The URL can be used to link to this page

12-02-14 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber December 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 C. Receipt of Human Services Fund 2015 Allocation Report 3 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which ' event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting of November 5, and November 18, 2014 4-13 B. Approval of Check Register 1. City 14 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 15 C. Licenses: 1. Continued Item - Solicitor's License - Back Four Ltd 16-18 2. Solicitor's License - Envinsulate LLC 19-21 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - November 10, 2014 22-31 2. Environmental Commission - September 22, 2014 32-34 E. Emails, Letters and/or Petitions: 1. Emails and Letters Regarding METRO Blue Line Extension 35-50 F. Second Consideration - Ordinance #534 - Establishing 2015 Master Fee Schedule 51-70 G. Reappointment of City Manager to Joint Water Commission 14-90 71-72 H. Adoption of 2015-2016 Budget for Enterprise, Special Revenue and Internal Services 73-74 Funds 14-91 I. Approval of Plat - Sunnyridge Woods 14-92 75-77 J. Receipt of October 2014 Financial Reports 78-86 4. PUBUC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120 - 87-119 1801 Noble Drive - The Lecy Group, Applicant 6. Public Hearing - Amendment to General Land Use Plan Map - Re-designating 7751- 120-130 7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island North from Commercial to High Density Residential and 2430 Winnetka Avenue North from Light Industrial to High Density Residential 14-93 C. Public Hearing - Adoption of 2014 Property Tax Levy Payable 2015 and 2015-2016 131-134 General Fund Budget 14-94 and 14-95 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM - CONTINUED D. Public Hearing - Adopting Modification No. 2 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax 135-164 Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District Within Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area (Highway 55 TIF Renewal and Redevelopment Project) 14-96 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Announcements of Meetings 6. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT #.:6 L b 4.�� i�. ,✓ ., � �N Park and Recreation I}epartment 763-512-2345/763-512-2344{fax} Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 1. C, Receipt of Human Services Fund 2014 Allocation Report Prepared By Jeanne Fackler, Recreation Supervisor Summary The Human Services Fund (HSF) met on Monday, October 13, 2014, to review funding requests from ten agencies. The following requests were received and approved by the HSF for allocation at the November 10 meeting: A enc Request Allocated Canvas Health/Crisis Connection $2,200 $2,000 Crisis Nursery $5,000 $0 Dinner At Your poor $8,000 $8,000 PRISM $10,000 $7,000 Second Harvest Heartland $3,000 $3,000 Senior Services HOME $5,000 $5,000 Senior Services Outreach $3,500 $2,000 Sojourner Project $5,000 $5,000 The Bridge for Youth $4,000 $4,000 TreeHouse $5,000 $3,000 YMCA - New Hope 7 000 5 000 TOTAL $57,700 $44,000 Andrew Wold, Chair, will be at the meeting to review the Allocation Report and recap the 2014 activities. Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the 2015 Allocation Report and approve notifying the ten agencies of their 2015 allocation amount. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING s ~ GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA � � p � �= November 5, 2014 � n �:,.� ',n 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1 A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Fonnest, Clausen, Schmidgall and Snope. 1 B, Pledge of Allegiance 1C. Google Award Presentation Mayor Harris stated the City of Golden Valley has been presented the Google Award. Council welcomed representatives from the community which included Mr. Rob Smolund of Open to Business, Mr. Jim Harns of My Music Store, and Mr. Gary Aikens of the Golden Valley Business Council. 1D. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment Mayor Harris administered the oath of office and presented a certificate of appointment, city mug and pin to Mr. Andrew Ramlet of the Human Rights Commission. 1 E. Administration of Police Officer Oath of Office - Beau Hartneck Police Chief Carlson introduced the newest Police Officer Beau Hartneck. Mayor Harris administered the oath of office and Council congratulated Police Officer Hartneck. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOT�ON made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of November 5, 2014, as revised with the addition of Item 3L-Receive and file correspondence regarding proposed amendments to Ordinance 530 and the motion carried unanimously. 3, APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the consent agenda of November 5, 2014, as revised: addition of Item 3L-Receive and file correspondence regarding proposed amendments to Ordinance 530 and removal of 3E1-Agreements for 2015 Bassett Creek Project, 3G-Acceptance of Grant for Hampshire Park Playground Equipment and 3K-Receipt of HKGi Professional Services Proposal and the motion carried unanimously. 3A. Approve the Minutes of City Council Meeting - October 7, 2014 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize payment of the bills as submitted. 3C. Approve Solicitor's License for Friends of the Earth. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - September 22, 2014 2. Human Rights Commission - June 24, 2014 3. Environmental Commission - August 25, 2014 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - September 18, 2014 Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- November 5, 2014 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA-continued . , . 3E2. Authorize Amendment to the Agreement with SEH, Inc. for TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue Final Design. 3E3. Award Contract for 2014 Fire Suppression Project. 3E4. Authorize Agreements for Stream Bank Stabilization. 3F. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Trevilla Complex PUD No. 72 (Golden Valley Senior Living) - Amendment No. 2. 3H. Adopt Resolution 14-88 Modifying 2014 General Wages and Salaries for New Water Resources Technician Position. 31. Approval of Extension for Filing of Plat and Submitting Final PUD Plan Application - PUD #107 - The Towers at West End - Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100 - Duke Realty, Applicant. 3J. Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 (Twin Cities Automotive) - Amendment No. 3. 3L. Receive and file correspondence regarding Proposed Amendments to Ordinance 530 regarding Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments with Residential Components. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3E1. Authorize Agreements for 2015 Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project: a. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission b. WSB & Associates, Inc. City Engineer Oliver presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to authorize the Cooperative Agreement for restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek (10'n Avenue to Duluth Street) with Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to authorize the proposal from WSB in the amount not to exceed $199,219 and the motion carried unanimously. 3G. Adopt Resolution 14-87 Acceptance of Grant for Hampshire Park Playground Equipment and Approval for Play Structure Purchase and Installation Park and Recreation Director Birno presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve Resolution 14-87 for a Grant from GameTime for $17,665.34 and the motion carried unanimously. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- November 5, 2014 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3G. Adopt Resolution 14-87 Acceptance of Grant for Hampshire Park-continued MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Clausen to authorize the purchase and installation of playground equipment from Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground through U.S. Communities buying group contact #416005190 for $67,665.34 and the motion carried unanimously. 3K. Receipt of HKGi Professional Services Proposal for Residential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Study MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to receive and file HKGi Professional Services Proposal for Residential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Study and the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Sunnyridge Woods - 200 Meadow Lane North Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt and City Attorney Barnard answered questions from Council, Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing the Applicant, summarized the application and answered questions from Council. Mr. Matt Pavek, Applicant, explained how the drainage would be improved on the property when the custom homes were built. He explained the tree preservation plan for the properties and answered questions from CounciL Mayor Harris opened public hearing. Mr. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, stated the neighborhood preferred two lots over three. He said he was concerned where the new house is being proposed to be built which is at the back of the lot because of the possible tree loss in the area. He said he is also concerned about the traffic and water run-off in the area. He said he is concerned because he is selling his house which is next door. Mr. George Landis, 220 Meadow Lane North, asked how the trees in the area will be impacted when the new proposed drainage pipe is buried. Mr. Steve Shapiro, 219 Meadow Lane North, said he would prefer to have two homes rather than three on the lots. He said the two homes would have less of an impact on the trees. He said he has heard about the tree covenant and would like to see a copy of it. He stated he is also concerned about the grove of trees on the property and on the boulevard. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the Preliminary Plat Approval for Sunnyridge Woods located at 200 Meadow Lane North. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- November 5, 2014 4A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Sunnyridge Woods - continued MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the Preliminary Plat for Sunnyridge Woods, 200 Meadow Lane North, subject to the following conditions and upon a vote the following voted in favor of: Snope, Schmidgall and Fonnest and the following voted against: Harris and Clausen and the motion carried. 1. The west property line of Lot 3 shall be moved 5 feet to the west as proposed by the Applicant. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. A park dedication fee of $4,448.80 shall be paid before final plat approval. 4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated September 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 4B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Brunswick Estates - 108 Brunswick Avenue North Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. Mr. Steve Schwieters, Wooddale Edina, LLC, Applicant, answered questions from Council regarding the proposed homes. Mayar Harris opened public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the Preliminary Plat Approval for Brunswick Estates located at 108 Brunswick Avenue North. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the Preliminary Plat for Brunswick Estates, 108 Brunswick Avenue North, subject to the following conditions and the motion carried unanimously. 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of $3,080 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated October 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Proposed Amendment to Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that Include Single Family Residential Components (Ordinance No. 530) MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Clausen to change the order of the agenda and the motion carried unanimously. Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions for Council, City Attorney Barnard answered questions from Council. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- November 5, 2014 6A. Proposed Amendment to Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions - continued There was much Council discussion regarding the proposed amendment to the six month moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to amend the amending ordinance by striking the words "since the original approval" in Section 3 and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to amend the amending ordinance by striking Section 2 in its entirety and renumber Section 3 to Section 2 and also include the minor amendment made previously upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Snope, Schmidgall and Fonnest and the following voted against: Harris and Clausen and the motion carried. 6B. Appointment to METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau) Corridor Management Committee Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. There was much Council discussion regarding the commission appointments to METRO Blue Extension Corridor Management Committee. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded Council Member Schmidgall to appoint Council Member Snope as the official representative and Mayor Harris as the alternate representative to the Corridor Management Committee upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Snope, Schmidgall, Harris and Fonnest and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. 6C. Announcement of Meetings The Fall leaf drop-off will be held on November 8, 2014, from 8 am to 1 pm at Brookview Park. The City Offices will be clased on November 11, 2014, in observance of Veteran's Day. Some Council Member's may attend the METRO Blue Line Extension Community Open House on November 12, 2014. A Special HRA meeting will be held on November 12, 2014, in the Council Chambers. The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on November 12, 2014, immediately following the Special HRA meeting. The next City Council meeting will be held on November 18, 2014, in the Council Chambers. 6D. Mayor and Council Communication City Manager Burt reviewed the agenda for the Council/Manager meeting of November 12, 2014. Unofficial City Council Minutes -6- November 5, 2014 6D. Mayor and Council Communication - continued Council Member Snope gave an update on the Southwest Corridor meeting he attended. Mayor Harris gave an update on a meeting he attended with the owner of the Golden Valley Shopping mall regarding a proposed applicant. 7. Adjournment MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall, and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:14 pm. Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA �'`��`� November 18, 2014 , � , 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Roll Gall Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Fonnest, Clausen, Schmidgall and Snope. 1 B. Pledge of Allegiance 1C. Quad Communities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Update Mr. Marshall Tannick and Ms. Lynn Gitelis of the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon organization were in attendance and updated Council. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the agenda of November 18, 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 November 18, 2014, as revised: removal of 3C1-Approve gambling license for Providence Academy and 3C2-Approve solicitor's license for Back Four L & D and the motion carried unanimously. 3A. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting - October 21, 2014 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. , 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - October 13, 2014 2. Human Rights Commission - August 26, 2014 3. Open Space and Recreation Commission - July 28, 2014 4. Joint Water Commission - September 30, 2014 3E. Adopt Resolution 14-89 Providing for Public Hearing on Certain Proposed Public Improvements, Project 15-01, 2015 Pavement Management Program; Project 16-01, 2016 Pavement Management Program; and Project 17-01, 2017 Pavement Management Program 3F. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to Sign the Amended Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force 2014 Co-Operative Agreement. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3C1. Approve Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement for Providence Academy Mayor Harris excused himself from the vote due to a possible conflict of interest. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- November 18, 2014 3C1. Approve Gambling License Exemption - continued MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirements for Providence Academy upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Snope, Fonnest, Clausen and Schmidgall and the following abstained: Harris and the motion carried. 3C2. Approve Solicitor's License for Back Four L & D Council requested staff to verify the solicitor's application information. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to table the item until the December 2, 2014, Council Meeting and the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBUC HEARING 4A. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119 - 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue - Peter Knaeble, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Barnard and City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. Mr. Knaeble, Applicant, described the process used when he re-examined amending his PUD plan from the current five lot plan to a four lot plan and explained why the four lot plan would not be feasible for him. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was much Council discussion regarding the Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods located at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue from Mr. Knaeble. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to deny the Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 119 based on the following finding upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen, Snope and Fannest and the following voted against: Schmidgall and the motion carried. 1. The PUD plan does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design as it simply replaces two existing single family homes with five new single family homes on narrower lots. 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 does not meet the PUD intent and Purpose provision and would likely result in conflict with at least one PUD ordinance provision of minimum required side yard setbacks for principal buildings. Also, the proposed easement on the east side of the property should be 25 feet in width as opposed to 20 feet as proposed. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- November 18, 2014 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. First Consideration - Ordinance No. 534 - Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered question from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Gouncil. There was Council discussion regarding the First Consideration of Ordinance No. 534 establishing a 2015 Master Fee Schedule. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt on First Consideration, Ordinance No. 534, Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule and the motion carried unanimously. 6B. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. There was much Council discussion regarding the METRO Blue Line Extension. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded Council Member Snope to receive and file the METRO Blue Line Extension Update and the motion carried unanimously. 6C. Announce of Meetings Some Council Members may attend the League of Women Voters and Human Rights Commission event "Toward a More Perfect Union: Talking about the Constitution" on November 20, from 7 pm to 9 pm. The City Offices will be closed on November 27 and 28, 2014, in observance of Thanksgiving. The next City Council meeting will be held on December 2, 2014, in the Council Chambers. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Orchestra's Holiday program on November 23, 2014, at Calvary Lutheran Church. 6D. Mayor and Council Communication Council updated residents as to where to find additional information regarding their Truth and Taxation statements and stated the Public Hearing will be held at the December 2, 2014, Council Meeting. Council Member Clausen updated Council on the passing of Former U. S. Representative Bill Frenzel who was a Golden Valley resident. Council requested staff to review the tobacco ordinance regarding prohibiting vaporing in the City and present an update to Council. Mayor Harris updated Council on a meeting he attended with local clergyman who are interested in the needs of the community. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- November 18, 2014 7. Adjournment MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall and the motion carried unanimously ta adjourn the meeting at 8:36 pm. Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk CI�"� t.)� � � Finance Derartment 763-593-80131763-593-8109(fax) � . , .. , �. ,., r`' , t`�; „v .,°; ,....+tNF-iia7 ;� ,.,r ,r� w�-� ' yi��,4�` .e.r. .° a^#�t e �W �r,x�, p P ;�Y� ._ .,.. ...._.r.eS��.�N�r�l��b �a.. � ,:� .�`°�nt»a"wsiF: . �1�,'a+C`x. �`i Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 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. ��y c�� . �r Finance Department 763 S93 8013/763 593 8109(fax) ��M��t�� " ��`��tii��,,��.:_ .� .. '' �t�.•;, .�. My��iii�ti��!u.c�.:��._ ,�+��(yi�'rfl��+s��qy'r"�� a : , „�. ' �-,... .... �,., � .�,. .<- . .._. _� ... �:.,.. .r.. �iF Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 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. !.'��1 �?� ��<.�, � � � City Administratian/Council 763 593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) ��a �� ,.��rr a �m��. � . ,. � �s ��q��;mu��...:.-.: �. . �,..��a��. . .�. �..�� . �� Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Continued Item - Solicitor's License - Back Four Ltd 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. At its November 18 meeting the City Council requested additional information regarding the applicant. Aspen Waste Systems Inc has contracted with Back Four Ltd to solicit customers for their company. Attachments • Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Back Four Ltd. 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 v TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 3� 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler olicitor (circle one nv Enclose the sum of$ � for Z (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. �auc�. �avr Ltd (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) "15��Q9'(D� 75�—3�Z 5'�� MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Business � COr�d�ol�, (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) 5d� I�.�s f �ores f' Sfi #�10 (Address) �ll,� plal►,� �'tn �lo�D�l City, State and Zip Code) a5�-�13 -l�n�Cva�� fv�2-u!—3�� 1VP�l ��yan� (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, NCrI �lYnn � hereby makes application for (Applicant Name) period of � 3 y through 12/31/�, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. 5�� r�uro s Cc !