090214 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
September 2, 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
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event
the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal
sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes:
1. City Council Meeting - August 6, 2014 3-8
2. Special Council/Manager Meeting - August 6, 2014 9
B. Approval of Check Register
1. City Register 10
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 11
C. Licenses:
1. Solicitor's License - NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota 12-14
2. General Business License 15
3. Temporary On-Sale Malt liquor Special Event Permit for Golden Valley Days Art 16-17
& Music Festival
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - July 14, 2014 18-33
2. Open Space and Recreation Commission - June 30, 2014 34
E. Bids and Quotes:
1. Award Contract for 2014 Hampshire Park Shelter Roof Replacement 35-38
F. Schaper Pond Diversion Project 39-54
a. Authorize Cooperative Agreement with Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission
b. Authorize Professional Engineering Services with Barr Engineering Company
G. Authorization to Sign the Amended Agreement with Breck School for Community 55-58
Service Officer
H. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine Brookview Park 59-60
I. Call for Public Hearing - Certification of Special Assessments - 10/7/14 61
J. Set Date for Public Hearing - 2015-2016 Budget and 2015 Property Tax Levy - 12/2/14 62
K. Receipt of July 2014 Financial Reports 63-71
L. Resolution 14-70 Approval of Plat - Fretham Twenty-Five 14-70 72-74
M. Approval of One-year Extension of Zoning Code Variance for 1315 Angelo Drive 75-82
N. Receive & File Letter regarding application for Minor Subdivision for Hanson Wood
Shore
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM
A. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 527 - Amendments to the Zoning Map - 83-84
305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant
B. Continued Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117 - 85
305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant
C. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Hanson Wood Shores - Wessin Property 86-135
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution 14-71 Adopting a Proposed 2014 - 2015 Budget and Tax Levies Payable 136-14:
in 2015
B. Announcements of Meetings
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
�r
u m UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 6, 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
1C. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Presentation
Ms. Susan Blood, Executive Director; Ms. Melanie Christenson, City Board Member; and Ms.
Anita Perkin, Program Coordinator, reviewed the programs and services offered Council.
The City Council thanked the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council and staff for the
presentation and their hard work.
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to
approve the agenda of August 6, 2014, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to
approve the consent agenda of August 6, 2014 as revised to remove items: 3E-Second
Consideration Ordinance No. 526-Amending Section 9.07, 3F-Second Consideration
Ordinance No. 525-Amending Section 2.30-2.36, 3G-Resolution Authorizing Cooperative
Agreement for Brogger Circle Drainage Improvements, and 31-Resolution Authorizing Sale of
Excess Equipment and the motion carried unanimously.
3A1. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted.
3A2. Approve Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register and authorize the
payments of the bills as submitted.
3B. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows:
1. Planning Commission - June 9, 2014
2. Environmental Commission - June 23, 2014
3. Board of Zoning Appeals - May 27, 2014
3C Approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff.
3D. Approve an On-Sale, Sunday Sale Liquor License for change in ownership at Red
Lobster Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Red Lobster#0157.
City Dena�nts,
3G Adopt Resolution 14 60 AutheFizing GoepeFative AgFeement with Hennepin Coun
3H. To receive and file the June 2014 Financial Reports.
31. Adopt Resolution 14 61 AutheFizing Sale ef ExGess EquipmeRt.
3J. Adopt Resolution 14-62 Authorizing Application to MnDOT Community Roadside
Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac Planting.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- August 6, 2014
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
3E. Adopt Second Consideration of Ordinance No. 526 -Amending Section 9.07-
Winter Parking Regulations
Street Maintenance Supervisor Ray presented the staff report and answered questions from
the Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt
Ordinance No. 526, 2nd Series, an Ordinance amending the City Code relating to
Section 9.07, Winter Parking Regulations on second consideration, upon a vote being taken,
the following voted in favor thereof: Schmidgall, Snope, Harris and Fonnest and the following
voted against: Clausen, and the motion carried.
3F. Adopt Second Consideration of Ordinance No. 525 -Amending Section 2.30-2.36
- City Departments
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to
adopt Ordinance No. 525, an Ordinance amending Sections of City Code relating to the
Departments of the City on second consideration, upon a vote being taken, the following
voted in favor thereof: Schmidgall, Snope, Harris and Fonnest and the following voted
against: Clausen and the motion carried.
3G Adopt Resolution 14-60 Authorizing Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin
County for Brogger Circle Drainage Improvements
City Manager Burt presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council.
MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Resolution
14-60, authorizing the Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for Storm Sewer
Improvements necessary for the Brogger Circle Drainage Project and to authorize agreement
with Hennepin County for Cooperative Agreement No. PW 17-13-14 for Medicine Lake Road
(CSAH 70) as part of County Project No. 1440 and the motion carried unanimously.
31. Adopt Resolution 14-61 Authorizing Sale of Excess Equipment
City Manager Burt presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to
adopt Resolution 14-61 authorizing sale of excess equipment (self-contained breathing
apparatus and related equipment) and the motion carried unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Hanson Wood Shores - Property
South of Major/Noble Drives and West of Sweeney Lake
City Manager Burt presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Harris closed the
public hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to table
this item to the September 2, 2014, City Council meeting, and the motion carried
unanimously.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- August 6, 2014
413. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72,
Amendment#2 - 7475 Country Club Drive -Albert Miller, Applicant
Assistant City Manager Knauss presented the staff report and answered questions from the
Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from the Council.
Mr. Link Wilson, Architect for the project, presented background information on other similar
projects and answered questions from the Council.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rollie Paten, 7442 Olson Memorial Highway, stated he was the person that submitted
the Skyline Plaza Association concerns to the City Planner. He added he is the president of
the Skyline Association. He is concerned that the grade of the hill is very steep from the
facilities parking lot to Skyline's parking lot. He added that after a rain storm, Skyline
residents realized that construction debris was used as fill for the hill. Regarding Skyline
residents' concerns about trash blowing into their parking lot, he stated it has been an
ongoing issue for this property. Even though the property has been vacant for three years, he
would like the new owners to be aware of this issue. He stated he was also concerned about
the mature trees that will have to be taken down due to the fact he feels the trees are holding
the hill in place. He said that he would welcome the new facility to the area feels that they will
be a good neighbor. He added that he drives by Country Club Road daily and the grass is so
high he feels he needs to report it to City Hall.
Mr. Peter Pluwak, 510 Kelly Drive, stated he had missed the first meeting but questioned
why the facility is being changed to an assisted living and memory care unit since it was
previously a senior living facility.
Mayor Harris closed the public hearing.
Mr. Albert Miller, Applicant, answered questions from the Council. Mr. Link Wilson answered
questions from the Council.
There was much Council discussion regarding the purposed Preliminary PUD Plan for
Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment #2 located at 7475 Country Club Drive.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to
approve the Preliminary Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72, Amendment No. 2, subject to
the following conditions and the motion carried unanimously.
1. The plans prepared by Kaas Wilson Architects and submitted with the application on
June 13, 2014, shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire
Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 6, 2014,
shall become a part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works
Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 8, 2014,
shall become a part of this approval.
4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's
Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73).
5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20).
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- August 6, 2014
413. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex PUD - continued
With additional conditions added:
7. The Applicant shall address the concerns raised by the Skyline Plaza Association.
8. The Applicant shall be required to have snow taken off-site.
9. Staff shall confirm the parking overflow arrangements.
10. The Applicant shall add a bike rack.
In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55,
Subd. 5(E):
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher
quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional
provisions of the ordinance.
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the
land.
4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6A. Adopt Resolution 14-63 Establishing the Departments of the City
City Manager Burt presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council.
There was much Council discussion regarding establishing the Departments of the City.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to
adopt Resolution 14-63 establishing the Departments of the City, upon a vote being taken,
the following voted in favor thereof: Fonnest, Snope, Harris and Schmidgall and the following
voted against: Clausen, and the motion carried.
613. Adopt Resolution 14-64 Modifying 2014 General Wages and Salary for New
Physical Development Director, Planning Manager, and Associate Planner/Grant
Writer Positions
City Manager Burt presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council.
There was much Council discussion regarding the proposed wages and salaries for the
department positions.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to
adopt Resolution 14-64, Modifying 2014 General Wages and Salary for New Physical
Development Director, Planning Manager, and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Positions,
upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Fonnest, Snope, Harris and
Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen, and the motion carried.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- August 6, 2014
6C. Adopt Resolutions 14-65 and 14-66 Approval of Plat - Olson Tralee
Assistant City Manager Knauss presented the staff report and answered questions from the
Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest and seconded by Council Member Snope to
adopt Resolution 14-65, Rescinding Resolution 14-58 Approving Plat - Olson Tralee and the
motion carried unanimously.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest and seconded by Council Member Snope to
adopt Resolution 14-66, for Approval of Plat - Olson Tralee and the motion carried
unanimously.
6D. Announcements of Meetings.
A Special Council/Manager Meeting regarding Economic Development for Winnetka and
Medicine Lake will be held immediately following the City Council meeting in the Council
Conference Room.
A Concert in the Park featuring the Bob the Beachcomber will be held on August 11, 2014, at
7 pm at Brookview Park.
The Primary Election will be held on August 12, 2014. The polls will be open from 7 am to 8
pm at the various polling locations.
A Movie in the Park featuring The Lego Movie will be held on August 14, 2014, at 8:30 pm at
Brookview Park.
A Neighborhood meeting for the 221 Paisley Lane Subdivision will be held on August 14,
2014, at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room.
The Ribbon Cutting Event for the Lawn Bowling will be held on August 14, 2014, from 6 to 8
pm at Brookview Golf Course.
The Grand Opening for Lawn Bowling will be held this weekend starting at 11 am at
Brookview Golf Course and will included free bowling for the weekend.
The next City Council Meeting will be held on August 19, 2014, at 6:30 pm.
The next Council/Manager Meeting will be held on August 21, 2014, at 6:30 pm in the
Council Conference Room.
6E. Mayor and Council Communications.
The Star Tribune West Extra section of August 6, 2014, had an article regarding Wirth Lake.
It has been determined that the body of water is no longer impaired. The lake is great for
swimming and fishing. The Council thanked the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission and the City for making our water systems better.
The Council thanked the Police Department for coordinating more than 40 Night to Unite
events. The Council thanked the Police Officers they rode with during the event, and stated
they enjoyed meeting with the residents. The Council thanked all of the Police Officers for
their service.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -6- August 6, 2014
7. Adjournment
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest and the
motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 pm.
Shepard Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
llinn
1UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL COUNCIL/MANAGER MEETING
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 6, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 8:57 pm.
1A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope.
1 B. Economic Development - Winnetka Avenue North and Medicine Lake Road
City Manager Burt presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council
Council discussed possible development in the Winnetka Avenue North East of Medicine
Lake Road Area. No developer had made submittal but has contacted some property
owners.
Council also discussed other areas for possible re-development in the City.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city of
gotaet!il '-4�' M E M 0 R A N D U M
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
August 19, 2014
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. 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
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
August 19, 2014
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
• Document sent via email
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
city 0
golden 1 1 MEMORANDUM
valley City Administration/Council
763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Solicitor's License- NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota
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 NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.
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
t�A
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ k
7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons:
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler Solicitor
(circle
Enclose the sum of$ 5 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.
lVf�l�i�Lr�
(Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed)
OEIN% q//..2& -7°l'�C�
MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN)
Define Business Novi—
prok6-
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partne ip, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual)
2_3oo M r4-le I � l'10
(Address)
u - �� , l�l(� 6Y11
City, State and Zip Code)
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, of pSOJ�► hereby makes application for
(Applicant Name)
period of ,3 26Yythrou 2/31/ subject to the conditions and provisions of said
City C dT.
/ A
(Sig ture of Applican i pal Officer)
Description of goo services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations.
If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific):
No ge-vA wX �e sa&4- Z?vor-4v Oe� 0vt+eAeAf
Z4t,e41;1;(1n mut 'A�tA- i6Lk& �4r k—c—'at film
NOTE: If the products for sale a e 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:
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF
, � � � ' Vyi'L of
(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.
5 ature Applicant/ icer)
Subs ribed and swor to before me this
y of , 20
(Signature)
LISA M.CLASEN
Notary Pubic
LIS
SEN Mines�oM 1019
N _ �q
no
•ss n J 31 20ig
4 v
city 0valley�
go1den1!kv\4r M E M 0 R A N D U M
Inspections Department
763-593-8090/763-593-3997 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. General Business Licenses
Prepared By
Shannon Dietrich, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the
License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an application for
approval.
#7440 ABC Cars & Leasing, LLC New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00
1200 Mendelssohn Ave N
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff.
city 0
goicien MEMORANDUM
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. Temporary On-Sale Malt Liquor Special Event Permit - Hire A Host/Rudolph's BBQ
Catering for Golden Valley Days Art & Music Festival
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
The Golden Valley Days Art & Music Festival continues to grow in its success. This year, the Valley
Days Committee has partnered with Hire A Host, a partner of Rudolph's BBQ Catering to sell beer
on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon to 10 pm. The Festival will be returning to their
original "under the water tower" City campus location. The sale of beer will be in a fenced area
and monitored by Golden Valley Community Foundation volunteers who will check ID's and tag
those who are identified as of legal drinking age.
The City Code does provide for temporary sales of malt liquor with Council approval. Hire A
Host/Rudolph's BBQ Catering will provide a certificate of liquor liability insurance naming the City
as an additional insured in the amount of$1,000,000.
Attachment
• Site Plan
Recommended Action
Motion to approve a temporary malt liquor license for Hire A Host/Rudolph's BBQ Catering on
behalf of the Golden Valley Days Art & Music Festival contingent upon receipt of certificate of
liquor liability insurance certificate for Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon to 10 pm on the
City campus.
N
d
d v^
�O
C J
Y
d C
L a Y
CL = d
L
.2 CL
d a. IL° Z
C>vCP > z
ed
LL1v\0 d O L
L
C
(Y v
C
Y
L
d
W
a.
°
a -°a a
C L
Z j a
° Parade>
Handicap
Parking Comm. Org. &
0
° Area (22) Art Entr.
(Portable signs by City)
d
Sign/Banner/Balloons
° t�h O
oo0 01
d
a `\L HC z
w
Barr.3)
OBD 0 s Z
L
�0 ° ° o° d J
d d D Art Fair z L
d a 10-Booths z d A
0
L 4 ¢ Y CK
CK
Q. 4 o, o +1 L
Op W d
,15 CL O o h C a.
tL
M A ❑ a obi a > �`� L L
Y �° a V
a C
Go
LD £
Musician Drive Thru> �`dLi c$ 3
mor QJ
Dropoff 'a
d
Comm. Or & L
Music Gener. g' d --
❑ Art Dropoff (L I V I
6-
`_=' Keernts (2)
tage ,60 ❑O, ° ivi
�OMMa ® gorr
Music �bO ran, O; °
Seating
A { O Leet d °
r O p e ��°� I \� ° °
11-90 �
Beer °
❑Sound Q
Ball on Arch 2� �b Icnic Tables
B w O O'
Wel one Sign , 0 O �•
(3'x15') GVCEF �GVJ - `�—��
O Welcome Booth�`� Hist_Soc, O'Q
16 picnic tables (by City) O r_Yi \\
12 trash cans (City)
Z ® 60 chairs (GVCEF) L i i \ 4,0
I L I
LJ FT Food ¢t{\e KC - ----^� L i i pot
Trucks Q�°�r'® -'9E
i d
10-9 I S j`!
m m h�drrn s I d V l
Y FT FT FT i 10aM es I 0)`i i '
d= I
W FTEl::���
{s I Q I
Z
Z __ i m
I-I ® `C I
I 1
3 Trash ECar Show Tent
8 cy t uu�"�vcEFr❑ °o a ��\
Bathrooms (4) Pow outlets for
(w/ 1 handicap) for hlldren's games uy
=L
06
IL a_
Lj
t
�o- �O
City
rkVehicle V
Pain O d
Parking L 6
x, O d
dLQ tark
Balloon Arch q3
Welcome Sign
(3'x15')
Saturday 9/13/14
Food Truck & —
GV ART/MUSIC FESTIVAL Entrancevintae
Car Barr.(2) E� ROPE
1"=70' Rev. 8/29/14 vP��
Prepared by1
Peter Knaeble 612-309-9215
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 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,
July 9, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Boudreau-Landis, Cera,
Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development
Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
June 9, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
June 23, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to page three of the June 9 minutes and clarified that her concern
regarding the Tennant proposal going to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission is
that the different phases of development will be scaled back and will be too small to be
required to go to the Commission.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve
the June 9, 2014, and June 23, 2014, minutes with the above noted clarification.
2. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — Intersection
of Noble Drive and Major Drive — Hanson Wood Shores — SU06-06
Applicant: George Wessin
Address: Intersection of Noble Drive and Major Drive
Purpose: The proposed subdivision would reconfigure the existing single family
residential lot into two new single family residential lots.
Zimmerman explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing, vacant lot
located south of Major/Noble Drives and west of Sweeney Lake into two separate lots.
He reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their March 24, 2014, meeting
to allow for negotiations between the applicant and other landowners in the area
regarding future development.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and stated that both lots exceed the
minimum requirements. Lot 1 would be 80,344 square feet with 80 feet of width at the
front setback, and Lot 2 would be 97,433 square feet with 87 feet of width at the front
setback.
Zimmerman stated that staff has concerns about the lengthy driveways, the distance to a
water supply, the ability to turn around, and the water and sanitary sewer services. He
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 2
said that ultimately, the City would like to see orderly and coordinated development,
adequately served by sewer and water, but without cooperation, the only option to
preserve right-of-way now, and to accommodate future development, is to require 30 feet
of right-of-way be dedicated to allow for the possibility of a future street. He stated that the
applicant does not feel that dedicating land is necessary or appropriate. However, it is
clearly in the City's interest to avoid an expensive taking in the future by requiring land for
access now. He stated that without the dedication of right-of-way staff is recommending
denial of this proposal.
Cera asked about the landowner to south (1801 Noble Ave.) and his offer at the last
Planning Commission meeting to pay for a new street. Zimmerman said he believes that
offer has been pulled back and that discussions between the property owners didn't get
that far.
Segelbaum asked if the owner of 1801 Noble Ave. did not want to subdivide his property
if the dedication of land would still be necessary. Zimmerman said yes, dedications
happen as development occurs and opportunities arise. Segelbaum asked if the applicant
would still be required to pay for a new street even though he is not required to build it.
Zimmerman said there are a number of ways to finance the construction of the street.
Segelbaum noted that the Fire Chief's memo was worded more strongly than Zimmerman
stated in his presentation. Zimmerman explained that the memo in the agenda packet
was written by the former Fire Chief. Since then, the applicant has changed his plans
slightly and the current Fire Chief feels a little more comfortable with the new location of
the proposed homes.
Boudreau-Landis asked if the dedication of right-of-way takes away the viability of Lot 2 in
regard to lot width. Zimmerman said yes, however, Lot 2 would gain frontage along the
new street.
Jacqueline Day, 1334 Spring Valley Road, representing the applicant, stated that Roy
Lecy (owner of 1801 Noble Drive) offered to pay for the new road, but when all the
neighboring property owners met, he said he would not pay for the road, he would front
the money for it, but whoever uses the road was going to have to pay for it. She said that
is when Mr. Wessin backed out of conversations with Mr. Lecy. She stated that in order to
build a road the existing sanitary sewer will have to be removed, and football fields of dirt
would have to be moved. Kluchka stated that the City isn't asking that the road be
constructed at this time.
Day said the plan the applicant has submitted makes sense for the neighborhood. She
said doing the things the City is requiring would go against everything Mr. Wessin
believes in, and what the neighborhood wants. She referred to the City's Comprehensive
Plan and stated that a goal listed in that plan is to protect and respect traditional
neighborhoods. She said Mr. Wessin will have to come back with a higher density plan to
make his proposal work with the required road. She stated that Mr. Lecy has no hardships
with his property at 1801 Noble which was marketed as one home, not for a development,
because there is no frontage. She said there were other offers made for the purchase of
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 3
the home at 1801 Noble and if those offers were accepted they would not be here right
now. She stated that Sweeney Lake is listed as impaired, and now there is blue-green
algae in the lake, which they've never had before which is terribly concerning to all the
lake owners. She said what the Planning Commission doesn't understand is that this is
not 12 acres of beautiful land, ready to develop. It is a low, natural prairie doing its job of
filtering the lake. She wants to keep it natural and let it do its job. She said Mr. Wessin is
much more interested in doing what was done on the peninsula at Hidden Lakes. She
showed the Commission several pictures of properties in the area that have turned their
yards into natural areas.
Segelbaum asked Ms. Day if the applicant is against dedicating 30 feet of right-of-way,
paying for the new road, or both. Day said there is no legal reason for the applicant to
dedicate right-of-way. She stated that the applicant would like to build two homes and that
they are in talks with two existing homeowners to buy the property.
Kluchka asked Ms. Day if the applicant is interested in continuing with the utility planning.
Day stated that the plan is to put in the utilities as shown and there is no necessity to do
any more plans because they are done.
Day showed the Commission several more pictures of properties in the area. She said
that Mr. Wessin is being put in the position where the only way it will make any sense is to
do high density and that is not what he wants to do. She stated that there is no reason for
future development to come up, so she doesn't understand why they need to put in a
road.
Scott Lucas, Olson & Lucas, applicant's attorney, said this is a minor subdivision
application and Section 12.20 of the Subdivision Code does not apply to minor
subdivisions. He said this is going to be a hardship on his client and questioned if the
road would be constructed before his client sells the lots. He said when Mr. Lecy bought
1801 Noble Drive, he knew he was purchasing one single family lot with a 20-foot wide
driveway. He said that staff telling Mr. Wessin to go work out a deal, or be denied is not
fair. He stated that Mr. Wessin lost his home to foreclosure and is of retirement age, and
this is unfair to his client.
Kluchka said he has two issues that he can look at as findings or conditions. The first is
that a utility plan must be completed and the second is that the requested right-of-way
must be dedicated. Segelbaum noted that the applicant has made it clear that he is not
interested in dedicating any right-of-way.
Baker questioned if the Commission would feel differently if the applicant came back to
the City with a covenant saying no further subdivisions would occur. Cera said he is
considering the whole area and this proposal is a "piece meal" development. He stated
that there won't be one property owner paying for the road, it would be paid for by several
different owners once the property is subdivided and the road is built. Waldhauser added
that there are other property owners in the area that will need access in order to subdivide
their property as well.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 4
Segelbaum said that while he is sympathetic to the applicant, he wishes he could work
with the staff recommendations.
Waldhauser said she would appreciate a more detailed response to the applicant's
attorney's points on whether road planning is or is not required. Zimmerman stated that
there are provisions in the City Code that allow the requiring of dedication to be done.
Waldhauser questioned if the City has discretion of requiring, or not requiring the
dedication. Grimes said no, the City has to provide access for future development. He
added that if the property to the south (1801 Noble Drive) chooses to subdivide, staff
would not recommend keeping the existing 20-foot wide driveway to serve two or three
new lots. Cera said there are also fire concerns and utility concerns.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the Single Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable.
Conditions:
1. A preliminary utility plan must be provided that better illustrates a feasible extension of
sewer and water to the new lots.
2. The City requires the dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the extension of a
public street and a cul-de-sac. Additional easements are required as outlined in the
July 10, 2014, memo from the Public Works Department.
3. A park dedication fee of$20,800 (2% of estimated land market value) shall be paid by
the applicant prior to final plat approval.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 221 Paisley Lane — Paisley
Lane Woods — SU12-16
Applicant: LDK Builders, Inc.
Address: 221 Paisley Lane
Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new
single family residential lots.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request
to subdivide the property into two separate lots. He stated that the existing home would
be removed, and two new homes would be built. Lot 1 would be 22,958 square feet with
93.4 feet of width at the front setback and Lot 2 would be 24,129 square feet with 90
feet of width at the front setback, both of which exceed the Zoning Code requirements.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 5
He stated that a neighbor has expressed concern regarding the size of the existing cul-
de-sac and the ability to maneuver emergency vehicles. The Fire Chief has confirmed
that the size of the cul-de-sac is adequate, and that the City is willing to consider
restricting parking to one side during construction only, to help alleviate concerns.
Zimmerman said that there has also been concern about tree preservation and
explained that up to 20% of the trees on each lot (40% total) are allowed to be removed.
Matt Pavek, Civil Site Group, engineer for the project said this is a pretty simple,
straightforward subdivision request that meets all of the requirements of the Zoning
Code and Subdivision Code.
Kluchka asked if the proposed new homes would be spec homes or custom homes.
Pavek said he doesn't know yet.
Segelbaum asked if the applicant would be willing to pay for the widening of the cul-de-
sac. Pavek stated that he didn't think so, because the cul-de-sac was just re-built a
couple of years ago.
Blum asked what will happen to the group of existing trees located at the end of the cul-
de-sac. Pavek said he anticipates that the entire grouping of trees won't be disturbed.
Baker asked about the price range of the proposed new homes. Pavek said the price
range would be between $500,000 and $700,000.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, submitted a petition signed by people opposed to the
proposed subdivision. She said there are many people in attendance who want to
address conflicts with the plans, and how this is destroying the neighborhood.
Brian Walvatne, 227 Paisley Lane, said he recorded the fire truck accessing the cul-de-
sac and put in on YouTube. He referred to Section 12.20 in the Subdivision Code and
noted that it states the design standards call for a closed end turn-around with an
outside diameter of 100 feet, and a street right-of-way diameter of 120 feet. He said the
existing cul-de-sac has a maximum diameter of 54 feet, as measured by Jeff Oliver,
which makes it difficult for commercial vehicles, snow plows and garbage trucks to
maneuver. They have to back out because they can't make a loop. He urged the
Planning Commission to deny this proposal. He asked how the developer arrived at 80
feet of width, and if they are using part of the radius to measure the width. He read from
the June 23 Planning Commission minutes regarding a different item where measuring
the width of a lot using a horizontal line was discussed. He said in this case, they are
not using a horizontal line they are using the circumference of a circle.
Peter McAllister, 210 Edgewood Avenue North, stated that goal number two in the
Comprehensive Plan is to protect traditional neighborhoods. He said the plans show an
oak tree that might be partially on his property, and he would like to know for sure if it is
on his property. He said it is his understanding that many oak trees have died in other
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 6
LDK projects. He said he is also concerned that the applicant doesn't have proposed
designs for the houses yet because one could be 19 feet away from his property. He
said there is a downhill slope going toward his property, and he wants to know what will
happen with run-off because he doesn't want mud to destroy his property. He said he
doesn't like the idea that the proposed silt fence will be on his property either.
Ann Cooper, 316 Meander Road, said she watched the house being built at 308
Meander Road and how it has changed the land and trees. She said she is concerned
about her trees, and that she has a very unusual stand of 300 year old oak trees. She
said when long term planning is discussed the importance of trees to the community is
often included. She said she grew up in Golden Valley seeing gophers, pheasant, and
quail, and has noted 45 different species of birds. She said people walk their children
there and people from businesses walk there because it is a special place. She said she
is concerned that without trees there will be a lot more run-off and with every additional
house that is built, land and trees have changed. She said she doesn't want trees to die
and she wants legacy trees taken care of. She said there are many trees on the 221
Paisley Lane property that are already dead and should not count toward ones they are
saving. She said she wants the developer to work with neighbors regarding the shared
trees, and she wants the developer held accountable.
Jim Fredkove, 26 Paisley Lane, said that this property is a high point in the
neighborhood and the approval of this proposal will result in changes to the retention of
the groundwater, the rainwater, and the melting snow. He asked how the City holds
developers financially responsible to ensure existing drainage patterns are maintained
without negative impacts to neighboring properties. He said rain gardens will not
address the situation. He said that a tree preservation plan or a grading and erosion
control plan doesn't allow for public comment so he has concerns that this will be
addressed properly. He said he hopes the City will be proactive and will require the
developer to put money an escrow account to mitigate any potential issues to the
surrounding areas. He said in the past, promises have been made and promises have
been broken, and he doesn't want the City to be sued by homeowners because of this.
Robert Kolasa, 117 Paisley Lane, said he is concerned about preserving native
vegetation. He referred to the tree preservation plan and discussed the trees that are
proposed to be removed. He said some trees that are marked to be saved are already
dead, or trees that have a three-trunk system are being counted as three trees. He said
he finds it ironic that the developer doesn't have to remove invasives and that buckthorn
is not counted as a tree for removal. He added that the prior owner made an effort to
remove buckthorn. He showed the Commission several pictures of the trees on the
property, and said he wants the forester to take a closer look at what is being counted.
Jerry Kassanchuk, 235 Paisley Lane, said he moved here because it is a special area.
He said dividing this one large lot into two, and putting in two cookie cutter homes is not
going to be good for the neighborhood. He said the three new houses east of his on
Meander Road are an indication of how this can hurt the neighborhood. He referred to
the Comprehensive Plan and reiterated that one of the goals in the plan is to preserve
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 7
traditional neighborhoods and this is a traditional neighborhood. He said the developer
could build a million dollar home, make the same profit, and not hurt anyone.
