supporttheir desired community character.This experience includes comprehensive plans, neighborhood plans, redevelopment plans,design guidelines,and zoning standards. Successful community projects have depended upon listening to community concerns, providing information about potential regulatory tools,exploring alternative strategies,and reaching some level of consensus on effective solutions. We are committed to working with City Staff,elected officials,and the community to deliver the highest quality solutions while meeting the required six-month moratorium schedule.Feel free to contact us with any questions or to schedule a time to discuss the project and our proposal in more detail. Sincerely, ,; t Jeff Miler,AICP Rita Trapp,AICP,LEEAP Project Manager Planner jmiller@hkgi.com 612-252-7123 rita@hkgi.com 612-252-7135 2013 HONOR AWARD 2005 MINNEAPOLIS PRESERVATION AWARD The Waterfront Center Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission Great River Passage Master Plan;St.Paul,MN University of Minnesota Southeast Heating Plant;Minneapolis, Minnesota 2013 MERIT AWARD American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter 2005 EXCELLENCE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN/ River's Edge Commons;Elk River,MN PRESERVATION HOUSING DESIGN AWARD Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 2012 HONOR AWARD Heritage Greens;Cambridge,Minnesota American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter 2004 AWARD FOR AN OUTSTANDING PLAN (ASLA-MN)Metropolitan Council Stormwater Reuse Guide American Planning Association,Minnesota Chapter(MnAPA) 2012 MERIT AWARD Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan;Minneapolis,Minnesota f American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter (ASLA-MN) 2003 MERIT AWARD Osseo Central Avenue Streetscape American Institute of Architects,Minneapolis Chapter 2012 MERIT AWARD Bloomington Civic Plaza;Bloomington,Minnesota American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter 2003 AWARD FOR AN OUTSTANDING PLAN (ASLA-MN) American Planning Association,Minnesota Chapter(MnAPA) North Creek Greenway and Minnesota River Greenway Master Plans Downtown Revitalization Master Plan;Hutchinson,Minnesota 2011 PROJECT OF THE YEAR AWARD 2003 MERIT AWARD FOR PROJECT DESIGN City Engineers Association of Minnesota American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter Osseo Central Avenue Reconstruction (ASLA-MN) 2010 PRESERVATION AWARD River Flats Master Plan;Hastings,Minnesota Minnesota Preservation Alliance 2002 NATIONAL MERIT AWARD FOR PUBLIC PLANNING Red Wing Downtown Action Plan American Society of Landscape Architects 2010 MERIT AWARD FOR PLANNING AND RESEARCH Mississippi River Greenway Strategic Plan;Dakota County, Minnesota American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter (ASLA-MN) 2002 AWARD OF EXCELLENCE Red Wing Downtown Action Plan Minnesota Recreation and Park Association 2009 HONOR AWARD FOR PLANNING AND RESEARCH Normandale Lake Bandshell;Bloomington,Minnesota American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter 2002 PRESERVATION AWARD (ASLA-MN) Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission UMore Park:A University Founded Community Main Street/6th Avenue SE Streetscape;Minneapolis,Minnesota 2009 HONOR AWARD FOR PLANNING AND RESEARCH 2002 PROJECT OF THE YEAR American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter Civil Engineering Association of Minnesota (ASLA-MN) Saint Paul Park and Recreation Vision Plan Lock and Dam Road;Hastings,Minnesota 2007 MERIT AWARD FOR PLANNING 2001 PROJECT OF THE YEAR—ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter Minnesota Public Works Association (ASLA-MN) Lock&Dam Road Improvements;Hastings,Minnesota Bassett Creek Valley Master Plan;Minneapolis,MN 2001 MERIT AWARD FOR PUBLIC PLANNING 2007 MERIT AWARD FOR PRIVATE LANDSCAPE DESIGN American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects,Minnesota Chapter Taylors Falls Strategic Guide;Taylors Falls,Minnesota (ASLA-MN) hevalle,A Country Estate;Chaska,MN 41i R M RO + �I W �# [MIN RIB • HOISINGTON KOHLER GROUPINC. North123 00 Minneapolis, • 612.338.0800 f: 612.338.6838 _ vvww.hkgi.corn •8 Mark Koegler,ASLA,CEO Paul Paige,PLA,President Brad Scheib,AICR Vice President ,. RGI APPROACH ASSOC IATES: Hoisington Koegler Group(HKGi)is a firm of talented planners,landscape architects, Lil LA and urban designers who share their passion for planning and design with client • communities striving to create lasting places of quality.HKGi has over thirty years of experience designing high quality and distinctive public and private spaces on ' Registered Landscape Architects budget and on time.Communities seek HKGi to lead their planning and design efforts Planners because of our ability to creatively synthesize complex program needs and planning ifi-' issues within a process of community consensus-building. 2 Graduate Planners COLLABORATE 3 Graduate Landscape Architects We strive to integrate diverse perspectives into all of our work.We bring together teams of professionals that thrive on a studio approach to design and are passionate Master Planning about the continuous process of teaching and learning. Landscape Architecture LISTEN Streetscape '- ' In order for design to reflect the unique character of any given place,the natural, SchoolCampus Planning ' Design cultural,and historical values need to be heard and understood.We will continually Site Design listen to clients and stakeholders to ensure we build upon the inherent strengths of Park Planning and Design the land and consistently provide direction that respects the context of the project at Public Participation hand. Zoning Ordinances EXPLORE Comprehensive Planning By embracing the complexities of our projects we can create new solutions that bring Greenway Planning obvious and measurable value to our clients.Our thirst to seek out new connections Bikeway and Trail Planning between people and the land is at the heart of our explorations and is integral to our Downtown Planning design process. Strategic Planning CREATE Commercial Area Revitalization Only by understanding how a planning principle evolves into a built community asset Urban Design can we actually begin to see how our work affects the physical character of any given Transit Oriented '_Review o _ nt place.We will always strive to carry our conceptual planning ideas forward to built ' nmental realities so that our plans can have a real and tangible contribution to our culture. Corridor Studies Page 3 AREAS OF EXPERTISE: Jeff is alannerwith broad experience in community planning,land use,urban design, P p Yp n,9 9 connectivity,and zoning at many scales—community,corridor,neighborhood,district, and site.This range of experience has enabled him to develop an integrated planning approach for understanding and solving communities'issues and opportunities.Jeff has experience in the public sector (city planner), private sector (consultant), and the academic environment (university researcher) which affords him the ability to understand issues from different perspectives.Jeff has hands-on city planning and zoning experience with six communities, including Chaska, Mound, Rogers, Saint JEFF MILLER, AICP Paul,Roseville,and Faribault.Jeff brings valuable urban design knowledge and ideas to his projects, gained from his previous experience as a Research Fellow with the YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 14 Design Center for American Urban Landscape. EDUCATION: PROJECT EXPERIENCE: Master of Planning,Hubert H.Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs,University of Apple Valley,MN Mound,MN Minnesota Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Bachelor of Arts in Economics,St.Olaf Cedar Ave BRTOD Zoning Ordinance& General Planning Services College,Northfield,MN Design Guidelines Osseo,MN Chaska,MN Redevelopment Master Plan MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS Downtown Master Plan Comprehensive Plan American Planning Association,Minnesota Comprehensive Plan Chapter Southwest Growth&Development Plan Richfield,MN American Institute of Certified Planners Downtown Signage Design Guidelines& 1-494 Corridor Study and Mixed-Use Zoning (AICP) Zoning Ordinance District Ordinance Urban Land Institute,Minnesota Chapter Eden Prairie,MN Rogers,MN Town Center Design Guidelines and Zoning Comprehensive Plan District Ordinance General Planning Services Transit Oriented Development Zoning District Ordinance Roseville,MN Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Hennepin County,MN St.Louis Park,MN Minnehaha-Hiawatha Strategic Investment Outdoor Lighting Zoning Ordinance Framework Comprehensive Plan SW LRTTransitional Station Area Plans Neighborhood Plans Penn Avenue Vision and Implementation Eliot School Site Reuse Design Guidelines Framework Beltline Station Area Framework&Design Guidelines Maplewood,MN Louisiana Station Area Framework and Form-Based Zoning District-Gladstone Design Guidelines �© Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan �® Minneapolis,MN Woodbury,MN North Loop Small Area Plan Urban Village Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Downtown East/North Loop Rezoning Study Park,Trail and Recreation Plan South Lyndale Corridor Master Plan Page 4 AREAS OF EXPERTISE: Rita blends strong technical planning with exceptional communication and management skills. She is an effective communicator, comfortable both organizing input processes and facilitating both large and small group activities.She has served on a multitude of planning teams addressing comprehensive planning,redevelopment, downtowns, zoning, parks and trails, active living, and strategic planning needs. In addition to assisting communities in times of staff transition, she has provided day to day planning services for the City of Mound for more than 8 years.With her strong writing skills she has assisted more than a dozen local government agencies secure R ITA TRAPP, AICP, LEER AP nearly$5.8 million in grant funding.Her previous work in the public sector and on her local planning commission means she is able to approach planning projects with an YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 11 understanding of what it is to be the client. EDUCATION: PROJECT EXPERIENCE Bachelor of Science in Land Use Geography and Economics,University of Wisconsin- Bondurant,IA Monticello,MN Eau Claire Zoning/Subdivision Ordinance Revisions Comprehensive Plan Ewan,MN Moorhead,MN MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS NE Land Use Study Comprehensive Plan American Institute of Certified Planners Comprehensive Plan Growth Area Plans (AICP) Growth Area AUARs Faro,ND Accredited Professional,LeadConsulting Planner Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) Implementation Professional Development Officer for Mound,MN Minnesota Chapter,American Planning Faribault,MN Consulting Planner Association Consulting Planner Comprehensive Plan Board of Directors,Minnesota Chapter,US Zoning Ordinance Revisions Visions AUAR Green Building Council Zoning Ordinance Revisions LEED Neighborhood Development(ND) Grand Rapids,MN review of Loring Park Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance Osseo MN 2006 Chair,Minnesota Design Team and Downtown Market&Planning Study co-leader of Walker and Maple Plain Visits Hassan Township,MN Former Vice Chair,Planning Commission, Consulting Planner Richfield,MN Vadnais Heights,Minnesota Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Hennepin County,MN Roseville,MN Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works Comprehensive Plan Strategic Development Framework Shoreview,MN Hennepin County&City of Edina,MN Highway Corridors Transition Study Greater Southdale Land Use and Transportation Study Storm Lake,IA IM ® Comprehensive Plan ffin Lakeville,MN Zoning/Subdivision Ordinance Revisions Downtown Redevelopment Plan Page 5 PROPOSED TASKS nnvvoxv��w "vn��� 1. Understand Project Background a. Meet with City Staff b. Finalize project process,schedule and deliverables [ Review background planning cases d. Review relevant zoning and subdivision ordinances e. Research case studies incomparable communities f GIS mapping and analysis g. Summarize preliminary findings h. Create project website 2, Clarify Community Immuw* a. Meet with City Staff b Conduct community listening sessions(neighborhoods,developers,builders) c. Summarize community input d, Meet with City Council and Planning Commission e. Meet with City Staff 3, Explore Potential Strategies a, Research relevant ordinances ofcomparable communities b Explore definition/role o/neighborhood character C Analyze neighborhood character and potential boundaries inGolden Valley d, Identify potential zoning and subdivision changes o, Meet with City Staff f Meet with City Council and Planning Commission g. Conduct community listening sessions h. Summarize community input i. Meet with City Staff 4' Develop Ordinance Revisions o. Prepare Draft lofZoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions b. Meet with City Staff c. Prepare Draft 2ofZoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions d. Meet with City Council and Planning Commission e, Prepare Draft 3ofZoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revisions t Conduct Planning Commission Public Hearing g. Conduct City Council Public Hearing Page PROPOSED PROJECT TIMELINE & BUDGET Nov Budget* Task 1.Understand Project Background $4,100 2.Clarify Community Issues $3,600 3.Explore Potential Strategies $6,300 4.Develop Ordinance Revisions $5,300 Fees $19,300 Expenses $300 Total Budget $19,600 "used on our conversation with Staff,the budget assumes City Staff assistance for this project,including GIS mapping,provision of City Code background materials,meeting coordination¬ification,public hearing notices,and final codification of ordinance revisions. PRELIMINARY MEETING SCHEDULE Existing Meetings: - • - December 2! • CC— 1"/3rd Tuesdays Su M Tu W Th F S Su M Tu W Th F S • CC Work Session—2°a Tuesday 1 1 2 4 5 6 • PC-2"d/4h Mondays 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 9 10 11 13 Proposed Meetings: 9 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 1 16 17 18 19 20 • City Staff 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • Joint CC/PC ♦ 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 29 1 28 29 30 31 • Listening Sessions • Public Hearings PH 30 PW January 2015 February 2015VOWMarch 1 Su M Tu W Th F S Su M Tu W Th F S Su M Tu W Th F S 1 2 3 1 ■ 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 7 8 9 10 8 f 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 16 18 19 20 21 18 19 20 22 24 22 24 25 26 27 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 