<<a�7o (Signature of Applicant/Princip I fficer) (Photo ID Verification) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): . So lr�1 f r G�crsf'c fir�r�s � �ga 1 �14.bq �q�l �Ilr.ls �5ya 1 � �7.GZ NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City: eil �l nn �o�'en e rbe5 (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF ) �, ��"'e!ltOUS �-'��'�a�� ) ss. COUNTY OF ) �, 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 an information and belief, and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. Signature of Applicant/Principal Officer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 (Signature) t,��~�° l�� - � „ � City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /7b3-593-8109(fax) Em�'� ke"f��,X; .t�0ii�� .�aa*':�':.i-, . ._ . .. . . . ._ , ,-se,i�..,v<< �i�lii�ll9IW�4�IIli��dhP��°��",_� v�� 'I� .-_ "`..,.`�..`�.�+�` = :' �. ,�.. .. .. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 3, C. 2, Solicitor's License- Envinsulate LLC 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 Envinsulate LLC. Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month. PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ �� 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: � -� Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler Solicitor (circle one) Enclose the sum of$��'�for � �� (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary for obtaining this license. �i'�urilSu�a�� GLC. (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) Zvl S3q �-l.�l ��Zv MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Business , , L�.. �L > (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) 1 yS�S' S, ��b.t,,ks �ra'I �.��-`i' �!'o � f�oSA rvt nt�rt�� Yj� S��' (Address) Kv�r��u��' y�1DV �� ,�,� City, State and Zip Code) � rz- �.�� - s��.3 (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, �..��_ ��ivr,pSpn hereby makes application for ( pplicant Name) period of I 1 through 12/31/ ►5 , subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. � { ignature of pplicant/Principal Officer) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): �:,;��j �I� ' I U�: �.D 6c GJ��11.J5 .S K � 20 lc � �v�5'�c �c. �-�'t�N 2cX�;c�-Soec� `�. �� +," "�� — I •� � � dtN 'y+.e✓ ►��.�NG�� NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City: E�V1 t.�P r��-.e cl ��5�- c�-� (�c�,fr-tv1�' -Y.�v!/�f,��.� r�� r�t4iµs�.�a1� �L� r�r�,n hQ �Ss�.�. h-.� r��t .r {-i,��- [ a�I.e�� (�:�Uw r rn r.r�.�- �l2�- Z?��- ��3 (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF I11!lY�M��" ) COUNTY OF F��LNN��J � ss. I, �C v�� -e� .S 7�i+v`i(-�5�� r t of �✓1 l�tr�5�(cc-��2. ��C-, (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. � ' a ur Applic�'i incipal icer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7 ' day of y� , 20� a �� (Signature) �, mm ��,,. .�� . JUDII�H �. ��.�Y � � -�� taof�►av€�a��.�c-r��rw�� ..� � �'�••,.: . I� Exq��s�r,.?t.64t5 a+ix{a• � ffi Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 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, November 10, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Thase present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes October 13, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Blum referred to the ninth paragraph on page four and said the word "duplicitous" should be replaced with the word "duplicative." MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 13, 2014, minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Sweeney Lake Woods — 1801 Noble Drive — PU-120 Applicant: The Lecy Group Address: 1801 Noble Drive Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the one existing single family property into a new three-lot single family development Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to reconfigure the existing vacant parcel at 1801 Noble Drive and the existing driveway parcel into three single family lots with access via a shared driveway. He stated that Lot 1 will be 37,494 square feet, Lot 2 will be 26,632 square feet, and Lot 3 will be 24,834 square feet, all of which are greater than the minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet. He added that if not for the lack of adequate frontage on a public street, this proposal could be reviewed as a minor subdivision rather than a PUD. Zimmerman discussed several of the staff's concerns including: the installation of utilities in a narrow right-of-way, fire and emergency access, the insufficient lot width at the front setback line, and the challenges with shared driveways. He stated that the proposed 16 foot wide driveway is not acceptable and that 18 feet of width is the absolute minimum width allowed. He referred ta the PUD language in the City Code and explained that public streets are required unless waived by the City. He added that staff is recommending denial of the Preliminary PUD Plan as it does not meet all six of the necessary PUD findings. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 2 Kluchka asked about the vacant tracts H & B shown on the plans. He also asked how many lots would be appropriate for a shared driveway. Zimmerman stated that tract B is the Wessin property that was recently approved for subdivision. He noted that the driveways for that subdivision will have access on Noble, not on the proposed driveway for this current proposal. He added that tract H is a vacant landlocked parcel. Kluchka asked if the owners of these proposed new lots would have to agree to future access. Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum asked about the distinctions regarding public versus private streets. Zimmerman stated that streets, whether public or private have to be constructed sufficiently to get fire vehicles in and out. He added that another issue is city versus private maintenance of the street. Segelbaum noted that a homeowner may prefer private streets so they can control access and don't have to give up ownership. Zimmerman agreed and added that public streets require more land for utilities and emergency access. Cera asked if the applicant has agreed to the 18 foot wide driveway requirement. Zimmerman said yes. Cera asked if the owners of the property to the west have been approached. Zimmerman stated that Mr. Wessin owns the property to the east and west of the driveway parcel and that he is not interested in selling it. Cera asked if a private street would be a unique situation. Zimmerman said there are few developments in the City with private streets. Baker asked if a 20 foot wide driveway would be allowed if this were a subdivision proposal rather than a PUD proposal. Zimmerman said no, a 20 foot wide street would nat be allowed in a subdivision propasal. Baker said there is a risk of encroaching on the neighboring properties if they pave 18 feet in 20 feet of right-of-way. Waldhauser noted that if the area is considered a driveway the setback requirement is 3 feet, but if it is considered a street the setback requirement is 2 feet. Baker asked about the nature of the proposed conservation easement. Zimmerman referred to the City Engineer's staff report and explained that the applicant will be required to dedicate conservation easements over a portion of the shoreline adjacent to Sweeney Lake which is consistent with recent subdivisions on Sweeney Lake. Baker asked if the easements could be removed in the future. Zimmerman said no, they are permanent easements to create a buffer for the lake, preserve trees, and protect water quality. Blum referred to the comments about the proposed driveway being 18 feet in width and said he did not notice that written in the Fire Chief's staff report. Zimmerman stated that in conversations, the Fire Chief has said that 16 feet in width is too narrow, but that 18 feet, although not ideal, would be acceptable. Waldhauser stated that if this property were developed differently, or if just one new house was built, the applicant would not need any approvals and all of the safety issues would remain, so she thinks the City loses a lot of things without a PUD. Kluchka asked if the applicant held a neighborhood meeting. Zimmerman said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 3 Segelbaum asked if the applicant has seen the staff reports and if there have been any objections to any of the conditions in the staff reports. Zimmerman said the applicant has received the staff reports and that he has not heard any objections. Johnson noted that the state fire code requires a minimum of 20 feet in width for a private driveway and questioned why the City would entertain anything narrower. He referred to the size of the proposed cul-de-sac and asked if the diameter of that cul-de- sac will be wider as discussed in the Fire Chief's staff report. Zimmerman stated that the Fire Chief has said he is comfortable with an 18 foot wide driveway and that applicant is willing to widen the diameter of the proposed cul-de-sac. Patrick Sarver, Civil Site Group, showed a rendering of the site. He stated that Mr. Lecy purchased the property in June of 2013 and has experience building high quality developments. He said because of the PUD process they have an opportunity to save a significant number of trees and improve the water quality. He stated that the only non- conforming issue is that their property doesn't adjoin a public street. He referred to two other recent developments in this same area and showed the Commissioners a table that compared the amount of hard cover, shoreline buffer and water quality of all three proposals and said theirs is the best of the three. Waldhauser asked if they would be able to construct an 18 foot wide road on 20 feet of right-of-way. Sarver said yes, they can build an 18 foot wide road to a safe level and they wauld like to work with the Fire Chief regarding the issue of turning emergency vehicle around in the proposed cul-de-sac space. Baker asked Sarver to point out the filtration basin on the plans. Sarver noted that the proposed filtration basin is to the west of Lot 1. Baker asked if the filtration basin would provide for the run-off from lawns and driveways. Sarver said yes. Blum noted that the snow storage area is also shown in the same area as the filtration basin and asked if that would impact filtration. Sarver stated that the snow storage area would be adjacent to the filtration basin area. Waldhauser said that snow storage would affect filtration over time. Segelbaum asked how the applicant could say which trees will stay and that the lake buffer won't be removed when these proposed homes will be custom built. Sarver stated that the lake buffer will be easement that can't be moved, built in, or removed. He stated that the applicant will go to great extent to keep every tree possible and that homeowners will be guided through the process. Ruth Lecy, The Lecy Group, Applicant, said she doesn't want to offend the prior owner of this property but she feels the City has received grossly inaccurate information regarding the condition of the house. She explained that the property was bank-owned, neglected, and was on the market for over 600 days. She discussed several of the needed repairs including: a leaky roof, replacement of 1927 single pane windows, new appliances, replacement of light fixtures, replacement of original bathrooms, replacement of carpeting, replacement of front steps, and repair of a leaking well in the basement. She added that many of the materials from the home have been salvaged and have not been sold, as they will be used in the construction of the proposed new homes. She discussed Minutes af the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 4 the history of Lecy Bros. Construction and several of the awards they have received. She showed the Commissioners similar projects they've done in other cities. She reiterated that they will not be selling the lots to another builder. They will be custom building, upper-bracket homes and protecting as many trees as possible. Cera said he appreciates the re-use of the salvaged materials. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Gearge Wessin, 1152 Hamel Road, Hamel, stated the Planning Commission brought up the feasibility of building a public street and said the answer is yes. He added that the property he owns adjacent to this proposal is for sale and has been for a long time. He confirmed that parcel H shown on the plans is a landlocked piece of property. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said it would be good to see some development that can be done without damage to Sweeney Lake ar to other properties in the area. She said it seems that there is a group of property owners in the area who do not want this land developed except as one single family home, which in this market would not work. She said there isn't going to be another proposal like this and the alternative is to leave it sit vacant, which is maybe the goal of the neighborhood. She stated that it was her understanding that the homeowner to the southwest would also like to develop a portion of their property which would also require access. She added that this proposal looks reasonable except for the 18 foot wide driveway, but this is a step in the right direction. Cera questioned if a PUD is the appropriate mechanism to develop this property. He said two lots might fit better than three. Kluchka said he thinks this is a creative and appropriate use of a PUD because it gives the City a way to make improvements. Segelbaum stated that staff has recommended denial, but he gets the sense there is some potential for flexibility. He said it is not feasible to extend the public right-of-way so it seems appropriate to use the PUD process. He said three lots doesn't seem excessive and suggested adding a condition that there be no additional access off of the driveway because he would not want the City to lack control over the safety issues. Kluchka suggested adding a condition regarding additional utilities as well. Segelbaum said he is more concerned about driveways than utilities because the existing driveway is undersized and he doesn't want to see it overused by adding more driveways to it. Blum asked if there is any potential of obtaining more land to the west. Segelbaum stated that the property owner hasn't been willing to sell that land. Cera said maybe the property owners could come to some sort of agreements for a public road. Baker said he doesn't think restricting the number of access drives is a good idea. Kluchka noted that the applicant would have to come back to the City for a PUD amendment, then the City would have a say in how the property is further developed. Segelbaum stated that a future homeowner might work with the property owner to the west to make the private drive become a public street. Minutes af the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 5 Johnson said that if Staff can work out the issues regarding the width of the driveway then he would be comfortable recommending approval of this proposal because the primary goal is the best use of the property. Kluchka suggested conditions/findings as follows: 1) the proposal as revised meets the City's requirements for the driveway width, cul-de-sac diameter, and water and sewer special construction techniques, 2) there would be a conservation easement, 3) there will be an infiltration basin and snow storage, and 4) there will be no additional driveway or utility access along the private driveway. Cera stated that the Engineering staff report covers many of conditions/findings discussed. Kluchka stated number one above could say as noted in the City Engineer's staff memo. Waldhauser asked if adding a sprinkler system to the proposed new homes was a condition listed in any of the staff reports. Kluchka said he thinks the applicant is planning on installing sprinkler systems. Lecy clarified that is an option they are considering. Waldhauser said she doesn't see a reason why the Planning Commission should add that as a condition. Segelbaum said the memo they received from the Fire Chief said the access was inadequate. He suggested that a condition be included that requires an updated memo from the Fire Chief stating that the revised access is adequate. Blum suggested a condition be added stating that the snow storage area and the infiltration basin area cannot be overlapping. The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods, PUD #120 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 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 cansistent 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. 7. There is sufficient information to waive the requirement of a public street in order to permit a private street to be constructed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 6 Conditions: 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 3, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. An updated memo from the Fire Chief stating that the access is adequate is also requested. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 5, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. There will be no additional driveway or utility access allowed along the private d riveway. 4. The snow storage area and the infiltration basin area shall not overlap. Zimmerman questioned if the words "private street" should be used or if the words "private driveway" should be used. Kluchka said he thinks private driveway is more flexible. Waldhauser said they've been talking about it as a private street so the words "private street" should be used. Segelbaum agreed that it has to meet the standards of a street so the words "private street" should be used. 3. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North — CPAM-55 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Density Residential for the properties at 7751- 7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North and from Light Industrial to High Density Residential for the property at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North Zimmerman stated that staff met with the City Council in June to do long range planning for different areas within the City. He explained that a developer has come forward with a potential proposal for an apartment and townhomes on the southeast quadrant of the Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road intersection. These uses would be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning of the properties. He stated that the Council's vision for this quadrant is for a mixed use area, however the current Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation and the established I-394 Mixed Use zoning district do not translate well to this area, so staff is recommending that the four properties be reguided and rezoned to High Density Residential. Baker asked how many units have been discussed. Zimmerman said approximately 300. Cera said he still intrigued by the Mixed Use option and making the whole corner Mixed Use would be more creative. He suggested modifying the existing Mixed Use definition to fit this proposal. Zimmerman stated that the developer has not been able to obtain the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 1 Q, 2014 Page 7 corner property. He added that the I-394 Corridor hasn't had any vertically mixed uses proposed and thinks more horizontally mixed uses next to each other might work. Johnson asked if this would be the largest high density area in the City. Zimmerman said he wasn't sure. Segelbaum asked if the City thinks it is appropriate to include the corner in the proposal even if they are not interested in this particular development. Zimmerman stated that the Council wants to get things started with this proposal and they don't want to reguide or rezone the corner property without their consent. Kluchka suggested that the corner property could maybe be changed in the future. Baker questioned accommodating a developer who is applying for something right naw, as opposed to slowing down and looking at the whole area. He said the City should be looking at the long view and he doesn't see the benefit of accommodating what may not be a viable project. Zimmerman stated that creating a new land use category is a very long process. Cera questioned why there isn't a rezoning request along with the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. Zimmerman stated that the rezoning request will happen along with the development application. Waldhauser said this is a good location for higher density housing. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Todd Schachtman, Intuitive Investments, 99Q5 St. Johns Road, Minnetonka, said he grew up in this area and wants it to be vibrant and energetic again, so when the opportunity came up to look at the VFW parcel it struck him that this could be something much better for the City. He said there is an opportunity with his proposal to help fix the flooding issues in the area and he is at a point where this is a formative development and he is ready to go with this first step in the process. He said his proposal will have an everlasting impact on the northern gateway to the City and he is planning for apartments and townhomes to provide choices for a wide variety of demographics. He stated that what the VFW has meant to the area is very important so he is considering call the project Liberty Crossing to pay homage. The VFW will also be able to use a community room in the apartment building and hopefully this will be a project people are proud of. He said that he ideally wants the corner property as well, but it just didn't happen. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked about underground parking and if it would be compatible with the soils in this area. Zimmerman said he knows that soil borings have been done and if the soils work, underground parking could be a possibility. Baker stated that he noticed nothing has been mentioned about a commercial component with this project. He said he wants to see more mixed use development and wants to continue to explore the idea of Mixed Use zoning. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 8 Schachtman stated mixed use projects in general are tough to finance, and to find lasting tenants. He said he'd love to incorporate a commercial use and he is still considering the corner property because it would be the best option for retail, but Walgreens is an obstacle because a new retail use would not be contiguous. He said he will continue to loak at all the options however, he thinks the definition of mixed use, and the definition of retail will change in the future. Kluchka asked if the High Density designation prevents the applicant from doing any other types of uses. Zimmerman said no, and added that the dominant use would be High Density residential. Baker asked if re-designating the property would restrict in any way the future use of the property. Zimmerman said no, the properties can be reguided or rezoned in the future. Johnson asked what "dominant use" means. He said that this looks like it would be the largest high density area in the City and questioned why they wouldn't want to try to segment it. Zimmerman stated that zoning allows one land use but a PUD would allow variation from that. Kluchka questioned if High Density residential is the right thing for this space. Baker said he thinks this is an excellent place for High Density development. Johnson said he is concerned about the volume of people in one area and reiterated that this one area would be two or three times bigger than other High Density areas in the C ity. Cera stated that townhomes would be a better fit in the Medium Density category. Zimmerman stated that the categories are based on the number of units per acre. Segelbaum asked why traffic isn't being considered at this point. He said this sounds like a good project, but he thinks it is premature to consider reguiding the Comprehensive Plan at this paint. Waldhauser asked why the staff report says the City wants to retain the option to remove the fourth property from consideration if needed. Zimmerman stated that the car wash site is being considered, but its purchase has not yet been finalized. Johnsan asked if the rezoning decision is based on more concrete criteria. Zimmerman said ultimately the Council could decide not to rezone the properties. Kluchka added that approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment just allows the developer to keep moving forward. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Density Residential for the properties at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North and from Light Industrial to High Density Residential for the property at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Navember 10, 2014 Page 9 4. Discussion Regarding Recycling Centers Goellner reminded the Commissioners that this is a continuation of their discussion on recycling centers from their October 13, 2014, meeting. She discussed her previaus recommendations and summarized the previous Planning Commission discussion: She stated that in response to the previous discussion, staff has revised the recommendations as follows: create definitions for Drop-Off Facilities and for Recycling Facilities, allow Drop-Off Facilities as a permitted use and Recycling Facilities as a conditional use in the Light Industrial zoning district, allow both Drop-Off facilities and Recycling Facilities as permitted uses in the Industrial zoning district, remove definitions for Compostable Waste and Yard Waste because they can be found in Section 10.40 of the City Code, prohibit outdoor storage, and maintain distance requirement currently in place for Recycling Centers. Baker asked about the downside to making all of the uses conditional in both zoning districts. Goellner said that could prohibit some applicants' proposals. Cera said he thinks the City should limit crushing and shredding, or make Recycling Centers obtain a Conditional Use Permit, and ban crushing and shredding. Waldhauser asked about the trafFic associated with these uses and suggested the City refer to the State statutes. She said she wants to focus on what these places are doing, not on what they are recycling. Baker asked about the future of Recycling Centers. Cera said there won't be any small recycling centers. Baker asked if Recycling Centers would be more localized or if they would be centralized. Cera said they would be centralized. Cera suggested requiring a Conditional Use Permit for Recycling Genters, but not for Drop-Off Centers. Johnson questioned why they are being so abstract about this, rather than saying what the City wants to see or doesn't want to see. Cera agreed that the City doesn't have to permit or define things, they just have to know what they want or don't want. Waldhauser said she is concerned about allowing Drop-Off Centers in the Light Industrial zoning district. Cera stated that there are Drop-Off locations everywhere. Segelbaum suggested the language apply only if a Drop-Off center is the primary use. Baker said he wants to support composting and asked where that is expected to occur. Goellner said that is an outdoor use. Gaellner asked the Commissioners if they want to require a Conditional Use Permit for Recycling Centers in the Light Industrial zoning district. The Commissioners agreed. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 10 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka gave an update on the last Community Center Task Force meeting he attended. He said the Council has asked the Task Force to give them a community center proposal that is between the proposed $9,000,000 and $38,000,000, but the Task Force is going to say no because they envisioned the $38,000,000 option. He said he thinks it is unfortunate that the focus has been on money and not on the vision and he thinks it is premature to talk about price. 6. Other Business Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski introduced himself to the Commission. • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 pm. Gharles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes September 22, 2014 Present: Commissioners Tonia Galonska, Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Larry Johnson, Jim Stremel, Debra Yahle; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist, Deric Deuschle, SEH; and Pat Schutrop, Administrative Assistant Absent: Commissioner Tracy Anderson Call to Order Stremel called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Approval of Regular Meetinq Minutes — Auqust 25, 2014 MOVED by Gitelis, seconded by Yahle, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2014 meeting. New Proposals for Greener Practices The Mayor and City Council charged the Commission to consider suggestions for greener practices. Commission members also came up with a list of suggestions. In an attempt to organize the three lists, Stremel asked staff to create a matrix that would also include overlapping items from each list, how to implement, incentives/disincentives for change, etc. The Commission agreed to remove the following suggestians because af redundancy or are beyond the expected scope: • Educate residents through the CityNews and website, on b�tter practices (e.g. water conservation). NOTE: This item will be reworded to read: Water Conservation (such as home water audits). • CSA and fresher vegetables delivered via less over the road trucking. • "Safe Streets" and more walking to school. • MnASAP support There was discussion to remove the suggestion regarding bat houses vs. spraying mosquitos; however, Chair Stremel asked that it remain on the list. Members of City Council added two additional suggestions for the Commission to consider: 1. Greenstep Cities Program. The Commission heard a presentation from the program administrator and considered participating in this program in 2011/2012, but decided to continue participating in the US Mayors Climate Protection Program the State of Minnesota's B3 Benchmark System instead. Action: Support the 2011/2012 decision to not participate in the Green Step Cities as it seems redundant to what the City and Commission are doing through the B3 Benchmarking system. Action: Include update of the B3 Benchmark System in the Commission's annual report to the City Council. 2. Bee keeping and making the community bee-friendly. Consider Shorewood's policy encouraging the planting of bee-friendly flowers and restricting certain pesticides. Action: Keep this item on the list of new proposals for greener practices for possible inclusion in 2015 EC work plan. Minutes of the Environmental Commission September 22, 2014 Page 2 of 3 The Commission will review the matrix again at the next meeting. Natural Resource Manaqement Plan (NRMP) The survey is now on the website and will be ready for residents to access after the September/October issue of the CityNews is released. The survey will be on the website for one month. Eric Eckman did a Channel 12 interview about the NRMP at the Bassett Creek Nature Area and noticed there was no signage identifying the nature area. He believes it would be beneficial to have name signs posted in the nature areas. Eckman also suggested that naming some of the open space areas in the City would give those areas an identity within the City. The Open Space and Recreation Commission and Rick Birno will need to be consulted regarding creating identities for some of the open spaces throughout the City. A difficult tapic that will need to be addressed is encroachments into nature areas by private property owners. Many of these encroached areas by property owners happen over time and the property owner may not be aware they are encroaching onto public property. Education will be important in getting voluntary compliance as a starting point of enforcement. Currently, these are complaint-driven to be resolved by the City. Deric Deuschle distributed the first site (Adeline Nature Area) in Chapter 5 of the site specific management strategies for the commissioners to review and comment (on file). Each nature area site will be addressed individually by description, forest and woodlands, lake, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, vegetation goals and action plans. Eckman said the Sweeney Lake access should be emphasized in the site information for Adeline Nature Area. He suggested SEH also add creative ideas to the plan in how some of the land use areas can be enhanced or improved for the Commission and staff to react to. The draft of each site will be ready for the Commission to review at its next meeting. Proqram/Project Updates Bottineau Transitway Update: Commissioner Galonska attended the recent meeting. Rich Baker is requesting all Golden Valley representatives meet on October 22 to discuss the progress. Community Center Update: The site selection process is narrowed down to two locations, bath of which are located on current Brookview property. Proposals will be finalized at the next meeting to present to the City Council in October. The complete program/project summary is on file. Commission Member Council Reports None. Minutes of the Environmental Commission September 22, 2014 Page3of3 Other Business None. Adjourn MOVED by Hill, seconded by Johnson, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:59 pm. Pat Schutrop Administrative Assistant From: Date: November 11, 2014 at 15:54:15 CST To: <asnope(�D-goldenvalleymn.gov>, <sharris(�D-goldenvalleymn.gov>, <jclausen(a-).goldenvalleymn.gov>, <Ifonnest(d-)goldenvalle my n.gov>, <sschmidgaallCcD.goldenvalleymn.gov> Cc: < > Subject: Your 5/20/14 letter to Mr. McLaughlin Council, I have respectfully attended LRT meetings as a concerned Golden Valley resident over the past 3 yrs. I attended last years Park Board meeting where so many residents put up so many post its on maps to show: our properties/concerns near G V Rd/Theo Wirth and the solitude and safety, peace of mind that is here and the endangered species,ect, which you have all heard before many times. It is mind blowing that your actions speak louder than your words and your actions say you are not concerned for us. Many stated, why are you even thinking of putting more rail in where there will be little use and it is a flourishing area where it is highly questionable who benefits in Golden Valley. It allows LRT to go faster and cheaper to MPLS is what we heard. Its not "PC" to put LRT where the tornado made its path. We came to realize Dee Dee and Paula were friends of Golden Valley residence and heard us and fought for us and now they are not on the council any longer. Our groups have no one to turn to. So many tried to get a clear heartfelt opinion from candidates at election time but no one would take a stand againest LRT in the Grand Rounds Scenic area. Joanne we begged you not to be baited by the authorities but you changed your vote and voted to let all of the spending begin. Skip you said," No worry I will propose GV's redevelopment area along 55 and run the LRT on 55 rather than in our nature area and the National Grand Rounds." Id like to hear you tell me this again from your heart because, as a resident, I am taken back to read what I call a timid letter of 5/20/14. Your letter states" the Golden Valley Road station location would serve residence and businesses. — "The City believes overall transit ridership numbers would be maximized with a Golden Valley Road Station." You also did not include the letter from Father Moudry stating that St. Margaret Mary's is not for sale or use. My perception is that you were intentional in not including the letter to support what you want. I am a member of this wonderful community of heart and soul. I am on the church council and we see the developers plan options that by your original words Skip shouldn't have evolved even as proposals. Who are you? What are