Jean-Philippe Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said the lot is very hilly, probably the steepest
hill in the neighborhood, and is covered with dense woods with a foot of leaves. He said
he doesn't know how much of it will be removed, but the water is going to run off the
property. He said that even though on paper the property can be subdivided, he is not
so sure it is a good idea. He said it would be nice if the Planning Commissioners could
walk the neighborhood and actually see the lot. He said if the neighbors can't do
anything about the subdivision it would be very nice if the builder(s) could build
something like what was already built before.
Brad Gilmore, 208 Paisley Lane, said it is their goal to present a strong and unified
voice. He said they do not support this subdivision because it adversely affects the
residents by putting strain on the cul-de-sac and the likely erosion and run-off. He said
there are water issues in this neighborhood, and he has installed $13,000 of drain tile.
He said the subdivision will adversely affect the remarkable wildlife in the area, and
these are matters that should be respected and considered as being very important. He
said the subdivision doesn't preserve the character of their neighborhood. They have
modest houses, every house is different, and what is happening in the neighborhood
will change that forever. He said their neighborhood was laid out 60-plus years ago and
questioned if anyone has the right to change was set up 60 years ago, and it just seems
wrong. He said the subdivision adversely affects the quiet peacefulness of their wide
open space. He said many of them who recently bought in to the neighborhood paid a
premium to raise their children there because of the way the neighborhood feels, so by
developing this neighborhood the way they feel it is being developed will take away from
the value of their houses and conflicts with why he bought his house in Golden Valley.
He said the real problem that he has with what is going on is the quality of the
construction being put in the neighborhood. He said he feels terrible for the people who
are buying these $500,000 to $700,000 houses because in 5 to 12 years they are going
to be falling into the swamp they are being built on. He said he wants to know who is
approving construction that is surrounded by water on three sides and he wants to know
that everything is being taken care of. He said when he sees examples of what he is
trying to avoid, that is when he raises his hand and says it has to be looked at, at the
very least, and stopped at the very best. He said this neighborhood is at a tipping point
and this is a unique situation and he doesn't know where else this is happening. They
have lots up to one acre in size, and the old houses are at a stage where they could be
torn down as a cost effective measure so for $200,000 per lot, a $300,000, 4,000
square foot house at the lowest construction price per square foot could be built. This
concerns him because it's temporary, and will change the look of the neighborhood, and
the properties will fall into the hands of people who really don't care about their
neighborhood.
Stacy Hoschka, address not given, stated that she is a Bassett Creek Watershed
Commissioner attending the meeting to listen. She stated that the drainage plans will go
through a review process and that the Watershed Commission's number one priority is
flooding, and the flooding of homes. She said some of the water issues can be
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 8
mitigated. She stated that with respect to silt fences, and storm drains, because this
property is on top of a hill, it could be a reasonable concern that the silt fences could fall
apart, so she strongly urged the developer to submit a "beefed-up" plan, and to have
inspections of the silt fences and storm sewer intakes. She referred to the tree
preservation plan and questioned the removal of the trees that are dead and/or fragile,
or if they are located in a position where they could be damaged or die, are counted
toward the trees that are saved, but could be counted in what is removed. She stated
that she lives in a house, on an acre lot that was homesteaded in 1856, and there was a
lot of concern when she bought her house about what was going to happen to the birds,
etc., but she kept the house the way it is, so it is doable, and it is a very nice way to live.
Sean O'Neill, 209 Meander Road, said he is concerned about the practices of the
builders, and how they're building the new homes, because when the new houses near
him were built it was a mud pit for months while truck after truck brought in dirt. He said
another concern is keeping silt off roads and out of the streams and sewers because
there is a lot of water in the area. He said he is concerned about the integrity of the
neighborhood because the existing homes are set back, and don't look alike. He said he
was amazed when the builder of the new homes on Meander built two of the same
homes next to each other. He said he wants this new proposal done responsibly, so it
blends in with the neighborhood.
Kathleen Watkins, 112 Paisley Lane, said she moved here because the lots were big,
the houses were in the middle, there were grown trees, and she didn't have to worry
about her kids playing in the neighborhood. She said she understands the day has
come for subdivisions, but questioned how they will get two houses on this property
because of the steep incline. It will change the elevation, and she thinks a more creative
architect or builder could address the subdivision better than any LDK homes she has
seen. She said there is a drainage issue and this will add to those problems.
John Rode, 205 Paisley Lane, asked who is going to take care of the mud slide when it
happens. He said the applicants were surveying the property in March and they still
don't have plans for the houses. He said his sump pump runs more now than it did
before the streets were reconstructed. He said there is not room for these new houses
and he is totally against the proposal.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka referred to the cul-de-sac requirements and asked if the Subdivision Code
requires the existing cul-de-sac to be expanded. Zimmerman said the requirements in
the Subdivision Code would apply if a new cul-de-sac was being proposed. Grimes
added that streets and cul-de-sacs are built narrower to reduce impervious surface. He
stated that one new home will add approximately 10 trips per day and the cul-de-sac is
adequate for this proposal. Waldhauser asked if the neighbors could pay for a wider cul-
de-sac. Grimes said the neighbors could petition the City for the cul-de-sac to be
widened at their cost.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 9
Kluchka asked about the grading plan. Grimes stated that each lot will have an
individual grading plan and tree preservation plan, and that the City Engineer is satisfied
the grading will work.
Waldhauser asked if impaired or dead trees are excluded from the tree count, and
asked about the accuracy of the count. Kluchka said the final count will be confirmed by
the City Forester. Grimes added that the City does not require buckthorn to be removed.
Segelbaum asked about trees that straddle a property line. Zimmerman said he would
defer to the Forester in that situation.
Kluchka asked about the City's approach in making sure that drainage plans are
appropriate. Zimmerman stated that drainage plans are reviewed during the building
permit process and reiterated that the proposed subdivision will not be allowed to make
any existing drainage issues worse. Segelbaum asked what assurances there are that
drainage plans will work, and if there is any type of post-construction recourse against a
builder if there are problems. Baker said he wants to be sure the City Council knows
that this is an issue they need to address. He said he is sympathetic to the loss of
character, but that can be changed if residents push for it.
Boudreau-Landis asked if other cities have separate zoning districts. Grimes said yes.
Segelbaum said he does not see a way the Planning Commission can recommend
denial of this.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval to approve the Paisley Lane Woods minor subdivision subject to
the following findings and conditions
Findings:
1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the Single Family
Residential (R-1) 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$1,540 shall be paid before final plat approval.
3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated July 7, 2014, shall become part of this
approval.
4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots.
5. A neighborhood meeting held by the applicant must be held before City Council
consideration.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 10
4. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary 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 114-unit
assisted living and memory care facility.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to expand the
existing vacant senior living facility at 7475 Country Club Drive from 60 units to 114
units consisting of 77 assisted living units and 37 memory care units. He referred to the
parking plans and stated that the Zoning Code requires 23 parking spaces and the
applicant is proposing 28 parking spaces. He compared the differences between this
PUD proposal and the underlying zoning district.
Waldhauser asked about the amount of impervious surface. Zimmerman stated that lot
coverage is limited to 25% in the Zoning Code and that the applicant is proposing 27%
coverage.
Link Wilson, Architect for the project, referred to renderings of the proposed building
and said that they will be reducing much of the impervious surface by adding pervious
pavers. He said they will be working with the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission on best practices and explained that the existing building size is not
economically viable.
Baker asked how long the building has been vacant. Wilson said he thinks it has been
vacant for three years.
Segelbaum asked if a market study was done and if it showed a need for this type of
proposal. Wilson said a market study has been done and there is certainly a need in this
market.
Waldhauser asked about the range of prices for this type of use. Wilson said the price
ranges haven't been set yet, but they will be below the national average cost for nursing
home care of $6,500 per month.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Edward Ratner, 115 Oregon Avenue South, said he has worked in a numer of types of
these facilities and the issue is cost. He stated that there isn't an adequate number of
affordable units for seniors and asked that a certain number of the units be made
affordable to help serve the community better.
Kate Hiebert, 7421 Glenwood Avenue, said she would like to commend the applicant for
engaging her and being transparent about their plans for the property and addressing
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 11
her issues in their plans. She referred to past requests by Schuller's to construct an
outdoor patio and said she wants to be sure that a request by Schuller's is not in front of
the Planning Commission or City Council at this time and that the neighbors will be kept
informed in that regard.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka asked if the City can require any of the units to be affordable units. Grimes said
if assistance such as Tax Increment Financing, or Community Development Block Grant
funds were being used, the City could require that a certain percentage of the units be
affordable, but those funds are not being used in this case.
Albert Miller, Applicant, said that as a practice, they dedicate 10% of the units as
affordable. Segelbaum asked how that compares to other facilities. Miller stated that
Sunrise in Golden Valley and The Waters in Plymouth don't accept government funds at
all. Baker said Jones-Harrison in Minneapolis accepts government funds.
Segelbaum referred to the neighbor's questions about Schuller's and asked how this
proposal relates to Schuller's. Grimes said it doesn't, Schuller's has not submitted a
proposal for a patio, and if they do, they would have to come before the Planning
Commission and the Council for review and approval.
Waldhauser said this sounds like a great project and that having a more affordable
option for residents is fabulous. She added that the variances aren't an issue in this
case to her because of where the existing building is already situated. Baker agreed
and said he was impressed that the applicant spoke with the neighbors.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex, PUD #72,
Amendment #2, subject to 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.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 12
Conditions:
1. The plans prepared by kass wilson architects and submitted with the application on
June 13, 2014, shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire
Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 6, 2014,
shall become a part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public
Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 8,
2014, shall become a part of this approval.
4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's
Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73).
5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20).
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
5. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment—
305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the
property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium
Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S.
6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania
Avenue South — Z018-04
Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC
Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single
Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to
rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394
Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3)
7. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Laurel Ponds,
PUD #117
Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC
Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 13
Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development
The Informal Public Hearings for Items 5, 6 and 7 were combined as was the
discussion.
Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to construct 30 detached townhomes at
305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. He stated that as part of the PUD proposal,
the properties will need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to Medium
Low Density, and rezoned to Medium Density Residential (R-3). He noted that the R-3
zoning district allows for 5 to 11.9 units per acre, and the proposal is for 9.1 units per
acre.
Zimmerman referred to the site plan and explained that there will be six rows of homes,
each with five single family homes accessed via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that
one private street to the south would dead end with emergency vehicle access via the
Workabilities property, and two other entry points to the north would be connected with
a private loop street. He referred to the parking proposal and noted that internal parking
will be limited to one side of the street except along the east loop, and there are
proposed guest parking bays along Pennsylvania Avenue, or along the east loop
connection, with the possibility of an overflow parking agreement with Workabilities.
Zimmerman stated that the proposed homes would be approximately 2,500 square feet
in size, and would be approximately 10 feet apart from each other. He stated that the
applicant is also proposing to reduce the existing 55-foot wide, drainage and open
space easement along Laurel Avenue to 30 feet, and would like to construct a new
stormwater pond within that easement.
Zimmerman stated that there are a number of issues that will require additional
discussion with the applicant including: streetlights on Pennsylvania Avenue, setbacks
from the single family homes to the north, setbacks from the internal circulation, private
versus public streets, access, easements, parking, utility ownership and maintenance,
hydrants, watermain and sanitary sewer and the existing retaining wall. He stated that
due to the number of issues that need to be addressed, staff is recommending that this
public hearing be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting.
Segelbaum noted that detached townhomes are not listed in the R-3 zoning district and
questioned if using the PUD process is a vehicle to allow them in that district.
Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes aren't addressed as a use in any zoning
district.
Baker asked who would own the land. Zimmerman stated that there would be dues for
maintenance, snow removal, mowing, etc., but the homes would have the feel of a
single family property. Grimes added that he thinks there is a desire for this type of
product, and that the City wants to provide a variety of housing options.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 14
Boudreau-Landis asked about the setbacks of the proposed homes along Pennsylvania
Avenue as opposed to the homes to the north. Zimmerman stated that the proposed
new homes along Pennsylvania Avenue would have a 13-foot front yard setback, and
that the homes to north have a 35-foot front yard setback.
Kluchka referred to the traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue and said he did not see
sidewalks, or pedestrian friendly options on the plans. Zimmerman stated that a
sidewalk is shown on the east side of the property, and that staff is recommending it be
continued to Laurel Avenue. Kluchka said he would like to see that shown on the next
set of plans.
Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, stated that many of the issues were
addressed in the narrative he submitted. He referred to the driveway system and
explained how they would be different than private or public streets. He discussed the
drainage patterns on the site, and said his drainage plan will accomplish what the City is
looking for, and there will only a 2% increase in impervious surface. He showed the
Commissioners renderings of the proposed housing types and discussed how traffic
and emergency vehicles would navigate the site. He referred to the park dedication fees
and stated that it would be a good idea to use the money to continue a sidewalk to the
north. He referred to his tree preservation plan and noted that most of the trees on the
corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues would be preserved. He said he believes
he can address all of the staff's concerns, but his most important issue is the easement
area, and if that easement can't be reduced, it might be a deal killer.
Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has considered any other proposals that show a
greater setback along Pennsylvania Avenue. Jensen said he was not discouraged by
staff regarding the front setback areas, and he wants to have room for porches and
overhangs. He added that rezoning the properties to R-3 only came about when the
single family home to north was added to the project. Waldhauser said she is more
concerned about the setbacks on the north and east that are supposed to be 30 feet,
but will only be 15 feet. She asked if there will be some homes with a smaller footprint.
Baker asked about the price range of the houses. Jensen said it depends how many
units get approved, but he thinks the homes will be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range
which is consistent with the neighboring homes in the vicinity.
Edward Ratner, 115 Oregon Avenue South, said he is very much an advocate for
adding sidewalks. He said it is hard to picture people walking around this site, and it is
not designed for people to walk within the development. He asked how safe the
drainage pond would be, and about the risk of it overflowing. He said there is an
opportunity to have these homes be accessible, multi-generational homes, and it would
be great to add some green space or a playground area. He referred to energy
efficiency and stated that it would be a good expectation to have 220 volt service in the
garages.
Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she loves this neighborhood
and, this property in principal is a good interface between the commercial uses. She
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 15
said there are a lot of pedestrians in the area, and she thinks sidewalks are imperative,
and should be an important element. She said she is concerned about Quebec Avenue
being a shortcut, and the City might want a stop sign at Quebec and Pennsylvania
Avenues. She said she is concerned about the amount of rental housing in the area,
and said there is getting to be a lot of parking on the streets. She said she is concerned
about, and wants a better understanding of, the construction process and what will get
built when, because there could be an extended period of construction. She said she
wants to see a plan of how interruptions to the neighborhood will be handled. She
added that she is impressed with how the applicant has been communicating, and that
this proposal is probably a good choice compared to other things that could go on the
property.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka said he heard a lot about the importance of sidewalks and about the parking on
Pennsylvania Avenue. He asked how different the zoning requirements will be using the
PUD process compared to the R-1 single family requirements. He suggested adding a
condition about fences, and said he loves the concept of multi-generational housing and
a play space, or gathering area because with this much density there is going to be a
demand. He said he would also like to see a neighborhood construction agreement.
Cera said it seems like there is a lot going on this property without enough parking or
any green space. He said if people are paying association fees the will expect more.
Baker said that this is so new and precedent setting that he doesn't want to rush the
process because there is an opportunity to look forward to how the City uses
developments to take advantage of geothermal or other kinds of shared efficiencies. He
said those types of things would make him more excited about this project than he is
now. He questioned if this project will appeal to people with kids or dogs.
Segelbaum said without parking, and without green space, he thinks they are asking for
trouble. Boudreau-Landis agreed, and said he strongly agrees about requiring a
common green space or shared amenities. Jensen stated that liability insurance is an
issue with pools and playgrounds. He added that the sledding hill is an active play
space, and the parks nearby helped form some of the decisions in the plans.
Waldhauser questioned how much variation the developer could do without losing
money. She said $300,000 is low these days, but that is for a house on a standard size
lot, so she doesn't consider these homes to be affordable.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table
these public hearings to the July 28, 2014, Planning Commission agenda.
--Short Recess--
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 16
8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
9. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 pm.
Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting at Brookview Community Center
Minutes
June 30, 2014
1. Call to Order
Mattison called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present: John Cornelius, Bob Mattison, Gillian Rosenquist, Anne Saffert, Jerry
Sandler, Dawn Speltz, Dan Steinberg, Joanie Clausen, Council
Member and Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation.
Absent: Roger Bergman and Kelly Kuebelbeck.
3. Approval of Minutes —April 28, 2014
MOTION: Moved by Sandler and seconded by Cornelius to approve the April
28, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Review Teen Committee Applications for Recommendations to City Council
The commission received and reviewed ten applications for the nine-person
Teen Committee.
MOTION: Moved by Cornelius and seconded by Steinberg to accept all ten
applications, with the youngest grade being an alternate. Motion
carried unanimously.
5. City Park Tour Date
The Commission decided to postpone the park tour until 2015.
6. Vacant Parcels Discussion
Birno said the Environmental Commission requested from staff a list of all vacant
parcels. Mattison suggested the Commission take a look at the lots. Sandler
asked about the urgency. Birno said he will find out and share with the
Commission.
7. Updates
Mattison said at the July meeting, neighbors from the Lions Park area will be
attending to discuss some concerns.
Cornelius said the Brookview Community Center Task Force said they have had
two meetings. They have toured four very different facilities for ideas. He said
the task force is still processing through ideas. The next meeting is scheduled
for Tuesday, July 15.
8. Adjournment
MOTION: MOVED by Mattison and seconded by Steinberg to adjourn at 7:40
PM to attend the Sochacki, Mary Hill and Rice Lake Area Public
Input meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Bob Mattison, Chair
ATTEST:
Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant
Cit0
golden MEMORANDUM
yvalle Public Works Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. E. Award Contract for the 2014 Hampshire Park Shelter Roof Replacement Project No. 14-21
Prepared By
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor
R.J. Kakach, EIT, Engineer
Summary
Work to address building maintenance concerns at the shelters within the City's parks has been
underway for the last few years. The 2014 program includes exterior repairs to the Hampshire
Park shelter building. This work consists of replacing the flat roof portions of the shelter with a
full hip style roof, replacing the metal roof and replacing the plexi-glass roof window with an
insulated window, and improving energy efficiency by adding insulation throughout the building.
Funding for this project is identified in the 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program, Buildings
(page 53). Due to the unanticipated increase in construction costs, funds identified for the Public
Safety Building HVAC Automation System will be utilized as well. Staff will delay the HVAC
automation project to 2015 and reprioritize building projects at that time.
The following bid was received for the 2014 Hampshire Park Shelter Roof Replacement Project:
Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. $112,450
Engineer's Estimate $98,000
Although Flag Builders of Minnesota's estimate was slightly higher than the Engineer's Estimate,
EPI has recommended the award of the project to Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc.
Attachment
• Award recommendation letter from EPI to RJ Kakach, dated August 22, 2014 (1 page)
• EPI Engineer's Estimate (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to award a contract to Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. in the amount of$112,450 for the
2014 Hampshire Park Shelter Roof Replacement Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, INC.
715 Florida Ave.S.,Suite 111 18382 FM 302,Suite 103 V
Golden Valley,MN 55426 Fax: 763-398-0121 Canyon Lake,TX 78133 ,.a.••'"
763-398-3040 Phone: 888-733-3050 830-935-4909
epim ip s@go-epixom wwwgo-e i.com enit3r@go-e in com
August 22,2014
Mr,R.J.Kakach,E.I.T.
Graduate Engineer
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley,Minnesota 55427
Re: City of Golden Valley
Hampshire Park Shelter-2014 Roof Replacement
City Project No.: 14-21
EPI Project No.: 2014-580
Dear Mr.Kakach:
Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) reviewed the City of Golden — Hampshire Park Shelter 2014 Roof
Replacement project work scope with Scott Cooper of Flag Builders of Minnesota,Inc.and there were no
questions. Scott Cooper indicated that they fully understand the scope of work and that they will be ready
to start work in as in the tentative schedule. The work schedule will be discussed in the preconstruction
meeting. Flag Builders of Minnesota,Inc. will be the General Contractor and will use subcontractors for
the roofing,siding,window,and framing.
Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. is based in Golden Valley, Minnesota. EPI has worked with Flag
Builders of Minnesota,Inc. in the past. Flag Builders of Minnesota,Inc.successfully completed the City
of Golden Valley Lion's Park Shelter—2012 Roof Replacement project and the City of Golden Valley—
Building Maintenance Project in 2009,2010, and 2011. Based on the review of project work scope with
Flag Builders of Minnesota,Inc.we recommend awarding the project to them.
EPI recommends that the base bid cost of$112,450.00 for the City of Golden Valley—Hampshire Park
Shelter 2014 Roof Replacement project be accepted from Flag Builders of Minnesota,Inc.
Please call(763)398-3040 with any questions,comments.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS,INC.
Denny R.Langer,PE
Senior Engineer/Project Manager
Copy: Michael Berreau,EPI
EPI File No. 14-580
'1 to p.,lr�
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, INC.
715 Florida Ave,S.Suite 111 18382 FM 302,Suite 103 `"
Golden Valley,MN 55426 Fax: 763-398-0121 Canyon Lake,TX 78133 ..,. + '
763-398-3040 Phone: 888-733-3050 830-935-4909 -e
epim 1p s a go-epi..om www.go-epi.com epitx@go-epi.com
August 21,2014
Mr. R.J. Kakach,E.I.T.
Graduate Engineer
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
Re: City of Golden Valley
Hampshire Park Shelter-2014 Roof Replacement
City Project No.: 14-21
EPI Project No.: 2014-580
Dear Mr. Kakach:
Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) has prepared a construction probable cost for the Hampshire
Park Shelter-2014 Roof Replacement project as follows:
Roof Replacement $66,000.00
Siding,Fascia, Soffit $ 5,500.00
Hip Roof Framing, Sheathing,Insulation $ 6,500.00
Window $ 12,000.00
Asbestos Removal $ 5,000.00
Permits,Bonds,Insurance $ 3,000.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION PROBABLE COST $98,000.00
Please call(763) 398-3040 with any questions,comments.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS,INC.
Denny R.Langer,PE
Senior Engineer/Project Manager
Copy: Michael Berreau,EPI
EPI File No. 14-580
City 0
goldenv4kAr MEMORANDUM
valley Public Works Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. F. Schaper Pond Diversion Project
a. Authorize Cooperative Agreement with the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission
b. Authorize Professional Engineering Services with Barr Engineering Company
Prepared By
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
Sweeney Lake is among the water bodies in Minnesota that the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) lists as impaired waters. Based upon monitoring performed over many years, the
lake is impaired by excess nutrients, specifically phosphorus that is discharged into the lake with
storm water runoff. Excess phosphorus in a water body typically results in excess algae blooms.
Due to Sweeney Lake's status as an impaired water, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC) prepared a Total Maximum Daily Load Study (TMDL) for the lake that was
formally adopted in 2011. The study identified the internal and external phosphorus loading to
the lake and identified potential methods of reducing the phosphorus loading and improving the
water quality. The modification of Schaper Pond, located immediately to the south of the lake,
was specifically identified in the TMDL study as a project that could significantly benefit Sweeney
Lake.
In 2012, on behalf of the BCWMC, the City of Golden Valley retained Barr Engineering Co. to
prepare a feasibility report for the modification of Schaper Pond. The preferred alternative
identified in this feasibility report was the diversion of more storm water into the deepest part of
Schaper Pond to maximize water quality treatment. Furthermore, the feasibility report
determined that up to 100 pounds of phosphorus could be removed from runoff entering
Sweeney Lake as a result of these improvements.
Staff from the City of Golden Valley, the BCWMC and Barr Engineering Co. have met with the
MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to discuss the permitting of the
Schaper Pond Diversion Project and the ramifications to the City's NPDES MS4 permit. The result
of these meetings was a determination that the project could be permitted and constructed, and
that the City and MPCA would continue discussions on the MS4 permit issues.
Based upon these meetings, the BCWMC authorized a Cooperative Agreement with the City of
Golden Valley at its August 21, 2014, meeting to construct the improvements identified in the
feasibility report. In addition, the City requested a letter of proposal from Barr Engineering Co. for
the final design and construction administration for these improvements for a not-to-exceed cost
of$142,400. The project design and construction will be funded by the BCWMC.
This project is included in the City's Capital Improvement Program as project (SS-38, page 79)
with $594,900 funded by the BCWMC and $30,100 from the City's storm water utility, for a total
project budget of$625,000. However, following completion of the feasibility report, the BCWMC
increased it's funding for the project to $612,000. Therefore, including the City's budgeted
amount, the total project budget is now$642,100. The City will be reimbursed periodically during
project design and implementation by the BCWMC.
Attachments
• Cooperative Agreement between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
and the City of Golden Valley (4 pages)
• Agreement for Design and Construction Coordination of the Schaper Pond Improvements
from Barr Engineering Co. to Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, dated August 8, 2014 (10 pages).
Recommended Action
1. Motion to approve the Cooperative Agreement for the design and construction of water
quality improvements at Schaper Park.
2. Motion to authorize entering into an agreement with Barr Engineering Co. for the design and
construction coordination of the Schaper Park Improvements in an amount not to exceed
$142,400.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made as of this day of , 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
Commission 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 ("CII'") that
lists a number of water quality project capital improvements;and
WHEREAS, the water quality projects identified in the CIP include a water quality
improvement project described as Schaper Pond, SL-3 in the City of Golden Valley, as more fully
described in the feasibility report for the Project prepared by Barr Engineering, entitled Feasibility
Report for the Schaper Pond Improvement Project dated February, 2012, which is attached and
made a part hereof(the"Project");and
WHEREAS,the amended cost estimate for the Project is$612,000;and
WHEREAS, the Plan specifies that the Project will be funded by a County tax levy under
Minn. Stat., § 103B.251;and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2013, 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 levied taxes throughout
the watershed for the Project costs in 2013 for collection and settlement in 2014; 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 Schaper Pond, water quality pond, SL-3, specifically
the construction of a diversion structure within Schaper Pond to direct more
stonnwater to the northwest lobe of the pond where more treatment will be provided,
as described in the Feasibility Report for the Schaper Pond Improvement Project.
1
431255v4 CLL BA29543
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
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 Seventy-Eight Thousand Dollars ($78,000) 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 Five Hundred Thirty-Four
Thousand Dollars ($534,000) by tax levy in 2013 for collection in 2014. The total
reimbursement will not exceed Six Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($612,000),
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.
2
43I255v4 CLL BA29543
6. Reimbursement to the City will not exceed the amount specified above from the
Capital Improvement Program Closed Project Account and the amount received
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 books,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 COMMISSION
By:
Its Chair
And by:
Its Secretary
3
431255v4 CLL BA295-43
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Its Mayor
And by:
Its Manager
4
431255"CLL BA29543
resourceful. naturally. BARR
engineering and environmental consultants
August 8,2014
Mr.Jeff Oliver, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Agreement for Design and Construction Coordination of the Schaper Pond improvements
Dear Mr.Oliver:
Thank you for the opportunity submit this proposal to provide engineering services to the City for
constructing improvements to Schaper Pond to improve the water quality treatment efficiency of the
pond. The project is based on a the 2012 feasibility report prepared by Barr Engineering Co.for the
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission(BCWMQ that recommended reconfiguring Schaper
Pond to divert more stormwater flows into a deeper portion of the pond,thus allowing for greater water
quality treatment.
This engineering estimate includes selection of the preferred design alternative,hydraulic modeling of the
selected altemative,survey,soil borings,wetland delineation,final design, preparing plans and
specifications,construction coordination,and permitting.Table 1 summarizes the work items and the
estimated cost.
Project Scope
The project includes the following work tasks.
1. Select preferred design alternative
Based on earlier discussions,city staff indicated that the preferred design alternative was the floating
curtain.We will meet with city staff to review/revisit the design alternatives and to select the preferred
design alternative.Design options we will discuss include an earthen berm and a sheet pile wall, in
addition to the floating curtain.Prior to meeting with city staff,we will prepare cost estimates for each
alternative,including average annual costs.
The selection of the preferred design altemative affects the project schedule,the construction cost,and
the estimated cost for our services to design and coordinate construction of the project(see Estimated
Cost and Schedule section).
Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200,Minneapolis,MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
Mr.Jeff Oliver,P.E.
City Engineer
August 8,2014
Page 2
2. Hydraulic modeling of selected design alternative
We will perform additional modeling of the selected design alternative to determine the final
configuration that will meet the water quality goals of the project while not causing floodplain impacts.
3. Survey
We will perform a detailed topographic survey,and soundings of the pond,in the area around the
proposed flow diversion.
4. Soil borings
Soil borings will be required in the area if a sheetpile wall is used and may be required where anchors for
the flow diverter are to be placed.For the purposes of this proposal we assume that two soil borings will
be necessary.
5. Wetland delineation
The project involves work in and adjacent to a wetland,which may cause wetland impacts.We will
perform a wetland delineation around the entire pond.Our delineation will include identifying and
locating invasive, non-native species.We will prepare a report that includes the results of our delineation,
and incorporates the functions and values(MNRAM)assessment we performed in 2013.
6. Final design and construction pians
This project includes installing a permanent berm or floating curtain across the existing outlet channel,
installing a flow diversion structure,and excavating a new channel through the existing berm.
Our scope assumes that:
• Public right of way is available for all construction activities.