REGULATORY TOOLS - ORDINANCES AND GUIDELINES VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES � HKGi has over 30 years of experience preparing zoning and subdivision ordinances, design and tools that development, - - regulatory � � - � infrastructure while preserving and enhancing community assets.VVealso use ordinances and regulations every day.That hands-on experience allows us to know what works and how to prepare effective ordinances and guidelines in a clear and user-friendly manner. T ' Our approach ispragmatic and inclusive.VVeinvolve staff,officials,property owners,civic groups and the public in the process to assure community buy-in and understanding.We include illustrations,charts,and tables as needed to enhance clarity and to efficiently ^ communicate the regulation intent and details.YVealso build(nUexibi|h»toaUowfor ' Diagram used millustrate zoning ordinance creative design solutions while retaining control to assure quality and conformance with requirements/nMaplewood,Minnesota. the ordinance intent.The result of our commitment to communications and hands-on approach is a successful track record of ordinance and design guidelines.Some examples of the regulatory tools we helped create are illustrated on this page. Also visit www. hkgi.cnm "Projects/Kegu|atoryToo|s''for additional examples ofour work. ' LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING landscaping and screening.Accordingly,this Article and requires its use to: (1)Add visual interest to open spaces and blank facades; (2)Soften dominant building mass; (3)Provide definition of public walkways and open space areas; Diagram used millustrate mixed-use code ordinance m Richfield,Minnesota. (5)Contribute to the visual quality and continuity within and between developments; ,(6)Provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site elements,- xxo/has assisted nvariety ofcommunities throughout (7)Increase the stability and Value of property; Minnesota and Iowa with revisions,otheir Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.The following list shows the (8)Provide a buffer for air and noise pollution; range ofcommunity that oxohas worked with: (9)Ensure safe and aesthetic treatment of ponding areas, ^ Apple Valley,mw ^ Bloomington,MN (1o)Enhance the conditions affecting the sense of place in the city of Bloomington. ^ oo"u"ra"t,m While providing appropriate landscaping controls to: ^ Chanhassen,MN (11)Limit sight line ^ coo`xa,mw ^ Eden Prairie,ww (12)Reduce the potential for criminal and illegal activities;and ^ m,mu"n'mw ^ Grand Rapids,mw (13)[Prevent conflicts with existing utilities. ^ Inver Grove Heights,mw ^ Maplewood,MN Sample ofordinance text written for the City v/Bloomington. . Minneapolis,MN ^ Mound,MN ^ Richfield,MN ^ St.Louis Park,mw ^ Storm Lake,m ^ Woodbury,MN *~o From: Nate Ahlberg Date: October 22, 2014 at 11:56:18 CDT Subject: Expansion of Interim Ordinance No. 530 Dear Mayor Harris and Members of the Golden Valley City Council: I attended the City Council meeting last night and left wondering whether Golden Valley is the welcoming, progressive community I thought it was. It was disappointing that the public did not have the opportunity to participate during your discussion regarding expanding Golden Valley's Interim Ordinance No. 530 to include existing applications. I believe there is a silent, super majority of residents who appreciate new development and the revenue it creates and have no problem with the existing zoning ordinance. Out of a population of 20,000, there is a tiny group of vocal residents who seem to attend each Council meeting to oppose new development. I was alarmed to learn of your recent decision to grind new development to a halt for the entire City, after ten minutes of discussion, and without seeking any input from the majority of us. So, now I'd urge you think about the impact on the rest of us, the super majority. With every subdivision, the City earns fee income and tax revenue. By stopping development, you shut off those revenue streams, which means the rest of us either pay more, or receive fewer services. More importantly, restricting development negatively impacts our ability to attract young professionals and their families, many of whom prefer new homes. Without new housing stock, we're left at a disadvantage compared to neighboring communities, which have overwhelming embraced new development. If the Council wants to respect the wishes and interests of the masses, it should take this opportunity to strike down the moratorium. Instead, incredibly, you're now considering expanding this ordinance against the advice of your own attorney and staff. This shocks me. It wasn't that long ago that our entire City was embarrassed by this Council's handling of the Lifespan CUP application. Then, like now, some of you chose to ignore the express advice of City staff in an effort to appease a few vocal neighbors. The resulting press and backtracking was humiliating for all of us. Attempting to apply this ordinance retroactively will result in another black eye for Golden Valley, which I fear, will play out publicly in the courts and newspapers. I urge you not to make the same mistake twice. Sincerely, Nate Ahlberg 1288 Yukon Ct N From: Karen Evans Date: October 24, 2014 at 11:25:48 CDT Subject: Moratorium on Residential development Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, It is with great interest that I have been reading and watching the council proceedings regarding the moratorium on housing developments in Golden Valley. I live across the street from the Ridge Creek development of 7 lots at the intersection of Triton and Perry. This development has been poorly handled from the start. The same concerns that our neighborhood raised when this development was being planned were met with little to no interest by the council and city employees. Now, a wealthier neighborhood voicing the same concerns my neighborhood raised is being heard by the council and the city. What changed besides the neighborhood location? I hope the answer includes seeing what is happening with existing developments. As I was walking my dog last evening I noticed a person changing out signs at the a fore mentioned Ridge Creek development across the street from my home. I introduced myself, pointed out my home and asked him what he was doing. He said he was a developer and had just purchased two lots in the development. This is very interesting to me and tells me that Ridge Creek's plan is not the success story promised. Of course that is already obvious. Luckily for Rob he can sell the lots and call it good. Unfortunately for those of us who live in the neighborhood we are left with an unfinished development, unfulfilled promises and an eyesore. For the record I believe in change and progress and I was not against the Triton/ Perry land being developed. I believe most of my neighbors would say the same. What I am against is development decisions being made based soley on maximizing revenue and the tax base rather than what makes sense for the site and the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that is what happened here. Seven lots were plotted in an area where 5 would have made much more sense. Now, instead of a completed development, we have one homeowner ( who bought and built in good faith), one long empty spec home greatly lacking in curb appeal, 3 empty lots owned by Ridge Creek Homes, along with 2 additional empty lots now owned by a new developer to the site. This is change but certainly not progress. Please continue the moratorium on residential development whose purpose is to separate existing lots into smaller lots for the sole purpose of putting as much money as possible in the developer's pocket. Decisions based on money are never the best decisions. Please take a step back and revisit some of the decisions, and outcomes from those decisions, that have been made in the recent past. The Ridge Creek Development is a good place to start. This is the current look of development in Golden Valley. Not very pretty. I think we can do better. Thank you all for your work on behalf of our community. I appreciate all of your time and efforts. I also appreciate the opportunity to share my view and observations. I will continue to follow the council's actions on this and all issues. Sincerely, Karen Evans Karen Evans 4901 Triton Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 763-202-5651 From: Pulver Harry Date: October 28, 2014 at 16:24:11 CDT Subject: Moratorium Vote Tonight Dear Members of the Golden Valley City Council: It's doubtful we will be able to make it to the meeting in time tonight, so I wanted to send this note. It's an important vote tonight and we wanted to implore you to vote to include any new or last minute subdivision applications in the moratorium. We think it's crucial that no new subdivisions be approved until the council has had the opportunity to review options during the moratorium period. Mr. Zimmerman, Mr Snope and Mr. Schmidgall have all been rather dismissive of these concerns, simplifying the issue down to "people don't like to see any change." As far as we are concerned, that is not correct. I certainly am in favor of property rights and the right of a landowner to subdivide. We simply would like to see subdivisions that better reflect the character of Golden Valley. Mr. Zimmerman has stated that our subdivision and development statues are the same as Brooklyn Center and St. Louis Park. These cities have lost the low density, wooded appearance that exists in much of Golden Valley -particularly North and South Tyrol. We have attended many City Planning and City Council meetings and have heard many viable options to how lots can be subdivided that would better maintain the beauty of Golden Valley. I realize that there is considerable pressure to increase the population density in Golden Valley in order for the city to benefit from Thrive 2040. I also realize to keep taxes low, the tax base must increase over time. It has been very clear at past meetings that Mr. Snope and Mr. Schmigdall have little patience for examining these issues or the concerns of the residents. It is our hope that they might reconsider their positions. Barring that, it is our sincere hope that Mayor Harris, Ms. Clausen and Mr. Fonnest uphold the amendment and vote to proceed with no new subdivisions until the issue can be further studied during the moratorium period. Thanks very much for your time and consideration. Harry & Tamer Pulver 105 Meadow Lane North Golden Valley, MN 55422-5304 c1tyot �' �w M E M 0 R ti N D U A4 vallev Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 120 day deadline: December 5, 2014 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Sunnyridge Woods - 200 Meadow Lane North Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary This item was tabled at the October 7, 2014, City Council meeting. At the September 8, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 200 Meadow Lane North (Sunnyridge Woods). The proposal would create three 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. During the discussion, the Applicant offered to adjust the west property line of Lot 3, shifting it 5 feet to the west, in order to respond to concerns from neighbors and provide more distance between the proposed home on Lot 3 and the existing home at 207 Sunnyridge Lane. The Planning Commission included this modification as a condition of approval. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated September 8, 2014 (6 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated September 8, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated September 2, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from City Attorney Allen Barnard, dated September 22, 2014 (2 pages) • Photo Rendering of property (1 page) • Site Plans (6 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Sunnyridge Woods, 200 Meadow Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The west property line of Lot 3 shall be moved 5 feet to the west as proposed by the Applicant. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. A park dedication fee of$4,448.80 shall be paid before final plat approval. 4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated September 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 301 I ' 4216 4212 4200 14124 4112 303 4016 303 309 316 243 \ Jf 300 i 300 3910 235 "�/ r'oplar L ve .' 250 f N 227- �f, i'� Subject Property: 240 235 S 234 3901 / 222 219 200 Meadow Ln N �� 220 200 215 220 221 209 211 219 207",/ f 214 166 \\ / 212 127 �J 200 l 205 210 124 / 165 201 �/185 204 206 208 115 112 '/ 145 200 4140 120 4007 101 100 4120 125 4004 25 4135 `� 4020 4010 4008 ` 24 105 7J 4006 4125 <P toanoke Cir r 22 �"a� 204240 GP �h 4025 4015 4011 4009 y 4270 17 4013 4115 8 9 4000 12 4300 • • 1 40204012 3940 3920 139,,2 4333 4313 4309 4301 1 4263 • 9 8 Q 9 f 3901 egular Meeting of the Golde Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 A regula eeting of the Planning Commission was hel the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Cha ers, 7800 Golden alley Road, Gold alley, Minnesota, on Monday, September 8, 2 . Chair Kluchk called the me g to order at 7 pm. Those present were Pla ing Co ission Baker, Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also pres wa Pla ng Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Approval of Minutes August 25, 2014 egular PI nning Com i sion Meeting Waldhauser refer to the fourth p ragraph on page th and asked that it be clarified to state that th ubject property cle rly starts with two para side yard lot lines that eventually nd creating a side yar and a rear yard, whereas t side lot lines on a pie shaped would intersect at a shar angle. M ED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried un 'nimously to pprove the August 25, 2014, minutes with the above noted clarification. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 200 Meadow Lane North — Sunnyridge Woods — SU08-12 Applicant: Golden Valley Land Company (Matt Pavek) Address: 200 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to demolish the existing single family home and subdivide the property into three new single family residential lots, all of which meet the requirements found in City Code. He stated that the applicant has had two neighborhood meetings and that the neighbor's concerns included: the loss of trees, the size of the lots, the impact of the construction, the impact on the character of the neighborhood, and the impact on surrounding home values. Kluchka asked if there is any component of this proposal that would allow it to be denied. Zimmerman stated that it meets all of the requirements in the City Code so there is really no reason to deny the requested subdivision. Segelbaum asked if the applicant is requesting any variances. Zimmerman said no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 2 Peter Knaeble, representing the applicant, stated that the main concern he heard at the neighborhood meetings was regarding the density of his proposal. He stated that based on economic feasibility he can't split the property into two lots instead of three. He said he also heard concerns about the relationship of the home on proposed Lot 3 to the neighbor immediately to the east at 207 Sunnyridge Lane. He said he would like to propose that Lot 3 be widened by five feet and be allowed to have variances in order to have a 10 foot west side yard setback (instead of 15 feet), and an east side yard setback of 20 feet (instead of 15 feet) so that the new home can be built further away from the existing home at 207 Sunnyridge Lane. He discussed the tree preservation requirements and stated that the majority of the trees on the property would remain. However, because of the neighbor's concerns, he would like to propose a tree conservation easement along Meadow Lane and Sunnyridge Lane to further protect an additional 34 trees. He referred to the neighbor's concerns about the impacts during construction and said he thinks any additional controls regarding noise, parking, working hours, etc. should be enforced at the time of construction. Kluchka questioned the procedure in light of the applicant's proposed new information. He questioned if the Planning Commission should wait to review the proposal until new plans are submitted for review. Zimmerman stated that staff has had some time to review the additional information so he doesn't think the process needs to be stopped. He noted that any variance requests would take place during the building permit process since the variances discussed would be from the Zoning Code requirements, not from the Subdivision Code requirements. He added that the proposed tree conservation easement would need more discussion. Cera stated that traditionally, a variance request coming back to the City after a subdivision request has been frowned upon. Kluchka said the neighbors want the house on Lot 3 moved further toward the west, and he doesn't want to second guess the applicant. Segelbaum asked Knaeble if these will be custom homes and if it is difficult at this point to say which trees will stay and which ones will not. Knaeble said they will be custom homes. He stated that he is required to submit a tree preservation plan with his application and that some additional trees will be removed and some will be saved. Segelbaum questioned if there are other ways, besides a tree conservation easement, to maintain additional trees. Kluchka asked if the applicant could put a covenant on the property regarding the trees. Knaeble said they are proposing an easement that would get filed at the County with the property. Waldhauser added that covenants usually have a fixed life. Baker questioned why they couldn't have a perpetual easement placed on the lot itself so it is attached to the deed and protected. Matt Pavek, Applicant, stated that he is proposing a perpetual easement, the trick is having someone enforce the easement language. Baker referred to the tree preservation plan and noted that virtually all the trees are in the street right-of-way, not on the lots themselves, so the proposed tree conservation easement won't be effective anyway. Pavek said there are trees on the lots and in the right-of-way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 3 Segelbaum asked Pavek if he has concerns that restrictions would make the lots more difficult to sell. Pavek said it has been his experience that people want to keep as many trees as possible, so having a tree conservation easement would be a win-win situation and a good faith effort to preserve some of the trees. Segelbaum suggested that the City Attorney might be able to suggest another way to protect the trees that would not require the City to have to enforce the easement. Kluchka noted that half of the trees are ash trees will probably be removed anyway. Kluchka referred to the proposed amendment to move the west property line of Lot 3 five feet further to the west and asked if that is the maximum amount it could be moved. Pavek stated that 5 feet is an approximate amount. He said language could be changed to say that the lot line could be shifted to the west, but still maintain the required lot size. Knaeble clarified that the plans they submitted are what they are proposing. He just heard from the neighbors that they would like that property line shifted to the west, so he is willing to do that. Baker asked Pavek to explain the economic reasons why he rejected proposing a two- lot split. Pavek explained that the price is set by how many lots can be created and that the seller in this case is entitled to split this property into three lots. If fewer than three lots are created it decreases the value of the land. Kluchka opened the public hearing. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, thanked the applicant for listening to his concerns. He said he is very concerned about the tree coverage and it takes 50 to 100 years to have the kind of tree coverage they have now, which he would like to maintain. He said there will be an awful lot of activity on Sunnyridge Lane in the next 12 to 18 months. He referred to an aerial photo of the subject property and said he doesn't recognize it. He said he walks by this property every day when he walks his dog, and it doesn't look like what is being shown in the photo. He said that moving the center lot line further west makes sense and preserving trees makes sense. He asked if the 15- foot side yard setback is standard on all properties in Golden Valley. Kluchka said each property is different. Wetzel asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration what each neighbor is saying because once something starts, it steamrolls, and it is hard to stop. He said he loves where he lives, and he pays unbelievably high taxes because of the beauty of the neighborhood and the wonderful neighbors he has, and he would like to preserve that. Rick Moore, 214 Sunnyridge Lane, said he thinks the applicant is headed in the right direction and has been listening to the neighbors. He said typical setbacks are really set up for a typical rectangular lot that you might find in a grid situation where there is a front, two small sides and back. He said in the situation of pie shaped lots, there needs to be a different way to analyze these types of properties because there are side yards next to back yards. He said the discussion demands that these types of lots be looked at differently. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 4 Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, handed out pictures of his house, his back yard, and the trees on the subject property. He said he appreciates the time the applicant has spent with him and the neighbors. He said this proposal affects him a lot. He said he counted 52 trees on Lot 3, some of which are 85- to 125-feet tall Austrian pines, which are a protected species, and are 125 years old. The trees are a haven for wildlife, and protection for his house. He said he has 20 windows on his house that face the proposed Lot 3. He said he is trying to sell his house and realtors have told him it will be virtually impossible to sell with construction going on, without reducing the price by 15 to 20%. Michael Alexin, 208 Sunnyridge Circle, said the picture the applicants have shown is not drawn to scale and that the proposed new houses are really right on top of each other. He said he moved to this area because of the large lots and trees and this proposal is a tragedy that will ruin the character of the neighborhood. He said even though it meets all of the legal requirements, those requirements go across all of Golden Valley, and this is a very special neighborhood, and a special community in the City with a very high tax base. He said he really believes this should be a two lot development, and with bigger homes on them the economics can work. He said doesn't understand why they need the third lot because it will change the character of the neighborhood, and the homes will be very close together. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, referred to the pictures he submitted and noted that his patio goes all the way to the property line. He said there is a major concern that his house will look at the new house on Lot 3 so he suggests the proposed variance should be granted so the new house will be further away from his house. He stated that there are 2 or 3 pine trees that are 45 inches in diameter that will have to be removed which is disturbing. George Landis, 220 Meadow Lane North, said he'd like to offer an appeal for a two-lot subdivision. He said people come to his house and they can't believe there are any neighborhoods like this in the Twin Cities. He asked the Planning Commission if they want to be like Wayzata or Coon Rapids, and asked where they want this community to go. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Knaeble stated that the plans are drawn to scale. Baker asked Knaeble if the aerial photo he showed was an existing photo of the trees or if trees were added to the photo. Knaeble explained that the plan he showed is a color rendering layered over an accurate aerial photo, and that no trees were added to the photo. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to explain the side yard setback requirements. Zimmerman stated that side yard setbacks vary according to the width of the lot and the height of the house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 5 Waldhauser referred to the drainage on these properties and noted that there is going to be a catch basin along the north property line. She asked how that will work if there are trees in the easement area. Pavek said they will work with the City Engineer regarding the placement of that pipe. Kluchka referred to the comment regarding the methods used for odd lot sizes and stated that the City Council will be discussing some proposed changes. Zimmerman stated that the lot width language was addressed and the discussion regarding lot depth is ongoing. Segelbaum noted that any new language being considered wouldn't change the analysis of this proposal. Cera questioned if Austrian pines are a protected species. Baker said they are a viable species, but there is no special protection that he is aware of. He added that he is cognizant of the fact that the City Council will be discussing a moratorium on subdivisions at their next Council/Manager meeting, which he supports, so he is opposed to a motion approving this proposal. Cera noted that the City Council does not take action at their Council/Manager meetings. The Commissioners discussed tabling this proposal until the City Council debates a moratorium on subdivisions. Zimmerman stated that applications already received would continue to go through the process. Segelbaum stated that the applicant has presented a viable proposal. He said he is pleased that some changes were made based on neighborhood concerns, and he doesn't see any basis to deny this request. Blum agreed, and said that this is one of the most beautiful areas in the City, but understanding the law and the Planning Commission's responsibility, there is nothing proposed here to base a denial on. He added that the applicant could sue the City which would require the request be approved anyway, without the changes the neighbor's asked the applicant to consider. Kluchka said he thinks moving the interior lot line five feet to the west is a good idea that he would like to encourage. Cera said he would prefer that option over granting variances in the future. Segelbaum said he would like to leave the tree conservation easement question to the City Attorney. He said he thinks it would be better not to have the City be required to actively maintain that easement, and he does not want it to be added as a condition of approval. Cera suggested adding a condition stating that the easement could be one option, but that further study is necessary. Waldhauser said the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds all of the City's requirements. She said she is not opposed to moving the interior lot line five feet to the west, and she would endorse some sort of tree preservation arrangement. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the Sunnyridge Woods Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 6 Findings: 1. All three of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Conditions.- 1. onditions:1. The west property line of Lot 3 shall be moved 5 feet to the west as proposed by the applicant. 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 $4,448.80 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated September 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. The consensus of the Commission was that they have a preference for no future variances, and they would also like the City Attorney to examine ways to provide tree preservation similar to what the applicant has proposed. --Short Recess-- Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopmen uthority, City Council, Board of Zoning A peals and other Meetin Kluchka r orted on the last Commu ity Center Task F e meeting where the group narrowed th ' recommendation do to two options 4. Other Busin s • Council Liaison port N Kluchka stated that has been of of a on social media about the new Lock Up storage business under co ruction t th orner of Highway 55 and Douglas. He asked how he would re st that a p blic he e g being held to figure out how the City let this development h pen. Waldh ser said s recalls that there was an opportunity for the City Council rezone that pr perty, howeve , he utility and access issues with this property wo have been very pensive for the to address. Segelbau uggested that the Plan ing Commission review t uses permitted in the various ping districts. Baker said t ere needs to be some educa ' n done before the next mprehensive Plan update pr cess. Waldhauser suggested articles be put in the SunPost and the City's newsletter. city of ,. golden MEMORANDUM 11 Planning Department Va �.' g 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: September 8, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 200 Meadow Lane North —Sunnyridge Woods—Golden Valley Land Company, Applicant s .,r:� . . - �� "gym � :" .:,:,; .�? ::. . .