you doing to this God given area? What are you thinking? A thought to ponder deeply for all of you: "Why do you think and believe what you believe? I pray you actually do not allow any of this to come to pass. Take it to your heart and soul: Reflect: Talk with God and decide for the higher greater good of all and not because of contacts it will give you or the city or because every city in its path wants LRT thru Golden Valley.... Make your mark because you care about the Parkway, St. Margaret Mary's, the residence that choose to live in this beautiful area and be passionate about it so you are ok when you are persecuted for standing in your truth. If this is not your truth than tell the truth and do not say one thing and have your actions speak so loud I can't hear what you are saying. My point is what the Golden Valley Residence in this area have attended meetings, put on all the post its for you, and sent emails to you saying no rail and no station in the park and at GV Road. It seems we speak, you listen and then you do what you want not what you say. I am writing because today, Veterans day, at our home on 3840 Bassett Creek Drive we had a BALD Eagle in our tree. (That's why people live here.) A week ago we had 2 piliated woodpeckers in our tree. I write because, as a 29 year GV resident, I feel sold out, abandoned by you thaf appear to be speaking not of your heart. Today I taught troubled teens, full of anger, trying to find their heart. I am an example of wholehearted truth to them and you. Every engineer or person of heart knows everything has vibration and frequency and you can make history to stand up for the Intelligence of Nature and the people of Golden Valley to take LRT where redevelopment is needed. This is not a time ta be ALL about the money. We don't want a high rise. We don't want the LRT or a station in our nature area. We certainly don't want to have St. Margaret Mary's suffer from this situation. Didn't you hear??? We want the solitude of Golden Valley. Save our people, children, nature and the National Grand Rounds. Stand up for US.... Don't forget abaut the people. ,a�ay �� t.�. '£ �`ii:.i�; �':. . . °: f� °,�:�� ., i.�... f9r c:.e . ., . _, � , . Er . f�;�� .,�t�r.Er;�.,s��."—Swami Satchidananda Carmen Dougherty-Heim, M.S. From: Cynthia Carow Sent:Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:40 PM To: annrest@comcast.net; annr@senate.mn; freiber��gmail.com; Harris, Shep; bottineau@co.hennepin.mn.us; Fonnest, Larry; Clausen,Joanie; Schmidgall, Steve; Snope, Andy; Zimmerman,Jason Cc: lindaj0803@ Subject: Bottineau plans Dear City and County representatives, I am emailing in response to the meeting that occurred on Wednesday November 13th an the Bottineau Light Rail line. At the meeting, plans were released that showed the redevelopment of the area located on Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway. I would like to know what process the Met Council, City, County, and any other decision makers are using to gather comments and complaints on the proposed redevelopment plans? We just finished an election and supported many individuals on the ballat who are part of this planning process and it has been unclear, not communicated, and my neighbors and myself are very frustrated and angry. The proposed redevelopment plan is concerning and angers everyone. The community was educated on that a station would be located at either Plymouth Ave or/and Golden Valley Road intersection, but there was no communication, till the meeting on Wednesday, about the redevelopment options and the potential to demolish neighborhoods. I did read the disclaimer that was printed on the maps which state they are proposals. These proposals are printed and distributed, which puts all af our neighborhoods at a disadvantage. The reason is now that there is a threat of our neighborhood to be demolished the question arises as to what home improvements do people do, do they sell their house and they can't as there are proposals on the table to redevelop the area. These maps have put all of us in a bad position as a home owner. In addition the communication to the neighborhood did not happen. I am a subscriber to the City email alerts and there were no announcements on the proposed plans or meetings. In addition, I have tried many times to access the agendas for the city council meetings, but the program used to distribute the agendas, format of distribution electronically, and timeliness of agendas does not allow residents to have a say in their city process. I see that the city does not want its residents to have a say in how their city functions as access is limited to what is going on. Since the meeting on Wednesday did impact Golden Valley residents and specific neighborhoods it would have been respectful to notify people that their homes may be demolished. I understand these are proposals and no developers have been established, but the previous meetings did not propose any neighborhood redevelopment, only station development with possible parking options. I am very angry at the Met Council, and the City of Golden Valley's lack of concern and respect for its residents and the apparent move to slide this project by withaut anyone knowing. I am an advocate for Light Rail and was in full favor of it, until I learned that light rail means more than having a station, it means having to move from a neighborhood that has maintained its houses, has good home values, and an established area. All of us moved ta this neighborhood to be part of the city, be close to the parks and Grand Rounds, and enjoy the nature within the city. This environment will be destroyed by even having these proposals presented. I please ask those involved in the planning process to be transparent in the process as media coverage will develop as a result from this situation. Cindy Carow __ -.- ' � , ' ��_ � ��_. � �� ; , , ,. �. . ; :.�'`� ,�_�__�_l l� --! :} a �< ' �'; ,_ �``� ` ryrI' I� ,°° � ��—i---;� -� r�— ��_��' i�l.I��L_: � LIc� --�c�! ��t_� �-i I Y� ..__� _�ERXESAV� � ��. , . . , 1—=� ��.�. _- ,�.� , , . �-- --� ,�,� , � f ( � �_ � � ` „ ' I` —�_ � ��.�__�, � � � � � ,' � � �. �1 '�`�t ' I � � �5, [ � � � l 1�� _� � W , _ _I'•� �. " [1�� r� �;`�. `•.�- � �1 , t. ,}��:� 3 a: _�x= %c,q`�. ��, ..4_�� , _ ,-+ , �- `i' ` '� ��o�.�...�� , � � _A a- $_ -"�� -r ,n, ,,, 0 '� � � �-} �,-; i �� ;�ti ,�r - �-'•-��-- �,� -f, ' •-- -- -= 3.�. .�' , � ., '--�`5 � `"�r , f ��y—�_J.�__ _,i t��„" -- "; � � �\`` F ''{ �"'� r Q.`�� ' �. 1 ' ; ,. ' Y�; � .` �L � �"� � `,, .��,. " r� �� ` `' '" 4�;� ', `�� ` - y � i �' -,.., j � r � � .a 9 �'' �Q4 `t i:,- �� `� , " rr r�f ,I�-- '�% —'� ,4�,��y /�l '` ,� '� �' � 1: -ri,' �„ �'�� ' , .�r 1, �1., �p �� ;o� �'� .� �� ,�` ' 1, � �" �� '; `-�ZENITN AVE ___ _— __ � .� �� ',"=Y '' �,: � : ,,; 4 �1 t.l I_�yp,��y� l. i� T ../' ` � ;' ��L�� y� � 1.r �'�� `� � �f . � . � �4 � � � r�� 'h4_. �. nt �� '� `\ �f .1-^ i �` ' � � � "'`'�"-; .�tsl �: jy t��i '��,.`� � �t �, r'' ��\ S x � ( � i'�, �/' ...:, " �{ �, � �,• / �,+r'. 4 -•� �� ~~ °'1 `4 � t < / ��y�, y�� _ &� � il,�1 4 _ �, M t / "� f ��'�:�`1. '� .'"`;`r.:� l�j 1� `'�., ��J T�J ;'t� �-i � },.f��{ , al.- � f� 7t �"� ..^�.. t�;i ��• � !� �� ,K,. f . _f�� ,.r' � � ' j�' �� ,{ � .- �'� ,� � �`i k �,Q�y �. `-`"^ ._-' �:- •. , r•, : T , �.3 .-°� � ��' � 4j`t ;,; }'--�'��'� -- �' P� �.' �--�'�' l.-��-'€� �� ` ` K " � • /J _ ' - — -•'--- _.__� �— _ �-- ` � ^,� _ � j " ' �� .Y''y+[�`, �,..rj � � yj y ' '�', ? �;� � l ,i.� 1 . . � �,, � L � i `��+�Y.3��..r��''��.` 4 � }�..,�4� � � � v ' ' �� ' i.`� i� t i�rl'y _l .� � C � ,r' � � �� :. _ ` 4'� � �— 'r ��y ', C r � C .t , - / .i t` ; a *'� i\ ��'' � i . � �' N � ' -� �. . �+'� /, \ 1 ti �� t �,^°,�"- ` i `� � � •9 "t +,.. 4 �. 'C �/`I�y'v t �{/ ,�� ._S �4"'� � k v � d T�3 � �y-� �� ; r R ,�"� '� ��, �l i" � � 1`� °y �'. � J� 'wF� T�TK I'� `4 ("� � �i -"� ff �a i V:. : _......._,,.. . .m..... •f, ��s.�� , �� {i♦ !�� 1 ((( c w � y � /J / �� a�n I) � ,. /� �.� ¢ Y� � ? � _" j ., ' ?'` �' ` r��i ( �` r .r�, � ,i;�� ri"• y*�4. . ^l 4�t 4 _ � t t� '-' �� y . y Y� �� O y� I �.� � � � �i-.. �n ��}�. � . �� `` M �t� j f J.J ' � iy �-'� ::�� li�� $ %c � � 4 �S, , `\' 84 �'e � "�� z� � ,�y �'�+ �,4i '7'", � V �,—�" . _ .._,+.•� .- e S, • f� ,Y �+�'c C� E .. �'��l4� � i �— . :'��, �'�fi ., ,y' � l.n.Y\ � '. :_1„I ( � ` � " , �•' ~..-i--~- - O�p� ___ _` _ __._��__ � -_ , ,' ,4 . ' _ � _t , .•'t 1 i , . , � _ . . , �. � � � '� � � ( ,.� . � . , �, _; - ,� � ,t� �'� * ,r� �-- . � __ � �f.�� ,.�—_ � ,I � , _ ' 'a. � � , �-a' � ' � {� , _ ,�� . � Q _ � � � u �.� o i 1 r. .____�. ._ . _l � r�° � .�N Z�i g � �� O � � �� '� ,o �r, a �.� � -� � �"�� ,� �� a � � :�� ca -� r � � � �� -� ��. � � � a� :� ; ;,� >- u� �+ � rt .� u, P.' � � � �� a � � vs c� `�� $ � � '� �� ,�i "� � � � a' �' ��' �� '� °�t9 � � � �� +� ae� ia..... C� C �y W � T. �. vt � EtI !X. i=^ �a� � O � � ro 4, a D' „' � Q n. 2� �� „ � C� � u'y � y ro LS � � c Q � �J u� �$�i$ �y � �'� , .,.t � � �""' ,.nn " 4^„� a w "t7 Aa ``' � (� {�` � aF� � � � � i1.�C � ��" , . _.`n't�'�� , � � � � , . r, � ,. � i f .��n.. _.__..�.__�,__ �... � �r x �.. ._, . ._ , � .'� (�'__..�. � , � � � t� � j� � ��`�•. e..3C � : �y� .�� ..�M� � � ' � . � _ _�. ..i ;ey" �""'�'�r.�__ a , . ;--� yC y [ ! i � =- I � � � I j `,t�y t, r � _ , � ` u�.� � w�r.h4�+i��4� — �; t T w _ ��.��'!., .. _.. i .. _ i. ,� ��y ww+��t.� +,� �. i � ♦ � ., � �.I � . �=a 4,� . . l � � � '� k � ' � _,. _ 9 ��`�J i � � I � � . � . �� i's '— �---s:.�N� . "_�,. � '7"' � � 3��; � : . I� __ . : . , . y . , � �' . , � .,... � , ,.� � f � ��-��"_ �� '�'• �� 'li ' (�s'� , �j� a _ � . �c � �', • x C+, �- _ _ � f �c�7 . , . � . .. , . . � _. ��,,� �� i '� . � . . , __ „ �`r ,� � ``f'�i _ i i' r,.t9�� .r • +� � '��''� �"t F t�C_ . ih �� y.�.— ._i r�. r . •. t �._i _'' � '. .,�'' ' _ , � t" ;j t �., '� •'r�'',��4,� �,t'�*� . ' � 1; i-,-- ti � �� `c'' ,�.�� {r�, � ' � � flJ� t� � � � • !�wr!"m'n ,�_,-� �� r . :,�_Y.'^l. '�/'%•: ,� *'"r ' �-r .'', -. ♦ W„�ry�si+'*' s.�++''"`�r� na f � ' �'��"`r�Z.4 �. .. � ��E WI f H_A�i E �.,�,-��"s` t�� ;� , ��,� Y�`�t Y , , — ,. i r g . '. � . . ,2 ."�i.0�� ' . �,4 i �k`� �i ~ � r` . ��' �c� : ' � •�.�t.. � , � a3. ,��1�1»4 � .�� -�� n��j � � � � r"4�t 1 "'�x ,.� r� r y � ,�y�� 5„` ''r{�t.,.. - �� y`t��:� � '�'",_ .� �<T .�+' ' � , � , ::�f c m � ��i . � � 1 � `.�. . "�'� .,' ' ��t ��'' ' . "��n �� . � 9� ,_ _,� _.. ��r �_��`1�i� '4`�:'"�'�". �� r� . � ' ' �:. . + �✓� � tf�: ,J �� 1�,v�ti.'. '� Y_ � ' . � �F`•1 r =•� `� . , . `��.�'�f z � ��'�kt '�,?�`r t r.,t"�+�, � +S y.. � � , _ D �,� ° - r r_ t � � >,�'� � ----- _._."U � {J� • a-!� �... .r 4� • � <. � J r�' � ' �... ..< � '� �,f`'° �� _-�� ; �.'i�_.. J .._ �4� ..��.! � � �<r t -# �:" 3'�i `7� ' {-� . S�3 .. . . _.. �4 'L `,� 1 �,"`a t ` W w� �?tw , � . �}] ...: �� '� . _. �__� - �'� �, 4 —�' '�� .,+1 � j;= - � �.�.� �- ��'t . x'°�+,��, i`f� �-r y..� '� .f�� ...,zj:i`!-�c.:_ � � — • � �, ` ^� kr„� t + ��• �t �+' x ir = � � . ,r . , ` ; � '�> ! _. * j � � � � ' ` � _r � -,,, - , _ .. � .: . . . .- � � ..� � `.�i' -r '; � � � - P � ,� � � � � � � . .� � - • _ C; � � - -�—�_ . �� S ,� � i� 1 J 4.R< �" �£"� �i`� f ��. .K� ,�';`'��.� �7 ��.i w � ' ��t 4��_. _� �� b �� . _ _ x �,�.,�r `;,� . �.,�,� �a , . �. � .,- , ,�,, ,.�,� � �4 t y y �jh ��. y� � ,�� • _ �+ry t .N � �� 9 �o, 1 ti �"-?�� ;a., ',_-'`�'�'��M�t�;�•� � — v �'� �.Cb'•, 's �. �}: � z ��,.� .. . _ i i '� „�� -� � � �� ''c� �� " "�, _' _ _i ' '�'�ti . � f -. ,,� �� y � �� y� __. � lt � � �� # ' .. ,1_t.. ' ^F Lj''�.�y Q � � . �3,�� - � , k �� F . . , � , , � �. �, e n�r� - - �� _ �� 1 � _ � ..v s.,� �..,,, Y , � � � � � S � �� .� �� r � � � ;� "�� :�� C � � v+ ,r, � ir�� -° � :.