• Up to two soil borings are sufficient to characterize the subsurface conditions.
Our scope includes final design of the following features:
• Permanent berm or floating curtain: The proposed scope includes constructing a permanent berm or
floating curtain across the existing outlet channel.This structure would extend from the existing berm
eastward across the channel and tie into the east bank.Sheet piles may be necessary to provide
geotechnical stability for the permanent berm.
• Flow diversion structure: The proposed scope includes constructing a flow diversion structure to force
stormwater into the deeper portion of the pond.The flow diversion structure will need to be designed
with some form of anchor into competent material below the pond bottom.
• Wetland mitigatiatl:Wetland mitigation measures,such as invasive species removal,revegetation of
the adjacent upland buffer with native species will need to be included to mitigate wetland impacts.
The proposed scope includes incorporating the required/selected measures into the construction
plans(see also Task 8).
Mr.Jeff Oliver,P.E.
City Engineer
August 8,2014
Page 3
Removal of existing berm: The proposed scope includes removal of a portion of the existing berm.
RRgs(oration: Areas impacted by the construction will be restored to their original condition or better
(see also wetland mitigation,above).
• QRipjgn of construction cost:We will prepare an opinion of construction cost,based on information
from equipment suppliers and bids on similar past projects.
We will prepare construction plans,and assemble and arranged them in a format for competitive bidding.
We anticipate the bid package to include the following drawings:
• Cover sheet showing project location.
• Existing conditions and proposed layout.
• Flow diversion and berm details.
• Restoration and wetland mitigation.
• Erosion control plan.
7. Bidding documents and bid administration
We will prepare bidding documents for competitive bidding and subsequent construction of the project.
This task includes preparing technical specifications and incorporating front-end documents for
construction of the project.Front-end documents will consist of Instructions to Bidders,Bid Form,
Agreement,General Conditions,and Supplementary Conditions.The front-end documents will be based
on Golden Valley's standard construction documents and will be provided by the City.Technical
specifications will be prepared using the Construction Specifications Institute(CSI)standard format.The
Contract Documents will provide potential contractors with the necessary information to bid on the
project and also to perform the work
Bid administration will consist of reproduction and distribution of contract documents(20 copies)
including uploading onto QuestCDN,preparation of advertisement for bids,preparation of addenda,
assistance during contract offering period including answering bidder questions and review of bidder
qualifications and submitted bid forms.
S. Permitting
This project will require a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(MNDNR)Public Waters Work
Permit,may require a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(COE)permit,may require MPCA Section 401 water
quality certification, and may fall under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA).We will prepare the Joint Permit Application and submit it to the appropriate agencies.This
includes submitting the Public Waters Work Permit application to the MNDNR via their MPARS online
permitting system.Schaper Pond is a MNDNR public water;in these situations,the MNDNR has
jurisdiction for administering WCA(rather than the City of Golden Valley,who is the LGU for WCA in the
Mr.Jeff Oliver,P.E.
City Engineer
August 8,2014
Page 4
city).Also,to meet BCWMC and MNDNR floodplain requirements,the project cannot increase the 100-
year flood level of the pond(see Task 2).
Based on pre-application submittals,discussions,meetings,and responses from the MNDNR and other
agency staff,it is likely that wetland mitigation measures will need to be included in the project's site
restoration plans. Likely mitigation measures could include one or more of the following:revegetation of
the immediate upland buffer with native vegetation;control of aggressive/nonnative plant species such as
hybrid cattails,purple loosestrife and reed canary grass;planting/revegetation of robust native emergent
plant species in the shallow regions of Schaper Pond;and shoreline restoration.
We will also prepare a chemical and biological monitoring protocol for Schaper Pond to incorporate into
the Joint Permit Application.We will also include the proposed every-10-year dredging schedule in the
permit application(per our November 6,2013 memo to the BCWMC regarding the impacts of the
proposed project on Schaper Pond).
This project will also require approval from the BCWMC.We will present the construction plans to the
BCWMC at two Commission meetings—one for the 50%plans and one for the 90%or final plans.
Our cost estimate assumes a COE permit and MPCA 401 water quality certification will be required,
9. Construction services
Our scope includes regular construction observation and contract administration tasks.The costs for this
work are dependent on the contractor's schedule,changes in the work and the amount of observation
desired by the City.Barr will provide daily on-site observation during construction activities to ensure that
the selected contractor is performing the work in accordance with the Contract Documents.Our proposed
construction services include:
• daily site visits,as necessary(this scope assumes 20 hours of observation per week for 6 weeks),
• clarifying of the Contract Documents to the contractor during the construction process,
• issuing field orders and change orders as necessary for the completion of the project,
• reviewing payment applications(our scope assumes two submittals),
• preparation of record drawings.
Estimated Cost and Schedule
The following table summarizes the estimated costs associated with each task described in the scope of
services and list of assumptions.The cost estimate is based on the most costly alternative(sheet pile wall).
If a less-costly design alternative is selected,the estimated cost will be less. For example, if the floating
curtain option is selected,soil borings may not be needed(or only one will be needed),and the cost to
design the project and prepare construction plans will also be less.Upon selection of the design
alternative,we will work with city staff to adjust the project budget.
Mr.Jeff Oliver,P.E.
City Engineer
August 8,2014
Page 5
The table also shows the estimated schedule for the completion of the project tasks.The schedule
assumes authorization to proceed by the City no later than September 5,2014.The actual schedule will be
coordinated with Golden Valley staff.
Task Description of Task Amount Estimated Completion
1 Select preferred design alternative $6,600 September 2014
2 Hydraulic modeling of selected design alternative $7,200 December 2014
3 Survey $4,400 September 2014
4 Soil borings $ 16,800 October 2014
5 Wetland delineation $3,900 September 2014
6 Final design and construction plans $46,100 December 2014
7 Bidding documents and bid administration $14,800 December 2014
8 Permitting $9,400 December 2014
9 Construction services $33,200 2015
Total Estimated Project Cost $142,400
This Agreement will be effective for the duration of the services, unless earlier terminated by either the
City or us.We will commence work on Task 1 upon receipt of a copy of this letter signed by your
authorized City representative.
We will inform you of our progress through periodic(e.g.,bi-weekly)e-mail updates,telephone calls,
invoice details,and other communications.
For the services provided,you will pay us according to the attached Standard Terms.We will bill the city
approximately monthly.The cost of the services will not exceed $142,400 without prior approval by the
city.
We understand you or your designees have the authority to direct us.We will direct communications to
you at the City of Golden Valley,7800 Golden Valley Road. Direction should be provided to me at the
letterhead address.
During the term of this Agreement,we will maintain the following insurance coverages:
WorkerCompensation......................................................................................................................................Statutory
Employer Liability..............................................................................................$500K per claim/$500k aggregate
Commercial General Liability.................................$iM per claim/$2M aggregate,combined single limit
Automobile..................................................................................................................._....$1M combined single limit
Umbrella/excess policy as to above coverages.......................................................................$10M aggregate
Professional Liability(claims-made)..................................................$5M per claim/$5M annual aggregate
Mr,Jeff Oliver,P.E.
City Engineer
August 8,2014
Page b
If this Agreement is satisfactory,please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided,and
return it to us.
Sincerely yours,
Barr Engineering Co.
By i
Len Kremer,P.E.
Vice President
Accepted this_„day of 2014
Golden Valley
By
Thomas D.Burt
Its City Manager
Attachments
Standard Terms—Professional Services
City of Golden Valley-Schaper Pond Improvements Design and Construction Coordination
Task Total
Number Description Hours Expenses Total
1.0 Select prehrred design alternative
Prepdint preparing cost estIMItes(annualized]for eacb aftmative
are for and attend meeting with city staff to review and select preferred design alternative, 44 $50 $5,420
Review/revise cost estimate and scope,bawd on selected design alternative 8 $1,190
Sub Total 52 $50 $6,60D
2.0 HVdr"k inodelin olYselacte f dnstgn alternative
Review exists XP-SWMM Model 60
in at 5 7S
Build new emOng Conditions model 20 1
iterate scenarios to determine No Rbe scenario 40 $3,325
Memo summarizing findings 1S $1,470
Sub-Total 86 $0 $7,160
3.0 Survey
Isting ns suMU 25 2
to
I fromsu 14 120
Sub-Tobi 39 $225 $4,4004.0 il borbtgs
echnical biddinur supogri4litr000n 43 5
2 soli borings,including field observation 18 $10,000 $11,600
Sub-7oW 61 $10,050 $16,765
5.0 Wetland delineation
F I 1 1
e 25
Sub•Totai 37 $100 $3,910
6.0 Sinai dM- and conatruollon ns
Kick-of meeting 20 $2,660
Base maps 13 $1,290
Design berm 34 $3,760
Flow diversloa structure 98 $30,370
Removal of existing berm 38 $31835
Wedand mitiption/vegetation improvements 58 $5,710
Engineer's Estimate 32 $3,460
Detslls,SWPPP,cover shoats,final drawings 66 $70 $6,990
Review and incorporate comments 73 $8,125
Sub-Total 432 $70 $461200
7.0 Bidding documents and bid administration
Front and documents 28 $3,060-
F,
3,060 ,
ethnical specifications 70 $7,440
Biddingsupport 38 $200 $4,270
Sub-Total' 136 $200 $14,770
8.0 parnitti ,
Prepare Join Permit Application and submit to appropriate agencies,prepare and submit public 76 $250 $9,400
waters work permit via MNONR's MPARS system;work includes coordinating with the MNDNR,
Corps of Engineers,MPGA,preparation of monitoring protocol for the pond,and preparation of
mitigation plan(vegetation improvements and maintenance dredging).Assumes the following
permits/approvals are required:MNDNR public waters work perrM4 WCA approval,Corps of
Engineers permit,MPCA 401 water quality certi0ation,and BCWMC approval.
Sub-Total 76 1 $250 $9,400
9.0 Construction services
Field observation 119 $1,2W $13,180
Office support 108 $13,240
Record drawings 66 $6,760
Sub-Total 293 $1,200 $33,186
Grand Totals 2212 $12,145.00 $142,385
BARR
STANDARD TERMS-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Our Agreement with you consists of the accompanying letter or other authorization, Work Orders, and these Standard Terns—
Professional Services.
Section 1: Our Responsibilities water.If you are requesting that we provide services that
1.1 We will provide the professional services ("Services') include this risk, you agree to hold us harmless from
described in this Agreement. We will use that degree of such contamination claims, damages, and expenses,including reasonable attomeys' fees, unless the loss is
care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar
circumstances by reputable members of our profession caused by our negligence,
practicing in the same locality. 2.6 You agree to make disclosures required by law. If we are
1.2 We will select the means, methods, techniques, required by law or legal process to make such
sequences, or procedures used in providing our disclosures, you agree to hold us harmless and
Services. If you direct us to deviate from our selections, indemnify us from related claims and costs, including
you agree to hold us harmless from claims, damages,
reasonable attomeys'fees.
and expenses arising out of your direction. Section 3: Reports and Records
1.3 We will acquire all licenses applicable to our Services 3.1 We will retain analytical data relating to the Services for
and we will comply with applicable law, seven years and financial data for three years.
1.4 Our duties do not Include supervising your contractors or 3.2 Monitoring wells are your property and you are
commenting on,supervising,or providing the means and responsible for their permitting, maintenance and
methods of their work unless we accept any such duty in abandonment unless we accept that duty in writing.
writing.We will not be responsible for the failure of your Samples remaining after tests are conducted and field
contractors to perform In accordance with their and laboratory equipment that cannot be adequately
undertakings. cleansed of contaminants are your property.They will be
1.5 We will provide a health and safety program for our discarded or returned to you, at our discretion, unlesswithin 15 days of the report date you give written
employees,but we will not be responsible for contractor, direction to store or transfer the materials iat your
job,or site health or safety unless we accept that duty In expense.
xpense.
3 Our reports, notes, calculations, and other documents,
1.8 Estimates of our fees other project oasts will be based 3. and our computer software and data are Instruments of
on information availablele to us and on our experience and
knowledge. Such estimates are an exercise of our our Services, and they remain our property,subject to a
professional judgment and are not guaranteed or license to you for your use in the related project for the
warranted. Actual costs may vary. You should add a purposes disclosed to us. You may not use or transfer
contingency, our reports to others for a purpose for which they were
not prepared without our written approval,You agree to
1.7 The information you provide to us will be maintained in indemnify and hold us harmless from claims, damages,
confidence except as required by law. and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
Section 2: Your Responsibilities arising out of any unauthorized transfer or use.
2.1 You will provide access to property 3.4 Because electronic documents may be modified
p p perty as required. intentionally or Inadvertently, you agree that we will not
2.2 You will provide us with prior reports, specifications, be liable for damages resulting from change in an
plans, changes in plans, and information about the electronic document occurring after we transmit it to you.
project which may affect the delivery of our Services. In case of any difference or ambiguity between an
You will hold us harmless from claims, damages, and electronic and a paper document, the paper document
related expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, shall govern. When accepting document transfer In
involving information not timely called to our attention or electronic media format, you accept exclusive risk
not correctly shown on documents you furnished to us. relating to long-term capability,usability,or readability of
2.3 You agree to provide us with emergency procedure documents, software application packages, operating
ag P rg cy p systems,and computer hardware.
information and information on contamination and
dangerous or hazardous substances or processes we 3.5 If you do not pay for the Services in full as agreed, we
may encounter in performing the Services. may retain reports and work not yet delivered to you and
you agree to return to us our reports and other work in
2.4 You agree to hold us harmless as to any claim that we your possession or under your control. You agree not to
are an owner, operator, generator, transporter, treater, use or rely upon our work for any purpose until it is paid
storer, or a disposal facility within the meaning of any for in full.
law governing the handling, treatment, storage, or Section 4• Compensation
disposal of dangerous or hazardous materials. pe
2.5 Site remediation services may involve risk of 4.1 You will pay for the Services as agreed upon or
contamination of previously uncontaminated air, soil, or according to our then current fee schedules if there Is no
DocumerAl Ver.05/18/10
other written agreement as to price.An estimated cost is increased fee is not the purchase of insurance.
not a firm figure unless stated as such and you should 5.5 If you fail to pay us within 60 days following invoice date,
allow for a contingency in addition to estimated costs. we may consider the default a total breach of our
4.2 You agree to notify us of billing disputes within 15 days Agreement and, at our option, we may terminate all of
and to pay undisputed portions of invoices within 30 our duties without liability to you or to others.
days of invoice date. For balances not paid under these
terms, you agree to pay interest on unpaid balances 5.6 If we are involved in legal action to collect our
beginning 10 days after invoice date at the rate of 1.5% compensation, you agree to pay our collection
per month, but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed expenses,including reasonable attorneys'fees.
by law. 5.7 The law of the state in which the project site is located
4.3 If you direct us to invoice another,we will do so, but you will govern all disputes. Each of us waives trial by jury.
agree to be responsible for our compensation unless you No employee acting within the scope of employment
provide us with that person's written acceptance of the shall have any Individual liability for his or her acts or
terms of our Agreement and we agree to extend credit to omissions and you agree not to make any claim against
that person. Individual employees.
4.4 You agree to compensate us in accordance with our fee section 6: Indemnification
schedule if we are asked or required to respond to legal 6.1 Each of us will indemnify and hold harmless the other
process arising out of a proceeding to which we are not from and against demands, damages, and expenses to
a party. the comparative extent they are caused by the negligent
4.5 If we are delayed by factors beyond our control,or If the acts, omissions, or breach of contract of the
project conditions or the scope of work change, or it the indemnifying parry or of those others for whom the
standards change, we will receive an equitable lndemnlfying party Is legally responsible.
adjustment of our compensation. 6.2 To the extent that may be necessary to Indemnify either
4.6 In consideration of our providing insurance to cover of us under Section 6.1,you and we expressly waive,in
claims made by you,you hereby waive any right of offset favor of the other only,any immunity or exemption from
as to payment otherwise due us, liability that exists under any worker compensation law.
Section 5: Disputes,Damage,and Risk Allocation Section 7: Miscellaneous Provisions
5.1 Each of us will exercise good faith efforts to resolve 7.1 We will provide a certificate of insurance to you upon
disputes without litigation. Such efforts will include a request. Any claim as an Additional insured shall be
meeting attended by each party's representative limited to losses caused by our sole negligence.
empowered to resolve the dispute. Disputes (except 7.2 This Agreement is our entire agreement, and it
collections)will be submitted to mediation as a condition supersedes prior agreements. Only a writing signed by
precedent to litigation, both of us making specific reference to the provision
5.2 We will not be liable for special, incidental, modified may modify it.
consequential, or punitive damages, Including but not 7.3 Neither of us will assign this
g Agreement without the
limited to those arising from delay, loss of use, loss of written approval of the other. No other person has any
profits or revenue, loss of financing commitments or rights under this Agreement.
fees, or the cost of capital. Each of us waives against
the other and its subcontractors,agents,and employees 7.4 A writing may terminate this Agreement.We will receive
all rights to recover for losses covered by our respective an equitable adjustment of our compensation if our work
property/casualty or auto insurance policies. is terminated prior to completion as well as our fees and
expenses on the basis agreed upon through the effective
5.3 We will not be liable for damages unless you have date of termination.
noted us of your claim within 30 days of the date of 7.5 We will not discriminate
your discovery of it and unless you have given us an against any employee or
opportunity to investigate and to recommend ways of applicant for employment because of race, color, creed,
mitigating damages, and unless suit is commenced ancestry, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital
within two years of the earlier of the date of Injury or loss status, affectional preference, disability, status with
and the date of completion of the Services. regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a
local human-rights commission, or status as a specially
5.4 For you to obtain the benefit of a fee which Includes a disabled,Vietnam-era,or other eligible veteran. We will
reasonable allowance for risks, you agree that our take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
aggregate liability will not exceed the fee paid for our considered, and employees are treated during their
services or$50,000,whichever is greater,and you agree employment,without regard to those factors.Our actions
to indemnify us from all liability to others In excess of will Include, but are not limited to notifications, hiring,
that amount. If you are unwilling to accept this allocation promotion or employment upgrading,demotion,transfer,
of risk, we will Increase our aggregate liability to recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoffs or
$100,000 provided that,within 10 days of the date of our terminations, rates of pay of
Agreement, you provide payment in an amount that will compensation, and selection nd for
othstrainings or
increase our fees by 10%, but not less than $500, to apprenticeship. End of Standard Terms
compensate us for the greater risk undertaken. This
Documerrtl Ver.06/18/10
ARS Fee Schedule-2014 Rev.01/01/14
Rate*
Description (U.S.dollars)
Principal.........................................................................................................................................$120-230
Consultant/Advisor.........................................................................................................................$155-220
Engineer/Scientist/Specialist III......................................................................................................$125-150
Engineer/ScientisUSpecialist 11.........................................................................................................$95-120
Engineer/Scientist/Specialist I............................................................................................................$65-90
TechnicianIII..................................................................................................................................$125-150
TechnicianII.....................................................................................................................................$95-120
TechnicianI........................................................................................................................................$50-90
SupportPersonnel II........................................................................................................................$95-170
SupportPersonnel I...........................................................................................................................$50-90
Rates for litigation support services will include a 30%surcharge.
A ten percent(10%)markup will be added to subcontracts for professional support and construction
services to cover overhead and insurance surcharge expenses.
Invoices are payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Any amount not paid within 30 days shall
bear interest from the date 10 days after the date of the invoice at a rate equal to the lesser of 18
percent per annum or the highest rate allowed by applicable law.
Reimbursable expenses Including,but not limited to,the actual and reasonable costs of transportation,
meals,lodging, parking costs,postage,and shipping charges will be billed at actual cost. Materials and
supplies charges,printing charges,and equipment rental charges will be billed in accordance with Barr's
standard rate schedules. Mileage will be billed at the IRS-allowable rate.
Principal category Includes consultants,advisors,engineers,scientists,and specialists who are officers of the
company.
Consultant/Advisor category Includes experienced personnel in a variety of fields.These professionals typically
have advanced background In their areas of practice and include engineers,engineering specialists,scientists,
related technical professionals,and professionals in complementary service areas such as communications and
public affairs.
Engineer/Sclentist/Specialist categories include registered professionals and professionals in training(e.g.
engineers,geologists,and landscape architects),and graduates of engineering and science degree programs.
Technician category includes CADD operators,construction observers,cost estimators,data management
technicians,designers,drafters,engineering technicians,intems,safety technicians,surveyors,and water,air,
and waste samplers.
Support Personnel category includes Information management,project accounting,report production,word
processing,and other project support personnel.
'Rates do not include sales tax on services that may be required in some jurisdictions.
city 0 �
go taen
valley Police Department
763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. G. Authorization to Sign the Amended Agreement with Breck School for Community Service
Officer
Prepared By
Stacy Carlson, Chief of Police
Nathan R. Gove, Commander
Summary
In 2009, the Police Department entered an agreement with Breck School to provide traffic control
during school days in exchange for reimbursement for the salary and benefits of a full-time
Community Service Officer. This agreement period expires August 22, 2014, Breck School officials
have requested the agreement be extended through the 2014-2015 school year.
Although paid for by Breck School, the Breck School Community Service Officer is an employee of
the City, subject to the terms and conditions of employment with the City, and under the chain of
command of the Police Department.
Attachments
• Amended Community Services Officer Agreement (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief to sign the amended Community
Service Officer Agreement with Breck School for 2014-2015.
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER AGREEMENT
This Community Service Officer Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between the City of
Golden Valley and Breck School ("Breck School"), pursuant to P.U.D. No. 88, Paragraph C(2).
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the parties to this Agreement agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agreement is to define the duties and responsibilities of
the City of Golden Valley, its Police Department, and Breck School in the operation of the
Community Service Officer Program.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The term of this Agreement shall be for the 2014-2015 Breck
School Year, beginning upon execution of this Agreement. The Agreement may be continued,
canceled or modified at the end of the 2014-2015 Breck School Year. Breck School is obligated
to notify the City of Golden Valley of its intention to continue, cancel or modify this Agreement
at least (90) days prior to its termination.
3. PERSONNEL: The Chief of Police shall staff a community service officer to fill the
position of Breck School Community Service Officer (the "Breck School CSO") during the term
of this Agreement.
4. CHAIN OF COMMAND: Any individual serving as the Breck School CSO shall be a
full-time employee of the City of Golden Valley and shall report to the Chief of Police or his/her
designee regarding all law enforcement and employment related matters; and shall receive
assignments to particular duties from the Chief of Police or his/her designee. The City of Golden
Valley shall provide training to any individual serving as the Breck School CSO for his/her
assigned duties including traffic control skills training and shall provide traffic control skills
training to any other CSO providing traffic control services to Breck School on a regular basis.
5. WORK DAYS: The Breck School CSO shall work at Breck School providing traffic
control services from a time period starting forth-five minutes prior to the school start time until
fifteen minutes after the start of school time both as determined by the Breck School and fifteen
minutes prior to the school end time until thirty minutes after the school end time both as
determined Beck Schools, everyday school is in session, which times shall be adjusted as
necessary in the event inclement weather or other events delay the school start time or cause
early release. Any officer serving as a Breck School CSO shall make the appropriate
arrangements for time off, vacations and holidays, etc. in accordance with the police collective
bargaining agreement.
6. ABSENCE FROM WORK: In the event that the Breck School CSO is sick or has other
unplanned absences, he/she shall notify BOTH the Breck School in accordance with their policy,
and the police department in accordance with their policy. The police department shall attempt to
provide officer coverage when the Breck School CSO is not available for duty. Requests for
floating holidays shall be made to the police department for approval, and notification shall be
made by the Breck School CSO to the appropriate personnel of Breck School.
1
7. TRAFFIC CONTROL: The Breck School CSO shall, twice per day at the times described
in Section 5 herein, on all days when school is in session during the term of this Agreement
provide traffic control services to Breck School. In addition, the City of Golden Valley shall
provide a second CSO (the "Second CSO") twice per day at the times described in Section 5
herein, on all days when school is in session during the term of this Agreement to provide
additional traffic control services to Breck School, the cost of the services of the Second CSO
shall be borne by the City of Golden Valley. In the event of an unscheduled employee absence of
either the Breck School CSO or the Second CSO, the City of Golden Valley shall attempt to
provide alternate coverage; however, Breck School is aware that when there is an unscheduled
employee absence, that two CSOs may not be available for the traffic control duty described
herein and such absence shall not in any way be a breach of this Agreement.
8. DRESS CODE: This position is a uniformed position and the police department shall
supply appropriate uniforms and equipment for CSOs providing traffic control services at the
Breck School.
9. HANDLING OF POLICE RELATED INCIDENTS: Criminal activity and incidents
normally handled by the police shall be dealt with by the Breck School CSO or alternatively the
Second CSO in accordance with police department policy, state and federal law, and generally
accepted police practices. The City of Golden Valley shall be liable for the acts of its officers,
employees or agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be
responsible for the acts of the Breck School, its officers, employees or agents.
10. SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: Neither the Breck School CSO nor the Second CSO is part of
the disciplinary team of Breck School, and neither shall normally become involved in discipline
issues or the enforcement of school rules except as they relate to maintaining a peaceful and safe
environment at Breck School.
11. LIMITATIONS. The provisions of Minn. Stat. Section 471.59, the Municipal Tort
Claims Act, Minn. State Chap. 466 and other applicable laws govern liability of the City of
Golden Valley and the Breck School.
12. COMPENSATION AND COST SHARING: It is agreed that Breck School shall
reimburse the City of Golden Valley for the Breck School CSO's salary and benefits for the full-
term of this Agreement. This shall include any overtime incurred by the Breck School CSO for
attendance at extracurricular activities at Breck School when his/her attendance is requested by
Breck School and such work is outside of the Breck School CSO's working hours as described at
Paragraph 5.
In a manner that is mutually acceptable to the parties to this Agreement, the City of Golden
Valley shall bill Breck School periodically for the services provided by the Breck School CSO,
but no less frequently than on a monthly basis, and Breck School shall promptly reimburse the
City of Golden Valley in a manner mutually agreed upon by the parties to this Agreement.
2
13. GOVERNING LAW. The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the
principles of conflicts of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in
Hennepin County.
This Agreement may only be modified by the mutual written Agreement of the parties.
Dated this 2nd day of September, 2014.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BRECK SCHOOL
Mayor, Shepard M. Harris
City Manager, Thomas D. Burt
Police Chief, Stacy Carlson
3
city of
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. H. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. "No person shall possess, display, consume or use
alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the Council." As
part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and small picnic shelters
at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $25 to be able to serve beer
and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations who have requested that
option.
Attachments
• Beer and/or wine request list (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by
staff.
BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST
INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION CC DATE
DATE TIME SHELTER APPROVED
Sarah Elbert - Optum United health 09-09 11 am -4 pm large 09-02-14
Lydia Andersen - General Mills 09-12 11 am -4 pm small 09-02-14
Rick Scheevel -Tennent 09-17 11 am -4 pm large 09-02-14
Nicole Magandy - TCF Equipment 09-18 11 am -4 pm small 09-02-14
Nicole Magandy - TCF Equipment 09-18 5 pm - 10 pm small 09-02-14
Nicole Magandy - TCF Equipment 09-18 11 am -4 pm large 09-02-14
Nicole Magandy -TCF Equipment 09-18 5 pm - 10 pm large 09-02-14
Susan Johnson 09-20 5 pm - 10 pm large 09-02-14
Allison Little - Pauly Devries Smith 10-05 11 am - 4 pm large 09-02-14
City Q
golden vir MEMORANDUM
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. I. Call for Public Hearing- Certification of Special Assessments - 10/7/14
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
At this meeting, the City Council should call for a public hearing for October 7, 2014 at 7 pm to
consider certifying the following special assessments:
2014 Delinquent Utility Bills
2014 Miscellaneous Charges - Includes false alarm responses, weed cutting,
administrative citations, tree removals, etc.
Recommended Action
Motion to call for a public hearing for certification of special assessments for October 7, 2014.
Cita
901den,!i -V-- ' MEMORANDUM
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. J. Set Date for Public Hearing- 2015-2016 Budget and 2015 Property Tax Levy- 12/2/14
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The Department of Revenue has clarified the Truth-in-Taxation process for payable 2015 tax levy.
The Council will need to schedule a meeting that will include discussion of the city budget and
2015 tax levy and allow the public to comment. This meeting date needs to be announced at the
time Council approves the proposed budget and levy. It also must occur between November 25
and December 29 and be held after 6 pm.
This year staff recommends setting the hearing for December 2, 2014 City Council meeting at
7 pm.
Recommended Action
Motion to set the date of the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing for Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at
7 pm.
city 0
goiaen!'.4"' MEMORANDUM
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. K. Receipt of July 2014 Financial Reports
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly financial report provides a progress report of the following funds:
General Fund Operations
Conservation/Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund)
Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund)
Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund)
Motor Vehicle Licensing (Enterprise Fund)
Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund)
Equipment Replacement Fund (Capital Projects Fund)
General Fund Operations: As of July 2014, the City received the first half taxes so it is not using
fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget.