� ��t_ r,a-�"'� •� : . .m ��.: Summary of Request Golden Valley Land Company, represented by Matt Pavek, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 200 Meadow Lane North into three separate lots. There is one existing single family home on this lot which would be demolished and replaced with three new single family homes. The existing lot is 38,091 square feet. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The proposed Lot 1, to the north, would be 11,200 square feet; Lot 2, to the south, would be 13,810 square feet; and Lot 3, to the east, would be 13,081 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Lot 1 would have 80 feet of width, Lot 2 would have 100.2 feet of width, and Lot 3 would have 122.3 feet of width. The dimensions of all of the newly created lots provide a sufficient building envelope for development. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed three lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 200 Meadow Lane North is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and it will not create need for public improvements. The Applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of Minor Subdivision Staff has evaluated the proposed lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision to create three lots in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Applicant has submitted a survey of the existing lot prior to the proposed subdivision, as well as a preliminary plat displaying the three lots after the subdivision. Lot 1 would have access off of Meadow Lane, the other two lots would have access off of Sunnyridge Lane. City Engineer Jeff Oliver has submitted a memorandum dated September 2, 2014, regarding recommendations from the Engineering Division concerning this request. Requirements set forth in Mr. Oliver's memo are to be included in the recommended action of this subdivision. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. All three of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. As discussed in the Engineering memo, new utility easements must be dedicated and shown on the Final Plat. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. No other public agencies have jurisdiction over the streets adjacent to the site. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of $4,448.80 (2% of the estimated land value with credit for one unit) is required for this subdivision. 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All conditions have been met. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor 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. A park dedication fee of$4,448.80 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated September 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. 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 September 2, 2014 (3 pages) Site Plans (6 pages) City- 0f go lders MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-S93-8030/763-S93-3988(fax) Date: September 2, 2014 To: /son Zimmerman, City Planner AAOO From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineeffleialist Eric Eckman, Public WorksT/ Subject: Subdivision Review for Sunnyridge Woods Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for a proposed minor subdivision of property located at 200 Meadow Lane North. The Developer proposes to demolish the existing home and subdivide the parcel into three single-family lots. The comments contained in this review are based upon plans submitted to the City on August 7, 2014. Engineering staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision of property located at 200 Meadow Lane North, called Sunnyridge Woods, subject to the following comments: 1. The existing lot is part of the recorded plat known as Sunnyridge Addition which did not include the dedication of public easements. The final plat for this development must include the dedication of new easements, consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. This includes the following: a. 10-foot drainage and utility easements along all plat boundaries. b. 12-foot drainage and utility easements centered on interior lot lines. c. 15-foot drainage and utility easement along north plat boundary to accommodate the proposed storm sewer system. 2. A City demolition permit, stormwater management permit, and utility permits are required for the demolition of the existing home. 3. A City Right-of-Way Management permit is required for each parcel for the proposed excavations and obstructions in public right-of-way that are specific to each parcel. a. The proposed Lot 2 will utilize the existing concrete driveway apron. Lots 1 and 3 will require the construction of new driveway aprons which must meet the City's standard and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. G:\Developments-Private\Sunnyridge Wood s\Subdivision Review_sunnyridge woods.docx b. The construction of the driveway for Lot 1 will impact the City's existing sidewalk on Meadow Lane and therefore portions of the sidewalk must be removed and replaced in compliance with City standards and ADA requirements. Details regarding the driveway and sidewalk construction will be further refined at the time of permitting. 4. The Developer has shown on the plans that utilities can be extended to serve the proposed dwellings. Staff has the following comments regarding the proposed utility construction: a. Lot 1 will reuse an existing sewer service stub and will require the construction of a new water service in Meadow Lane. Staff recommends that the Developer explore constructing a new sanitary sewer service parallel to the new water service for several reasons (staff has discussed this with the Developer and the Developer is looking into this further). Staff also recommends that the Developer or Contractor directional bore the water and sewer services to Lot 1, if feasible, to minimize impacts to traffic and the street pavement on Meadow Lane North. b. Lot 2 will reuse the existing water and sewer services which currently serve 200 Meadow Lane. c. Lot 3 will utilize an existing sewer service stub and proposes to construct a new water service in Sunnyridge Lane. The pavement on Sunnyridge will be excavated to construct the water service. d. A Right-of-Way Permit is required for all excavations and obstructions within City right-of-way. The Developer or Contractor will also be required to obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits from the City for the removal, rehabilitation, or installation of utility services. e. The Developer is proposing the construction of a 12-inch HDPE storm sewer along the north boundary of the development to drain a low area of the property. Due to the lack of easements on the property immediately north, the storm sewer must be relocated south so it is centered within the proposed 15-foot drainage and utility easement. The storm sewer must be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final design and location of the pipe and structures will be determined at the time of permitting. The storm sewer will be constructed by the Developer and will be owned and maintained by the City. Therefore, a letter of credit or cash security will be required for the public improvement as a guarantee that the storm sewer will be constructed in a timely manner and in accordance with City standards. 5. Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction a. The existing sanitary sewer service to 200 Meadow Lane North is in the process of being inspected for compliance with the 1/1 ordinance. Depending on the results of the inspection, the Developer may need to enter into an 1/1 Deposit Agreement with the City guaranteeing that the service is removed/repaired/rehabilitated to comply with the 1/1 ordinance. G:\Developments-Private\Sunnyridge Woods\Subdivision Review_sunnyridge woods.docx 2 b. The three new parcels must obtain compliance with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. 6. A preliminary grading plan was submitted by the Developer. The new lots will be custom- graded at the time of home construction, and therefore a City Stormwater Management Permit will be required before the start of construction of each home. A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of each permit submittal. The Developer and its Contractors must ensure that stormwater runoff in the north portion of the development is accommodated within the property and directed to the proposed storm sewer to the extent feasible. 7. This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and a preliminary tree preservation plan was submitted by the Developer. Because each lot will be custom- graded, a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot prior to the start of home construction. The City Forester will review the tree inventory, tabulations, and plans in more detail at the time of permitting. 8. There is a deferred assessment of$3,250 for the reconstruction of streets adjacent to this property as part of the City's 2002 Pavement Management Program. 9. The developer and/or contractor must obtain the appropriate permits prior to development. Approval of this minor subdivision is also subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and other City staff. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager/Interim Physical Development Director John Crelly, Fire Chief Eric Seaburg, Engineer Kelley Janes, Utility Maintenance Supervisor Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Director of Finance G:\Developments-Private\Sunnyridge Woods\Subdivision Review_sunnyridge woods.docx 3 Allen D.Barnard BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9715 225 South Sixth Street,Suite 4000 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 abarnrard@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAx 612.339.5897 BESTLAW.COM BEST & FLANAGAN Memorandum DATE: September 22, 2014 TO: Golden Valley City Council and City Manager FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Application Review During Moratorium This memorandum summarizes what state law and city ordinances say about reviewing subdivision and PUD applications during the recently enacted 6 month moratorium. Statutory Authority for Moratorium Under state law, Golden Valley has the authority to enact an "interim" or temporary ordinance that "regulates, restricts, or prohibits any use, development, or subdivision" within the City for up to one year. Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(a). During this time, the City must conduct a study or hearing to consider changes to the City's subdivision, zoning and/or Comp Plan regulations. Moratorium's Scope and Time The moratorium passed by City Council on September 16 precludes the City from reviewing or approving any new subdivision or PUD application filed after the effective date of the moratorium that has a "single family residential component". The moratorium lasts for 6 months, during which the City is to study the issues highlighted in the moratorium, and make any changes to the zoning and subdivision regulations warranted by the conclusions of the study. Limits on Moratorium—Applications in the Pipeline Subdivision Applications with Preliminary Approvals. Under state law, a moratorium cannot "halt, delay or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval." Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(c). The regulations that are in effect at the time the application was preliminarily approved applies to the review of the final plat. Minn. Stat. 5462.358, subd. 3(c). All Applications Submitted Before Moratorium. Under state law, a moratorium does not stop the 60/120 day clock on applications filed before the effective date of the moratorium. Minn. Stat. 5462.3SS, subd. 4(c). This means that the City should act on all applications in the pipeline within the time limits set by state law or risk having those applications automatically approved under the state's 60/120 day rule. Minn. Stat. s 15.99. Review Standards. Subdivisions must be approved if they meet the conditions of approval in the subdivision ordinance. In addition, Golden Valley's ordinance makes it clear that the conditions spelled out in the subdivision ordinance "provide the only basis for denial" of a minor subdivision, and that "approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions." City Code 5 12.S0, sudb. 3.I. With PUDs, Council has more discretion, and can deny PUDs if there is any rational basis for the denial under the applicable PUD standards in City Code. City Code 511.SS. 000090/480568/1947143_1 � F ♦ r # # y t F Yx f { / s 'K Y'1 xF.. 8 � 7�+r"'�[tr ,rk ��.. ,�w r"^ t» / �► r,.e r l 4 It it * t. `Xtx 4 x Q k �1 uj c r! r # NI� too � t t> , +�," ! R ` po a A M r l3 R t C 4831 W.35TH ST,SL:TE 200 ST,LOUS PAPK,MN 55416 Crvilsor-p cr.t I;w PevEc Pat Senor SUNNYRIDGE WOODS lti3-t15:1Y4J �11v1}1VlU GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA SHEET INDEX r4 Z N SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE N a' FOR: C-0.0 TITLE SHEET 'yA,ISSUED C-1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN/SURVEY C C-2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT,SITE PLAN O } Q C-3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN O LU > PRELIMINARY PLAT C-4.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 1 Q V C-5.0 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN v ] da.,. W Z Z o a W ilj CITY SUBMITTAL0 W 0 c} ° —' ° o Ix w Z z J J a LU DEVELOPER: MASTER LEGEND: Z g > O �. J1 GOLDEN VALLEY LAND COMPANY ------932 ---- Z--- EX.2'CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL Z Z 8001 GLEN WOOD AVED LU GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55422 •s EXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATION Q WQ 419PROPOSED 2'CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL LU Lc SPOT GRADE ELEVATION(GUTTER/FLOW LINE J O UNIESS OTHERWISE NOTED) N O (D r PROPERTY OWNER: SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BACK OF CURB(TOP OF a:2 cec�4n orc CURB) M JOHN MURRAY H 200 MEADOW LANE NORTH 4n.61w SPOT GRADE ELEVASIONTOP OFWALL w l GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55422 432' SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALL a r - DRAINAGE ARROW a EMERGENCY OVERFLOW I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, EOF SFECIFICATIC'4,OR REPORT WAS SITE LOCATION MAP �N SITE LOCATION ENGINEER ILANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: .