�� _ � .rti � � k� ;� `��' C � v '� a. .,*"�., :� �'` ' �� 41 � �/1 � � � _� � � d1 � � � � � � � � � � � � j� � v� � � � � o � � �i �. a �-; *� � +,�, ."x-' "^ ,�. �� ! J � �'` � � � �,� �" � �, '`� �m �� i � ��+ � c '° � �" �"' au � � .: �,�- F �; �' .: ;� yy' ,'o�� i �TM � -': �:c � � � +� �Y !3-� �" �" '+� Q «� [l �� w � � 7 � � � � � � � � � � � a � � � � �'� ��y � � � � } � � � � ; � � � � � � �� e��t�a � �i � � �n � � � � � t�C � �`i ci. a � , �� 4.�W Iw � < � :, � t �� ,. _� � � . � , � �� ... -� �4 ��.M �'-,r� r�t ��` /�C'_�'� � i �� - ��—""-�3_'"c�. ....�l�_1� ' . ! '; Y p f i�� 1� ' C { �--1 � - ��-----��_ � � -� ytry,�t�C ,r[ y'� � :�'' ( �_ � i� �`�� --�'—;� "' _ =*- _ �. �'►., - ..,..�+ »}-,. 1=�t , s�.. ..�y ._��`G�7R 4�.�TS.�_ ...,,� 't'�;�`F�e.-+- e�.y.a. ;�,;1 '�.r � zaA--�x:'t +4..=�:� �, , , � I ' � , �- ��` �g�+�,'"�, � � '�'�4.k. ..��.. � � � �� I 1 . �t � � '�P�A � f� 4 � � , . _ �+ s ' � , .. M'e: rY� �- �" b r � �-�,_ • , ( 1 " �� .• k--t , �� w , � � ,, �; X... t i �." � �` � t."rtL'i ��j �' �h+��,�h �, y " � � v^' � � ' ( �'d r �;�`�� \'� - _._._._�.._� .� � .-c- G' �t}ik 'Gf.�' }'{ � `�IM �-. d�%ylti :;rf c4 (.`A, ti . • f ' � � � � �� . .� , � � _ ' _ • , '�1,. .., k `ry�, - �.. � "'�' �... � �� n .y'�,�, . , �* ''+:..;t x � �Lh�t� ��i-e =�r�'` t�:, . j .o, , � � t y�� '.�;M1(.. . � '...'_ i _ _ � , � � r� _ �+ � �" �„ 4�y � x.'�,)` � '� .".... �.. .� 't . � . • � � �' . yi�Lr' if. k 1�J . ' � , �/� 4, � <" :� * � �r t � �� ,��;,jr ,.�.1 - '��.;�" cr " '^* � ( �`', ti ' � 1 � �� - '� ^fi..� `� � -�f �. �? :�� ,i. ,. .-t. 3�_ � �� \� � . . ,# � , e� � . ... , __ � , "9 ia � � � g� �: -*, i lENlTI�AVE - .,�..�..,�v-� �- ,u,�f�,�_ ''� ��Y .f�� y . ,�t � �,,�� ;�y,, " � - � ;. -� ';� ;� �t � p « .��,, � � ��.' -•-._ 4��,w � �� E �'fkS�� .;°� M � �� 2 ��j, 1 � .r� � � .� ` L � � ' � '` � 7:� � i ` �°�L` '�.{" % � �...� � -. . i, � ,� t� ; 1 �§ � a` ,� .. ? �F �� \ r' �, t� :. � e �y J4 ��"•. .Eq� ^ .. Y�Y . i }� � .� r: 1 t ��,. � i:�+4 ,�' �'��,.p �CM��F'��3,',.' �' �� .�(�./� .�. � . 1 i , � ,ti ' • , ...�, ��`� ..•a� i ..i��. . „�''��Tn Yxa�� ^ g r.�� . ��, � u, 4' � ��."+. - � 1-� s ,:, . ., �`,� � °, +'(�� `s I " ' `" �4fi , , 1 ` ' . :,- .� � ...: � �, -. - a. �� +�ra� r- ��x �" i-- •4 u , � . `' 4 y � � . ��. r� r,-•.� . • �'. `- �f;. ._ 't'. . - -: � ,.. � . `T � J �.. � ��; y • - _ 4` , .P �'. A °� ' � _,� yy '�'�� F , __ -4 � . - , � . i � =-,__,- � 'n �j �._ - � "�� k°� �C' �� i� ', _ � -,. 'y, `�„ +. - y � j ' ,� � ~f� '' :r '4µ-� !, � . . +�'' .'.. '�t Sti°r �-: �� «.. _J �'rM _"k-; 1\ � ,s ' :� 1�, . Ae� rs *n m �'>]L ya...\��y 4 s i " _ � �-� 1 y� ��r'' ,(T�.`1T� s en''�^ i.}�"„ C �. i--_ 1 - �S't . . . . ' ..^ ' + . '-� - �,. � . ��.•�' � ;,�` � -- .�._ . a ^� r �1 � .0 �� F+ .- t �P � -;� " �:a _ ,• .� �Cf � ,,., �9 � �i t �- �/'� �,Y�'� ; t �' ... �, y�t]`,r,I ,��, ,., �.�, �� _ �e.� :�� .-'t' , � �' �� Y � 'S�J ��C f '"'� � f7� ;� ,� '� . e ..r,r �t� f' .�,- 'f"'' ° °. ,- � =-I . � ` ,it'� ''� ya��(, ��. .�� >�-'` • � .v Q = �� -� :: � �. =f t� .1> � � � �s. „-`� t � � _ . �� i ,.. � � ":� �''"4 y .�. -'` �° / 1 1- S' " ±y�; }_'. � - t _ +r,.�Y .�r 6 �,..f. �..r-...��_f_ . .-: � �y 1 � : ,"'�`_"�` vr"' 'y�� , 1 � .�._..� ,£." r�r�� , . -� �� j,�,�• � � Q�� l '� ��4�'� � �-�� •'��'�"a�'.' � �� ` �`�`��' � '� `- � . r � .�, �� ,'. _�t� � c a � '� ��4 �; , �� G --»��'�� ' �, �� '�.�, ��y : r�;. � �� `y -�� .�'' �:` ' ,� _ '�. � �-�` _'�_ `' 9,�:� _,.� � „ _", _ . � _�� °�,,�'� �._- �_�- "��' �__ __ -. . . _ - :� x � .� �, r �_. , ,. ,. . ., `1 ��, �� ,•r'� �'�� "; �r � ::.. . j��J.{ . , �'`� � ... ......_� 1 t� � � � a�� '� �p� � � � � � i � �� ^ �. . . �� . C �, r 1 '�� . -- . �—_.�.� _ � -U � ( � f � � � � � �;�� . � � ca. ..� a ��P � � � � � `�? �� '� �,, n o � k � 3�'�h � es � w �, 1, � � � ,� �� i� � � � � � �,� � � � � ey � �, � �� ' . � *- = � �„ `� .� ",—'' � �� , w � ;� �i� � � � � �, �+� � i ;� � c � �� , � � ,� � �a ,� '� � �, '�- ,"y" � �, �`� � � �" �.e � � � � �, ,� � � � � �' �' � ., �� u, Z .. �, � �. � t�, � � � � �' • � �� . � _ � � � � � � � � ' � °`' � � � ,� � �� u, E a �.. �;: �- �`y .� � � "� � �? rs`. � � ��• � � '= �� ,y ;y._ tn � �u � -: : , � _: � r. _ �� 1 � � � � � From: jeremy roth Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:08 AM To: bottineau co.henne in.mn.us Subject: Light Rail Station Concept Plans (Golden Valley Rd) My name is Jeremy Roth and I live and own the house at 2309 York Ave. N., Golden Valley. Please register my opposition to: -the light rail station being built at Golden Valley Rd and Thea Wirth Parkway intersection Should that station being placed there be a certainty, then please register my opposition to: -Concept Plan B which apparently would mean the removal of the houses in my neighborhood, including my own (Site 4 on the plan) If you can direct me to any website in which I can be kept abreast of the discussion/planning as it develops, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Jeremy 2309 York Avenue North Golden Valley,MN 55422 November 16, 2014 Joanie Clausen 2516 Lee Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55422 Dear City Council Representative Clausen: I am writing in regard to redevelopment plans for the Golden Valley Road/Theodore Wirth Parkway intersection to accommodate the new Bottineau Light Rail station. I recently relocated from the city of St. Paul to an old and vibrant neighborhood near that Golden Valley Road intersection specifically because of that neighborhood's proximity to the projected sites for the new Light Rail station. Last week, on November 12th,three Bottineau Light Rail concept plans were shared with the public at an open house. I was dismayed to see that one of the plans (Concept B) involves eradicating the neighborhood to which I just moved for light rail access, and proposes replacing the existing homes with"high and medium density residential"spaces. Concepts A and B also involved eliminating at least a portion of the current neighborhood. I am confused about why the City of Golden Valley and the developers of these plans would choose to alienate current supporters of the Bottineau Light Rail project and to forcibly relocate some of the city's current transit-riding constituency,most especially when there seem to be viable alternatives for space nearby. Valley View Park and the Fire Station, both noted in the concept plans, would not involve such expense or upheaval to redevelop. If you have not already done so, I respectfully request that you ask to view these concept plans and work to revise them to preserve the"medium density residential"spaces that already exist and thrive at this intersection, and that drew commuters like myself to live in Golden Valley. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Karin Vdlez From: Greg Date: November 17, 2014 at 13:44:47 CST To: "linda.higgins(cDco.henne_pin.mn.us" <linda.higgins(Mco.hen nepin.mn.us>, "sharrisCc�goldenvalleymn.gov" <sharris(d-)goidenvalleymn.gov>, "iclausen@goldenvalle rymn, ov" <iclause�),goldenvalleymn.gov>, "Ifonnest(a�goldenvalleymn.gov" <Ifonnest&ggldenvalleymn.gov>, "sschmidgal�goldenvalleymn.gov" <sschmid acLll(a�goldenvalleymn.gov>, "asnope(a)goldenvalleymn.gov" <asnopeC@_goldenvalleymn.gov> Subject: Emminent Domain Reply-To: Greg Good afternoon: We've started receiving information in the last week to 10 days about Golden Valley possibly using eminent domain to claim our property (and that of our neighbors) for improvements to Wirth Park- can you direct us to any further information about this? Thank you. Greg Salter and Dane Anderson 1725 York Ave. N Golden Vallev, MN Please consider making a donation to the Australia Koala Foundation. Thank you. From: Linda Jeske Date: Tue, Nov 1$, 2014 at 2:49 PM Subject: LRT Neighborhood Questions for tonight's meeting To: tcpqvmn.Ca�aol.com Hi Joanie, Here's a list of questions from neighbors regarding the redevelopment concept for my area. Thanks a million. We appreciate your help and support. See you tonight! Linda Jeske 1. When did the plans change for the LRT from a station at grade level to a massive redevelopment project? 2. When did any city official/employee get access or knowledge of these potential plans? Not these exact plans, but any discussion on redevelopment? 3. Why was there not more direct communication with the residents about this meeting and electronic signs in Golden Valley advertising this meeting? 4. Was there and I don't think there was an email alert about the LRT meeting on Wednesday November 12th from the City of Golden Valley, Why? 5. What is the timeline of this process? 6. Are there any developers that have expressed interest in the area and or any developers at the table? 7. What does the neighborhood do if they want to sell or remodel and these plans are on the table? 8. Comment: Houses in this area are selling for 200,000-400,000 and the population is turning over.. there are over 25 kids from the ages of college to unborn yet in the 40 house area. 9. What commuters are you expecting to use the park and ride, from what geographical area? 10. Where are you considering relocating the fire station as one has to be in the area? 11. Why have so many meeting been cancelled? Thanks again - we understand you will ask what you have time for and what is pertinent to the discussion. Linda J z From: Cynthia Carow� Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:15 PM To: Harris, Shep; Clausen, Joanie; Fonnest, Larry; Schmidgall, Steve; Snope, Andy; Burt, Tom; Zimmerman, Jason Cc: annr�sen�te.mn; rep.mike.freiberqCa�house.mn Subject: Thank you To the Mayor, City Council, Jason, and Tom, I would like to say thank you to Jason for tailoring the presentation on the Bottineau LRT to the concerns residents brought up between the November 12 meeting and the City Council meeting. You did answer some questions, but many still remain. I know the City of Golden Valley is working between many different organizations, MET council and Hennepin County and every organization has an agenda, which is not always apparent to all the stakeholders. I would also like to say thank yau to the Mayor and council members who were responsive to our needs and were willing to be proactive in engagement versus reactive. We do not know the final results of these conversations, but at least the conversation begins, no matter the opinions. As you all know one of the reason the residents were so upset is they felt a bait and switch happened. They were told over and over again and given drawings that it was a station being put in and possibly parking issues would arise. We knew the Fire Station was an area that may be developed as this was identified on one of the very first original documents, but we were never given a heads up as to this change. I know residents need to be involved and watch city news, etc., but when the norm has been one message for years one continues to think it is the same till someone notifies them, many residents just thought the November 12 meeting was to just discuss the station, nothing else. Advertising this meeting as just another LRT meeting is one of the reasons residents were upset, it was not just another LRT meeting on the station, it was much more. From the presentation I would like to correct/comment on... the presentation stated there were signs on Golden Valley road for the November 12th meeting. I would like to ask where those signs were? I drive Golden Valley Road to Highway 100 everyday and there was not an electronic sign posted. I even drive from Highway 100 to Douglas once a week. There were signs for the spring and summer meetings, as I remembered there was a meeting and emailed Jason for places to comment, which he responded. In regards to the Facebook page. I called the city Friday November 14 and asked about the modes of communication that were used to notify the residents and I was asked if I was on the Facebook page. I responded by saying you have a facebook page, where would I know you had one? A few years ago I called the City Planning office