Attachments
• July 2014 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages)
• July 2014 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page)
• July 2014 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page)
• July 2014 Brookview Golf Course (1 page)
• July 2014 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page)
• July 2014 Storm Utility Fund (1 page)
• July 2014 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the July 2014 Financial Reports.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures
July, 2014 (unaudited)
Over %
2014 July YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
001 Council $294,840 14,140 154,044 ($140,796) 52.25%
003 City Manager 762,980 54,433 382,751 (380,229) 50.17%
004 Transfers Out 294,710 0 294,710 0 100.00% (1)
005 Admin. Services 1,676,280 109,412 817,421 (858,859) 48.76%
006 Legal 135,000 17,213 60,432 (74,568) 44.76% (2)
007 Risk Management 300,000 66,610 202,970 (97,030) 67.66%
011 General Gov't. Bldgs. 556,990 38,678 297,894 (259,096) 53.48%
016 Planning 346,195 22,441 187,389 (158,806) 54.13%
018 Inspections 651,545 49,960 350,402 (301,143) 53.78%
022 Police 5,202,175 357,334 2,761,900 (2,440,275) 53.09%
023 Fire 1,200,190 74,925 621,310 (578,880) 51.77%
035 Physical Dev Admin 334,315 19,020 203,598 (130,717) 60.90%
036 Engineering 691,880 39,930 281,774 (410,106) 40.73%
037 Streets 1,429,410 105,322 809,383 (620,027) 56.62%
065 Community Center 74,100 4,975 31,649 (42,451) 42.71%
066 Park& Rec.Admin. 679,345 51,526 367,866 (311,479) 54.15%
067 Park Maintenance 1,051,490 84,072 595,272 (456,218) 56.61%
068 Recreation Programs 502,830 37,006 179,420 (323,410) 35.68% (3)
TOTAL Expenditures $16,184,275 $1,146,997 $8,600,185 ($7,584,090) 53.14%
(1)This transfer was made in June, 2014.
(2) Legal services are through June.
(3)Tennis program expenditures are lower due to contractual arrangement.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report General Fund Revenues
July, 2014
Percentage Of Year Completed 58.00%
Over %
2014 July YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $12,358,005 6,407,439 6,417,261 ($5,940,744) 51.93% (1)
Licenses 210,785 18,995 233,586 $22,801 110.82%
Permits 725,000 134,062 785,694 $60,694 108.37%
Federal Grants 0 0 7,500 $7,500
State Aid 255,390 133,494 138,947 ($116,443) 54.41% (2)
Hennepin County Aid 31,205 11,758 31,758 $553 (3)
Charges For Services:
General Government 45,050 16,874 24,368 ($20,682) 54.09%
Public Safety 163,870 10,112 91,238 ($72,632) 55.68%
Public Works 141,000 14,397 87,654 ($53,346) 62.17%
Park& Rec 525,270 33,951 212,938 ($312,332) 40.54% (4)
Other Funds 981,500 223,635 617,294 ($364,206) 62.89%
Fines& Forfeitures 320,000 28,747 166,433 ($153,567) 52.01% (5)
Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (6)
Miscellaneous Revenue 227,200 23,479 136,405 ($90,795) 60.04%
Transfers In 100,000 8,333 66,667 ($33,333) 66.67% (7)
TOTAL Revenue $16,184,275 $7,065,276 $9,017,743 ($7,166,532) 55.72%
Notes:
(1) Payments are received in July, December, and January.
(2) Police Training will be paid in August. Safe and Sober is billed on time spent.
(3)Violent Offenders Task Force is run by Hennepin County.
(4)Tennis progam was changed after budget was approved.
(5) Fines/Forfeitures are through May 2014.
(6) Investment income is allocated at year end.
(7)Transfers are monthly.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund
July 2014 (unaudited)
Over
2014 July YTD (Under)
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,500 0 0 (56,500) 0.00%
Recycling Charges 332,400 29,182 157,172 (175,228) 47.28% (3)
Miscellaneous Revenues 9,000 0 0 (9,000)
Interest on Investments 5,000 0 0 (5,000) 0.00% (1)
Total Revenue 402,900 29,182 157,172 (245,728) 39.01%
Expenses:
Recycling 447,135 43,664 242,128 (205,007) 54.15% (2)
Total Expenses 447,135 43,664 242,128 (205,007) 54.15%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Recycling Services are through June.
(3) Quarterly charges for recycling went from $10 to$12 after April.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund
July, 2014(unaudited)
Over
2014 July YTD (Under)
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Water Charges 4,251,750 432,479 1,773,350 (2,478,400) 41.71%
Sewer Charges 3,300,970 318,475 1,689,020 (1,611,950) 51.17%
Meter Sales 5,000 6,114 13,111 8,111 262.22%
MCES Grant Program 118,730 0 0 (118,730)
Penalties 110,000 30,230 88,007 (21,993) 80.01%
Charges for Other Services 230,000 178,521 421,484 191,484 183.25% (1)
State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,000 4,079 23,102 (21,898) 51.34%
Certificate of Compliance 70,000 9,310 61,125 (8,875) 87.32%
Interest Earnings 35,000 0 0 (35,000) 0.00%
Total Revenue 8,166,450 979,208 4,069,199 (4,097,251) 49.83%
Expenses:
Utility Administration 1,377,255 283,999 1,077,936 (299,319) 78.27%
Sewer Maintenance 2,488,530 186,587 1,332,454 (1,156,076) 53.54%
Water Maintenance 4,363,650 286,517 2,209,978 (2,153,672) 50.65%
Total Expenses 8,229,435 757,103 4,620,368 (3,609,067) 56.14%
(1)This includes MCES Grant Program for residential reimbursements of$250,890.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report- Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund (3)(4)
July, 2014(unaudited)
Over
2014 July YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Green Fees 880,780 156,930 421,025 (459,755) 47.80%
Driving Range Fees 105,000 21,362 68,242 (36,758) 64.99%
Par 3 Fees 173,200 22,867 57,842 (115,358) 33.40%
Lawn Bowling 18,730 0 0 (18,730) 0.00%
Pro Shop Sales 78,500 13,486 40,074 (38,426) 51.05%
Pro Shop Rentals 227,800 49,197 114,402 (113,398) 50.22%
Concession Sales 215,200 54,194 130,044 (85,156) 60.43%
Other Revenue 70,155 2,186 77,316 7,161 110.21%
Interest Earnings 6,000 0 0 (6,000) 0.00% (1)
Less:Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (35,000) (4,816) (7,494) 27,506 21.41%
Total Revenue 1,740,365 315,406 901,451 (838,914) 51.80%
Expenses:
Golf Operations 655,995 66,184 399,127 (256,868) 60.84% (2)
Course Maintenance 778,840 61,804 426,365 (352,475) 54.74%
Pro Shop 105,705 10,834 80,605 (25,100) 76.25%
Grill 177,910 29,399 108,858 (69,052) 61.19%
Driving Range 48,075 7,032 23,153 (24,922) 48.16%
Par 3 Course 3,500 4,012 10,437 6,937 298.20%
Lawn Bowling 141,965 38,021 101,603 (40,362) 71.57% (5)
Total Expenses 1,911,990 217,286 1,150,148 (761,842) 60.15%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end.
(3) Course opened April 9.
(4) Course closed on June 19 due to flooding. Reopened partially on June 25.
(5) Lawn Bowling opened August 15.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund
July 2014(unaudited)
Over
2014 July YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 3,800 0 0 (3,800) 0.00% (1)
Charges for Services 396,410 31,701 213,843 (182,567) 53.94%
Total Revenue 400,210 31,701 213,843 (186,367) 53.43%
Expenses:
Motor Vehicle Licensing 400,210 30,462 218,757 (181,453) 54.66%
Total Expenses 400,210 30,462 218,757 (181,453) 54.66%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund
July, 2014(unaudited)
Over
2014 July YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 45,000 0 0 (45,000) 0.00% (1)
Storm Sewer Charges 2,226,920 196,583 1,268,486 (958,434) 56.96%
Bassett Creek Watershed 998,800 0 0 (998,800) 0.00%
Miscellaneous Receipts 200,000 0 27,369 (172,631) 13.68%
State Grant-Other 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue 3,470,720 196,583 1,295,855 (2,174,865) 37.34%
Expenses:
Storm Utility 2,474,535 157,450 733,831 (1,740,704) 29.66% (2)
Street Cleaning 124,690 88 85,754 (38,936) 68.77%
Environmental Control 309,225 18,201 136,007 (173,218) 43.98%
Debt Service Payments 433,510 1,000 1,583,526 1,150,016 365.28% (3)
Total Expenses 3,341,960 176,739 2,539,118 (802,842) 75.98%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. 2012 PMP and 2013 PMP are not complete.
(3) Refunded 2004C Issuance 5 years early.
2014 Equipment Replacement Fund(CIP)-Fund 5700
2014 July YTD
Budget Total Actual Remaining
Revenues:
Proceeds-Certificate of Indebtedness 750,000 740,100 747,600 (2,400)
Sale of Assets 35,000 500 54,636 19,636
Miscellaneous 0 0 56 56
Interest Earnings(allocated at year end) 17,394 0 0 (17,394)
Total Revenues 802,394 740,600 802,292 (102)
Expenditures:
Program# Project Number Project Name
5700 Bond Expenditures 0 3,500 15,240 (15,240)
5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars(Police) 35,000 0 34,270 730
(1) 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers(Finance) 60,000 1,472 26,140 33,860
5703 V&E-003 Imaging System(Finance) 26,000 7,676 7,676 18,324
5712 V&E-012 Asphalt Paver(Street) 100,000 0 86,800 13,200
5733 V&E-019 Computer Servers 40,000 0 3,492 36,508
5742 V&E-069 Utility Tractor/Mower(Park) 25,000 0 31,303 (6,303)
5795 V&E-071 Pickup Truck(Park) 45,000 27,883 27,883 17,117
5800 V&E-084 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus(Fire) 300,000 250,857 264,281 35,719
5786 V&E-089 Sidewalk/Maintenance Tractor(Street) 158,000 0 138,093 19,908
5783 V&E-101 Unmarked Police Vehicle(Police) 30,000 0 35,189 (5,189)
5797 V&E-111 Dump Truck(Street) 80,000 0 44,589 35,411 (2)
Total Expenditures 899,000 291,388 714,956 184,045
(1)Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time.
*Future Purchases approved
(2) Aspen Equipment Hooklift System $26,531
city v
got a en MEMORANDUM
valley Planning a g Ucrartmtnt
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. L. Approval of Plat— Fretham Twenty-Five
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, City Planner
Summary
At the August 19, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the Preliminary
Plat for the minor subdivision of Fretham Twenty-Two (4XXX Harold Avenue). After the hearing,
the Council approved the Preliminary Plat which will allow two new developable lots. Also after
the hearing, the Applicant changed the name of the Plat from Fretham Twenty-Two to Fretham
Twenty-Five.
The Final Plat of Fretham Twenty-Five has now been presented to the City. Staff has reviewed the
Final Plat and finds it consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and the requirements of the
City Code.
Attachments
• Resolution for Approval of Plat - Fretham Twenty-Five (1 page)
• Final Plat of Fretham Twenty-Five (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Fretham Twenty-Five.
Resolution 14-70 September 2, 2014
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - FRETHAM TWENTY-FIVE
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Fretham
Twenty-Five covering the following described tracts of land:
Lot 2, Block 1, Fretham 21 st Addition
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and
the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of
said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
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.
FRETHAM TWENTY-FIVE R.T. DOC. NO.
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Lakeseet Development U.C.a Minnesota limited liability company,fes owner of the followMg described property:
Lot 2.Bloch 1,FRETHAM 21ST ADDITION
Has asused the same to be surveyed and platted as FRETNAM TWENTY-FIVE and doss hereby dedicate to the public for public use fare—the drainage and utility easements as shown an this plat \
In witness whereof said Lake West Development U.C.a Minnesota limited liability company,has caused these presents to be signed by Its proper officer this day of
20
Lake West Development LLQ
Curt Fretham,Chief Manager s 1 e4
STALE OF MINNESOTA 9 / Bs09
3,R48E
colAfTr OF_
a� \
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .20 .by Curt FreUon,as Chief Manager of by I I \
Lakewest Development I.I.C.a Minnesota lenited liability company,on behalt of
the company. ~ \ \
Notary Public, County,Minnesota
My Commission espires
1,Joshua P.Schneklr do hereby certify that this=roe prepared by me or under my direct wpwvWlw: that I am a duly Licensed Laid Surveyor In the State of Minnesota m
that this plot Is a correct I 2
representation of the boundary survey,that all mathanatk.1 data and labels aro carrectly designated an this plot:that all monuments depicted an this plat haw been,or will be correctly at wIth ane year.that all
rater boundaries and wet lands,as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Section 505.01,Subd.3,as of the dote of this certificate are shown and labeled an thio plat,and all public ways are shown and labeled an this r
Plot.
4o
Dated this day of 20—
Joshua
0 Joshua P.Schneider,Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota umse Number 44655 �o \ c �V
COSTATE
DF blNE50TA \ BLOCK /' /'1 , n
This Instrument was acknowledged before me this day o1 20 -by Joshua P.Schneider.
tP1. � m
r, \ s Pr.sere,Eoseme�t 18� I
Notary Public, County,Minnesota Pe.Do<.No. 5678a7 v G I iP
My CortenkaJm expires ,o 7- L- — _ _ — — —
CITY COUNCIL.City of Golden Valley,Minnesota 61.95 60.60
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L
This plat of FRETHAM TWENTY-FIVE was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley.Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of -
20 .If applkabla.the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Hlghway Engines have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day priori has S88°$607"E
elapsed without rsasipt of such comments and recommendations,as provided by Minnesota Statutes,Section,505.03,Subd.7-
\ 142.7$
qty Council,City of Golden Valley,Minnesota \
\
By Mayor By perk --South Line of FRETHAM 21ST ADDITION
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES.Hennepin County.Minnesota - -
I hereby certify that taxes payable In 20_ and prior yearn how been paid for the land described on this plot dated this day of 20—
Road Easement Per DocNo.3722128
Mark V.Chapin,County Auditor By Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION,Hennepin County,Minnesota
Pursuant to MN.STAT.Sea 3638.565(1969),this plat has been pprowd this day of 20
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Chris F.Mahe,County Surveyor By
REGISTRAR OF TITLES,Hennepin County,Minnesota
I hereby certify that the sithin plat of FRETHAM TWENTY-FIVE was flied M this office this day of
20 -at .'.look M.
Martin McComlck,Registrar of Titles By Deputy
The South line of FRETHAM 21ST ADDITION Is assumed to have a DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHOWN THUS:
beoring of South 88 degrees 56 minutes 07 seconds East.
• Denotes monument found 1/2 Inch Iron pipe, unless
otherwiseshown. NORTH
0 Denotes 1/2 Inch by 14 Inch Iron monument set
and marked by L.S. No. 44655.
a SCALE
�
No SCALE
BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAV
( IN FEET) LINES AND BEING 6 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT
LINES,UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
ACIIE LAND SLF&SYM r F,
BLAINE,Md F „,
ertyof
go Z d en MEMORANDUM
lIPlanning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
3. M. Approval of One-Year Extension of Zoning Code Variances for 1315 Angelo Drive
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
At the October 22, 2013, Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting, the Board members approved a
variance for the property located at 1315 Angelo Drive to allow for the construction of a
garage/bedroom addition. The BZA granted a variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side
Yard setback requirements to allow the garage addition to be 9.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to
a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
According to the Zoning Code, a building permit must be applied for within one year of date of
the final notice of variance approval. The Applicant, Mr. Vedadi, is requesting a one-year
extension on that requirement which would extend the time available to apply for a building
permit to November 3, 2015.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Email from Mohammad Vedadi (1 page)
• Notice of Final Order (1 page)
• BZA Minutes dated October 22, 2013 (4 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve a one-year extension for approved Zoning Code variances for 1315 Angelo
Drive to November 3, 2015.
1445 1450 1446
1445 1441 I 1440 1455
l
1437 1444 1433 1430 1449
1435 =1436 Z
1435 > 1422 1445
420 14260 0
1425 1425 m
1425 _d
1416 1431
1415 1416
1415
Subject Property: 1415
5330 5300 1410
,400 1315 Angelo Drive
1401
1400 1401
Topel Rd 1380
Z
5335 1335 1346 r 1335 1 1325
5305
2 y 7 1330 1319
1360 1340 ': �1 x,1305 1315
1355 1325 1325
1320 1315 \
1340 1317 1326
1335 Snrinn Vallay Rd
1311
1310 1305 1320
1320
300 1315 1301— 1300 1301 1300 1318
1305 1300 1241 1240 5110 1245 1250
1231 r' 1230 1231 Alfred Rd 1242
I
1230 1231 1230 5045 1231
1221 1220 1221 1230
1201 Z 1200 1201 1200 1201
1200 1201 > d 1200
Q
1141 f 1140 1141 ? 1140 1141 f
1140 1141 0 Z 1140 I
r
1130 1131 1130 1131
1131 1130 1131 1130 /
Wittman, Lisa
From: Mohammad Vedadi <mvedadi@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:41 PM
To: Wittman, Lisa
Subject: Re: Extension of Variance
Please accept this email as a request for an extension of our current variance at 1315 Angelo
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 26, 2014, at 2:13 PM, "Wittman, Lisa" <LWittmanggoldenvalleymn.gov> wrote:
Hi,
You can just send me an email any time before October 13 (that is the last deadline before your current
variance expires) requesting a one-year extension and I will make sure it gets on a City Council agenda
for review.
Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa Wittman I Administrative Assistant I City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road i Golden Valley,MN 55427 ( 763-593-8095 i 763-593-8109(Fax) 763-593-3968(TTY) i <inlage001.;
Iwittman @Roldenvalleymn.Rov
From: Mohammad Vedadi [mailto:mvedadi(-Ogmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:25 PM
To: Wittman, Lisa
Subject: Extension of Variance
Hi Lisa,
We spoke a couple of months ago regarding getting an extension on our variance that we were
granted last October. I was hoping we would not need to use it, but it looks like we will.
What do I have to do to request a one-year extension?
This is Mohammad Vedadi at 1315 Angelo Drive.
Thank you. Please email me or call me at 612-799-8965.
1
C i ty of -t
valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Golden Valley,MN 55427
Board of Zoning Appeals
Notice of Final Order
November 4, 2013
Number: 13-09-20
Petitioner(s): Mohammad & Mariam Vedadi
Address: 1315 Angelo Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held on
October 22, 2013 your petition for the following waiver(s) from the City's Zoning Code
was approved:
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
11(A)(3(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 9.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft, to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage/bedroom addition to the existing
house.
Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board.
Staff Liaison
Board of Zoning Appeals
If waiver(s) are not acted upon within one year from the date of this Order in
accordance with statutes, the waiver(s) have expired.
763-593-8000 Fax763-593-8109 T1y 763-593-3968 www.gc=ldenvalleymn.acv
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 22, 2013
Page 3
MOVED by Nelson, sec nded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve
``the following variance r' quests:
• 5 ft'Of#.Qf the regired 20.,f:=t - istance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the side yard
(north) property he..to- ow for the construction of a second story addition on a
portion of the- s ' douse.
• 1.,� taller th, n the allowed 25 ft-, a total height of 26.5 ft. along the front (street
ide) of the pfoperty.
1315 Angelo Drive
Mohammad & Mariam Vedadi, Applicants (13-09-20)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
11(A)(3(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 9.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage/bedroom addition to the
existing house.
Hogeboom stated that the applicant currently has a one-stall garage and is seeking a side
yard variance in order to expand the garage with living space above. He explained that the
applicants received a variance for the same proposal in 2009, however, it was not acted
upon so it expired after one year.
Maxwell asked about the size of the proposed garage addition. McCarty noted that the
application states that the new garage will be 12 feet wide.
Nelson noted that the variance granted in 2009 allowed the garage to be 4.5 feet from the
north side yard property line. Hogeboom agreed and added that the north wall of the existing
garage is not parallel with the property line so the proposed new garage would be further
away from the property line at the back corner.
Fonnest asked about the width of the lot at the front of the garage. Hogeboom stated that
the lot is approximately 75 feet wide at the front.
Maxwell explained to the applicants that since their previous variance approval in 2009 the
laws regarding variances have changed. The Board no longer considers hardships they have
to consider practical difficulties. He asked the applicants what they consider to be unique
about their property.
Lynne Shears, White Crane Construction, representing the applicant, explained that any
addition to the garage would encroach into the setback area. She noted that the property
backs up to a wetland area so building further back on the lot is not desirable. She added
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 22, 2013
Page 4
that the existing garage is also a one-stall tuck under with a slope on the north side which
makes it more complicated.
Mohammad Vedadi, Applicant, explained that the initial survey from 2009 showed that they
had 12 feet of side yard area along the north side of the property. At that time they were
granted a variance to build a garage addition 4.5 feet from the north side property line. After
the variance was approved they realized that the variance they received would only allow
them to construct a 19-foot wide garage which would not work and would not be functional.
Shears explained that there are multiple issues regarding the construction of the garage. The
ceiling height is only 7'2" and when the retaining wall is taken out they will need beams and
posts where the cars would be parked.
Vedadi stated that in 2009 they did not hire an architect before they requested a variance
and now they realize that the request they made in the past was not plausible. He added that
the survey has been corrected since then and that they have 15 feet of side yard area along
the north side of the property where they thought they had 12 feet.
Maxwell asked the applicant if the existing exterior structural block wall will be removed.
Shears said no and explained that that wall has to bear weight so it can't be removed but
there will be a partial opening of the wall between the two garage stalls. McCarty stated that
removing the entire wall between the garage stalls and adding columns would make the
space more open. Shears agreed that they could add columns but it would be difficult to park
cars in the space.
McCarty said he is trying to understand what is different with this proposal than the one
approved in 2009. Vedadi stated that the key difference is that in 2009 they didn't realize that
the size of the garage they were granted approval to build would be too small to be
functional and that they wouldn't be able to open their car doors. Shears added that the
garage still needs to be a retaining wall which is restrictive.
Fonnest referred to the photos submitted with the application and asked if the tree shown to
the side of the existing garage would be impacted by the proposed new addition. Vedadi
stated that the design won't hinder the tree but that they might remove it because it is
unhealthy. Fonnest asked if the neighbor's tree will be impacted. Vedadi said that tree is no
longer there because it was lost during the last storm.
Vedadi said the question is whether to expand their garage or move. He stated that the
house with one garage stall will be very difficult to sell or will devalue it significantly. He said
they want to stay in their house and it will be more valuable with a two-stall garage. Shears
agreed that a two-stall garage is more appropriate for this neighborhood.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
McCarty said this is a difficult request in his opinion and he's not sure he understands the
dimensions that have been discussed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 22, 2013
Page 5
Johnson stated that the proposed garage won't alter the character of locality but he didn't
see any other homes in the area that were this close to the side yard property line and were
as tall as the proposed addition would be.
McCarty agreed that the proposed addition is close to the property line but that he would like
the applicants to be able to have a second garage stall. Nelson agreed that a second garage
stall is important and will be an improvement to the property. She stated that the proposed
new garage addition would only be 3 feet away from the property line at its closest point and
will get further away from the property line as the garage goes back. She added that this
property should have a two-stall garage and where they are proposing to build it is really the
only the place they can.
Vedadi stated that their existing garage is 12 feet wide inside and their car doors can only be
opened about 50 to 60% of the way. He stated that if they build the proposed second garage
stall any smaller they literally won't be able to open their car doors.
Johnson stated that a 2-story, 20-foot long wall that is 3 feet away from the property and has
never been there before is going to have an impact on the neighboring property. Shears
stated that the house on the neighboring property is 17 feet away from the property line and
that there will still be 20 feet between the two homes. Vedadi stated that only 9 feet of the
garage is above ground so the new addition won't be 20 feet tall. Also, it won't be just a
garage sitting there if will be a full house addition which will be visually more pleasing.
McCarty said a deck on top of a flat roof garage might not be as impactful. Nelson noted that
the Board has given similar variances for garage additions in the past.
McCarty said he is still struggling to figure out the math and what exactly changed between
this proposal and the one approved in 2009. Vedadi explained that in 2009 they thought
there was only 12 feet of side yard space available. The survey has since been updated and
they really have 15 feet of side yard space available. McCarty questioned how the plans are
different. Vedadi said the plans are essentially the same but the variance granted in 2009
didn't work because the variance they were granted would not allow them to build a wide
enough garage. He stated that this proposal is not bigger and still has the same amount of
interior space. Shears reiterated that everyone thought the plans approved in 2009 would
work, but it turned out the garage addition as approved then was not buildable.
Maxwell said he thinks homeowners should have a two-stall garage if possible. He stated
that the applicants tried to make the original variance they were granted work but it was not
possible. He said he thinks the applicant's plan is reasonable and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. He added that where the house sits on the lot is unique, this applicant
didn't build the house originally and that tuck under garages create certain issues. He said
he thinks a two-stall garage is more essential to the character of locality than a one- stall
garage. Nelson agreed. She said she wishes the proposed second garage stall wasn't so
close to the property line but that the Board has approved similar variances for garage space
in the past.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 22, 2013
Page 6
Johnson stated that this proposed addition is potentially impacting what the neighboring
property can do to their house in the future and reiterated that there will be an imposing wall
along the north property line that doesn't exist now.
McCarty said it seems like the applicant would only need a 4.5-foot variance because they
gained 3 feet of side yard space with the amended survey. He said he knows that having
only one garage stall is difficult but he is not sure what the cost of a allowing a two-stall
garage will be to the neighbor. Nelson said if the proposal was for anything other than
garage space she would agree.
Fonnest asked the applicant if his variance request is all or nothing. Vedadi said yes
because if they build it any further away from the side yard property line they would end up
with a very small, non-functioning space. Fonnest said he agrees that this is not a perfect
situation but that most properties in this neighborhood have a two-stall garage so he is
supportive of the applicant's request.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Nelson to approve the variance request for 9.5 ft. off
of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north)
property line to allow for the construction of a garage/bedroom addition to the existing
house.
McCarty stated that this proposal is really more than a garage it is a second story as well. He
reiterated that he thinks a flat roof deck over the garage would be less impactful and would
still get the applicant a second garage stall. Maxwell stated that it is a tuck under garage so it
is like adding basement space, not a tall second story. Nelson said she thinks that building a
garage with no living space above it would be a negative. Maxwell agreed with Nelson.
The motion carried 3 to 2. Maxwell, Fonnest and Nelson voted yes. Johnson and McCarty
voted no.
300 Glenwood Avenue
Da 'd Strand Applicant 13-09-21
Request: Waiver fro Section 11.21, Single FamiLy,Z ing District, Subd.
12(A)(1){%accessory S'ructure Location Requireriients
• The prop6sed pool(would not be.lo ated completely to the rear of the
principal structure required.-
Purpose: To allow for construction of a pool.
Request: Waiv 'fro f"'Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
12(A)(1) Acc ssory Structure Location Requirements
• Th posed pool house would not be located completely to the rear of the
rncipal structure as required'-,,,,
t;
urpose: To allow or the construction 8T-a pool house.
City Uf
cTo1den10
#0kk' MEMORANDUM
valley Planning Department
763-593-80951763-593-8109(fax)
Date: August 6, 2014
To: Golden Valley City Council
From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner
Subject: Additional information for Golden Valley Senior Living project
Summary
After the preparation of the Staff report on the Golden Valley Senior Living PUD amendment, the
President of the Skyline Plaza Condominium Association submitted a letter and photos outlining
issued related to landscaping and garage at the subject property.
These issues will be addressed with the Applicant as part of the Final PUD Plan.
Attachments
Correspondence from Skyline Plaza Condominium Association (3 pages)
August 4, 2014
Skyline Plaza Condominium Assoc.
7442 Olson Memorial Highway
Golden Valley, MN 55427
City of Golden Valley
7500 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Attn: Jason Zimmerman
Dear Mr. Zimmerman,
The board of the Skyline Plaza Condo Assoc. and its homeowners
have several concerns and questions regarding the planned development
at 7475 Country Club Dr.
1. We are very concerned about the complete demolition and removal of
all trees and vegetation on the-hill that borders our north property line.
There are several mature trees that not only serve as a natural border
between our homes and the commercial property but they also
prevent erosion on the steep grade of the hill. The previous developer
of that property used landfill with chunks of concrete blocks, pails,
wood and other construction debris and did not properly landscape
the steep hill. For years there were serious erosion problems and it
was finally controlled, only, when the trees and bushes on the grade
matured.
2. The severe windstorm that hit our city in June of 2013 knocked down
part of a tall mature Cottonwood tree that is approx. six feet from our
property line. After many calls to the city, the property owners had a
tree service remove all but approximately 4 feet of the uprooted tree
stump and they have left it in this uprooted condition to this day. This
is not only an eyesore that we have to look at each and every day,
but one of our owners is currently trying to sell their townhome and
this has been pointed out to us as a negative by the realtor trying to
sell the property.
3. Another request is for the new owners to control the trash from their
dumpsters better than the existing owners and neighboring nursing
home have done in the past. Because of prevailing westerly winds
paper, drinking cups, rubber gloves and adult diapers have
continually blown onto our property when the rubbish haulers have
the dumpsters in the air to empty them. Over the past 10 to 15 years
we have contacted city inspectors Roger McCabe and Dave
Gustafson dozens of times to get the trash picked up and ask that the
properties be mowed and maintained to the property line. In 2005
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency wrote an official warning to
both properties for violating state and federal waste regulations.