___-___;____-. SILT FENCEIGRADINGLIMIT PREPARED Y ME OR ONANDUNCERMYCIRECT ULY CIVIL SITE GROUP ___ ;'QERt Sough QNA AMADULY 4931 W35TH STREET 1___I INLET PROTECTION )NDEP THE LAWS OF STATE F )NDER THE LBWS OF1 A STATE OF Nq r'ESOTA SUITE 200 ST LOUIS PARK,MN 55416 STABILIZED CCNSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - 763-213-3944 BW R.PN k SOIL BORING LOCATION O S87-14 um4wi.o 44263 SURVEYOR: REHDERBASSOCIATES INC. _____��,_______- CURB AND GUTTER(T,0=TIP OUT) ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY 3440 FEDERAL DRIVE r PROPOSED MANHOLE STORM DATE DESCRIPTION SUITE 110 -14 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL EAGAN,MN 55122 PROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORM (651)452-5051 _ PROPOSED GATE VALVE WETLAND DELINEATOR: PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT N/A Q6 PROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARY PROPOSED SIGN —��>— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - -�—�-� PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED WATER MAIN REVISION SUMMARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: , , EXISTING SANITARY SEWER DATE DE.. RIPTION TBD EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN —c c EXISTING GAS MAIN — ow - -E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC —c--c EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE TITLE SHEET Q EXISTING MANHOLE M EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX ❑ EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING LIGHT ;I EXISTING HYDRANT A EXISTING GAS METER o EXISTINGSTOPBOX e EXISTING GAS VALVE C V^//�{ O H EXISTING GATE VALVE Boundary and Topographic Survey for: GOLDEN VALLEY LAND COMPANY 200 Meadow Lane North — Golden Valley, Minnesota sD NOTES UtilE� 4' ` *Valk shown are from Information furnished by the City d Golden 1 - / 1„ (2DD•�SUNN/R/DGTJ Spuce \ { i' ^t I r *Contact Gopher State 1 for utility locotlons before any construction A r "—S 9°33'1 rE 1 199.77 ` 4. c-' shall begin. Phone 6S1-454-0002. ,t� ♦ I l Area=38,092 square feet(0.87 acre). Ern( E-22, I J Ash / t ) Ash ( 2� a" A, 1 U' l .�r'- *Zoning: R-1(Single Family Residential). o 1 ` 6^ L. __ -_ Spuro Sputa .t 0" Ba c�dcr\ a h Ash t �'•ES2� �'r-._1 r *Zoning Information obtained from the City Of Golden Valley Web Site. to 5 s \ i 4 Mh 5p ce g' 75" r2" E!m h aeh RM �, 'E53 A,hC, \ /Z `\ �__ 14" __ I/ )Asha( l i / - `` __ Spuce �E1m 7n" —A,M1 _/ 9� 6/ lJf �.+ t PI a LEGEND * --85.n -- g` f /b •�N \ O a d b, \ug,OD a,n Pona Pone / / / < • Iron Monument Found Pine + r5• Y A,F,�' ./ // /17" cn�, ` O IromMOralmantSet ;ti ib56 s g\ __�b56 ---- _--� SP�.ee �__"� /�/Pn„/q1o' / —s—Sanitary Sewer MH —st—Storm Sewer I Tap S.i 7 Atm �V - +� — \ / ��)ne —w—Watermaln tY StO� D�DK-�\ ` // � /�/at�R� (���� GY• Gabe valve Ced°r 1 �, / e7 EI � MHQ Manhole Tep 85861 -;�. � / A Spucc 'N / COO Catch Badn T I 856..% g", P«uawa°d c+J �O ^ Inv.851.19 tr!" i!'. �— /,i _ \ / rryt�^�/ b\ /Md. /°j I c� GC PPO Power Pole ,.:y • i '�. `-f' Concrete Surface r..;< trader/ / ,>sn "'" Bituminous Surface IXI571NG CK 24 / gym" / HOUSE DE SPuc 7 ✓T rak MH m Electrical Trehafomler Elm Cherry � Top 859.49 ' rv0 Cable TV Pedestal or Ash A,h a a. A14'sh prvh Oma' o �j O i cedn^ i� PROPERTY DESCRIPTION j,";g• g / Urt fi,SUNNVRIDGE,accordingto the recorded plat thereof,Hennepin County,Minnesota. I ILLJc,r V mapI '\,./Elm � �t�" Pin \�9� 1c {% ...-Ir Lv uti r4 N8 : '40W 80.90 ` Sp°re fend ass-' iop 859A7 I ✓ eaxeleaPr as.+w°°+ ;wok ce far.e55.47 w �� u� I Hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my OlredaOn and that I g,�{y�g Top 859.1# •-; / am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Top 7.29 , / 1Y hrv.854.# C8 Mr';: .�... Mr.853.391n _e5E 6g9 15 hrv.853.84 Top 8531 �`-,SUNN YRIDGE 15-5T , Dated this 29th day of July,2014 I _ 5"-5T - _ _ .ji.`F' J „T RENDER R ASSOCIATES,INC. REVISION SUMMARY Top 857.42 lv DATE DESCRIPTION GV• 851.'17 To857,37 �i.:.i:✓�.4.:::.,;: '' p MH Thomas J.Ada ,Land Surveyor Minnesota Ucense No.43414 EXISTING CONDITIONS I I � l I D 10 20 40C1 .0 Scale in Feet Rehder and Associates, Inc. CML ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 3440 Federal Drin• Suhe 110 -Cogan,Mlnnesoto•Phone(65 1)432-3051 JOB: 144-2724.012 ZZV99 NIN',k37Vn N3010J 3nN3AV 000MN31J W09 g> Q vd z O 1 4� N Es ANVdW03 (INV-1 A31�VA N30100 _ of N mrw of W< i i m S e Q U) ZZV99 NW'h3llVn N30100'HIHON 3NVl M0OV3W ON g ,�ad� SaOOM 3JalH kNNns � io3road Z b u 6 3 j z 7 as E s Z p< O Iy� A Z S2 3 Z m ~ Q Y 1+5J p Z LL Q e S ° O J LL W Upoloo Lu Ww Icy- O � y' —I�__�_ � � � Q IJ:� � Q �•-•'�• N N " V 2 W O m y 25 \ �\ N =S Z N E 1� N � f� 6 ZZ. 0 Z e f ~O O o u�ilt�i o O O �_ p fv 2 F O O O Z = 5 Z J `� ®1 N oLL U ° %Z ?' I d S$ F- Z Vy w m` � a R �\ p O rn O z�" H V F y = m 2' o IN U F S O 0 _ Ur � Z ? m 3 V 6 �. U J • Z o Z a U N ow of sm o b t T Ltj }) m F N x zo ZYF! o ZZ a w to H a W O <o J w UWU � �0 08 p 0J ?Z S U ° ° w o ° m a g LLULL 000 s aw 1 �\ \ \ �/ y 1 .0000, LL 7 4P D O O "'\ \ I� 0 a OOQ OM Lo 00 Io I ass:0'9l n�----- -- -- -- .9'06 .0'09 � < 1�W2 Fuj oIe. :08z E s � I i I I I 'i 1 ✓., . m I 00 RP:95300 m - i y.. N N CJ L o N l LOT 1 (n 6 N O U- Z)0 0 N �� I 11,200 SF � 1 I �� � o N U) O Ln Ln Ln F- Y U) L 5' LOOKOUT rn 0000 m0) LF:950.50 I I a M OJ m . TB:958:50 I i L) II I GF:958.00 II 9Sd.0'9£ 0'08 I I aSd:0'9£@7v00 ����. ". 1, k i L- - - - - - - -I L - - - - - - - - - - - I - '3SV3MCI. 1 .0'09 Z l y , 00 u Jam"' 4 n a - h _,.-. . ._�._.; , aS,k.a ...-. . ...:_.;, ._. is n ".. - `•. .. ;�_ , _� .., _ .. ... .--- 1 MlOaY _.._.- ...._-. ..._....._�...t..�._;_...-_L_......,�......i.:...,.8....,._....F-..__..',...�a<-,..r_.'-a,�. .r.;.-. r... ..��Ir � ._.. - ll �p7�I/V _ .. T .. _..._ .. s y I i 4 it I GENERAL GRADING NOTES: 1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT&GENERAL GRADING NOTES. 11.FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE *._1 1 AREAS WITHIN LIMITSOF GRADING,INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS.PROVIDE A cl 2 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING BUT SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES,WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR 4931 W 96TH ST,SUTE 2W ._ NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION,SOIL CORRECTION,EXCAVATION,EMBANKMENT,ETC.)IN SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE BROWN,OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND ST.LOUISPARK,MN 56416 ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER.ALL SOIL Ch,aileGauP com TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXISTING GRADES.AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL PROTECTED FROM Men Fwek ION sanr BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS,TRAFFIC AND EROSION..REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT rxl-zts3944 9sz-zxAxul THE SOILS ENGINEER. HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SWILL BE 3.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION 02 TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(HADES)PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 8 THE NEW WORK. GRADING LIMIT,SILT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CRY, 12. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE,A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE FENCE 4,PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW-LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS,UNLESS STREET ANDIOR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED \ OTHERWISE NOTED. TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT 5.GRADES OF WALKS SHALL 3E INSTALLED WITH 5%MAX.LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1%MIN, THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL 3E COMPLETED W AREAS AS DIRECTED 5� .,• AND 2%MAX.CROSS SLOPE,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.THE SOLS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PAR<NG.4REA,ARE UNSTABLE CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATEDOTHERWISE ON THE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. TA II j�••+--c----------}��'-��ll S� - -.yam-- 10'D&U EASE. DRAWINGS.MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:1 13, IOLEHANCES - \ - T.PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS,FREESTANDING WALLS,OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES - - - - ` --�" - •'�'•- - - - - _ 13.1 pyV,THE PRESCRIBED STALL NO VATIONATOR -----+-�,�. \ 4; GREATER THAN 4'IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY A REGISTERED THE BUILDING T SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION FRES SHALL ELEVATION VARY BY MORE 1 I / a51.D0 1 I I ♦♦ * RETAINING WALL ENGINEER.DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIANY EW AND THAN 0.30 TOOT ABOVE,OR 0.30 FOOT BEL TH PONT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. t ♦`` APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 13.2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NCT 30.4"RSB' BY MORE {4 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES ELEVATION OF ANY APONT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE BELOW,oo THE DESCRIBED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES,THE '11 r>s \ �\1 I N I I - {\ _ 13.3. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE O'{V r { I -85550 ; 85J.50 st CONTRACTOR SHALL.4LSOSE RESPONSIBLE FORA FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES Q CO o +� ,� A - ACCPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER'LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING EN BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION,UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE -I RP953.50 \'/ ENGINEER. � s \1 p�� ' 65� 1 \ ACTIVITIES. 13,4, TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 112 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS, U1;�TT ♦ ♦♦ O �Q" � W d{ N OT 3 - 9.IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SCL MATERIAL EXISTS,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT 14.MAINTENANCE \ ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR,OR 14.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND co CR CJI (n 1 I QD, p L 1 $. 1 II I 1 13,481 SF $5, 14.t 1\� '` IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE EROSION,AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. x" 13.7% ase.uo 1 I /' n r ! ,\ 10. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND 142, CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED EROOEDAND 8 WALKOUT ` STOCKPILE W AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE.THE CONTRACTOR SHRILL SALVAGE ENOUGH RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES.DURING THE CONSTRUCTION,IF REQUIRED, N �' N ^" 1 .• ?12.5'SSB 1 J • J I \ - \ TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED.EXCESS TOPSOILSHALL BE PLACED AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TORE ♦1 L - - - - - - - _ !I LF:954.QO µ 1 \ 4\ IN EMBANKMENT AREAS,OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS,ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREA ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED AND MULCHED. z Q swALE 76:962.00 S.THE 14,3, WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT Z fjye I I CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS,WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED,TO A DEPTH CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER,CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, Z 6'D&U EASE. ,; + { OF 41NCHES.RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TOA SURFACE RESHAPE,AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER 5 a i - -e - - - - - - - - - - - - -�QN I__. GF:961.50 MINIMUM DEPTH OF4NCHES. CONSTRUCTION. ® J O W II 859.OD , � - N W `BSY.50 / ! J J NNQ ! / RP:957.00 1 �♦�Igeee��pp `4�!/,{ // ; GENERAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY GRADING NOTES: > j IW I Y y �8 1 I p♦ I 'ely/0, - 1.SEE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN(SWPPP)FOR EROSION AND 1.RESERVED FOR SPECIAL CITY NOTES LU W LOT 2 Sg 0]� ♦ ,/I SEDIMENTATION NOTES AND DETAILS. Q 0 13,810 SF 2,THE CONTRACTOR J O 1 r '1 O 1 � � \ I d .I{ �� _, ,, SILTATION AND EROSION OF THE PR0.ECT AREA ALL EROSION CONTROL AND SILTATION `♦..+/ � O 1 1co 5 LOOKOUT i.� I ' { / / CONTROL MEASURES SHALL COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA'S BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ('�{ LF:954.50 ry I I { y� MANUAL.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO CONTROL �! F-� W Z 1 { 1 EROSION AND SILTATION INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,STAKED STRAW BALES,ROCK ��.(/ O J W I I1 TB:962.50 N4 1 / �', ENTRANCES ANDIOR SILT FENCES.CONTROL SHALL COMMENCE WITH GRADING AND Z Q / - CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF-HE WORK BY THE OWNER. '" W I 1 GF:962.00 - _ I ��-- THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES;ALL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION AS Z Q 1 I! 86cl 2.30 35.0'I0 I I { / C)„ REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION AND THE DEPOSITING OF SILT.THE OWNER MAY,AT O ♦ I ` 1/ HISIHER OPTION DIRECT THE COVTRACTOR N HSMER METHODS AS DEEMED FIT TO z O Z � ® ♦ CJ1 /� _ PROTECT PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS,AN DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR ♦, y}h• 'Q ; Ui EXISTING PAVEMENT OR IN EXISTING STORM SEWERS OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED � W 0 ^� I ♦�.� I GRADIN IT ILT-J /�{ L`y'LLL AFTER EACH RAINAND EFFECTED AREAS CLEANED TO THESATISFACTIONOF THE OWNER, L.,! ALL AT THEIXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. O OO FE EASE. i C BLOCK NO. ON (D % STRUCTURE LABEL,TVP. % V _ TVP.CITY CURB 100'k STATION -- '►, .I, UTILITY STRUCTURE, TYP.{SAND UTILITY LINE,TYP.(SAN.,WATERLW FINISHED 4 GRADE NTH UTILITY SERVICES LINES,TYP. a 6+00 CONC,WALK FINISHED ELEV.@ LOT CORNER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, FRONT UTILITY�..` SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS EASEMENT FREPAREU 8Y ME OR UNDER MY CIRECT A SUPERVISION AAD THAT I AM A CULY U(:tNStU H<orta UI IPL tNGlNttu [`'Y T 7-�T��7NYR ITlT G-T UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE CF �✓�-'1 `1` y j�L v� - SUGGESTED � _ ti.OU I �ROAD NAME M soiA. LOCATION I F:e4a.De Il 'I DRIVEWAY BUILDING FRONT PAD EWAYSLOPE F:935.SO Id. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. 78:944.50 I SETBACK -R.Pmk 9 WDA. , -SIDE UTILITY EASEMENT -IE 6-7m!4 ucENwNo 44263 LOT NO / RP:935.00 LOT DIMENSIONS LOWEST FLOOR ELEV..J I ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY TOP OF BLOCK ELEV. BUILDINGDA G PAD TE DESCPIPTION II RECOMMENDED HOUSE TYPE 7-14 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL REAR PAD GROUND ELEV.- - ..,...�:- BUILDING SIDE SETBACK - BUILDING REAR SETBACK SILT FENCE,TYP REAR UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED CONTOURS EXIST.CONTOURS�J REVISION SUMMARY TYPICAL LOT INFORMATION: DATE DE�mpnoN GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WNW. PRELIMINARY GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800)252-1166 TOLL FREE GRADING PLAN (651)454-0002 LOCAL _2°� C3.Q i GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: - 1.SEE SITE PIAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMEASIONS AND LAYOUT AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ,I •h A - NOTES, C 4991 W.36TH ST.SUITE 200 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND ST.LCL.S PARK.MN S6a16 TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.THE COINTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY CMISft-& P4"T M9¢Falek Pc:Sarver NOTIFY THE ENGINEER Of DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PANS. ra':-z1a:r�aa xzsw-eou STMH-160"DIA 3.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION ANDIOR ELEVATION OF EXISTING URLITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS CONSTRUCT OVER EX 30" UTILITY COMPANIES AND,WHERE POSSIBLE,MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD.THE STORM INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE.THE CONTRACTOR RE-954.0(MATCH) MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EX IE NIS=948.5 EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES,IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH PROP IE E=947.7CB-2(27"DIA) CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.THE LOCATIONS OF •••• SMALL UTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR,BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE 165 LF 12"HDPE .RE=951.5 CALL.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED STORM @ O.BO°Io IE W_848,§ - DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 4.ALL SOILS TESTING SHELL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.THE UTILITY BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION }. e�®e® ��...����... -.���� �..®���.����® ..r•.• SHIM COMPIY WITH THF I I FOIIRFMFNTS OF THF SgIS ENGINEER THF CONTRACTOR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPECTIONS 10'D&U EASE. WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. 6.UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF STANDARD !LOT 1 I I \A' SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION"AVD"SANITARY SEWER EXISTING 4"SAN SERV. j I ( I \ AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION"ASPREPARED BYTHE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF PROPOSED 1"WATER SERV.' I ( \ 1 MINNESOTA(CEAM),AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ANDTHE -1-1-1 1-6 ( ; PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 6.ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE TO CITY REQUIREMENTS. r 1 7,CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN,TURN OFF,INTERFERE WITH,OR ATTACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE ` O - TO OR TAP WATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED TOGO SO BY N r I ® I \ THE CIN.ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED C4 N "� I "r', DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR U a In -n ' t LOT 3 \\ 8.CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND REUSEC OR PLACED AT Z Li. Z Q I 1 3,081 J F \ THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER. Q I 'I 9.ALL MATERA_S SFALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPEC"ICATIONS EXCEPT AS MODIFlEDO J 0 > •\ HEREIN. J LU J 1 I - -_ - - - - - - - �'�•-- °I \ 10.ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 0 > � J '.. 6'D&U EASE. \ 17.ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PIPE(DIP)UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Z 1 12.ALL SANRARYSEWERSHALL BEPOLWINYLCHLORIDE(PVC)UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. a Z 0 LOT 2 QQ 13. All STORMSEW PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE(RCP)OR HIGH DENSITY �n 0 J 0 1 I I W I I POLYETHYLENE(HDPE)UNLESS OTHER'NSE NOTED. V U Or EXISTING 4"SAN SERV. , LLi y( v EXISTING 1"WATER SERV. ' p I '•\ 14,ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IV STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR = W 1 O LOT 2 I , WATERTIGHT.APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT {.1. 1 = I I /\ CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES,CATCHBASINS,OR OTHER STRUCTURES, 0J W o ,810 SF I / 15. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF W .J Q 13 1 I / A FLARED END SECTION. Q>1 O 16.UTILITIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN B OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.THE `/ CONTRACTOR S ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. Z LOT 3 COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS, Oa L` W I EXISTING 4"SAN SERV. 17.CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED ON FEET.ALL CATCH W p0 ' I PROPOSED 1"WATER SERV. BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPEDO.15 FEET PER DETAILS.RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON V ' I - THISPUN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVA-IONS. 0 J 18. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER S REQUIRED OVERALL WATERWAIN,UNLESS OTHERWISE �ry 0 I / NOTED.EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18"VERTICAL /V17 I SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES,EXTRA DEPTH WATERMIAIN IS INCIDENTAL w 19. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL 10' G3 w I 1 L D&U EASe• ��'I SEPARATION S REQUIRED FOR AL_WA-ERLMIN,STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER PIPES, a tea_--_- - �-_•..'"_ �� UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. I HEREE:Y CmnFY THAT THS PLAN, 20.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS SPECIFICATION,OR REPGRT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR THMY DIRECT AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITU PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. SUPERMroN AND THAT AM AN7 k . _ LI(:ENSF1l HtUFtSSIUNPONAAT t L tNGINEEH 21.CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES SHALL BE CORE-DRILLED. UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF K ESOTA 22.COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS. 7 ��7�'�y'�RITTDGE 23.COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH sw R.P•vk SADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF. onre BRM4 UCEWSENO 44363 24.ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY THE CITY.ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUT.ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL -- BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF DATE RN PRELIMINARY -74 THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES(MMUTCD)AND THE CITY. Py>�7 SLR.1mu THIS SHALL INCLUDE BLT NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE,BARRICADES,FASHERS.AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED,ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES.NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 25.ALL STRUCTURES,PUBLIC AND PRIVATE,SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHERE REQUIRED.THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING. 26.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES. REVISION SUMMARY 27.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES. DATE DESCRIPTION THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACT INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES. 28.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY UTILITY NOTES: THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. 1.RESERVED FOR SPECAL CITY NOTES GOPHER STATE ONE CALL PRELIMINARY VWVW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800)252.1168 TOLL FREE UTILITY PLAN (651)454-0002 LOCAL b 1"=2°''-0 C4•0 MEADOW LANE y� . s. F i y m AI ' OD.0 4 bN t =IS oo�'l1-66 } -n I L .LOQ. �I a • { -, --------- 1 �3 i. � 4f , \` t'� '�►cm 0a co .r .000 TK' >' 3 A � 3 O 0r- 0 rO m0 z 8 � � n m= m r- Sy D m < wd4 m dig Z m 0 0> m z �Az D O D m L1 r m 8 b t o $ PROJECT m m m mn SUNNYRIDGE WOODSxm m m 200 MEADOW LANE NORTH,GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55422 r d^zm D —cn m��m > GOLDEN VALLEY LAND COMPANY O Z 0 'x K z 6001 GLENWOOD AVENUE GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55422 Ci t 0j va'11ey Planning Department 763-593-8095 /763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 120 day deadline: January 10, 2015 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Brunswick Estates - 108 Brunswick Avenue North Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the October 13, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 108 Brunswick Avenue North (Brunswick Estates). 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. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 6, 2014. There were no attendees. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated October 13, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission, dated October 13, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from the Engineering Division, dated October 7, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from City Attorney Allen Barnard, dated September 22, 2014 (2 pages) • Site Plans (5 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Brunswick Estates, 108 Brunswick Avenue 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. A park dedication fee of$3,080 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated October 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 245 250 324 308 3�0 240 • 235 ,230 220 309 227, 209 21, 216 car 210 Subject Property: Jc,lo^ 108 Brunswick Ave N 217 � a 200 208 221 208 % \\\ 205 /211 / 204 117 125 124 125 124' 108 116 09 v x112 •b 75 115 y� Q9 TO r 25` S1 m 26 26J lif _ Q r SO m u � 3 6324 6320 15 �161 6030 5924, 5910 I . 6010 6237. 100 6145 6101 w 105 120 111 N m 6015 110 z3 115 Q Y • m OW 120 125 120 125 140 _ 131 .Y 3: 130 a 135 W: � Y = Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning C mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, ncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Va ey Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, Oct r 13, 2014. Chair Kluchka cal d the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those pre t were Planning Com ssioners, Blum, Cera,_ nson, Kluchka, Segelbaum an aldhauser. Also p sent was Plannigr anager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner ant Writer Emil Goellner, aGd&Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commission aker was sent. } 1. Approval of Minutes September 22, 2014 gular ning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referre the second p ragraph age 9 and said she would like to make a clarifica * after the fact that he homes re ed to on Rhode Island Avenue sold for $40 00 to $450,000, not $ 0,000 to $400,0 s discussed. MO by Waldhauser, seconded b Cera and motion carried imously to approve September 22, 2014, minutes wit the above noted clarification. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 108 Brunswick Ave — Brunswick Estates — SU12-17 Applicant: Wooddale Edina LLC Address: 108 Brunswick Avenue North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to subdivide the lot at 108 Brunswick Avenue North into two new lots in order to construct two new single family homes. He referred to a site plan and stated that Lot 1 will be 19,100 square feet in size with 113.62 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 will be 19,510 square feet with 126.75 feet of width at the front setback line. He stated that the proposed subdivision meets all of the requirements outlined in the City Code, therefore staff is recommending approval of the proposal. Cera asked how many subdivisions have occurred in this neighborhood. Zimmerman said there have been four or five subdivisions in this area over the past few years because the lots are large enough to divide. Cera asked how many of those subdivisions have torn down the existing house versus keeping it. Zimmerman said that is something that can be reviewed as part of the moratorium study. He stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page 2 existing houses are typically torn down because they are located centrally on the lot and added that in this case the existing house was in need of significant remodeling. Segelbaum referred to an existing shed located on the property and asked if it is in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements. Zimmerman said he would verity that it is located 5 feet from the side and rear yard property lines. Waldhauser referred to item six in the City Engineer's memo which reads in part that the developer must ensure that existing drainage patterns are maintained or improved and that stormwater runoff is accommodated within the property to the extent practicable. She said to her "drainage patterns" means the direction of flow wouldn't change, but if more impervious surface is added, the amount of water will change. She said it doesn't protect the neighbors at all if the patterns or direction can stay the same, but the amount of water can increase. She added that her concern does not apply in this case, but in the overall subdivision process. Zimmerman said that a number of grading and stormwater techniques are used to accommodate stormwater runoff within the property. Kluchka suggested the language be made clearer. Cera suggested that language regarding stormwater be added to the conditions of approval listed in the Subdivision Code because he has seen the problems runoff can cause. Kluchka said it is alarming if there are significant drainage impacts that aren't being accounted for. Johnson referred to the applicant's plans and noted that they were received after the moratorium effective date. Zimmerman stated that the initial submission occurred prior to the moratorium effective date, but the applicant submitted some additional information later. Kluchka asked about the time line of the project. Steven Schwieters, Wooddale Edina, LLC, Applicant, said he hopes to start the project in December, with completion in June or July. He added that he is very familiar with this street and said that the homes will be approximately 4,500 to 5,500 square feet in size. Cera asked about the price of the proposed homes. Schwieters said they will cost approximately $1,150,000 to $1,350,000. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Blum said it is refreshing to see lots that aren't the minimum size and he thinks this proposal will fit in with the neighborhood. Cera agreed and said the proposed lots meet all of the City Code requirements. He said the City generally strives to see more moderately priced homes, but he understands the prices in this situation. Segelbaum said he agrees that the homes will fit with the neighborhood even after the subdivision. Kluchka said all the findings are met and that this is a pretty straightforward proposal. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Brunswick Estates Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page 3 Findings: 1. Both of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 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 $3,080 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated October 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Discussion Regarding Re ycling Centers Go er explained that a moratori m was adopted by the City Council on July 1, 2014, to prohib the establishment of any n w recycling centers for six months to a ow staff time to resea h the possible need to u date both the definition of Recyclin enters in the Zoning Co and the reconsidera ion of the appropriateness of R cling Centers as permitted us within the Light Ind stria) and Industrial zoning ricts. Goellner discuss staff's recom ndations including: c ting two definitions, one for major recycling face 'es and one f r minor recycling f 'ilities, removing metal shredding and car crushing from e current finition, adding efinitions for compostable waste and yard waste, requiring a nditional se Permit fcS"r minor recycling facilities in the Light Industrial zoning district, a wing nor rec ing facilities as a permitted use and major recycling facilities as a condi nal a input a Industrial zoning district, and prohibiting outdoor storage. She added th �st is'also recommending that the existing distance requirements for recycling center ain. Kluchka asked about noise iso es ci n� 'dered in staff's research. Goellner stated that truck traffic, and the pickin p and rop ng off of materials, among others were considered. Kluchka ask what "in oors" eans and if the City would allow recycling in a covered space or wi Pwindows op n, both` which may cause noise issues. Segelbaum ques ned if collection, orting, and�cfisposing should also be restricted along with outdoor st age. He questione if the propose�R rdinance captures what these facilities do. ra questioned what i trying to be acc '�,plished. Cera sa' he has dealt with recyclin in his job for many y`Prs. He discussed various types recycling facilities, scrap m tal facilities, drop-off fatties and hazardous waste faci * ies. He stated that Golden Val y does not need a drop-0 facility because of how t recycling is picked up. He said at Golden Valley also does 't want to have a azardous waste facility or a typica recycling facility. He stated that permits may need to city off goldcnitArMEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 13, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 108 Brunswick Avenue North —Brunswick Estates—Wooddale Edina, LLC, Applicant Summary of Request Wooddale Edina, LLC, represented by Steven Schwieters, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 108 Brunswick Avenue North into two lots. There is one existing single family home on this lot which would be demolished and replaced with two new single family homes. The existing lot is 38,610 square feet. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The proposed Lot 1, to the west, would be 19,100 square feet and the proposed Lot 2, to the east, would be 19,510 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Lot 1 would have 113.62 feet of width and Lot 2 would have 126.75 feet of width. The dimensions of both of the newly created lots provide a sufficient building envelope for development. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 108 Brunswick Avenue North is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and it will not create need for public improvements. The Applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of Minor Subdivision Staff has evaluated the proposed lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision to create two lots in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Applicant has submitted a survey of the existing lot prior to the proposed subdivision, as well as a preliminary plat displaying the two lots after the subdivision. Both lots would have access off of the cul-de-sac at the end of Brunswick Avenue North. 1 City Engineer Jeff Oliver has submitted a memorandum dated October 7, 2014, regarding recommendations from the Engineering Division concerning this request. Requirements set forth in Mr. Oliver's memo are to be included in the recommended action of this subdivision. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Both of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. As discussed in the Engineering memo, new utility easements must be dedicated and shown on the Final Plat. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. No other public agencies have jurisdiction over the streets adjacent to the site. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of $3,080 (2% of the estimated land value) is required for this subdivision. 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All conditions have been met. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor 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. A park dedication fee of$3,080 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated October 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 2 4. 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 October 7, 2014 (3 pages) Memo from City Attorney Allen Barnard, dated September 22, 2014 (2 pages) Site Plans (5 pages) 3 city of go 1den MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: Ocober 7, 2014 To: LJ`/son Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee0ecialist Eric Eckman, Public Works S Subject: Subdivision Review for Brunswick Estates Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for a proposed minor subdivision of property located at 108 Brunswick Avenue North. The Developer proposes to demolish the existing home and subdivide the parcel into two single-family lots. The comments contained in this review are based upon plans submitted to the City on September 25, 2014. Engineering staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision of property located at 108 Brunswick Avenue North, called Brunswick Estates, subject to the following comments: 1. A City demolition permit, stormwater management permit, and utility permits are required for the demolition of the existing home. 2. The Developer has submitted a preliminary plat which appears to meet the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The final plat for this development must include public easements on all property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. A City Right-of-Way Management permit is required for each parcel for any proposed excavations and obstructions within public right-of-way or easements. a. Each lot will have its own concrete driveway apron. It appears the driveway apron for Lot 1 has been moved to the northeast to eliminate the existing driveway encroachment onto Lot 14, Block 5 of Tralee. This modification and the construction of a new driveway for Lot 2 will require City Right-of-Way permits and the concrete aprons must meet City standards. 4. The Developer has shown on the plans that utilities can be extended to serve the proposed dwellings. The Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits from the City for the removal, rehabilitation, or G:\Developments-Private\Brunswick Estates-108 Brunswick N\Subdivision Review_brunswick estates.docx installation of utility services. Staff has the following comments regarding the proposed utility construction: a. A Right-of-Way Permit is required for all excavations and obstructions within City right-of-way. Based on the plans submitted, it appears Brunswick Avenue will need to be excavated in order to install new utilities. Brunswick Avenue was constructed by the City in 2005 and therefore must be restored according to the applicable City standard detail, available in the Engineering office. b. Records show that there is an existing storm sewer drain tile located in front of the property and a service is stubbed to the existing home at 108 Brunswick Avenue North. Staff recommends that the Developer extend the drain tile and install an additional service to ensure that each parcel has a service stub available for connection. If a sump pump is installed in each home, the discharge pipe must be connected to this drain the system. 5. Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction a. The existing sanitary sewer service to 108 Brunswick Avenue North is in the process of being inspected for compliance with the 1/1 ordinance. Depending on the results of the inspection, the Developer may need to enter into an 1/1 Deposit Agreement with the City to guarantee that the service becomes compliant with the 1/1 ordinance. b. The two new parcels must obtain compliance with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. 6. A preliminary grading plan was submitted by the Developer. The new lots will be custom- graded at the time of home construction, and therefore a City Stormwater Management Permit will be required for each parcel before the start of home construction. A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of each permit submittal. The Developer and its Contractors must ensure that existing drainage patterns are maintained or improved and that stormwater runoff is accommodated within the property to the extent practicable. 7. This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because each lot will be custom-graded, a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot prior to the start of home construction. The City Forester will review the tree inventory, tabulations, and plans in detail at the time of permitting. 8. There is a deferred assessment of$3,200 for the reconstruction of streets adjacent to this property as part of the City's 2005 Pavement Management Program. The assessment must be paid prior to final plat approval. 9. The developer and/or contractor must obtain the appropriate permits prior to development of this site. G:\Developments-Private\Brunswick Estates-108 Brunswick N\Subdivision Review_brunswick estates.docx 2 Approval of this minor subdivision is also subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and other City staff. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager/Interim Physical Development Director John Crelly, Fire Chief Eric Seaburg, Engineer Kelley Janes, Utility Maintenance Supervisor Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Director of Finance G:\Developments-Private\Brunswick Estates-108 Brunswick N\Subdivision Review_brunswick estates.docx 3 Allen D.Barnard BEST&FLANAGAN LLP Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9715 225 South Sixth Street,Suite 4000 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 abarnrard@bestlaw.com TEL 612.339.7121 FAX 612.339.5897 BESTLAW.COM BEST & FLANAGAN Memorandum DATE: September 22, 2014 TO: Golden Valley City Council and City Manager FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Application Review During Moratorium This memorandum summarizes what state law and city ordinances say about reviewing subdivision and PUD applications during the recently enacted 6 month moratorium. Statutory Authority for Moratorium Under state law, Golden Valley has the authority to enact an "interim" or temporary ordinance that "regulates, restricts, or prohibits any use, development, or subdivision" within the City for up to one year. Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(a). During this time, the City must conduct a study or hearing to consider changes to the City's subdivision, zoning and/or Comp Plan regulations. Moratorium's Scope and Time The moratorium passed by City Council on September 16 precludes the City from reviewing or approving any new subdivision or PUD application filed after the effective date of the moratorium that has a "single family residential component". The moratorium lasts for 6 months, during which the City is to study the issues highlighted in the moratorium, and make any changes to the zoning and subdivision regulations warranted by the conclusions of the study. Limits on Moratorium—Applications in the Pipeline Subdivision Applications with Preliminary Approvals. Under state law, a moratorium cannot "halt, delay or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval." Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(c). The regulations that are in effect at the time the application was preliminarily approved applies to the review of the final plat. Minn. Stat. 5462.358, subd. 3(c). All Applications Submitted Before Moratorium. Under state law, a moratorium does not stop the 60/120 day clock on applications filed before the effective date of the moratorium. Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4(c). This means that the City should act on all applications in the pipeline within the time limits set by state law or risk having those applications automatically approved under the state's 60/120 day rule. Minn. Stat. 51S.99. Review Standards. Subdivisions must be approved if they meet the conditions of approval in the subdivision ordinance. In addition, Golden Valley's ordinance makes it clear that the conditions spelled out in the subdivision ordinance "provide the only basis for denial" of a minor subdivision, and that "approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions." City Code 512.50, sudb. 3.1. With PVDs, Council has more discretion, and can deny PUDs if there is any rational basis for the denial under the applicable PUD standards in City Code. City Code S 11.55. 000090/480568/19471431 N w O 0 0 v c M � c W Y a v H Z Wc E v ` .. _ 1 - C' a0 a ¢ n s° 0 5 € L' °' p v 6 v C C m C v d C d S C v u R ---'�^ oN o ." a oo a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oZ t I Nl _I ( m ® � • O4��) A3 Ibd'3 M J LL Z - U O N a c I I I U � v Ln u d Ln o �k.�urif�ar�a!w�ae a LrU a O W � Ra�kW CV Q 25 v J ` S � W \ r � o .. _...... __ 171.89 Q \ SO4R07'36'E Z z cn i \ Y� f / � / ,fes_ -pus.. VY� •, ' � € \ �.... � i r� ', c 991 ( �,l/moi [� _., �•§ \ MaaO '�\ /,...9, \�. Ge zj ko / l p ^1 [n \ n � z z v F- I_ s � v°\ $5�s yrs \40 asnoH \40 4°� o •�� 3 W � N CK_j / GLENWOOD AVE SECTION 33, TWP. 118, RGE. 21 LOCATION MAP NO SCALE 1 / 16 8 i \� / t 1 / � I l � I / I I 1 0 1 I i to / 191000L.\J I 4t\J I / 0.4385ac I 1 / I � I 99 i L> i jl F— 1 2 1 20 10 D 20 BLOCK 11 / ' 19 100 I 0.4479oc i Scale in Feet / � I I � / � I LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PRELIMINARY PURPOSES ONLY I ro 1 lot 10, Block 5, "TRALEE", according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. � i 1 c ` I I TOTAL GROSS AREA 0.8864 ACRES I TOTAL LOT AREA 0.8864 ACRES 255 \�� 1 1 NUMBER OF LOTS 2 0 \ T A t' 130 110 LARGEST LOT 19.510 SO. FT. r`_ J SMALLEST LOT 19,100 SO. FT, AVERAGE LOT 19,305 S0. FT. DENSITY 2.26 LOTS/ACRE ZONING R-1 C) UTILITIES X%XXX `J`J. PI8NEERenginming (651)681-1914 Ihc�eby—tdYthatthisplanwasp'P=hr Name Re,umas Dale 9/12/14 WOODALE EDINA LLC 2422 Enterprise Drive Fax:6919488 meM nm,^;�t=van,�h,^�^ tl 9/14/14-Ea-- BRUNSWICK ESTATES Mendota Heights,MIN 55120 am aaoly uoe„sea P of— lal S—ya De,' «I PRELIMINARY PLAT 6109 Blue Circle Dr#2000 2 OF 2 —ploneereng.mm mala the law:of the Swv of mina— Reg.No. '�" Dace 9/12/14 _____ Drawn mJp I I Minnetonka,MN 55343 GOLDEN VALLEY,MINNESOTA ' LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED FUTURE DESCRIPTION O SANITARY MANHOLE BRUNSWICK WICK ESTATES _. • ------ -----.