Our townhomes are owner occupied and we take great pride in
our homes and do our very best to keep our property well maintained.
In the past the 7475 Country Club Dr. property has maintained the
north side of their property that faces Country Club Dr., but they have
grossly neglected the south side of their property that borders Skyline
Plaza.
. r
,
,.
a
p _
� -� • � - Vii.'� - — F -
^f
y r. ..-. .xwG,. r.....Ny •vp;ar ,... �� - .rte-- . «. «.^.
d
.. N�N"„r• .•ger �.�_._-
r
t
a
r
i
.w.r.. �
•
}
t
City 0
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Planning Department
artment
763-593-80951763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
4. A. Continued Public Hearing- Ordinance No. 527 -Amendments to the Zoning Map - 305 and 345
Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
The Applicant, Lake West Development, LLC, intends to construct 30 detached townhome units
across 3.3 acres as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located at 305 and 345
Pennsylvania Avenue South. In order for the Preliminary Design Plan to be considered, the City
Council must first consider amendments to both the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning
Map. Without these amendments, the proposed use would not be consistent with the guiding or
zoning of the properties. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its July 14 and July
28 meetings and recommended approval. The City Council held a public hearing at its August 19
meeting and tabled this item to September 2.
Zoning Map Amendment
The property at 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1),
which provides for single family dwellings on lots of 10,000 square feet with 80 feet of width at the
minimum front setback line. The property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South is currently zoned 1-
394 Mixed use, which requires a mix of uses (residential, commercial, office, other) on the site.
Under the current proposal, the Zoning Map would be amended so that both of the properties
would be zoned as Medium Density Residential (R-3), which provides for medium density housing
of up to 10 units per acre.
Based on the density of the proposed PUD of 9.1 units per acre, Medium Density Residential zoning
would be the most appropriate designation for the two properties. The PUD process will allow for
greater flexibility in designing the site layout and accommodating various setbacks.
Recommendation
In order to be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the City should wait to act on this
item until the Metropolitan Council has approved the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment
reguiding these properties to Medium-Low Density Residential.
Recommended Action
Motion to table Ordinance No. 527, Rezoning 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South, to the
City Council meeting of September 16, 2014.
.
ty of
t
*r� ��1�� 4-. #
�u� �� ��� ��/ �� �^� � � 0��|go �J��/� � MEMORANDUM
���� ��� �� ��� ��� � J� �� ����
valley Planning ����������v�oU�»n�
Department
- -_-- ---
763-593-0095/763-593-8100(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2' 2014
°60 Days" Deadline: August 15, 2024
"60 Days" Extension: October 14, 2014
Agenda Item
4. B. Continued Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117 ' 305 and
345 Pennsylvania Avenue South ' Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Lake West Development, LL[, is seeking approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit to
construct 30 detached tovvnhorne units across 3.3 acres at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue
South.
This item is continued from the August 19, 2014, City Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council
asked the Applicant to work with Staff to revise the design of Phase I of the proposed
development. Staff has met with the Applicant and reviewed several concepts. Atthis time the
Applicant is continuing to weigh options and no firm plans have been submitted.
Also at the August 19 meeting, the City Council approved an amendment to the General Land Use
Plan Map which reguides these properties to Medium-Low Density Residential. Until the
Metropolitan Council approves this change, it is the recommendation of the City Attorney that no
action betaken on the Preliminary PUD Plan.
Recommended Action
Motion to table the Preliminary Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117 to the City Council meeting of
September 16, 2014.
Cit 10
goldenl!
valleyPlannin De artment
g P
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
120 day deadline:June 19, 2014
60 day extension: August 19, 2014
2"d 60 day extension: October 17, 2014
Agenda Item
4. C. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat Approval - Hanson Wood Shores - Wessin Property
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
At the March 24 and July 14, 2014, Planning Commission meetings, the Commission considered
the application of a minor subdivision of the property located south of Major/Noble Drives and
west of Sweeney Lake. The Applicant, George Wessin, is proposing to subdivide his 4.08 acre
property and reconfigure the existing lot into two new single family residential lots.
As proposed by the Applicant, each of the two lots would meet the necessary lot area and lot
width requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code.
However, the City is requiring the dedication of 30 feet of right-of-way to accommodate the
extension of a public street and cul-de-sac in order to provide access and facilitate future
development in the area. The dedication of this right-of-way would necessitate a revision to the
proposed Preliminary Plat in order for it to meet the requirements of the City Code.
At the conclusion of the Planning Commission meeting on July 14, 2014, the Commission
recommended approval of the minor subdivision subject to three conditions. Only one of these
conditions has been met at this time.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated March 24, 2014 (6 pages)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated July 14, 2014 (4 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated March 19, 2014 (3 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated July 14, 2014 (3 pages)
• Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated March 17, 2014 (6 pages)
• Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated July 10, 2014 (5 pages)
• Memo from former Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly dated March 17, 2014 (1 page)
• Letter from Paula A. Callies, Callies Law, dated March 18, 2014 (2 pages)
• Letter from Scott M. Lucas, Olson and Lucas, dated July 8, 2014 (3 pages)
• Letter from City Attorney Allen Barnard, Best & Flanagan, dated July 23, 2014 (2 pages)
• Letter from Marshall H. Tanick, Hellmuth &Johnson, PLLC, dated August 25, 2014 (5 pages)
• Letter from Jeff and Heidi Haines, dated August 27, 2014 (1 page)
• Resolution of Sweeney Lake Homeowners Association (2 pages)
• Site Diagram dated June 27, 2014 (1 page)
• Site Plans (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat for Hanson Wood Shores based on the following finding:
Section 12.50, Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations, Subd. 3(D): Approval of a minor
subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. The City requires the
dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the extension of a public street and cul-de-sac. The
Applicant is unwilling to dedicate this right-of-way.
1907 idti 1312 .,j 1925 »�
1d(10 .. 9y.... }r�'`. 1610
— x�9 sos 1817 x1820 t� I
` tT90 ,em
r9Ru,�a,,Pv ,9m i1D04� a i
w A4
Isla
Q2 1 4901 11
�, IAs 1/ ,e,a
�.
III i 617
1907 1 -----�c�%�,Dooms.
Subject Property
E
1420 4812. � !J
` 1634
..—. —-- w1644
,859
91D a4A7e 49A1 ' + _ ♦ SNrdQ�26y L9k$
r
,529 i 1629 1624
1614
1604
,550
St Ct USX Ir '� l �
119, a8US9. 14W
IL
1433 oal
'534
i
,499 744D
s � Trru ahe
0 Wim
,aas t i
`�., ,665 v
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 9
arty Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said ere is still a for sale sign on the property. He
st d that a few years ago the Planning ommission and City Council decided this area
wou a zoned R-2 and now someone ants to change what everyone has accepted. He
said he lown away by this proposal b cause it will set a precedent for all of t. 4 lots to
have a 7.5 t setback so this proposal a no.
Richard Fischer, 30 Harold Avenue, a`ked if this proposal were approved if he would also
be able to divide his operty into two ski, ny lots with 2-foot or 46ot setbacks. He said he
is really opposed to this roposal.
Knaeble noted that the neigh r to the w st of the subjbct property is not opposed to this
proposal. `±>
Seeing and hearing no one else wishirrgtt �zdment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Cera said this proposal is attemptingJb c ' n9e the Zoning Code with a subdivision. There
is no hardship for variances is the f3ropos' I and he agrees with staff that it should be
denied. Segelbaum said he a yes that th` proposal is outside the intent of the City Code.
He said the City can't rewrit e Zoning de just f6i4his proposal. He commended the
applicant for considering tttis type of devel pment but said\the Planning Commission isn't in
the position to accept is proposal without much more revir.
/the
d the houses down the reet on Rhode Islancfvenue were developed.
at the properties on Rhod Island Avenue were exig platted lots of
ere not subdivided in order t construct the new homes.
4
aldhauser, seconded by Ce and motion carried unanimously recommend
proposed subdivision of the p perty at 7218 Harold Avenue findin that it
t any of the conditions of City de and requires variances.
6. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — Intersection of Noble Drive
and Major Drive — Hanson Wood Shores —SU06-06
Applicant: George Wessin
Address: Intersection of Noble Drive and Major Drive
Purpose: The proposed subdivision would reconfigure the existing single
family residential lot into two new single family residential lots.
Zimmerman referred to a location map and explained the applicant's request to subdivide
the existing vacant lot located south of Major/Noble Drives and west of Sweeney Lake into
two separate single family residential lots. He noted that Lot 1 would be 80,344 square feet
with 80 feet of width at the front setback and Lot 2 would be 97,433 square feet with 87 feet
of width at the front setback. He reminded the Commissioners that an application for a
subdivision to allow three lots was made last summer but that application was withdrawn.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 10
Zimmerman stated that the property owner to the south at 1801 Noble Drive has
approached the City with concept plans for subdividing his property as well. He explained
that when a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided land, City Code requires that new streets
be provided in order to access the property. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
applicant be required to dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way along the western
edge of his property to accommodate a new street in the future in order for 1801 Noble
Drive to gain access.
Kluchka asked for clarification on why a new street is being required as a part of this
proposal. Zimmerman referred to the section of City Code that states "...Where adjoining
areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make
provision for the proper projection of streets. When a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided
land susceptible to being subdivided, then the new streets shall be carried to the boundaries
of the tract proposed to be subdivided." Kluchka asked about the definition of the word
"unsubdivided" and stated that there are probably a hundred lots in the City that have the
potential to be subdivided and questioned if that is really the intent of the Code. He said to
him "unsubdivided" means unimproved. Zimmerman stated that Code does not define
"unsubdivided." He explained that the City Attorney has stated that providing access does
apply to this proposal so staff is suggesting that 50 feet of right-of-way be designated as a
part of this subdivision.
Waldhauser asked if the City has an obligation to provide access and asked why the
property owner has to bear the costs associated with providing access. Zimmerman stated
that all the benefitting parties would be assessed the costs, not just the applicant.
Zimmerman referred to the Fire Departments comments regarding this proposal and stated
that they have concerns about lengthy driveways, the distance to a water supply, and the
ability to turn their vehicles around.
Cera asked if the City could build a cul-de-sac in order to eliminate the long driveways and
to set the stage for future development. Zimmerman said that without cooperation by the
three current landowners, the only option is to plan for the first stage by preserving right-of-
way now and then accommodate additional stages of development as future proposals are
made.
Kluchka said he is uncomfortable with recommending approval on the presupposition that
the recommended street will be built when that is not what is being proposed by the
applicant.
George Wessin, Applicant, stated that his family has lived in Golden Valley for 80 years and
discussed his family's history in Golden Valley. He explained that his grandparents owned
much of the land in this area and sold some of it for the development of Heathbrooke
Addition. He said he has been an active member of the Sweeney Lake Association and the
Historical Society and has donated to the Golden Valley Human Services Fund, the
Courage Center, the Fire Association, and his wife has donated plants to the Arboretum. He
said he allowed the City to have an easement over the property for water and storm sewer
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 11
at no cost and added that he is a steward of the land and his proposal is fair and is the best
option for the neighborhood, his friends, the lake, and the environment.
Kluchka asked Mr. Wessin if he has had any conversations with the City regarding the
street proposal staff is recommending. Wessin said he has, in the past, had conversations
with the City regarding the proposed street but not during this particular proposal.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Jacqueline Day, 1334 Spring Valley Road, said she is a member of the Sweeney Lake
Homeowner's Association, a long-time resident, a Golden Valley realtor for 34 years and
has been instrumental in improving the City's housing stock and implementing the City's
Inflow and Infiltration sewer requirements. Segelbaum asked Ms. Day if she is representing
any of the parties involved in this proposal or if she is speaking as a resident. Day said she
was speaking as a longtime friend and neighbor of George and Sue Wessin and that she
has represented them at length as their realtor. She referred to a location map and
discussed the density of Heathbrooke Addition and the Hidden Lakes development. She
said George, Sue, all the residents of Heathbrooke and all of the Sweeney Lake
Homeowner's Association members want a low density, neighborhood friendly,
environmentally responsible use of Mr. Wessin's property. She said she knows the City has
been bombarded by developers regarding Mr. Wessin's property, none of whom own the
land or are in a purchase agreement to buy the land. She showed the Planning Commission
several of the proposed concept plans she has seen and said these plans remove most of
the woods and the towering oak trees and pack in the maximum density. She showed
pictures of the house at 1801 Noble Drive and stated that shortly after Mr. Lecy bought the
property he started demolishing it, the City stopped the demolition and it has sat vacant
ever since. She showed the Commissioners a drawing by Mr. Lecy showing his intent to
buy Mr. Wessin's property to redevelop it and added that Mr. Lecy has an active MLS listing
for three lots stating that two of them would ready by the end of the summer even though
there has been no application submitted to the City and the property has no road frontage to
qualify for subdividing. She stated that the Haines, owners of the property at 1550 St. Croix
Circle support Mr. Wessin fully and that they do not want the street proposed by the City so
Mr. Lecy is the one property owner instigating the construction of the street. She stated that
Mr. Wessin is requesting a simple lot split that meets every requirement and that the
subdivision ordinance is not being applied properly by staff. She stated that Mr. Wessin
doesn't want or need the proposed street. She said she attended a meeting last summer
with staff to discuss the possibility of Mr. Wessin dividing his property into three lots and
they were told that would not be possible without dedicating land for a street and working
with the other property owners potentially involved. They asked about the cost of the street
and were given a three page report detailing the costs for the engineering, the road and the
cul-de-sac would be $550,000 which does not include the soil preparation, tree removal,
and all the other costs for a development that no one wants. She said also at that meeting,
and other meetings where Mr. Wessin's attorney was present, staff told them that if Mr.
Wessin wanted to divide the property without a new street, his only option was to split his
property into two lots which is what they are proposing because that would meet all City
Code requirements. She stated that staff has said they've met with Mr. Lecy many times
regarding plans to subdivide and that there are staff reports stating other properties may
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 12
also be developable and benefit from the required street. Those parties would be Jeff and
Heidi Haines, George and Sue Wessin, and Amar Alshash, none of whom want the street.
She showed the Commissioners a plan of the Goldenview subdivision that she was a part of
creating. She noted that one of the driveways in that subdivision is 280 feet in length and
there were no objections about its length when it was subdivided. She added that Mr.
Wessin's attorney was present at this meeting and as a concerned citizen she also hired an
attorney. She read a letter from her attorney which states that Mr. Wessin's proposal must
be approved without conditions. She said she's talked with other neighbors and that nobody
has understood that this is really about bringing a continuation of a street from Heathbrooke
and all the traffic it entails into this development, they think it is just about Mr. Wessin
wanting to split his property into two lots and that the City Council will be amazed by how
many people will attend the Council meeting regarding this proposal. She read a letter from
Sandy Lee, a property owner in the area, stating they do not object to Mr. Wessin dividing
his parcel into two lots, however, they are unclear about the rest of parcel and how Mr. Lecy
can advertise three lakeshore lots adjacent to a paved street and a cul-de-sac and want to
know how this is possible without notifying the neighborhood. They said there is no doubt in
their minds that the people in the Heathbrooke neighborhood would object to a paved road
and the possible density and traffic that may attract. This would dramatically affect the
safety and property owners of Heathbrooke homeowners as well as the safety, water
quality, and usage for lakeshore homeowners.
Segelbaum asked Ms. Day if she is representing the homeowner's association. Day said
she has spoken to a large number of people who are her friends and neighbors but they
have not had a formal association meeting.
Amar Alshash, 1807 Noble Drive, showed the Commission pictures of his property and said
he feels like he has been in the dark regarding this proposal. He said he supports Mr.
Wessin's plan to split his property into two lots but putting in a street will encourage a
developer to tear down the existing mansion. He questioned if he would have to pay for the
proposed street and said he is not in favor of having a street go through.
Roy Lecy, 1801 Noble Drive, stated that the MLS listing he has for the property is subject to
future subdivision and there is nothing wrong with marketing the property that way. If a
subdivision doesn't happen, then three lots won't be created. He stated that the existing
driveway providing access to 1801 Noble Drive is 20 feet in width so the proposed new
street will only be 4 feet wider. He said he is supportive of Mr. Wessin putting in two new
lots and he can understand why Mr. Wessin would not want to pay to build a city street. He
said he would pick up the assessments because he is trying to provide access. He said he
sees no negative impact to Mr. Wessin if he pays the assessment. That way, Mr. Wessin
will end up with two lots, maybe four, he would have two lots and the Haines could
potentially get one more lot.
Andrew Gellman, 1810 Noble Drive, said he supports Mr. Wessin's subdivision request. He
said he has sat on a number of boards and urged the City not to cut off the conversation,
but urge it to go forward because the property is neglected and this proposal needs to keep
moving forward.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 13
Christopher Gise, 1485 Island Drive, said he doesn't have a problem with this proposed
subdivision and he is glad to hear concern about Sweeney Lake. He said that the lots on
the peninsula in the Hidden Lakes development all have 50-foot conservation easements
and he thinks that would be a good idea in this proposal as well.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka asked about the effects on the lake, how these subdivisions are reviewed in regard
to the lake and how conservation rules are created. Grimes said there will be a 10 to 20 foot
buffer strip required and there will also be a conservation easement. Oliver stated that
review is based on the size and number of lots. For this proposal there are no water quality
improvements required by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission or the
City. He noted that the Hidden Lakes development had different best management
practices and trade-offs because it was a PUD.
Kluchka asked who pays for streets and what the impacts are to other property owners.
Oliver said there are numerous ways to assess the street costs. He said he agrees with the
resident about not stopping the dialogue and said that this development can be done in an
environmentally sound way and that staff has been encouraging all along for all the property
owners involved to work together.
Segelbaum asked if the width of the proposed street could be 20 feet. Oliver said he would
be comfortable with a 20-foot wide street. Waldhauser asked if that width would cause
problems with parking. Oliver said there are miles and miles of 24-foot wide streets with no
parking restrictions and there have very rarely been any problems.
Cera said he sees a proposal that is piecemeal and incomplete. There are competing
proposals, it is not the Planning Commissions role to judge, and there needs to be dialogue
between the property owners. He said this is not proper planning and it might be
appropriate to table this proposal. Segelbaum agreed that there are several different ideas
but that the applicant probably wants to go forward with his application to the City Council.
He noted that the Fire Chief has said that the length of the driveways violate the Fire Code.
Kluchka said the Fire Chief's memo didn't clearly state that there is a violation.
Waldhauser said it would be nice to resolve the development in this area. She said she is
sympathetic to the neighbors wanting to preserve the character, but eventually that will
change. She added that she doesn't want to lock in a proposal that precludes or prevents
development by future landowners.
Kluchka said it seems to be a question of if the proposed lots are buildable. If the lots are
buildable and utilities can be provided then he thinks the Fire Chief's comments are too
harsh. Oliver stated that Fire staff is concerned about the ability to respond to a fire at these
properties and that sprinklering the homes could be a solution and the water pressure can
be dealt with. His concern is the length of the sewer services and the long term
maintenance of the services. He added that a builder is going to have to show that it can be
done taking into account the direction changes and the grade changes on the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 14
Kluchka said the proposal is a mess and should never have been presented to the Planning
Commission the way they were. He said he would consider tabling the request in order to
get the documentation cleaned up. Waldhauser said the alternative is to recommend
approval with several conditions. Kluchka said staff added conditions to things the applicant
didn't request. Grimes stated that the process is a mess because it is a messy situation. He
stated that staff has worked hard to get all the parties together and he thinks some progress
has been made.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to table the
applicant's request to allow time for the property owners to meet to discuss their options.
--Short Recess--
Reports on Meetings of t e Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zonin Appeals and other Meetings
No repo were given.
8. Other, , usmess
• Plannin Commission Representative on thp,,Community Center Task Force
Kluchka volunteered f` . e the Planning Commission representative on the Community
Center Task Force.
r
• Council Liaison Req rt
4r
No report was given.
9. Adjournment/
The meeting wa 1,adjourned at 10;20 pm.
hi.
ry
b�l
.l
C arles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
regular meeting of the Planning Commiss on was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
CbtKLQI Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Ro d, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
July 9, 4. Chair Kluchka called the mee ng to order at 7 pm.
Those present �ee Planning Commission s Baker, Blum, Boudreau-Lai d s, Cera,
Kluchka, Segelbaurn-Z Waldhauser. Als present was Comm up.ity Development
Director Mark Grimes, Ny�Planner Jason mmerman and.Adtfi6strative Assistant Lisa
Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
June 9, 2014, Regular Planning Com issone,Meeting
June 23, 2014, Regular'Planning Co mission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to-'page three of the Ju e 9 minutes and clried that her concern
regarding the Te74nt proposal going to th Bassett Creek Watersh'�d Commission is
that the differe,At'phases of development wil be scaled back and will beoo.small to be
required to oto the Commission. .
MO b Se elbaum, seconded b Cera nd motion carried unanimous) to approve
Y g Y Y pp
t June 9, 2014, and June 23, 2014, minu s with the above noted clarification.
2. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — Intersection
of Noble Drive and Major Drive — Hanson Wood Shores — SU06-06
Applicant: George Wessin
Address: Intersection of Noble Drive and Major Drive
Purpose: The proposed subdivision would reconfigure the existing single family
residential lot into two new single family residential lots.
Zimmerman explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing, vacant lot
located south of Major/Noble Drives and west of Sweeney Lake into two separate lots.
He reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their March 24, 2014, meeting
to allow for negotiations between the applicant and other landowners in the area
regarding future development.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and stated that both lots exceed the
minimum requirements. Lot 1 would be 80,344 square feet with 80 feet of width at the
front setback, and Lot 2 would be 97,433 square feet with 87 feet of width at the front
setback.
Zimmerman stated that staff has concerns about the lengthy driveways, the distance to a
water supply, the ability to turn around, and the water and sanitary sewer services. He
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 2
said that ultimately, the City would like to see orderly and coordinated development,
adequately served by sewer and water, but without cooperation, the only option to
preserve right-of-way now, and to accommodate future development, is to require 30 feet
of right-of-way be dedicated to allow for the possibility of a future street. He stated that the
applicant does not feel that dedicating land is necessary or appropriate. However, it is
clearly in the City's interest to avoid an expensive taking in the future by requiring land for
access now. He stated that without the dedication of right-of-way staff is recommending
denial of this proposal.
Cera asked about the landowner to south (1801 Noble Ave.) and his offer at the last
Planning Commission meeting to pay for a new street. Zimmerman said he believes that
offer has been pulled back and that discussions between the property owners didn't get
that far.
Segelbaum asked if the owner of 1801 Noble Ave. did not want to subdivide his property
if the dedication of land would still be necessary. Zimmerman said yes, dedications
happen as development occurs and opportunities arise. Segelbaum asked if the applicant
would still be required to pay for a new street even though he is not required to build it.
Zimmerman said there are a number of ways to finance the construction of the street.
Segelbaum noted that the Fire Chief's memo was worded more strongly than Zimmerman
stated in his presentation. Zimmerman explained that the memo in the agenda packet
was written by the former Fire Chief. Since then, the applicant has changed his plans
slightly and the current Fire Chief feels a little more comfortable with the new location of
the proposed homes.
Boudreau-Landis asked if the dedication of right-of-way takes away the viability of Lot 2 in
regard to lot width. Zimmerman said yes, however, Lot 2 would gain frontage along the
new street.
Jacqueline Day, 1334 Spring Valley Road, representing the applicant, stated that Roy
Lecy (owner of 1801 Noble Drive) offered to pay for the new road, but when all the
neighboring property owners met, he said he would not pay for the road, he would front
the money for it, but whoever uses the road was going to have to pay for it. She said that
is when Mr. Wessin backed out of conversations with Mr. Lecy. She stated that in order to
build a road the existing sanitary sewer will have to be removed, and football fields of dirt
would have to be moved. Kluchka stated that the City isn't asking that the road be
constructed at this time.
Day said the plan the applicant has submitted makes sense for the neighborhood. She
said doing the things the City is requiring would go against everything Mr. Wessin
believes in, and what the neighborhood wants. She referred to the City's Comprehensive
Plan and stated that a goal listed in that plan is to protect and respect traditional
neighborhoods. She said Mr. Wessin will have to come back with a higher density plan to
make his proposal work with the required road. She stated that Mr. Lecy has no hardships
with his property at 1801 Noble which was marketed as one home, not for a development,
because there is no frontage. She said there were other offers made for the purchase of
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 3
the home at 1801 Noble and if those offers were accepted they would not be here right
now. She stated that Sweeney Lake is listed as impaired, and now there is blue-green
algae in the lake, which they've never had before which is terribly concerning to all the
lake owners. She said what the Planning Commission doesn't understand is that this is
not 12 acres of beautiful land, ready to develop. It is a low, natural prairie doing its job of
filtering the lake. She wants to keep it natural and let it do its job. She said Mr. Wessin is
much more interested in doing what was done on the peninsula at Hidden Lakes. She
showed the Commission several pictures of properties in the area that have turned their
yards into natural areas.
Segelbaum asked Ms. Day if the applicant is against dedicating 30 feet of right-of-way,
paying for the new road, or both. Day said there is no legal reason for the applicant to
dedicate right-of-way. She stated that the applicant would like to build two homes and that
they are in talks with two existing homeowners to buy the property.
Kluchka asked Ms. Day if the applicant is interested in continuing with the utility planning.
Day stated that the plan is to put in the utilities as shown and there is no necessity to do
any more plans because they are done.
Day showed the Commission several more pictures of properties in the area. She said
that Mr. Wessin is being put in the position where the only way it will make any sense is to
do high density and that is not what he wants to do. She stated that there is no reason for
future development to come up, so she doesn't understand why they need to put in a
road.
Scott Lucas, Olson & Lucas, applicant's attorney, said this is a minor subdivision
application and Section 12.20 of the Subdivision Code does not apply to minor
subdivisions. He said this is going to be a hardship on his client and questioned if the
road would be constructed before his client sells the lots. He said when Mr. Lecy bought
1801 Noble Drive, he knew he was purchasing one single family lot with a 20-foot wide
driveway. He said that staff telling Mr. Wessin to go work out a deal, or be denied is not
fair. He stated that Mr. Wessin lost his home to foreclosure and is of retirement age, and
this is unfair to his client.
Kluchka said he has two issues that he can look at as findings or conditions. The first is
that a utility plan must be completed and the second is that the requested right-of-way
must be dedicated. Segelbaum noted that the applicant has made it clear that he is not
interested in dedicating any right-of-way.
Baker questioned if the Commission would feel differently if the applicant came back to
the City with a covenant saying no further subdivisions would occur. Cera said he is
considering the whole area and this proposal is a "piece meal" development. He stated
that there won't be one property owner paying for the road, it would be paid for by several
different owners once the property is subdivided and the road is built. Waldhauser added
that there are other property owners in the area that will need access in order to subdivide
their property as well.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 14, 2014
Page 4
Segelbaum said that while he is sympathetic to the applicant, he wishes he could work
with the staff recommendations.
Waldhauser said she would appreciate a more detailed response to the applicant's
attorney's points on whether road planning is or is not required. Zimmerman stated that
there are provisions in the City Code that allow the requiring of dedication to be done.
Waldhauser questioned if the City has discretion of requiring, or not requiring the
dedication. Grimes said no, the City has to provide access for future development. He
added that if the property to the south (1801 Noble Drive) chooses to subdivide, staff
would not recommend keeping the existing 20-foot wide driveway to serve two or three
new lots. Cera said there are also fire concerns and utility concerns.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the Single Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable.
Conditions:
1. A preliminary utility plan must be provided that better illustrates a feasible extension of
sewer and water to the new lots.
2. The City requires the dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the extension of a
public street and a cul-de-sac. Additional easements are required as outlined in the
July 10, 2014, memo from the Public Works Department.
3. A park dedication fee of $20,800 (2% of estimated land market value) shall be paid by
the applicant prior to final plat approval.
Informal Public Hear g — Minor Subdivision — 221 Paisley Lane — Paisley
Lane Woods — SU12 16
i
A icant: LDK Bui ers, Inc.
Addres , 221 Pai f ley Lannee,,,,1,
Purpose: re c igi' ure the existing g Y single family residential lot into two new
si- mily residential lots.
Zimmerman r erred to site' n of the property and explained the applicant's request
to subdivi, the propert into tw eparate lots. He stated that the existing home would
be re ved, and two n w homes w d be built. Lot 1 would be 22,958 square feet with
93. eet of width at th bfront setback a Lot 2 would be 24,129 square feet with 90
fe of width at the fron setback, both of ch exceed the Zoning Code requirements.
cio, ofpfd. ,M
"ldcy2 MEMORANDUM
�valley y P1 nn i
+�. �.'� a ng Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: March 19, 2014
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of
Wessin Property (Hanson Wood Shores)—George Wessin, Applicant
Summary of Request
George Wessin is proposing to subdivide his property located south of Major/Noble Drives and west
of Sweeny Lake and reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family
residential lots.
City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District. Lot 1 to the northeast would be 80,344 square feet and Lot 2 to the south
and west would be 97,433 square feet.
City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of frontage. Lot 1 would have 80 feet
of frontage and Lot 2 would have 87 feet of frontage at the lot line. As proposed, the dimensions of
both of the newly created lots would provide an adequate building envelope for development.
Qualification as a Minor Subdivision
The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located south
of Major/Noble Drives and west of Sweeny Lake is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed
subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and, as proposed, it would not create need for public
improvements (such as street construction). 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. As previously
indicated, the proposed subdivision would 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. These documents provide the City with
the necessary information to begin the evaluation of the proposed minor subdivision.
The owner of the adjacent property immediately to the south, 1801 Noble Drive, has contacted the
City and hopes to subdivide his property in the near future. At this point, his property can only be
accessed via a 20' driveway to Noble Drive, which is platted as a separate lot. In order to provide the
access and frontage necessary for him to subdivide, Staff has evaluated a design that would combine
the 20' driveway with a 30' wide portion of the subject property to create enough right-of-way to
build a new public street. This would not only allow the owner of 1801 Noble Drive to subdivide, but
would provide additional frontage should the Applicant choose to further subdivide his property in
the future.
Section 12.20, Subdivision 1, of the City Code states that when land is subdivided the City shall plan
for new streets:
The arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make provisions for the appropriate
continuation of the existing streets in adjoining areas. Where adjoining areas are not
subdivided, the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make provision for the
proper projection of streets. When a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided land
susceptible to being subdivided, then the new streets shall be carried to the boundaries of
the tract propose to be subdivided.
Staff requires a revised preliminary plat showing the new public street—and the necessary cul-de-sac
at its termination—be provided to and approved by Staff prior to review by the City Council.
City Engineer Jeff Oliver has submitted a memorandum dated March 17, 2014, regarding
recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. It covers the new
public street and cul-de-sac, sewer and water connections, stormwater management and grading,
tree preservation, and public improvements and special assessments. Requirements set forth in Mr.
Oliver's memo are to be included in the recommended action of this subdivision.
Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly has submitted a memorandum dated March 14, 2014, regarding comments
from the Fire Department concerning this request. It covers fire access to the two lots as proposed by
the Applicant. The construction of the new public street and cul-de-sac would help alleviate concerns
from the Fire Department.
The City Attorney has reviewed the legal opinion provided by Paula Callies, attorney for the Applicant,
and disagrees with the conclusion that the City must approve the subdivision application without the
conditions related to the new public street.
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 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. A preliminary utility plan must be provided that better illustrates a
feasible extension of sewer and water to the new lots.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City.
The City requires the dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the extension of a public street
and a cul-de-sac. Additional easements are required as outlined in the March 17, 2014, memo
from the Public Works Department.
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
$26,400 (2% of estimated land market value) shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat
approval.
Recommended Action
The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the
following conditions:
1. A revised preliminary plat that includes a public street and cul-de-sac will be submitted to Staff
prior to review by the City Council.
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$26,400 shall be paid before final plat approval.
4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this approval.
5. The Fire Chief's memorandum, dated March 14, 2014, shall become part of this approval.
6. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will
include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum.
7. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Memo from Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly dated March 14, 2014 (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated March 17, 2014 (6 pages)
Letter from Paula A. Callies, Callies Law, dated March 18, 2014 (2 pages)
Site Plans (2 pages)
city c��f ,
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: July 14, 2014
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of
Wessin Property (Hanson Wood Shores)—George Wessin, Applicant
Summary of Request
George Wessin is proposing to subdivide his 4.08 acre property located south of Major/Noble Drives
and west of Sweeney Lake and reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new
single family residential lots.
City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the Single Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Lot 1 to the northeast would be 80,344 square feet and Lot 2 to the
south and west would be 97,433 square feet.
City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the minimum front set
back line. Lot 1 would have 80 feet of width and Lot 2 would have 87 feet of width. As proposed, the
dimensions of both of the newly created lots would provide an adequate building envelope for
development.
Background
This proposal was before the Planning Commission on March 24, 2014, and was tabled to allow the
property owners involved a chance to work out an agreement regarding the construction of a public
road to the west of the subject property. Staff met with all parties and while the potential for an
arrangement was considered, in the end the Applicant withdrew from the conversation and decided
to return with his original proposal.
A slightly revised site plan was submitted on July 2, 2014, that locates the two proposed single family
homes slightly closer to Noble Drive, reducing the length of the driveways. The length of the driveway
for Lot 1 would be 145';the length of the driveway for Lot 2 would be 335'.
Qualification as a Minor Subdivision
The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located south
of Major/Noble Drives and west of Sweeney Lake is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed
subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and, as proposed, it would not create need for public
improvements (such as street construction). 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. As previously
indicated, the proposed subdivision would create two lots in the Single Family Residential (R-1) 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. These documents provide the City with
the necessary information to begin the evaluation of the proposed minor subdivision.
As discussed before the Planning Commission on March 24, Section 12.20, Subdivision 1, of the City
Code requires that land for right-of-way be dedicated when subdivisions adjoin unsubdivided land.
The City has informed the Applicant that 30' of land along the western edge of the property is needed
to construct—in combination with an existing 20' driveway—a new 50' public street which would
allow access for future development. The Applicant has refused to dedicate the land.
City Engineer Jeff Oliver has submitted a memorandum dated July 10, 2014, regarding
recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. It covers the new
public street and cul-de-sac, sewer and water connections, stormwater management and grading,
tree preservation, and public improvements and special assessments. Requirements set forth in Mr.
Oliver's memo are included in the recommended action of this subdivision.
Now-retired Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly submitted a memorandum dated March 14, 2014, regarding
comments from the Fire Department concerning this request. It covers fire access to the two lots as
proposed by the Applicant. The construction of the new public street and cul-de-sac would help
alleviate concerns from the Fire Department. New Fire Chief John Crelly has reviewed the Applicant's
revised plan and continues to have concerns about providing fire protection to the home on Lot 2.
The City Attorney has reviewed the two legal opinions provided by Scott Lucas, apparent attorney for
the Applicant, and disagrees with the conclusion that the City must approve the subdivision
application without the dedication of right-of-way related to the new public street.
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 lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the
Single Family Residential (R-1) 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. A preliminary utility plan must be provided that better illustrates a
feasible extension of sewer and water to the new lots.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City.
The City requires the dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the extension of a public street
and a cul-de-sac. Additional easements are required as outlined in the July 10, 2014, memo from
the Public Works Department.
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. If the minor subdivision is approved, 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. If the minor subdivision
is approved, a park dedication fee of$20,800 (2% of estimated land market value) shall be paid by
the applicant prior to final plat approval.
Recommended Action
The City requires the submittal of a Preliminary Utility Plan for review which may or may not give rise
to concerns regarding the feasibility of providing water and sewer service to the new lots. This
submission and evaluation should be completed prior to consideration for approval.
Regardless, due to the lack of the dedicated right-of-way required for the construction of a public
street and the associated utilities, Staff recommends denial of the proposed minor subdivision.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Memo from Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly dated March 14, 2014 (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated July 10, 2014 (5 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 24, 2014 (6 pages)
Letter from Scott M. Lucas, Olson and Lucas, dated July 8, 2014 (3 pages)
Revised Site Plan dated June 27, 2014 (1 page)
Site Plans dated February 19, 2014 (2 pages)
city 0
golden MEMORANDUM
valley
lPublic Works Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Date: March 17, 2014
To: Mark Grimes, Community Development Director
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Subject: Subdivision Review of Hanson Wood Shores
Mr. George Wessin has submitted an application for a minor subdivision of his property located
on the west side of Sweeney Lake immediately south of Noble Drive and Major Drive.
The proposed development includes splitting the existing 4.08 acre parcel into two lots with
frontage on Noble Drive. The preliminary plat submitted for review indicates that the parcel is
approximately 3.1 acres in size above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Sweeney Lake.
A Subdivision Agreement that outlines the Developer's obligations will be required for this
development.
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan
As discussed above, the proposed subdivision includes splitting the existing parcel into two
single-family lots with frontage on Noble Drive. The Developer will be required to obtain a City
Right-of-Way Management Permit for the installation of driveway aprons onto Noble Drive.
There is an existing 20-foot wide parcel immediately adjacent to the property being considered
for subdivision that is owned by the property owner immediately south of the subject property
(1801 Noble Drive). The property at 1801 Noble Drive has an existing home on it and the 20-foot
wide parcel serves as the access to that home. The owner of 1801 Noble Drive has met with City
staff several times and has submitted concept plans for the subdivision of that property. Based
upon preliminary review of these concept plans it appears that the 1801 Noble Drive parcel can
be subdivided into two or three conforming parcels. In addition, there is a portion of.Lot 3, Block
1 of Golden View, which was approved by the City in the fall of 2012, and additional properties
located to the west that may be developable.
The Golden Valley City Code,Section 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards, Subdivision
1. Street Plan, outlines Developer requirements to extend street through a property being
developed to make provision for the proper project of streets through to the boundary between
parcels to allow for subdivision of the adjacent, undeveloped property. Because the property
G:\Developments-Private\Hanson Wood Shores\Subdivision Review 031714.docx
owner at 1801 Noble Drive has indicated his desire to develop his adjacent parcel,this
development must comply with Section 12.20 of the City Code.
Therefore, the Developer of the proposed Hanson Wood Shores must dedicate street right-of-
way to provide for the logical extension of streets to the adjacent parcel. In addition, it is this
Developer's responsibility to extend public streets, sanitary sewer, watermains and storm sewer
within this subdivision to provide those services to the adjacent property.
Based upon the above discussion, the preliminary plat for Hanson Wood Shores must be revised
to include the dedication of 30-feet of street right-of-way along the western property line. The
property owner at 1801 Noble Drive will be required to dedicate the existing 20-foot wide parcel
as street right-of-way to provide a total street right-of-way of 50-feet wide. In addition, both
Developers will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for the construction of
a cul-de-sac at or near the common property line. The determination of the location of the right-
of-way for a cul-de-sac must be reviewed by City staff and must be acceptable to both
Developers.
The proposed plat must be modified to include the dedication of drainage and utility easements
consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. This includes 10-foot wide easements on all plat
boundaries and 12-foot wide easements centered on internal property lines.
Because the development is adjacent to Sweeney Lake, the preliminary plat must include
drainage and utility easements which incorporate any wetlands on the lake shoreline, and must
accommodate the floodplain for the lake. Therefore, the preliminary plat must be revised to
extend the proposed drainage and utility easement over the portion of the property within the
lake and extend to an elevation of 833.5 mean sea level, which is the regulatory flood protection
elevation as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.; and/or to a point ten-feet beyond any
wetlands located on the lakeshore, whichever elevation is greater.
The Developer will also be required to dedicate conservation easements along the shore of
Sweeney Lake as discussed later in this review.
Utilities
There is an existing 16-inch diameter sanitary sewer that is located partially within the 20-foot
wide parcel immediately west of the property proposed for development.This trunk City sanitary
sewer extends from the west and flows northward along Noble Drive, and is not located within
the subject property. There are no existing sanitary sewer services extended from this main to
provide service to the property being developed.
The City holds a ten-foot wide sanitary sewer easement (Document 3144805) over its 16-inch
sanitary sewer. The preliminary plat submitted for review does not include the location of this
sanitary sewer easement and must be modified to include the easement.
The Developer has submitted plans that indicate that sanitary sewer services will be extended
from the City's trunk sanitary sewer at a point within the right of way of Noble Drive. These
proposed sewer services are long and include direction changes. The length may result in
elevation issues to provide service to the lower levels of the new homes, and other maintenance
issues are likely to result from the length and direction changes. The developer should
demonstrate that other sanitary sewer service locations are not feasible for the proposed lots.
Consistent with the discussion of extending public streets to the undeveloped properties to the
south and west of this proposed subdivision, the developer must submit a utility plan the extends
City sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer to the adjacent property.
There is an existing 6-inch diameter watermain located within Noble Drive adjacent to this
property with adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. However,there are no
existing water services to the subject property. The Preliminary Utility Plan must include the
location of water services to each of the properties.
The new homes within this development must be compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration
Ordinance prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the homes.
Stormwater Management and Grading
This development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed.
Based upon the size of the development, review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC) is not required. However, if the individual Grading Plans for each lot
include any grading or land-disturbing activity within the floodplain, those plans will be subject to
the review of the BCWMC.
This staff review assumes that each lot will be custom-graded at the time of home construction.
A City Stormwater Management Permit will be required for each lot, before the start of
construction. A Stormwater Management Plan meeting City standards is required as part of each
permit submittal.
This development is subject to the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance, due to the presence
of the floodplain for Sweeney Lake. The lowest floor and lowest openings of new principal and
accessory structures must be a minimum of two (2) feet above the base flood elevation to ensure
adequate flood protection. In addition, City and BCWMC requirements prohibit the placement of
fill within a designated floodplain. According to the preliminary plat submitted, there are no
proposed impacts to the floodplain of Sweeney Lake. The individual Stormwater Management
Plans submitted for each lot must also ensure that these provisions are met.
The Developer will be required to provide a wetland delineation report for review prior to
approval of the final plat. If it determined that wetlands are present,the easements discussed
earlier in this review must cover the wetlands and provide for a 10-foot wide vegetated buffer
upland of the wetland limit. If it is determined that wetlands are present, staff reserves the right
to require additional protective measures as part of the final plat.
Sweeney Lake is listed as impaired for nutrients on the Federal List of Impaired Waters and a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study was completed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and BCWMC. The TMDL study identified several best management practices that would
help to improve the water quality of Sweeney Lake. One of those best management practices is a
vegetative buffer along the shore. As part of the approval of this development, a 10-foot native
or natural vegetative buffer is required to be established along the lake and wetland to improve
the water quality of Sweeney Lake. The buffer should be designed in a manner consistent with
the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance, which allows a corridor for property owner
access to the lake. The buffer must be a minimum of 10-feet in width and should be shown and
described on plans submitted with the final plat.
As an additional requirement, each property owner must grant and convey to the City a
permanent conservation easement, to ensure that the buffer is preserved and maintained into
the future. The property owner will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the buffer. The
maintenance requirements will be included in the text of the conservation easements. Because
each homeowner will determine the location of their access corridor, the conservation
easements must be based upon customized legal descriptions. The legal descriptions and surveys
illustrating the easements must be submitted by the Developer to the City for review and
approval. Signs or posts designed to City standards must be placed in the field to clearly mark the
boundary of the conservation easement areas. No permanent structures will be allowed in the
conservation easements or the access corridors, and no outside storage will be allowed within
the conservation easement areas. Stairways, docks, and sand beaches may be allowed within the
access corridors, provided they are consistent with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MnDNR) guidelines and permit requirements, and the provisions of the Wetland
Conservation Act. Work below the OHWL may not occur without a permit from the MnDNR.
The conservation easements must be drafted by the City, signed by all parties, and recorded at
Hennepin County, before Stormwater Management Permits are issued for new construction. The
Subdivision Development Agreement will specify that an escrow must be posted by the
Developer in an amount sufficient to cover the establishment of the buffer per plan and the
maintenance required for two additional growing seasons.
Tree Preservation Plan
This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because each lot will be
custom-graded at the time of home construction, the project will be considered a single-lot
development, in which a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot. The
Developer has submitted a Tree Inventory and Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan which will
assist in the review of each permit application.
Public Improvements and Special Assessments
Following the modifications to the plans to address the extension of public utilities and streets to
accommodate future development as discussed in this review, the plans must be resubmitted for
review. Staff recommends that the three property owners communicate and develop an orderly
plan for development and improvements that will benefit all three parties.
The public utilities and streets discussed within this review will be constructed as a public
improvement project with the Developer(s) responsible for 100% of the construction and indirect
costs. In order to initiate the public improvement process a petition for the improvements must
be submitted to the City with all three property owners' signatures. This petition must include a
waiver of the right to appeal special assessments for the improvements.
The property being considered for development has a $42,000.00 deferred special assessment
levied against it for the 2006 Pavement Management Project. In addition,the undeveloped lots in
the vicinity of this proposed development also have deferred special assessments. These
deferred assessments will be due at the time of final plat approval. However,the deferred
assessments may be applied toward the cost of the required street construction. The deferred
special assessments, public improvement costs, and the associated special assessments will be
addressed in the Development Agreement for this subdivision, and/or for any subdivision that
occurs on the undeveloped property.
Summary and Recommendations
Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision to be named Hanson
Wood Shores, subject to the comments contained in this memorandum. These comments are
summarized as follows:
1. Modification of the preliminary plat to include the dedication of right-of-way to
accommodate the extension of a public street to undeveloped property to the south and
west of the proposed development.
2. Modification of the preliminary plat to include the dedication of easements consistent
with the Subdivision Ordinance, including easements on the plat boundary, internal
property lines, and over the floodplain of Sweeney Lake, as discussed in this
memorandum.
3. The preliminary plat must be revised to include the location of the existing sanitary sewer
easement over the City trunk sanitary sewer located immediately west of the property
being developed.
4. The Developer must submit a Preliminary Utility Plan that includes extension of sanitary
sewer, watermain and storm sewer to provide service to undeveloped property to the
south and west of the property being developed.
5. The homes within the proposed development must be compliant with the City's Inflow
and Infiltration Ordinance, prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the homes.
6. The low floors of homes within this development must be no lower than an elevation of
833.5 feet mean sea level, in accordance with the Floodplain Management Ordinance.
7. A wetland delineation must be performed for the proposed development, prior to the
approval of the final plat.
8. The Developer must place a 10-foot wide buffer strip with native vegetation along the
shore of Sweeney Lake, as discussed in this memorandum.
9. The City and each of the homeowners must establish and record with Hennepin County,
permanent conservation easements, the vegetated buffer strips, and any wetlands on
each lot.
10. The Developer or builder must obtain a City Stormwater Management Permit for
each of the properties within the development, prior to issuance of Building Permits for
the homes.
11. The Developer must obtain City Right-of-Way Management Permits for any work within
City street right-of-way or easements.
12. The Developer or builder must apply for and obtain a Tree Preservation Permit for each
lot, prior to issuance of Building Permits.
13. The Developer must pay the deferred special assessments on the property being
developed, prior to approval of the final plat.
14. The Developer must enter into a Development Agreement with the City that includes a
waiver of his right to appeal special assessments for the extension of a public street,
sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer through the property being developed to
provide for the development of property to the south and west of this parcel.
15. Approval is also subject to the review and comments of the City Attorney, City Planner,
and Deputy Fire Marshal.
Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist
Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer
Mitch Hoeft, Utility Engineer
Mark Kuhnly, Fire Chief
John Crelly, Deputy Fire Chief
Jason Zimmerman, City Planner
Jerry Frevel, Interim Building Official
City 0f
goldeni",'ArMEMORANDUM
valley Public Works Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Date: July 10, 2014
To: Mllark Grimes, Community Development Director
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Subject: Subdivision Review of Hanson Wood Shores
Mr. George Wessin has submitted an application for a minor subdivision of his property located
on the west side of Sweeney Lake, immediately south of Noble Drive and Major Drive.
The proposed development includes splitting the existing 4.08-acre parcel into two lots with
frontage on Noble Drive.The preliminary plat submitted for review indicates that the parcel is
approximately 3.1 acres in size above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Sweeney Lake.
A Subdivision Agreement that outlines the Developer's obligations will be required for this
development.
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan
As discussed above,the proposed subdivision includes splitting the existing parcel into two
single-family lots with frontage on Noble Drive. The Developer will be required to obtain a City
Right-of-Way Management Permit for the installation of driveway aprons onto Noble Drive.
There is an existing 20-foot wide parcel immediately adjacent to the property being considered
for subdivision that is owned by the property owner immediately south of the subject property
(1801 Noble Drive). The property at 1801 Noble Drive has an existing home on it and the 20-foot
wide parcel serves as the access to that home. The owner of 1801 Noble Drive has met with City
staff several times and has submitted concept plans for the subdivision of that property. Based
upon preliminary review of these concept plans, it appears that the 1801 Noble Drive parcel can
be subdivided into two or three conforming parcels. In addition, there is a portion of Lot 3,
Block 1 of Golden View, which was approved by the City in the fall of 2012, and additional
properties located to the west that may be developed in the future.
The Golden Valley City Code,Section 12.20:Minimum Subdivision Design Standards,
Subdivision 1. Street Plan, outlines Developer requirements to extend streets through a property
being developed to make provision for the proper projection of streets through to the boundary
between parcels to allow for subdivision of the adjacent, undeveloped property. Because the
G:\Developments-Private\Hanson Wood Shores\REV_Subdivision Review 071014.docx
property owner at 1801 Noble Drive has indicated his desire to develop his adjacent parcel,this
development must comply with Section 12.20 of the City Code.
Therefore, the Developer of the proposed Hanson Wood Shores must dedicate street right-of-
way to provide for the logical extension of streets to the adjacent parcel. In addition, it is this
Developer's responsibility to extend public streets, sanitary sewer, watermains and storm sewer
within this subdivision to provide those services to the adjacent property.
Based upon the above discussion,the preliminary plat for Hanson Wood Shores must be revised
to include the dedication of 30 feet of street right-of-way along the western property line.The
property owner at 1801 Noble Drive will be required to dedicate the existing 20-foot wide parcel
as street right-of-way at the time of development to provide a total street right-of-way of 50 feet.
In addition, both Developers will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for
the construction of a cul-de-sac at or near the common property line. The determination of the
location of the right-of-way for a cul-de-sac must be reviewed by City staff and must be
acceptable to both Developers.
The proposed plat must be modified to include the dedication of drainage and utility easements
consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. This includes 10-foot wide easements on all plat
boundaries and 12-foot wide easements centered on internal property lines.
Because the development is adjacent to Sweeney Lake,the preliminary plat must include
drainage and utility easements which incorporate any wetlands on the lake shoreline, and must
accommodate the floodplain for the lake. Therefore, the preliminary plat must be revised to
extend the proposed drainage and utility easement over the portion of the property within the
lake and extend to an elevation of 833.5 mean sea level, which is the regulatory flood protection
elevation as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance, and/or to a point 10 feet beyond any
wetlands located on the lakeshore, whichever elevation is greater.
The Developer will also be required to dedicate conservation easements along the shore of
Sweeney Lake as discussed later in this review.
Utilities
There is an existing 16-inch diameter sanitary sewer that is located partially within the 20-foot
wide parcel immediately west of the property proposed for development. This trunk City sanitary
sewer extends from the west and flows northward along Noble Drive, and is not located within
the subject property. There are no existing sanitary sewer services extended from this main to
provide service to the property being developed.
The City holds a 10-foot wide sanitary sewer easement (Document 3144805) over its 16-inch
sanitary sewer. The preliminary plat submitted for review does not include the location of this
sanitary sewer easement and must be modified to include the easement.
The Developer has submitted plans that indicate that sanitary sewer services will be extended
from the City's trunk sanitary sewer at a point within the right-of-way of Noble Drive. These
proposed sewer services are long and include direction changes. The length may result in
G:\Developments-Private\Hanson Wood Shores\REV—Subdivision Review 071014.docx
elevation issues to provide service to the lower levels of the new homes, deposition of solids and
other long-term maintenance issues for future property owners are likely to result from the
length and direction changes. The developer should demonstrate that other sanitary sewer
service locations are not feasible for the proposed lots, including installation of services into the
parcels from the existing 16-inch City sanitary sewer. Consistent with the discussion of extending
public streets to the undeveloped properties to the south and west of this proposed subdivision,
the developer must submit a utility plan that includes extension of City sanitary sewer, water and
storm sewer to the adjacent properties.
There is an existing 6-inch diameter watermain located within Noble Drive adjacent to this
property with adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. However, there are no
existing water services to the subject property. The Preliminary Utility Plan must include the
location of water services to each of the properties. However, the extension of water services to
the proposed lots in this development should be from the watermain to be installed as discussed
earlier in this memorandum.
The new homes within this development must be compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration
Ordinance prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the homes.
Stormwater Management and Grading
This development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed.
Based upon the size of the development, review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC) is not required. However, if the individual Grading Plans for each lot
include any grading or land-disturbing activity within the floodplain,those plans will be subject to
the review of the BCWMC.
This staff review assumes that each lot will be custom-graded at the time of home construction.
A City Stormwater Management Permit will be required for each lot, before the start of
construction.A Stormwater Management Plan meeting City standards.is required as part of each
permit submittal.
This development is subject to the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance due to the presence
of the floodplain for Sweeney Lake. The lowest floor and lowest openings of new principal and
accessory structures must be a minimum of two (2)feet above the base flood elevation to ensure
adequate flood protection. In addition, City and BCWMC requirements prohibit the placement of
fill within a designated floodplain. According to the preliminary plat submitted, there are no
proposed impacts to the floodplain of Sweeney Lake. The individual Stormwater Management
Plans submitted for each lot must also ensure that these provisions are met.
The Developer will be required to provide a wetland delineation report for review prior to
approval of the final plat. If it is determined that wetlands are present,the easements discussed
earlier in this review must cover the wetlands and provide for the installation of a 10-foot wide
vegetated buffer upland of the wetland limit. If it is determined that wetlands are present, staff
reserves the right to require additional protective measures as part of the final plat.
G:\Developments-Private\Hanson Wood Shores\REV_Subdivision Review 071014.docx
Sweeney Lake is listed as impaired for nutrients on the Federal List of Impaired Waters and a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study was completed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and BCWMC. The TMDL study identified several best management practices that would
help to protect and improve the water quality of Sweeney Lake. One of those best management
practices is a vegetative buffer along the shore. As part of the approval of this development, a
10-foot native or natural vegetative buffer is required to be established along the lake and
wetland to protect and improve the water quality of Sweeney Lake. The buffer should be
designed in a manner consistent with the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance, which
allows a corridor for property owner access to the lake. The buffer must be a minimum of 10 feet
in width and should be shown and described on plans submitted with the final plat.
As an additional requirement, each property owner must grant and convey to the City a
permanent conservation easement,to ensure that the buffer is preserved and maintained into
the future. The property owner will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the buffer. The
maintenance requirements will be included in the text of the conservation easements. Because
each homeowner will determine the location of their access corridor,the conservation
easements must be based upon customized legal descriptions. The legal descriptions and surveys
illustrating the easements must be submitted by the Developer to the City for review and
approval. Signs or posts designed to City standards must be placed in the field to clearly mark the
boundary of the conservation easement areas. No permanent structures will be allowed in the
conservation easements or the access corridors, and no outside storage will be allowed within
the conservation easement areas. Stairways, docks, and sand beaches may be allowed within the
access corridors, provided they are consistent with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MnDNR) guidelines and permit requirements, and the provisions of the Wetland
Conservation Act. Work below the OHWL may not occur without a permit from the MnDNR.
The conservation easements must be drafted by the City, signed by all parties, and recorded at
Hennepin County, before Stormwater Management Permits are issued for new construction. The
Subdivision Development Agreement will specify that an escrow must be posted by the
Developer in an amount sufficient to cover the establishment of the buffer per plan and the
maintenance required for two additional growing seasons.
Tree Preservation Plan
This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because each lot will be
custom-graded at the time of home construction,the project will be considered a single-lot
development, in which a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot. The
Developer has submitted a Tree Inventory and Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan which will
assist in the review of each permit application.
Public Improvements and Special Assessments
Following the modifications to the plans to address the extension of public utilities and streets to
accommodate future development as discussed in this review, the plans must be resubmitted for
review. Staff recommends that the three property owners communicate and develop an orderly
plan for development and improvements that will benefit all three parties.
G:\Developments-Private\Hanson Wood Shores\REV_Subdivision Review 071014.docx
The public utilities and streets discussed within this review may be constructed as a public
improvement project with the Developer(s) responsible for 100%of the construction and indirect
costs. An alternative to a public improvement project, the streets and utilities may be
constructed to City standards by the developer. Further discussion on the options for street and
utility construction will occur as development proceeds on this property and the adjoining
parcels.
The property being considered for development has a $42,000 deferred special assessment
levied against it for the 2006 Pavement Management Project. In addition,the undeveloped lots in
the vicinity of this proposed development also have deferred special assessments. Discussion
regarding these deferred special assessments and construction of new public streets and utilities
will occur as development proceeds on this property and adjacent parcels.
Summary and Recommendations
Based upon the discussion contained in this review, Public Works staff recommends denial of the
proposed Hanson Wood Shores subdivision as submitted. The proposed plans should be modified
to address the street and utility issues discussed herein, and should be resubmitted for further
review and consideration by the City.
Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter.
C: Tom Burt, City Manager
Allen Barnard, City Attorney
Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager/Interim Director of Physical Development
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist
Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer
Mitch Hoeft, Utility Engineer
John Crelly, Fire Chief
Jason Zimmerman, City Planner
Jerry Frevel, Building Official
G:\Developments-Private\Hanson Wood Shores\REV_Subdivision Review 071014.docx
cit I, of
goldc' 1117
valley Fire Department
763-593-8079/763-593-8098 (fax)
Date: March 14, 2014
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development
From: Mark Kuhnly, Fire Chief
Subject: Minor Subdivision - Wessin Property (Hanson Wood Shores)
The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the minor subdivision plans dated 1-30-2014 for
the Hanson Wood Shores project. Listed below are the fire department comments.