— EXISTING SANITARY SEWER —) PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN > > FUTURE SANITARY SEWER ' * A HYDRANT m ►1 H GATE VALVE REDUCER GOLDEN VALLEY MINNESOTA CLUB Rp. ID2 55 ----------�— EXISTING WATERMAIN 1 PROPOSED WATERMAIN —I I FUTURE WATERMAIN / c CATCH BASINC 02 • / MEMOR HtGHwar ` o � ZAL W r VAL ® BEEHIVE � �ACp • ® STORM MANHOLE L50 c1R yfrw woo0 c s C> ► ® FLARED END SECTIONKNGSTDZO,Q CGTOC SITE YiW00DSTOCXo ¢ jVE O • • CONTROL STRUCTURE / 0 NAgpC AVE zC o a�O,r NEq OF CORING ------��----->•--- EXISTING STORM SEWER —•—V PROPOSED STORM SEWER / \ / / _ a ;> —7>—>>— FUTURE STORM SEWER / \' i r i o a " w frE SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER B-STYLE CURB & GUTTER RIBBON CURB & GUTTERw Op al wre mm tre rrr PHASE LINE ........, \\\ \\ N >N. CIRTC�1 o a' uQ 4y w0 ---- -- EASEMENT LINE '^ `r ----—-•s: —-- EXISTING 2' CONTOUR LINE 1 \ / ¢ ¢S`�'q .CIR. w o m x i az CO ..............__-.__ -__.._._...-_. EXISTING 10' CONTOUR LINE •••• / x LAUREL w o AVE. PROPOSED 2' CONTOUR LINE / C) oao PROPOSED 10' CONTOUR LINE / I .,I, �� t o< i z ancr-se�.9 POND OUTLET LINE / I I \�� T. '^ y�J $� o < x fiN TUR C RLL -- POND HIGH WATER LINE __ / � I �� \� � < w�; 8x3 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 9 6 �� , I / a'a 4 o'a o�OEN HILLS OR. ♦♦♦ EMERGENCY OVERFLOW — — - — DELINEATED WETLAND LINE % I I I LOCATION MAP •••..••:• FEMA FLOOOPLAIN BOUNDARY I ` 1 • STANDARD EROSION CONTROL Qo i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ HEAVY-DUTY EROSION CONTROL TREE FENCE ` /. J I O Oj `. ty RETAINING WALL CONSERVATION AREA SIGN �••. LF W WETLAND BUFFER SIGN OO,5 --_ - EX. CULVERT A on on EX. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES t. t� EX. UNDERGROUND TELEVISION LINE —t—t— EX. UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE / 1 [ ••' '� of to fo EX. UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINE e EX. UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE / I 1 —9-9— EX. UNDERGROUND GAS LINE ���Od ! - —X—X— EX. FENCE (BARBED WIRE) / I 0 7 p / .EX. FENCE (CHAIN LINK) EX. FENCE (WOOD) O EX. CAST IRON MONUMENT I ■ EX. ELECTRIC BOXC� O- EX. FLAG POLE •••.�/ 0`�•0 • EX. NATURAL GAS METER cI I ® EX. HAND HOLE •', 90 Q 1 pl • EX. FOUND IRON PIPE CJ 1 fVl , EX. JUDICIAL LAND MARK I _ ,> EX. LIGHT POLE O EX. PK NAIL LLIE Lp EX. UTILITY POLE ` EX. LAWN SPRINKLER VALVE _ `\\` o v to zo 40 EX. LAWN SPRINKLER HEAD I / �• I v . �"C`P 2 5 2014 EX. SEMAPHORE �g I `- GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET EX. SERVICEcT�i►, 17 EX. TELEPHONE BOX 0 EX. TEST HOLE L7 ® EX. TELEVISION BOX EX. WATER WELL �^ EX. MONITORING WELL '� ••• ��\` ® EX. MAILBOX /INSTALL NEW SERVICES /: '• ® EX. CONTROL POINT 29.0------- 28.0 ® EX. SPIKE STA: 3+35 / } jj ``'`�� ( I DRAINAGE &UTILITY r-- 1 \ i� �.�� i .I EASEMENT I O I BLOCK NO. EX. SIGN / / j / ���� EX. CLEANOUT CS: 9896.6 06.2 ,j ,' `, O FINISHED ELEVATION GROUND----,,, I 7 I LOT N0. 00 I�a•,.I EX. SIGNIFICANT TREE INV. 8 9 6.6 / / I� z LOWEST FLOOR------,, I ` P / EX. HYDRANT ",. 6' ELEVATION 1 HOUSE TYPES �, 1 R—RAMBLER OR SPLIT ENTRY rWYYV\ EX. TREE LINE / GARAGE ELEVATION __1' LO —RAMBLER LOOKOUT OR SPLIT EX. GRAVEL SURFACE / // LKOUT 7,_ �/ TN H=9 0 7.4 8 oz NUMBER OF STEPS LO WO —RAMBLERENTRY WALKOUT ALLKOUT L SLO—SIDE LOOKOUT RECOMMENDED I P I SWO—SIDE WALKOUT EXBITUMINOUS EX. SERVICE TO BE GARAGE SIDE , I . ` /'I� /Q• / I 7. I SLOPE LABELED FROM JJ SURFACE /a INSTALL R O'C K uv , %' UTILIZED IF C 0 N D I TI N FINISHED ELEVATION I ' FRONT OF PAD TO ROW ` — -----� EX. CONCRETE /. / / •LOT CORNER 35.5 34.5 SURFACE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE � -�.;�' ,T ;,.// 8'c LOCATION ARE A CEPTABLE. SELECT BACKFILL FOR EACH LOT. MATERIAL / EX. SAN MH --------STREETGRAVEL C -------- ENTRANCEONST. J RI M=9 0 5.2 8 INV-895.0 LOT INFORMATION (TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE) PI$NEEReneQ / j uneNo-lla2oas EhrcRnu _T heavy�fy na w�.awa amaegby �• 3zs 1, WOODDALE EDINA LLC. BRUNSWICK ESTATES 2422 Entapfi-Drive (651)661-1914 m-dQ yydh .petrisioo„d mm1 Nam` OF 1 w t,chyle es GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN 6117 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 101 GOLDEN VALLEY,MINNESOTA 1 Fu:681-9488 �.dwy f-icesved Profexs etul E' f;i mRa MINNEI'ONKA.MINNESOTA 55343 Mrndo[a llei�ItS,MN SS l2D www.p,.n..—g.com undc du laws of the Sime ofMhmcesaia Rq.Na. 19860 Dye 9-2414 BRUNSWICK ESTATES IC.R. DOC. NO. KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Wooddole Edina LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, owner, of the following described property: / Lot 10, Block 5, "TRALEE". according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. T Has caused the some to be surveyed and platted as BRUNSWICK ESTATES and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public ways and the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. N63 In witness whereof said Wooddole Edina LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of 20 / Wooddole Edina LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company 8 < `v05 / %� (/g)8e�(MF STATE OF MINNESOTA 6 6 I��o TRAC�S) COUNTY OF I I FJ / 1 I /Po This instrument was acknowledged before me on this by as I I "5g / of Wooddole Edina LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, on behalf of the company. / I 1 I I o aop \\1 Notary Public, - / I °�'I <y I 10 My Commission Expires SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE CO I I Peter J. Hawkinson do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that 1 am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State- '9 o T / L) A I I r r 1 of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that (il I /—� i I u7 9 9 L all monuments depicted on this plat hove been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota / / �— �— Statutes, Section 50.01, Subd. 3, as of the dote of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plot; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. O I I 2 I Dated this da of 20_. 1 1 I It rn I 31 Peter J. Hawkinson, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 42299 10 IL STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF o �o ti I Y" This instrument was acknowledged before me on this by Peter J. Hawkinson. N 120.11 Oo a0 Notary Public, L ZT. I m D S � m y1 My Commission Expires ;�3.43.4j„ / `��i�` .•. f CITY COUNCIL, Golden Valley, Minnesota 7 0 135.0 This plot of BRUNSWICK ESTATES was approved and accepted by the City of Golden Volley, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof, held this day of 20_. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been / 55'?4 0 received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elopsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, /?SS (�T gMfAS•) lEf" Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. / ByBy Mayor Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I herebycertify that taxes y payable in 20_and prior years have been paid for land described on this Plat, dated this _day of 20_ Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By Deputy �( SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to MINN. STAT. Sec. 3838.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this _day of 20_. ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, TRALEE HILLS, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF NORTH 63°52'34" WEST. Christ F. Mavis , County Surveyor By E I V E , O DENOTES FOUND 1/2 BY 14 INCH INCH IRON PIPE COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota MONUMENT MARKED BY LICENSE NUMBER 42299, OR WILL `�+ I hereby certify that the within plat of BRUNSWICK ESTATES was recorded in this office this _day of 20_, at _o'clock BE SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH MS 505.021, SUED. 10. SEP 20114 'M' 20 t0 0 20 • DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT MARKED BY LICENSE NUMBER 42299 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Martin McCormick, County Recorder By. Scale in Feet BY. Deputy PISNEERengineering,PA. BRUNSWICK ESTATES AREA SKETCH 1 1910W 0.4385oc BLOCK 1 19510sf 0.-79— 20 10 0 20 Scale in Feet AREA SUMMARY BLOCK 1 = 38,610 SF. 00..8864 AC. TOTAL LOT AREA = 38,610 SF. 8864 AC. TOTAL AREA = 38,610 SF. 0.8864 AC. PI$NEERengineering,P.A. cityof goldMtl. '�te� MEMORANDUM Be vaney Plannin De artment � r 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 6. A. Proposed Amendment to Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components (Ordinance No. 530) Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the October 21, 2014, City Council meeting, Staff was directed to prepare language for a proposed amendment to the adopted Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components. It was the direction of the Council that this amendment should cover: 1. The inclusion in the moratorium of existing subdivision applications that have not received preliminary approval. 2. The exclusion from the moratorium for lot line adjustments that do not involve the creation of new lots. Attachments • Ordinance No. 530, 2nd Series (1 page) • Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 530, 2nd Series Amending Interim Ordinance, amending Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components (1 page) ORDINANCE NO. 530, 2ND SERIES AN INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Imposing a Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City Council finds that the subdivision of property zoned "single family residential" to create small subdivisions, often with irregular lots, and the use of residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to create small subdivisions that sidestep many of the controls of the City's Zoning Ordinance, have the potential to negatively impact the "green" space, property values, traffic and pedestrian safety, physical environment, orderly pattern of development, and official controls in the City's single family residential neighborhoods, as well as the historic and aesthetic character of those neighborhoods. Section 2. City staff is hereby directed to undertake a study, in coordination with the Planning Commission, to determine whether, or to what extent, the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances should be revised to address the foregoing concerns, including the creation of a new zoning district that establishes a larger minimum lot area; new standards for preserving "green" space when subdividing lots; new standards for the clear interpretation and application of lot measurements standards to minimize or eliminate irregular lots; the ability of the City to evaluate the potential impact on neighborhood character when reviewing subdivisions; and the use of residential PUDs to create small subdivisions that sidestep many elements of the zoning code. Section 3. For the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Golden Valley, and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, subd. 4 and Golden Valley City Code, Chapters 11 and 12, a six (6) month moratorium is hereby imposed within the City of Golden Valley prohibiting the approval of any new subdivision or PUD that includes a single family residential component. During this six (6) month moratorium period, no new applications that would permit such single family residential subdivisions or PUDs 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 this 16th day of September, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 530, 2ND SERIES AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE Amending Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City Council restates Sections 1 and 2 of Ordinance No. 530, 2nd Series, as if set out verbatim herein. Section 2. The City Council finds that there are a number of existing applications, filed prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 530, which if approved may subvert the planning process as provided for interim ordinances under Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355. Therefore, for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Golden Valley, the moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 530 is amended to prohibit approval of (a) any new or existing subdivision applications that include a single family residential component, excluding those which have received preliminary approval, and (b) any new PUD applications that include a single family residential component. During this moratorium period, no such applications shall be considered or approved by the City. Section 3. The moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 530 is also amended by exempting therefrom minor subdivisions which merely adjust lot lines between existing lots because of (a) changing conditions since the original approval or (b) having structures or driveways crossing lot lines or within required setbacks. Under no circumstances does this exemption include a situation involving creation of a new lot. 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 this 5th day of November, 2014. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Cty- o �6 } MEMORANDUM golen -F, vaitey Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item 6. B. Appointment to METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau) Corridor Management Committee Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary As part of the ongoing planning for the METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau), the Metropolitan Council will be convening a Corridor Management Committee to advise on the design and construction of the line. Each city has been asked to designate one official representative and one alternate to serve on the committee. Meetings will be held monthly and will include, but are not limited to, the topics of environmental review, preliminary engineering, final design, overall project cost, transit connections, construction issues, and business mitigation strategies. Other advisory committees, including a Citizen Advisory Committee and a Business Advisory Committee, are also planned. Recommended Action Motion to nominate one official and one alternate representative to the Corridor Management Committee.