Note:
This is the third or fourth review of a proposed project for this area. The biggest challenges facing
the fire department are the very lengthy driveways, the distance to a water supply and our ability
to turn around and get back to a public street. Typically the fire department will park on the street
in front of a house and lay a 200 foot pre-connected hose which will reach ALL interior points of a
home. Successfully fighting a fire in a building that does not have any"built in fire protection
systems" boils down to early identification of the fire, prompt fire department response and quick
deployment of ample amounts of water to combat the fire.
1. Lot 1 as proposed does not meet the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The following
need to be addressed:
a. The private driveway is approximately 230 feet in length. A fire road that exceeds 150
feet shall be provided with an approved turn around.
b. The drawing does not detail the clear width of the private road (appears to be 12 feet
wide) and to what standard the road will be constructed to.
2. Lot 2 as proposed does not meet the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The following
need to be addressed:
a. The private driveway is approximately 390 feet in length. A fire road that exceeds 150
feet shall be provided with an approved turn around.
b. The drawing does not detail the clear width of the private road (appears to be 12 feet
wide) and to what standard the road will be constructed to.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8080 or by e-mail,
mkuhniy@goldenvalleymn.gov
CALLIES Paula A. Callies
...... LAW
5500 Wayzata Blvd.•Suite 1000• Minneapolis,MN 55416 pcallies@callies4aw.com•www.callies-law.com (763)546-8020
March 18, 2014
Jason Zimmerman
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley,MN 55437
RE: George Wessin Minor Subdivision
Tract A RLS#1104
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
I represent Jacqueline Day who is working on behalf of Mr.Wessin. I am writing in response to
your letter of February 27, 2014 to Mr. Wessin. I am not able to attend the Planning Commission
meeting on March 24, 2014. Please include this letter as part of the record.
Your letter indicates that the City will only approve of Mr. Wessin's proposed minor subdivision
if he agrees to dedicate 30' of land alongside the existing driveway to construct a future public
street. This is a major change from the City's previous position whereby staff encouraged Mr.
Wessin to subdivide his land into 2 lots since that would not necessitate a new road. Because the
land dedication requirement does not serve a public purpose,the City does not have the authority
to make approval of the minor subdivision subject to this condition.
You cite Section 12.20, subd.l of the City Code as support for the City's position. As you note,
subdivision 1 reads, in part, "[t]he arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make
provisions for the appropriate continuation of existing_ streets in adjoining areas." However, Mr.
Wessin's proposalis for a siiriple Tot split. The lot to be subdivided consists of 4.08 acres. As
required by §12.20, subd.5 and §12.50, subd.3(A),the two new lots will "abut entirely on an
improved public street" and have direct access to Noble Drive. No new streets are being
proposed,nor are any new streets needed to serve the new lots. The proposed lots meet all of
the minimum area and dimension requirements for the R-1 zoning district. No variances are
needed.
Section 12.20, subd.I also provides that, [w]here adjoining areas are not subdivided,the
arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make provision for the proper projection of
streets. When a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided land susceptible to being subdivided,then
the new streets shall be carried to the boundaries of the tract proposed to be subdivided."
(emphasis added). Again,Mr. Wessin's minor subdivision does not require new streets. Section
12.20, subd.I is simply not applicable to his proposal.
Jason Zimmerman
March 19, 2014
Page Two
As you know,the lot to the south of Mr-Wessin's proposed subdivision is now owned by Lecy
Bros. Construction Inc. ("Lecy"). Lecy is interested in future development of that lot. The Lecy
lot has always had direct access to Noble Drive via the existing shared driveway. Turning the
driveway into a public street is not the only option for Lecy. Lecy could attempt to purchase
land from neighboring property owners for public street access from Spring Valley Road. There
is no legal basis for the City to force Mr. Wessin to give up his land for another's private
development. Not to mention that the Lecy lot has a very large spring in the middle of the
property and a huge culvert that feeds fresh water directly into Sweeney Lake. The City is
demanding that George Wessin give up his valuable land to create a road to serve a parcel that
may not be appropriate for more intense development in any case. The City should not be
involved in furthering one private development at the expense of another.
In summary,the City is going too far by imposing the condition that Mr. Wessin dedicate 30' of
his land for a public street in order to obtain subdivision approval. This condition is not
reasonable, or necessary for public purposes. Requiring Mr. Wessin to dedicate land for a road
unfairly diminishes the value of Mr. Wessin's property and causes him individually to bear the
burden of the City's preference for another private development. The cost of the road makes the
minor subdivision economically unfeasible and would amount to an unconstitutional taking. See
Kottschade v. Rochester, 760 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009); Wensmann Realty Inc. v. City
of Eagan, 734 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2007).
Mr. Wessin's proposed minor subdivision meets all established city code requirements.
Accordingly,the City must approve his application without conditions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paula A. Callies
cc: Jacqueline Day
George Wessin
Scott Lucas, Esq.
Mark Grimes
Allen D. Barnard. Esq.
Olson&-Luea- s,,,,,.
Attornt"Nx.1t 1 ank
Off('I orlNnmle('vn«r 11 i-1111 11011,114111]m if III,K"iIt,513=PeIifill,AIN 5,5439
SCOTT M.LUCAS* Tel: 952.224.3644 ext 1
scottl@olson-law.com Fax: 952.224.5879
www.olson-law.com
July 8, 2014
VIA E-MAIL
Allen D. Barnard, Esq.
Best &Flanagan
225 South Sixth Street
Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Golden Valley Minor Subdivision Application
Wessin Property (Hanson Wood Shores)
Our File Number: 14203
Dear Mr. Barnard:
Please be advised that this office represents applicant George Wessin with respect to the
above-referenced matter. This minor subdivision application was first heard by the Golden
Valley Planning Commission on March 24, 2014.
City staff has indicated that the "City requires the dedication of[a] right-of-way to
accommodate the extension of a public street and cul-de-sac" in order to approve my client's
application. Golden Valley Planning Department Memorandum, March 19, 2014 (hereinafter
"Memo"), p. 3. This requirement is being imposed solely for the purpose of assisting a
developer in the potential development of an adjacent lot.
"The owner of the adjacent property [Lecy Brothers Construction] immediately to the
south, 1801 Noble Drive, has contacted the City and hopes to subdivide his property in
the near future. At this point, his property can only be accessed via a 20' driveway to
Noble Drive, which is platted as a separate lot. In order to provide the access and
frontage necessary for him to subdivide, Staff has evaluated a design that would combine
the 20' driveway with a 30' wide portion of the subject property to create enough right-of-
way to build a new public street. This would not only allow the owner of 1801 Noble
Drive to subdivide, but would provide additional frontage should the Applicant choose to
further subdivide his property in the future."
Memo, p. 2.
Mr. Wessin opposes this requirement. He doesn't want to give up 30' of his valuable
property, especially without being compensated for it -no one likes being subjected to an
uncompensated taking. Further, giving this land up will substantially interfere with his ability to
proceed with his own development.
MSBA BOARD CERTIFIED REAL.PROPERTY SPECIALIST
Allen D. Barnard, Esq.
Best& Flanagan
July 8, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Added to that, he will have to pay for the privilege of having his land taken from him, by
being forced to help pay for the street that Lecy Brothers needs for its anticipated development.
At the March 24, 2014 hearing, Roy Lecy stated that he would pay for the road. As will be
further discussed at upcoming hearings, he has since changed his position. Therefore, a large
special assessment against Mr. Wessin's property will be required to pay for the road.
At the end of the day, Mr. Wessin, a long time local property owner who lost the property
Lecy is seeking to develop through foreclosure, is being asked to subsidize Lecy Brothers'
development. That is contrary to law, it is very bad public policy, and it is unfair.
First: The City cites to Section 12.20 of the Golden Valley City Code to justify
imposing this requirement: "Section 12.20, Subdivision 1, of the City Code states that when land
is subdivided the City shall plan for new streets. . . Staff requires a revised preliminary plat
showing the new public street . . . " Memo. p. 2. However, Section 12.20 does not apply to
minor subdivision ordinances. See, Section 12.50, City Code (stating, for [Minor Subdivision
Applications], the standards, requirements and procedures cited herein shall supersede their
counterparts in Section . . . 12.20 . . . of this ordinance") [emphasis added].
It makes sense that Section 12.20 does not apply here, because Section 12.50 of the City
Code does not provide for new streets at all. Section 12.50 subd. 1 states as a requirement for a
minor subdivision that "the new subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional
public investment in new roads . . . to serve the lots." Of course, a newly dedicated public street
would necessitate an additional public investment for the City of Golden Valley. And, Section
12.50 requires that lots produced by a minor subdivision "shall abut entirely on an improved
public street." Section 12.50 subd. 3A.
Further, mandating a property owner to provide a right of way over his property is a de
facto exercise of the eminent domain power. Minn. Stat. § 117.011, Subd. 2 states that "erninent
domain may only be used for a public use or public purpose." Minn. Stat. § 117.011 Subd. 11
(b) states that the benefits of"economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax
revenues, employment, or general economic health, do not by themselves constitute a public use
or public purpose." Here, economic development is the only reason for installing the street,
because access already exists. The property Lecy seeks to subdivide includes a driveway which
abuts Noble Drive, and functions fine to provide access to the house as it is. Expansion of the
roadway is only needed if the property is subdivided.
Making my client contribute land and part of the cost for that street is bad public policy.
Lecy Brothers knew what they were getting when they purchased 1801 Noble Drive: A single
horne with a twenty foot wide driveway. The price they paid for the property took that into
account. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has noted that equity does not favor a buyer who gets
a discounted price due to access issues,then seeks to use the legal process to increase the value
of his property at the expense of his neighbor. Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBMMid America
Employees Federal Credit Union 576 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Minn.App.,1998) (noting "Appellant
knew he was buying a landlocked parcel and presumably paid a price that reflected that fact.")
Allen D. Barnard, Esq.
Best & Flanagan
July 8, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Finally, denial on this basis is patently unfair. The Lake George Park court further noted
that a property owner seeking access is "free to negotiate with the surrounding landowners to
purchase access to existing public roadways." Id. Lecy Brothers is likewise free to negotiate
with adjacent property owners to secure access, and Mr. Wessin is selling his land. However,
instead of buying the property, Lecy Brothers seeks to use the City of Golden Valley to compel
my client to dedicate it at no cost to them and then force him to help pay for the road besides. As
Ira Gershwin once wrote, "nice work if you can get it."
Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request on behalf of my client, George Wessin, that
his application be approved.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
Scott M. Lucas
SML/
cc: Client
Jason Zimmerman, Golden Valley City Planner
Roy Lecy, Lecy Brothers Construction
Jacqueline Day
Allen D.Barnard BEST&FLANAGAN LLP
225 South Sixth Street,Suite 4000 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402
Attorney bests w.corn1.9715 TEL 612.339.7121 FAx 612.339.5897 BESTLAW.COM
a barnardtlbestlaw.wm
BEST & FLANAGAN
July 23, 2014 FOUNDED 1926
ALLEN D.BARNARD -
VIA EMAIL JOHN A.BURTON
JAMES C.DIRACLES
THOMAS B.HEFFELFINGER
DUANE L. L ON
Tom Burt, City Manager ROBERT LMELLER,
JR.
City of Golden Valley CHARLES C.BERQUIST
E. FAVE
7800 Golden Valle Rd GREGORY
D.SOUL
Y ^� GREGORY D.SOUIE
Golden Valley, MN 55427 CATHY E.GORLIN
PATRICK B.HENNESSY
TIMOTHY A.SULLIVAN
Re: Golden Valley Minor Subdivision Application THOMAS J.RADIO
Wessin Property (Hanson Wood Shores) DANDAVID TD R.W.NELSON
J.ZUBKE
STEVEN R.KRUGER
PAUL E.KAMINSKI
Dear Tom: ROSS C.FORMELL
MARY E.SHEAREN
You asked me for legal advice concerning the above-referenced BARBARA R ROSS
g g SARAN E.CRIPPEN
Minor Subdivision Application. ROBERT D.MAKER
DAVID H.JOHNSON
CHRISTOPHER D.JOHNSON
One of the most important functions of a Municipality when it DANIEL KAPLAN
LENOR A.SCHEFFLER
considers a subdivision application is to provide for the public welfare; AARON A.DEAN
specifically, for the orderly layout of streets, roads, public infrastructure BRADLEY F.WILLIAMS
CYNTHIA L.HEGARTY
and so forth. It is necessary as property is developed that it not block the REBECCA A.CHAFFEE
future development of other property in the city. Streets, roads, sanitary DAVID G.SCHELZEL
EDWARD P.SHEU
sewer, storm sewer, water, and other public utilities are all necessary for DANIEL L.GRIMSRUD
the property develo P J ment of land in the city. JONN D.SEINER
JONATHAN D WILSON
BRIGID M.GOSS
Recognizing this, the Minnesota Legislature has provided ample JUSTIN P.SHORT
WILLIAM R.ASP
legal authority so that cities may require dedication of streets, easements JENNIFER A.NODES
and so forth to provide for the necessary public infrastructure when the JOSEPH JOHN T. .W.PHELPS
property is developed. SHAUNA L.COONS
KERRY C.RAYMOND
ELIZABETH A.DAHLSTROM
Minn. Stat. S 462.358 (2013) provides: KYLE R.HARDWICK
LAURA E.COWAN
Subd. 2(b). Dedication. (a) [a cities subdivision] regulations
may require that a reasonable portion of the buildable land, as OF COUNSEL
JOHN R.CARROLL
defined by Municipal Ordinance, of any proposed subdivision ROBERT L.CROSBY
be dedicated to theublic or reserved for public use as streets RICHARD A.PETERSON
P P P LEONARD M.ADDINGTON
roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water N.WALTER GRAFF
SCOTT D.ELLER
drainage... FRANK VOGL
MARINUS W.VAN PUTTEN,JR.
Similarly, Golden Valley City Code provides for minor subdivisions
in Section 12.50, subd. 3:
Tom Burt, City Manager
July 23, 2014
Page 2
BEST & FLANAGAN
D. Approval of minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the
applicants granting of easements for necessary public purposes, as
determined by the City.
G. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied upon
the City Engineer's determination that a new development on the
resulting lot(s) will cause undue strain on adjacent roads or on public
utilities or will adversely affect adjacent residential, institutional, or
public land uses. Alternatively, approval of the minor subdivision may
be conditioned on the applicants agreeing to take specific action to
mitigate the strain or adverse effect.
These provisions of State Law and City Code, as well as the analysis completed by
City staff of the proposed minor subdivision and adjacent residential and public land uses,
support the recommendation of City staff and the Planning Commission that street right-of-
way be required of the Wessin subdivision so that the remaining parcels south of it may
ultimately be developed.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes.
Very truly yours,
Allen D. Barnard
Golden Valley City Attorney
ADB/cma
cc: Jason Zimmerman (via e-mail)
000090/480568/190176 1_1
HELLMUTH JOHNSON PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WRITER's DIRECT DIAL No.: (952) 480-9241
E-MAIL: MTANICK@HJLAWFIRM.COM
August 25, 2014
To: Mayor Shep Harris and Members of the City Council: Joanie Clausen, Steve Schmidgall,
Andy Snope, and Larry Fonnest
Re: George Wessin(Hanson Wood Shores)
Our File No.: 89055.001000
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to support the Application for Minor Subdivision by George Wessin for the
property known as Hanson Wood Shores, which is being considered by the City Council this month.
This letter is intended to address and clarify some of the legal issues that have arisen in connection
with this matter. I should note, at the outset, that I happen to be a long time homeowner on
Sweeney Lake, and I believe that my views reflect those of many of the other homeowners in the
area and the Sweeney Lake Homeowner's Association, which have asked me to write on their
behalf.
Background Facts
Mr. Wessin seeks approval of a Minor Subdivision for the property known as Hanson Wood
Shores, a 4.08 acre parcel on the northwest side of Sweeney Lake, which he seeks to subdivide into
two single family lots. The Planning Commission has required, as a condition for approval of the
Application, dedication of a right-of-way of 30 feet along the existing driveway to construct a future
public street and placement of utilities. This will impose substantial expenses on the Wessin
property and may, as a practical matter, preclude any development at all by anyone. The
conditional deduction is intended solely for the purpose of assisting the adjoining land owner to the
south, Lecy Brothers Construction, to subdivide its existing developed lot and develop a number of
home sites there.
Lecy knew what it was buying when it bought the property. The existing condition on the
site of the property was presumably taken into account when the purchase was made, and Lecy is
not entitled to a windfall now by requiring Wessin, the subdivision Applicant, to essentially
subsidize development on the adjoining Lecy property. See Lake George Park, LLC v. IBM Mid-
America Employees Federal Credit Union, 5876 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Minn. App. 1998). In that
case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that a land owner's purchase of a landlocked tract of
land presumably took into account the existing location and received a lower price because it was
landlocked. As further stated in that case, the adjoining property owner is always "free to negotiate
05000.0193-- 1924138_1
8050 West 78th Street, Edina, MN 55439 • T 952-941-4005 F 952-941-2337 www.hjlawfirm.coIn
Mayor Shep Harris
August 25, 2014
Page 2
with the surrounding land owners to purchase access to existing public roadways." 586 N.W.2d at
466. The same is true in this case, since Lecy can try to negotiate with adjacent landowners to
secure access.
Legal Issues
Imposing the dedication and road extension on Wessin alone would have substantial adverse
economic effect upon Mr. Wessin's possibility to develop the property as he wishes, subdividing
the two parcels, which is permissible under Golden Valley Ordinances. The Planning Commission,
however, has apparently taken the position that it is entitled to require dedication under Section
12.20, subd. 1 of the City Code. That section states that "arrangements of streets in new
subdivisions shall make provisions for the appropriate continuation of existing streets in adjoining
areas." Thus, the legal basis for the imposition of this requirement turns on interpretation of that
provision.
There are a number of reasons why compelled dedication, which is intended to facilitate large scale
development on the adjoining site, is unwise. They include esthetic concerns, environmental issues,
and other matters. I believe that those matters are being addressed by others and will be brought to
the Council's attention at its September meeting.
The purpose of this letter is primarily to address the legal issues related to the required dedication
ostensibly for purposes of allowing the development of the adjoining property. There are several
reasons, in my judgment, and in the opinions of others, why conditioning approval of Mr. Wessin's
subdivision application upon such dedication is flawed.
Section 12.20 Does Not Apply
1. The basis for the required dedication is set forth in a memorandum from City Engineer
Oliver to Mark Grimes, the Community Development Director, dated July 10, 2014. In that
memorandum, the City Engineer states that Section 12.20 of the Golden Valley City Code
allows the City to require the dedication of roadway in order to allow "proper projection of
streets through to the boundary between parcels to allow for subdivision of the adjacent,
undeveloped property."
2. But the adjacent property, owned by Lecy, has had a house on it for many years. Since it
has been developed, this subdivision does not apply at all.
Section 12.50 Applies Instead
3. Even if Section 12.20 applies, the provision does not cover Minor Subdivision as sought by
the Applicant. The provision of the code dealing with Minor Subdivisions, as sought here,
is Section 12.50. It pertains to subdivisions that do "not necessitate any additional public
investment in new roads or utilities to serve the lots." Section 12.50, subd. 1C.
05000.0193--1924138_1
Mayor Shep Harris
August 25, 2014
Page 3
4. This characterizes the Wessin Application, whose proposed two parcels would not
necessitate additional public investment in new roads or utilities to service those two lots.
The provision states that Section 12.50 expressly "shall supercede" a number of other
provisions, including Section 12.20.
5. The logical interpretation of these provisions is as follows:
(a) The Wessin application is, as everyone acknowledges, one for a
Minor Subdivision;
(b) The Wessin subdivision "does not necessitate any additional
public investment in new roads or utilities to serve the lots," which brings
it within the purview of Section 12.50, subd. 1C. This provision
unquestionably applies to this application. A Planning Department
memorandum of July 14, 2014, from City Planner, Jason Zimmerman to
the Golden Valley Planning Commission expressly states, at pp 1-2 that
the application "would not create need for public improvements (such as
street construction)." , This brings Mr. Wessin's Application within the
purview of Section 12.50, Subd. 3A, which states that lots produced by a
minor subdivision "shall abut entirely on improved public streets," which
is true of this application, whose two lots have direct access to Noble
Drive.
(c) This Minor Subdivision provision, Section 12.50, expressly
states that does "supersede" Section 12.20, which is the sole basis for the
City's dedication requirement.
(d) Accordingly, the Minor Subdivision is subject to Section
12.50, not 12.20, and does not allow for any conditional imposition of
road or easement dedications.
(e) Therefore, there is no legal basis to impose a dedication under
the plain reading of the City's ordinance.
Other Defects
6. In addition to the misapplication of Section 12.20, to unlawfully force the Applicant to give
up part of his own property,without compensation, there are other reasons why the Planning
Commission recommendation is defective. Mr. Zimmerman's July 14, 2014, memorandum
to the Planning Commission states that the dedication of right-of-way must be done "to
accommodate the extension of a public street in a cul-de-sac." This is intended to serve the
adjoining property, which is already developed, and that owner intends to subdivide
property for further development.
05000.0193--19241381
Mayor Shep Harris
August 25, 2014
Page 4
7. In short, the sole purpose of the dedication is to benefit Lecy, the adjoining property owner.
This is, as others have noted, is unlawful to do. The Minor Subdivision provision, Section
12.50, subd. 3, limits easements to those that are for "necessary public purposes."
Confiscating the Applicant's private property for the sole economic benefit of the adjoining
property owner does not qualify as a "public purpose." Indeed, doing so without
compensation would constitute unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, as well as the parallel provision of Article I, § 7 of the Minnesota State
Constitution and also the statutory provision for eminent domain in Minnesota, as set forth
in Minn. Stat. § 117.4, subd. 2, which states that taking of private property can only be done
for"public use or public purpose."
8. Although the courts have construed the term "public purpose" in various ways, the reality is
that taking private land from a private party for the purpose of economic benefit of someone
else raises serious Constitutional questions. See Kelso v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469
(2005) (exercise of eminent domain must be for benefit of the community as a whole).
Other Defects
9. Subdivision 31 of Section 12.50 states that the conditions specified in the subdivision "shall
provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision." In other words, unless specified in
Section 12.50, a Minor Subdivision may not be denied. The only provision that might be
applicable is Subd. 31), which conditions application on a grant of an easement for
"necessary public purposes."
10. But this application does not fall within that classification because there is no "necessary
public purpose" being served by taking land from the Applicant for purposes of economic
benefit of the adjoining land owner, who seeks to develop the property for his own
economic advantage. This is a private pecuniary purpose, not a public one.
11. Further, any large development anticipated on the adjoining property would raise other
concerns. Extensive development by Lecy on the adjoining property would result in removal
of many mature trees on the properties, which raises environmental concerns. This conflicts
with the provision of Subd. 5C of Section 12.20, which dictates that "due regard shall be
shown for all natural features, such as tree growth, ..."
Lose- Lose
As an aside to these issues, some other points warrant against forcing Mr. Wessin to
relinquish a right-of-way dedication. As indicated, the Applicant would be required to undertake
substantial cost to pay assessments for the new road into the property, along with placement of
utilities which would, as others have indicated, effectively prevent the subdivision from taking
place. Thus, the Applicant would not, as an economic reality, be able to subdivide his property,
leaving it in its current state.
05000.0193--19241381
Mayor Shep Harris
August 25, 2014
Page 5
This would result in a diminution of development. The adjoining landowner, the Lecy
Brothers, would gain no benefit because they would then have no access road and little incentive to
subdivide, either. Consequently, all parcels would remain as they currently are, a diminution of
development, rather than expansion of it. This is truly a lose-lose situation for everyone: Wessin,
the Applicant;the Lecy Brothers,the prospective developer next door; and the City.
In sum, the provisions of Golden Valley City Ordinance, Section 12.50, Minor Subdivision,
supersede all other provisions. Under that section, the only basis for compelling dedication would
be a "necessary public purpose." The only identified purpose of requiring such a dedication is to
benefit the adjoining property owner, which does not constitute a lawful "public purpose" under
well established law.
Requiring a right-of-way dedication would, as a practical matter, prevent the Wessin's two-
parcel subdivision from taking place, which would be inimitable to the development of the
Applicant's property and conceivable development of the area as well.
Thus, there are no sound legal or practical reasons why the 30-foot road dedication should
be required as a condition for approval of Mr. Wessin's minor 30-foot Subdivision Application.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
HELLMUTH&JOHNSON P
Marshall H. Tanick
Attorney at Law
MHT/dt
Enc.
Cc: Jaqueline Day (w/enc.)
Alan Barnard(Best&Flanagan)
05000.0193--1924138-.1
August 27, 2014
To the Golden Valley City Council:
We support George and Sue Wessin's application for subdivision and believe it should be
approved without the requirement to dedicate a right of way.
Thank you, _
JKt .A
Jeff and Heidi Haines
1550 Saint Croix Circle
Golden Valley, MN
55422
RESOLUTION OF SWEENEY LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
The Board of Directors of the SWEENEY LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
met August 27, 2014,and unanimously adopted the following resolution:
1. We oppose the requirement by the Golden Valley Planning Commission
conditioning approval of a two-parcel Minor Subdivision by George Wessin of the
Hanson Wood Shores property upon a required dedication of part of the Wessin
property for creation of a public right-of-way for future roadway and utilities.
2. The required dedication would constitute an unfair and improper confiscation of that
property for the sole benefit of an adjoining landowner, and not for a valid public
purpose of value to the community as a whole.
3. The required dedication would be inimical to the interests of the homeowners and
their families living on and around Sweeney Lake and the Heathbrooke area due to
the increased traffic, noise, congestion, and environmental degradation that would
result from the predicted need of Mr. Wessin to seek to increase the housing density
on his parcels in order to cover the assessment costs for any future public roadway
resulting from the dedication.
4. We respectfully urge the Mayor and members of the City Council to reject the
recommended dedication and to grant the application for the two parcel subdivision
without any such condition, and moreover, to deny any request for a dedication for a
future public roadway in the Hanson Wood Shores property.
Dated: August 27, 2014 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE SWEENEY LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIA'T'ION
By:
Bill Wi t° 'resident
' fes
'/
NOBLE DRIVE / \
_ I /
i I �
7 L 0 4+-S.F. OTA
I I I 06 +-S.F. BOV 827.7(OH
B DING SE K
ES CrYP)
I I
<
1 � \
Ii
\
9743P-- F. TAL
80050+-S .AB 827. (OHVy�\
o
4
Co
Wessin Development
Site Diagram - 1"=60' - June 27, 2014
LU W) Lin
z CS
Z LO 'tT
<W) Kr
-J
Z
Z
L6
HANSON WOOD SHORES W 4
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
------- , -- ----�, L)?0 U-
z
0>W 0
cn,
UJ
-izz GEORGE WESSIN
If
IN TRACT B, R.L.S. NO. 1104
A
W110 C4
-30 �/ J / / HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Lu LZU--JJ L001
Z z
LU Z
0-Jz 0
6.
J wgT All� 5:Lo X
DRIVE IV
NOBLE z E5'q CL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
fill 80- C'
Tract B except that part of said Tract embraced in
plat of HEATHBROOKE, Registered Land Survey
/.. I. No. 1104, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
��'LDING S,'ITBACK
's .- I .'(TVP)
,P ,
This survey shows the boundaries of the above A.
-�O' "E 185.06
�9 46
described property. It does not purport to show
j i7-
any other improvements or encroachments.
LANDSCAPING AND RECREATIONAL
EASEMENT FOR HOUSE TO NORTH Iron marker found
7A PER DOC.NO..1793696 AND OPTION
MN I 7A J*:.*"I ( I Iron marker set
\=.\,.F.TOTAO AGREEMENT PER DOC.NO.4793597
ABOVI�1327.7(OHW) % Existing contour line(Golden Valley information)
Qj y 11 l Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum
,
k
1. + i i I i ..• C �l1 �� ;K a� ;1�
pe 1 61
OWNER
40 GEORGE S.WESSIN
1152 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 55340
EXISTING ZONING-R1
ca
AREA= 177777+-S.F. (4.081 ACRES) .2
j I ' / r
o�
co, o AREA ABOVE OHW 135115+-S.F. (3.10+-ACRES)
4 �l:0 1 / / / , i 2 N21
+-S TOTAL
80 /
97 -S. VE 82/7.7(
4 -
35
z
:E
0
co
.00
?7"
.4
z
0 50 100 200
1z
Drainage and utility e�c.:ernents shown thus:
/ t:; i t i
w
16
SCALE IN FEEL SINI
0
/ ! U)
I I / Ni
W1
Being 6 feet in width,unless otherwise indicated,and
adjoining lot lines,and being 10 feet in width,and
adjoining right of way lines unless otherwise indicated
on the plat.
W!
W
W L0 L0
Z
U-)
-J C,
tnoZ r.-
M
Z
W<
HANSON WOOD SHORES I-- -�
-:J U
F-_------- OWZ GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN FOR <
()
�q
U)UJ
GEORGE WESSIN cn
ZR �
i = I ' + _I_;„U / i IN TRACT B, R.L.S. NO. 1104
0
e , //
C4
9, Wwo
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA W Wz-JJ M
I + /�j / �• z z
0 W2� Z
0
E
NCL
Cl) NOBLE DRIVE
\J
4"4"E 167.7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
Ale �. N
'o
Tract B except that part of said Tract embraced in
7
2 ,-
4
7P/. \itT - �/ ' 0-1" '� plat of HEATHBROOKE, Registered Land Survey
it ////t No. 1104, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
011 7
_PL#LDINP SETBA—CK
-J�Ffs oyp)
Y
'E 185-06 shows the boundaries of the above
1,89'/
N /40`46 This survey
described property. It does not purport to show
any other improvements or encroachments.
-44
S.F�T TA 27.7(6HW),,'
LANDSCAPING AND RECREATIONAL
11 1i \5L -S-'�ABOVE
rlI / I EASEMENT FOR HOUSE TO NORTH Iron marker found
MH 1 1 7A PER DOC.NO.4793696 AND OPTION
,atgiN
AGREEMENT PER DOC.NO.4793597 Iron marker set
—zi-: Existing contour line(Golden Valley information)
75
'A' Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum
45
61
OWNER
"N GEORGE S.WESSIN
1152 HAMEL ROAD
4 Z-7
HAMEL, MN 55340
o
to IT
EXISTING ZONING-RI
7- -ZAREA= 177777+-S.F. (4.081+-ACRES)
AREA ABOVE OHW= 135115+-S.F. (3.10+-ACRES)
C-D
'q
TOTAL 80050+-S.F, L/AIIOkW)/`
r
Zia3-
ep
e O:n
441
E
.t!
co
1114
N3,36�
z z
U,
6)
o
0 50 100 200
• Drainage and utility easements shown thus: z
6 <
SCALE IN FEET
(01�z t:
zln�
!<
.01
i / — _.--_ 1 Lu
OI I
/ �' W w
Being 6 feet in width,unless otherwise indicated,and
I---- adjoining lot lines,and being 10 feet in width,and
adjoining right of way lines unless otherwise indicated
on the plat.
u-,
40
to
at Cq
LU 111)
2 N
dU W N
HANSON WOOD SHORES agY
--- I ' GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN FOR 012 �
0
` _ GEORGE WESSIN y °
J
a I s
otf�w �
IN TRACT B, R.L.S. NO. 1104 o M
a< :t� I I •p c i ".,:µ lot :' // / `'�,� Z 3 Y
' =� M„„ "� °�; �"�/ / HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA W z°_
RIM. 7. CLi
LU
INVATMAIN= _!��- / O J Z °
INVATMAW• -�--. '''•^��R
'• ERASE T MAIN.,0 \�\� _aN�BLE DRIVE ..'��� 0 C1 Q a
To WEST —�// LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: V
c— 4 67. 4 /
2 ce - 'jl�j \ -�\ % Tract B except that part of said Tract embraced in
I � \ Z,• .+,. plat of HEATHBROOKE,Registered Land Survey
7 r-` 4yc_ '-,• \\ No.1104,Hennepin County,Minnesota.
ti toh°' 1 Dl g
T��h /�. Il ` ' j I '��\ \\ '�•s�ro �� \ ! i I w sJ4o�As•E 185.06 ” This survey shows the boundaries of the above gY.-M
4B, _ described property.It does not purport to show
° any other improvements or encroachments.
Ell`
•.,'i'=.• I /� I �\ \ 1t I2j�'�/ // / LANDSCAPING AND RECREATIONAL yy
MR tnA ,,• / (+ I \ ,(., •. / / / / EASEMENT FOR HOUSE TO NORTH $,E
• -' /a / (l • ' ;' ! PER DOC.NO.4793696 AND OPTION Iron marker found
......W W a.t 'V AGREEMENT PER DOC.NO.4793697 ° Iron marker set o W w
nu .
-�-: Existingcontour line Golden Valle information
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum
�''"/•'•... �\ ° lu IIIII �\ � �ls� � � � i / � /i /( %dt�/%� g� n � � �
I1 I bey 1 \I jfL /' �. / yyvvWl� OWNER oT E
GEORGE S.WESSIN
MNtts! o a� 1152 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL,MN 55340 8 -
I `\\
m EXISTING ZONING-R1
l I j''•1 , 1w a i // � 5 o'� q AREA=177777+-S.F.(4.081+-ACRES)
AREA ABOVE OHW=135115+-S.F.(3.10+-ACRES) rgg
I \ \ I _2.4% vi,z'`^�
�u s7a33+-ss roT /:,�'• / /7 /s �//lip's ' ? q b
j \ 86050+-'$.F. VE827.7 HWyj; % /' PtJ y�� � 5��
Af 78
-- -- i 1"i
/ 36.4 / o
CrS
In o
I ° 0 50 100 200
Drainage and utility easements shown thus:
G I I
rd�o5p°' 16j SCALE IN FEET
oSb g t:
'•:,.. �,c 4�}� i � Z NIC N J
/ -----__-- i I NOTE:SANITARY SEWER SERVICES TO BE 4"PVC.SCHEDULE 40 0 0 0
——_
"• L_—— —— WITH CLEANOUTS NO GREATER THAN 75'APART.PROPOSED > 00 0
I / = SLOPE= W w m m
/ WATER SERVICES TO BE 1"TYPE"K"COPPER. �
I / BV 6 feet in width,unless otherw se indicatad,and
I / adjoining bt linea,and bring 10 fest in width,and m
• / adjoining right of way linea unless otherwise Indicated
on the plat.
11"341
city 0 f
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Finance Department
763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
September 2, 2014
Agenda Item
6. A. Resolution Adopting a Proposed 2014- 2015 Budget and Tax Levies Payable in 2015
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
State Law requires the certification of a proposed budget and proposed tax levies no later than
September 30, 2014. The final property tax levy for pay 2015 will be adopted by the City Council
in December, can be less than the proposed levy, but not greater. The property tax levy, included
as part of the 2015-2016 Proposed Budget, is currently$18,551,428. At the meeting, City staff
will make a short presentation reviewing the Proposed 2015-2016 General Fund Budget and
Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2015.
Attachments
• Resolution Adopting Proposed 2015 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2015 (1 page)
• 2015-2016 Proposed Revenue Summary (3 pages)
• 2015-2016 Proposed Expenditure Summary by Division (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting a Proposed 2015 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable
in 2015.
Resolution 14-71 September 2, 2014
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED 2015 BUDGET
AND PROPOSED TAX LEVIES PAYABLE IN 2015
WHEREAS, State Law requires the certification of a proposed budget and
proposed tax levies no later than September 30, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has met and discussed the proposed budget and tax
levy; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that there is hereby levied upon all taxable
property located within the City of Golden Valley the following amounts:
General Tax Levy $13,440,310
Bonded Debt Levy:
Certificates of Indebtedness 795,861
Street Improvement Bonds 4,015,257
Tax Abatement Levy 300,000
TOTAL Tax Levy $18,551,428
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Clerk shall certify to the Hennepin County
Auditor a copy of this resolution approving the property tax levies for collection in 2015 for
the City of Golden Valley.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed 2015 budget of the General Fund
is $16,902,135 and the proposed 2016 budget is approved in concept only.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council declares its intent to take all
necessary actions legally permissible to the submission and approval of the City's budget
and property tax levies both proposed and final.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine 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.
City of Golden Valley
Proposed 2015-2016 General Fund Revenue Report
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016 2016
Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Concept Proposed Concept
AD VALOREM TAXES
4011 AD VALOREM TAXES 11,834,866 12,071,458 12,532,160 12,532,160 13,247,010 13,440,310 14,148,640
ALLOWANCE FOR ABATEMENTS/DEL 92,109 28,393 (174,155) (174,155) (174,155) (174,155) (174,145)
LESS HOMESTEAD CREDIT -
4012 PENALTIES&INTEREST 39,336 21,752
TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES 11,966,311 12,121,603 12,358,006 12,358,005 13,072,855 13,266,155 13,974,495
LICENSES
4021 LICENSE-GAS/OIL 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
4022 LICENSE-VEHICLE REPAIR 25 - 25 25 25 25 25
4023 LICENSE-NEW/USED VEHICLES 4,400 4,425 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400
4026 LICENSE-WINE ON/SALES 10,000 10,000 8,000 10,000 8,000 10,000 10,000
4027 LICENSE-LIQUOR ON/SALE 99,150 101,300 99,150 113,300 99,150 113,300 113,300
4028 LICENSE-LIQUOR OFF SALE 1,200 1,600 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
4029 LICENSE-NONINTOX ON SALE 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
4030 LICENSE-NONINTOX OFF SALE 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
4031 LICENSE-SUNDAY LIQUOR 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
4032 LICENSE-TAVERN 375 375 375 375 375 375 375
4033 LICENSE-CIGARETTE 4,675 4,950 4,675 4,675 4,675 4,675 4,675
4034 LICENSE-DOG 250 250 - -
4038 LICENSE-GARBAGE COLLECTORS 4,000 3,900 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
4041 LICENSE-PEDDLER/SOLICITOR 665 930 500 500 500 500 500
4044 LICENSE-GAS STATION 3,625 3,950 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650
4046 LICENSE-APARTMENT 70,938 73,484 60,000 60,000 47,000 60,000 60,000
4047 LICENSE-GAMBLING 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
4048 LICENSE-AMUSE DEVIC 315 315 315 315 315 315 315
4051 LICENSE-PAWN 5,400 5,400 5,400 - 5,400
4052 LICENSE-HEATING 13,725 14,700 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500
4053 LICENSE-SCAVENGER 20 - 20 - 20 - -
4056 LICENSE-WELL DRILLING 25 - - -
4058 LICENSE-MASSAGE 850 10,200 750 750 750 750 750
4059 LICENCE-CHICKEN COOP/RUN 25 50 50 50
TOTAL LICENSES 224,463 240,629 210,786 221,565 197,785 221,565 221,665
PERMITS
4101 PERMIT-BUILDING 606,681 750,015 481,800 821,970 481,800 520,390 520,390
4102 PERMIT-PLUMBING 49,557 105,574 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
4103 PERMIT-SEWER 26,900 31,600 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
4104 PERMIT-HEATING 168,737 200,147 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000
4105 PERMIT-WATER 3,100 4,733 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100
4107 PERMIT-STREET EXCAVATING 57,587 34,275 42,000 42,000 42,000. 42,000 42,000
4109 PERMIT-BILLBOARD 10,125 8,955 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
4114 PERMIT-TEMPORARY OCCUPENCY 1,900 3,200 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
4115 PERMIT-REFUNDS(20%) 58 124 -
4116 PERMIT-GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSI 6,200 7,600 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
4117 PERMIT-TREE PRESERVATION 300 900 300 300 300 300 300
4118 PERMIT-EASEMENT VACATION 500 3,000 - - -
4119 PERMIT-ELECTRICAL 67,640 105,601 42,000 78,410 42,000 78,410 78,410
4120 PERMIT-FIREWORKS 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
TOTAL PERMITS 999,386 1,255,824 725,000 1,101,580 725,000 800,000 800,000
FEDERAL GRANTS
4132 FED VEST PROGRAM
4132 JAG GRANT - -
4132.3 DWI ENFORCEMENT - -
4136 FED-FIRE GRANTS
TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS -
STATE GRANTS
4146 ENERGY SECURITY GRANT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID(LGA) 219,290 219,290 219,290 240,500 240,500
4150 FIRE POST BOARD TRAINING GRANT 10,600 14,350 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600
4151 LILAC PLANTING GRANT 7,683 2,953 15,000 -
4153 POLICE TRAINING 9,963 10,253 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
4153.1 OPERATION NIGHT CAP - -
4153.2 MN HEAT - -
4153.4 SAFE AND SOBER GRANT 25,704 19,796 4,375
4153.6 VEST REIMBURSEMENT GRANT 7,380 567 1,000
4153.7 TREE PLANTING GRANT 15,000 15,000 15 000
TOTAL STATE GRANTS 61,330 62,919 265,390 260,766 255,390 261,600 261,600
COUNTY GRANTS
4177 VOTF 23,043 23,043 31,205 31 205 31,205 31 205
City of Golden Valley
Proposed 2015-2016 General Fund Revenue Report
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016
Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Concept Proposed Concept
TOTAL COUNTY GRANTS 23,043 23,043 31,205 31,205 31,205 31,205
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
4191 CERTIFICATION FEE 14,100 13,890 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
4194 ADMIN LIQUOR LICENSE 500 2,000 500 -
4195 TEMPORARY RETAIL SALES FEE - 150 -
4196 GENERAL GOVT-GEN SER 7,732 13,205 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050
4197 FILING FEES - 70 - 15
4198 PLANNING MATERIAL - 30 50 50 50 50 50
4199 ASSESSMENT SEARCHES 15 15 - - -
4200 LIQUOR LICENSE CHECKING 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
4202 WEB DESIGNER 26,692 25,391 26,000 26,000 26,000
4203 COPY/MAILING FEES 781 641 750 750 750 750 750
4204 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REG 160 80 -
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERMENT 52,580 57,872 45,050 45,550 45,050 19,065 19,050
PUBLIC SAFETY
4226 BRECK TRAFFIC CONTROL 53,077 53,922 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000
4227 DRUG TASK FORCE REIMBURSE 20,105 23,797 24,745 24,745 24,745 25,595 26,235
4228 ALARM ORDINANCE VIOLATION 8,054 10,800 5,000 8,000 5,000 8,000 8,000
4229 SECURITY SERVICES 25,269 15,400 9,000 12,000 9,000 12,000 12,000
4230 POLICE DEPT CHARGES 34,134 4,220
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-281 30,650 15,540 30,650 32,050
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-287 -
4231 FIRE DEPT CHARGES 41,813 43,632 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
4232 ANIMAL IMPOUND FEES 1,209 945 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
4233 ACCIDENT REPORTS 489 425 475 475 475 475 475
4237 NUISANCE VIOLATION 10,788 1,022 1,000 1,000 1,000
4238 SAFETY CAMP 330 390 - - - - -
4239 ANIMAL IMPOUND CONTRACT-RO 4,847 3,000 3,000 3.000
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 195,268 159,400 163,870 158,760 163,870 176,120 144,710
PUBLIC WORKS
4258 PLANNING&ZONING FEES 12,887 14,875 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
4251 CHGS FOR STREET DEPT 7,570 2,527 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
4254 WEED CUTTING 245 (1,000) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
4255 STREET LIGHT MAINT CHGS 131,415 134,724 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000
4256 CHGS FOR ENGINEERING 981 (105)
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 163,098 151,021 141,000 141,000 141,000 141,000 141,000
PARK&RECREATION
4302 POLICE ON DUTY-COMM CENTER 840 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
4303 POP MACHINE AT BROOKVIEW - - 100 100 100 100 100
4303 LIQUOR REVENUE 2,354 914 750 750 750 - -
4305 MISC INCOME-BROOKVIEW 1 - 50 50 50 50 50
4306 BUILDING RENTAL-BROOKVIEW 20,431 17,578 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
4307 PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL 26,731 25,679 26,000 28,500 26,000 28,500 28,500
4308 LIQUOR PERMIT/SHELTER 2,380 2,795 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600
4309 PARK/RINK RENTAL 2,825 7,958 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
4310 TENNIS COURT RENTAL 5,140 4,998 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
4311 GYM RENTAL 12,440 12,530 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
4312 RENTAL-PICNIC KITS 230 270 350 350 350 350 350
4313 OPEN GYM-MEADOWBROOK 7,168 8,511 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500
4327 ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL - - - 1,500 1,600 1,600
4328 ADULT CO REC SOCCER 5,450 5,500 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000
4329 ADULT SOFTBALL 39,915 39,827 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000
4332 ADULT BROOMBALL 1,940 1,960 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200
4383 ADULT-TENNIS LESSONS 27,703 20,167 8,050 7,000 8,050 5,000 5,000
4337 ADULT GENERAL-DANCE INSTRUCT 4,843 3,743 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
4341 ADULT GENERAL-MISCELLANEOUS 28,734 29,932 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000
4354 ADULT-REFUNDS 15 45 100 50 100 -
4360 SUMMER-ARTS/CRAFTS - - 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
4361 SUMMER-SPORTS 20,965 19,328 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000
4362 SUMMER-TINY TOTS 714 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
4363 SUMMER-FIELD TRIPS 2,025 1,139 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
4364 SUMMER-PENNY CARNIVAL 361 382 500 500 500. 500 500
4368 SUMMER-MISCELLANEOUS 1,334 89 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
4369 YOUTH-HOCKEY 4B5 (5) 900 900 900 900 900
4371 YOUTH-MUSIC LESSONS 9,471 16,792 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
4372 YOUTH-TINY TOTS 3,336 3,408 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
4373 YOUTH-GYM SPORTS 1,144 870 - - - -
4375 YOUTH-SATURDAY/SANTA - - 800 800 800 800 800
4376 YOUTH-DRAMA 5,258 5,654 4,000 5,000 4,000 5,000 5,000
City of Golden Valley
Proposed 2016-2016 General Fund Revenue Report
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016
Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Concept Proposed Concept
4377 YOUTH-GENERAL 31,009 28,637 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
4378 YOUTH-BASKETBALL 12,017 11,080 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
4379 YOUTH-SOCCER 4,546 2,726 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000
4382 YOUTH-TENNIS LESSONS 181,780 239,925 165,000 35,000 165,000 35,000 35,000
4385 TAP AND BALLET 8,394 8,774 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
4386 TAP AND BALLET COSTUMES 1,675 1,815 2,000 2,000 2,000 21000 2,000
4389 USE OF PARK-LEAGUES 14,685 10,649 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000
4399 YOUTH-REFUNDS 30 445 100 200 100 -
4412 SENIOR ACTIVITIES 3,459 2,194 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
4413 SENIOR EVENTS 644 1,159 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
4414 SENIOR CLASSES&SEMINARS 9,936 8,929 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
4415 SENIOR TRIPS 55,493 42,308 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
4420 SENIOR-REFUNDS 35 55 70 50 70
TOTAL PARK AND RECREATION 557,936 589,360 525,270 399,250 626,270 396,300 396,300
OTHER FUNDS
4433 CHGS TO CONSTRUCTION FUND 153,479 107,160 200,000 150,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
4434 CHGS TO UTILITY FUND 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000
4435 CHGS TO BROOKVIEW FUND 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000
4436 CHGS TO MOTOR VEHICLE FUND - 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
4437 CHGS TO RECY FUND 51,500 51,500 51,500 51,500 51,500 51,500 51,500
4438 CHGS TO CEMETARY FUND 900 300
4439 HRA TRANS-ADMIN 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 -
4440 CHGS TO STORM UTILITY FUND 150,000 200,000 200,000 200.000 200,000 200,000 200,000
TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 855,879 888,960 981,500 931,600 841,500 841,600 841,500
FINES&FORFEITURES
4155 COURT FINES&FORFEITURES 351,413 366,059 320,000 320,000 320,425 320,425 320,425
TOTAL FINES&FORFEITURES 351,413 366,069 320,000 320,000 320,425 320,425 320,426
INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS
4471 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 46,253 18,995 100,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 46,253 18,995 100,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
TRANSFERSIN
4501 PERMANENT TRANSFERS-GOLF 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
4501 PERMANENT TRANS-MOTOR VEH 36,810 50,000 50.000 50,000 50.000- 50,000 50,000
TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 86,810 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
OTHER REVENUE
4479 TOWER RENTAL 61,255 50,653 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
4480 BUILDING RENTS
-BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE 127,200 127,200 127,200 127,200 127,200 127,200 127,200
-MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING - 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 22,000 22,000 22,000 22.000 22,000 22,000 22,000
4478 SPECIAL ASSESS COLL-COUNTY 25,449 16,858 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
4483 CONTRIBUTIONS&DONATIONS 2,395 2,450
4492 TIF DISTRIBUTION
TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 238,299 241,161 221,200 221,200 221,200 221,200 221,200
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS
4476 BURIAL CHARGE-CEMETERY 5,850 1,700 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,500
4707 PENALTIES 2,025 4,401
4474 SCRAP METAL 7,113 6,897 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
4486 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 1,546 5,776 500 1,000 500 500 500
4489 ATM 1,010 2,087 1,500 1 500 1.
500 1,500 1,500
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 17,544 20,861 6,000 6,500 60 6,000 5,500
GENERAL FUND TOTAL S 16,829,612 $ 16,297,707 $ 16,184,275 $ 16 371 880 $ 16 746 S 16 902135 $ 17J47 345
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROPOSED 2015-2016 OPERATING BUDGET
DIVISION 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016
/PROGRAM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED ESTIMATED CONCEPT PROPOSED CONCEPT
001 COUNCIL
1001 COUNCIL $273,126 $295,068 $260,715 $259,360 $262,355. $315,690 $304,520
1002 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 200 3,755 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
1003 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 4,277 195 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
1040 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 1,043 896 1,200 1,200 1,200-' 1,925 1,200
1050 PLANNING COMMISSION 2,091 1,724 2,445 2,445 2,445 2,555 2,610
1060 PARK&OPEN SPACE COMM 863 922 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645 1,645
1070 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 835 1,045 1,135 1,135 1,135 1,135 1,135
1080 ENVISION - - 20,200 20,200 20,200'1 - -
TOTAL DIVISION(001) 282,435 303,605 294,840 293,485 296,480'1: 330,450 318,610
003 CITY MANAGER
1030 CITY MANAGER 443,485 414,078 512,850 500,790 521,990 518,555 528,030
1031 CITY COMMUNICATION 226,393 241,400 250,130 252,435 254,870 256,385 263,745
TOTAL DIVISION(003) 669,878 655,478 762,980 753,225 776,860 774,940 791,775
004 TRANSFERS OUT
1025 TRANSFERS OUT $1,184,710 $1,184,710 $294710 $294,710 ',$525000: $475,000 $625,000
TOTAL DIVISION(004) 1,184,710 1,184,710 294,710 294,710 525,000 475,000 625,000
005 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1101 GENERAL SERVICES $629,123 $641,642 $637,665 $640,855 $644,380 $651,485 $660,085
1102 ACCOUNTING 248,065 248,895 262,125 266,430 :266,960 274,660 281,375
1105 COMPUTER SERVICES 596,973 649,405 717,720 716,820 740,030 i 761,775 780,340
1142 ELECTIONS 39,528 18,444 58,770 58,770 $9,650': 39,000 72,305
TOTAL DIVISION(005) 1,513,689 1,558,386 1,676,280 1,682 875 1,691,020= 1,726,920 1794,105
006 LEGAL SERVICES
1121 LEGAL SERVICES 122,869 83,818 135,000 135,000 135,000 139,050 200,000
TOTAL DIVISION(006) 122,669 83,818 135,000 135,000 135,000 139,050 200,000
007 RISK MANAGEMENT
1115 INSURANCE 237,152 222,559 300,000 300,000 300;000. 300,000 305,000
TOTAL DIVISION(007) 237,152 222,559 300,000 300,000 ..300,000' 300,000 305,000
011 BUILDING OPERATIONS
1180 BUILDING OPERATIONS 509,172 562,130 556,990 557,090 558,990' 560,590 610,590
TOTAL DIVISION(011) 509,172 562,130 556,990 557,090 556,990 560,590 610,590
016 PLANNING
1166 PLANNING 296,890 297,689 346,195 323,490 - ,.368,700. 303,780 310,830
TOTAL DIVISION(016) 296,890 297,689 346,195 323,490 .368,700 303,780 310,830
018 INSPECTIONS
1162 INSPECTIONS 673,273 636,769 651,545 756475 664,540 704,575 721,640
TOTAL DIVISION(018) 673,273 636,769 651,545 756,475 664,540 704,575 721,640
022 POLICE
1300 POLICE ADMINISTRATION 824,759 859,380 885,075 883,930 ..:904,585= 911,320 933,050
1320 POLICE OPERATIONS 3,795,374 3,849,098 4,018,160 4,246040 4,113,640.. 4,351,265 4,460,630
1321 DRUG TASK FORCE 20,105 23,797 24,745 24,745 25,245' 25,595 26,235
1323 SAFE AND SOBER 32,735 23,852 - - -
1324 POLICE SECURITY SERVICES-PO 7,105 - - - - -
1130 PROSECUTION AND COURT 247,264 231,493 274,195 257,945 279,880. 280,680 285,430
TOTAL DIVISION(022) 4,927,342 4,987,620 5,202,175 5,412 660 5,323,350'- 5,568,860 5,705,345
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROPOSED 2015-2016 OPERATING BUDGET
DIVISION 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016
/PROGRAM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED ESTIMATED CONCEPT PROPOSED CONCEPT
023 FIRE
1346 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 853,769 946,592 1,200,190 1,221 250 1,226,065. 1,255,045 1,286,215
TOTAL DIVISION(023) 853,769 946,592 1,200,190 1,221 250 1,226,065 1,255,045 1,286,215
035 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ADMIN
1400 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ADMIN 312,295 317,053 334,315 333,755 344;990 285,180 291,800
TOTAL DIVISION(035) 312,295 317,053 334,315 333,755 344,990 285,180 291,800
036 ENGINEERING
1420 GENERAL ENGINEERING 305,509 294,203 342,270 357,335 350,210 425,280 434,370
1425 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 35,058 34,178 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000
1430 STREET LIGHTING 263,389 225,012 265,000 250,000 265,000 250,000 265,000
1452 MISC CONCRETE REPAIR 30,644 32,702 35,610 35,610 35,610. 35,610 35,610
TOTAL DIVISION(036) 634,600 586,095 691,880 691,945 '.699,820: 759,890 783,980
037 STREETS
1440 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,240,127 1,177,844 1,229,995 1,253735 1I295430< 1,298,845 1,340,460
1448 SNOW AND ICE CONTROL 131,760 223,110 199,415 173,350 201,405 174,525 175,725
TOTAL DIVISION(037) 1,371,887 1,400,954 1,429,410 1,427 085 1,496,835`. 1,473,370 1,516,185
065 COMMUNITY CENTERS
1605 COMMUNITY CENTER 30,354 28,548 36,745 36,745 37,605 37,605 38,405
1669 RONALD B DAVIS CC 30,817 30,583 37,355 37,355 37,885 38,010 38,720
TOTAL DIVISION(065) 61,171 59,131 74,100 74,100 S 75490 75,615 77,125
066 PARK AND REC ADMINISTRATION
1600 PARK AND REC ADM 633,769 618,082 679,345 673 410 691,055'' 698,640 713,620
TOTAL DIVISION(066) 633,769 618,082 679,345 673,410 691,055 698,640 713,620
067 PARK MAINTENANCE
1620 PARK MAINTENANCE 784,509 818,076 858,450 878,245 '871,220'' 900,400 923,370
1646 TREE MAINTENANCE 174,504 160,982 193,040 193,800 195,360 195,340 197,665
TOTAL DIVISION(067) 959,013 979,058 1,051,490 1,072,045 1;066580. 1,095,740 1,121,035
068 PARK AND REC PROGRAMS
ADULT PROGRAMS:
1596 ADULT-SAND VOLLEYBALL - - - 1,700 - 1,600 1.600
1597 ADULT-SOFTBALL 21,018 21,254 24,195 24,195 24195 24,685 24,685
1598 ADULT-TOUCH FTBUSOCCER 4,723 3,787 8,010 8,010 8,010 8,190 8,190
1680 ADULT-GENERAL ACTIVITIES 31,112 29,517 28,295 28,295 28,300. 28,305 28,305
1681 ADULT-BROOMBALL/HOCKEY 1,515 1,493 5,230 5,230 5,230' 5,455 5,455
1684 ADULT-TENNIS LESSONS 7,964 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
TOTAL ADULT PROGRAMS 58,368 64,015 72,730 74,430 72,735 75,235 75,235
YOUTH PROGRAMS:
1660 YOUTH-SUMMER PARK PROG 74,113 70,748 87,465 87,465 88,675' 88,980 88,980
1665 YOUTH-ICE HOCKEY 623 372 2,330 2,330 2.330 2,350 2,350
1670 YOUTH-GENERAL ACTIVITIES 48,055 43,877 46,335 46,335 46,680 46,790 46,790
1673 YOUTH-BASKETBALL 5,653 6,657 7,115 7,115 7,115 7,115 7,115
1675 YOUTH-SOCCER 4,340 4,197 8,210 8,210 8,255'. 8,270 8,270
1677 YOUTH-BALLET(BOTH) 6,775 6,980 7,280 7,280 7,385. 71395 7,395
1679 YOUTH-RINK SUPERVISION 13,485 27,038 29,145 29,145 29,710 29,865 29,865
1682 YOUTH-TENNIS(BOTHuntil 2013) 191,259 208,319 140,285 5,035 140,2851 5,035 5,035
TOTAL YOUTH PROGRAMS 344,303 368,188 328,165 192,915 -330;435' 195,800 195,800
SENIOR PROGRAMS
1691 SENIOR ACTIVITY 27,842 26,807 38,135 38,135 38,805+ 39,655 39,655
1692 SENIOR EVENTS 895 688 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
1693 SENIOR CLASSES 6,091 6,606 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600
1694 SENIOR TRIPS 51,140 39,746 56,200 56,200 56,200: 56,200 56,200
TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS 85,968 73,847 101,935 101,935 102,605`' 103,455 103,455
TOTAL DIVISION(068) 488,639 506,050 502,830 369,280 :505,775.. 374,490 374,490
GENERALFUND
TOTAL DIVISIONS $15,732,553 $15,905,779 $16,184,275 $16,371,880 $16,746,550' $16,902,135 $17,547,345