about something and the conversation moved to "how to be engaged as a citizen". The individual on the phone mentioned they did not have a Facebook page yet as the city was trying to figure out privacy and security issues with it. At this most recent conversation, November 14, she said I could find the information in the City News. I looked in the most recent City News and there is no apparent mention of a Facebook page, unless it is buried in an article. The announcement of a Facebook page may have happened right when the page was created, but please remember it takes people around 7 times to change one behavior and if people just move into the city they don't know there was a link in a previous issue. I know the statement was made that an email alert did not go out on this meeting and that was an issue. Again, the City has outlets for communication and if they not used by the sender the receiver can not get the information. For some this may be their only way getting information about what is going on in the city, we can't exclude them. I was one of those peaple. I rely on the email alerts to let me know what is going on regards to city agendas, park and recreatian, other city items. I would like to offer a suggestion on outreach efforts, I understand the staff of the City of Golden Valley work very hard and do not have a lot of time for other tasks, but if the city really wants to engage residents they have to use modes of communication that reach residents where they are. The city demographics is changing to families. This means families are stretched with information from their kids school, faith organizations, work, city/state/federal government, they will miss stuff. I know the City advertised in a variety of communication outlets, which does qualify as notification, but if the city really wants residents involved, communication has to happen where people are, this is change management. Again, thank you for your presentation and I look forward to working with the city more on this project and others. Cindy Carow From: Karin Velez Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:10 PM To: Zimmerman, Jason; bottineau(c�hennepin.us; Planning Subject: Comments on the Goncept Plans presented at the Nov. 12th Open House Dear Mr. Zimmerman and Bottineau Transitway planners, Thank you for fielding sa many of our questions at the Golden Valley City Council meeting on Tuesday. I know that there is already a Istter on file from me regarding development around the new light rail station at the Golden Valley Road/Theodore Wirth Parkway intersection. But having heard more details and clarifications regarding the concept plans, I wanted to formally submit two comments to you by your Friday November 21St deadline so that these can be factored into new proposals for this area in advance of the next public workshop in January 2015. First, as a resident of 2309 York Avenue North, which is located in the "targeted neighborhood" for redevelopment near the new Golden Valley Road station, I wanted to register my opposition to the re-zoning suggested in Concept Plan B. That re-zoning would involve replacing or surrounding my current residence with new high-density housing. It would significantly change the atmosphere of a residential neighborhood that I chose to live in specifically because it was not a high-density or commercial area. At the City Council meeting, it was belabored that this concept plan (and the others) were long range, to help the city of Golden Valley visualize possibilities for what the area around the station might eventually become. But as a resident who is also thinking ahead to the next few decades at this location, even eventual plans to re-zone this area will impact the neighborhood right now, and restrict our options as homeowners. This will be the case whether the city some day chooses to exercise eminent domain, or whether it opts for the gentler re-zoning path described at the City Council meeting of allowing as-yet-unnamed developers to gradually buy out individual residents one by one. For these reasons, please make note of my opinion that re-zoning of this specific neighborhood should be taken off the table in the new January concept plan. If it is deemed necessary for high-density housing and commercial centers to be allowed to spring up in the vicinity of the new Golden Valley Road station, I strongly urge the planners to find and consider other land nearby for this purpose, rather than trying to change the land use af an already existing and well-established neighborhood. Second, I wanted to express a concern about the current time frame and tactics for soliciting community input. Concept plans were publicly presented for the first time to Golden Valley residents via the Open House on November 12th. We were given until tomorrow (November 21 St), just over one week, to become informed and to respond to three concept plans that were created without any outreach or involvement of the targeted neighbarhood. On the Bottineau LRT Community Works' website, <http:/fwww.hennepin.us/bottineau>, the planners further state that between now and January 2015, collected comments will be assessed and one single "preferred alternative" concept plan will be prepared for the consideration of the city. In partial response to our neighborhood concerns about this timeline, at the recent Golden Valley City Council meeting, the mayor suggested that aggressive and urgent outreach happen so that the feedback of potentially affected local residents can be factored into the new plan. Even so, due to the way that the planners have laid out the schedule, we have been left with only one month and a half before January to somehow make ourselves heard as Goncepts A, B and C are filtered down into one single, more definitive "preferred alternative". This is a time interval that also includes the Thanksgiving, December and January 1 St holidays when many city employees and local residents are on vacation. Due to this insufficient and poorly timed window, and due to the disproportionate impact of this city planning on our neighborhood, I would respectfully ask that Hennepin County, the Metro Council, and the outside consultants in particular give immediate attention to rethinking their timeline and outreach strategy to Golden Valley residents. The Golden Valley mayor, city officials, and our state senators should not have been put in the position of having to intervene and mediate on our behalf. Even in concept Phase I, the planners themselves bear some responsibility for making adequate time and provision for outreach to potentially affected communities. As I noted in previous correspondence, I present this feedback as a supporter of the Bottineau Light Rail corridor and a commuter who recently relocated near Golden Valley Road specifically to make use of the new station. I am hopeful that my comments and those of my neighbors will be heard and processed in a way that allows us to actively support a worthwhile project, instead of having to stand at cross purposes. Thank yau in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Karin Velez From: Margaret Webinger Date: November 22, 2014 at 19:47:51 CST To: "sschmidqallC7a.,.,goldenvalleymn.qov" <sschmidgal�goldenvalleymn.qov> Cc: "asnope(a�qoldenvalleymn.gov" <asnapeCa�qoldenvalleymn.yav> Subject: Bottineau LTR Please hear me: NO stop or station at Golden Valley Road. Thank You Margaret Webinger, resident of Golden Valley and parishioner of the church of Saint Margaret Mary C`l��' C�� Administrative Services Departrnent 763-593 8013/763-593-39b9(fax) �-�i� �:� ��,u.a.�� ,�•x t.��,.��.�� ,�,o��'-,��aa� � � � ,.��__ .. �w�x ��r��a�a,�lr�a�,��i��w�� Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 3. F. Second Consideration - Ordinance #534- Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At its meeting on November 18, 2014 the City Council adopted on First Consideration the changes to the 2015 Master Fee Schedule. Staff has reviewed the following master fee schedule for the City and is recommending the Council adopt the 2015 Master Fee Schedule. A few changes to note from the First Consideration: � Two statements were added under Permits to explaining the fee if work has already been started and all building permit values will be based on the current MN Department of Labor and Industry Building Valuation. � Special Assessment Rate was changed to $6,600 instead of$6,630 and the State Aid residential rate went from $1,657.50 to $1650.00. The schedule shows the approved rates for 2014 and notes the changes to 2015 rates by using bold or highlighted sections. The utility rates will be effective for any billing after April 1, 2015. Attachments • Ordinance #534, Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule (19 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on Second Consideration, Ordinance #534, Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule. ORDINANCE NO. 534, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Establishing A 2015 Master Fee Schedule The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City Code requires that certain fees for City services and licenses be established from time to time by the City Council. Section 2. The Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby adopted as the city's fee schedule effective January 1, 2015, unless otherwise noted and shall be added to Chapter 25 of the City Code. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in its entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of December, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Permits If the work has been started the fee will double for all permits such as building,plumbing,mechanical,and electrical. All building permit values will be based on the current Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Building Valuation Data. Building&Fire Permit Fees based on fee schedule below. Mandatory State Surcharge:per permit is a minimum of.50 and when a permit fee is over$1,000 in value the state surcharge is.0005 times the permit value. Surcharge is remitted to MN State Treasurer. Permit Cancellation Policy:80%a of the permit fee will be returned upon written notice of cancellation. If job has been started no refund will be made. No surcharge or plan review fees will be returned(includes the fees for stormwater management,right-of-way(ROW)and tree preservation permits). Building/Fire/Commercial Mechanical Plan Review Fee-65%of the permit fee(no surcharge) re-inspection fee 100.00 Administrative 75.00 Seasonal,Farm Produce,Christmas Tree Sales,etc in Commercial Zoning District Electrical State Surcharge-each permit 5.00 All Services new,replace or repair There is a$2 per circuit charge for replacing circuits that are disconnected in the old service panel and reconnected in the new panel. 0 to 300 Amp 50.00 400 Amp 58.00 500 Amp 72.00 600 Amp 86.00 800 Amp 114.00 1000 Amp 142.00 1100 Amp 156.00 1200 Amp 170.00 Add$14.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Circuits and Feeders The inspection fee for the installation,addition,alteration or repair of each circuit, feeder,feeder tap or set of transformer secondary conductors: 0 to 30 Amp 8.00 31 to 100 Amp 10.00 101 to 200 Amp 15.00 300 Amp 20.00 400 Amp 25.00 500 Amp 30.00 600 Amp 35.00 700 Amp 40.00 Add$5.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Minimum Fee Minimum permit fee is$35.00 plus$5.00 State surcharge.This is for one inspection only. Minimum fee for rough-in inspection and final is$70.00 plus$5.00 State surcharge. Maximum Fee Maximum fee for single family dwelling or townhouse not over 200 Amps is$150.00 plus$5.00 State surcharge.Maximum of 2 RI and 1 final inspection. 1 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Electrical(continued) Apartment Buildings Fee per unit of an apartment or condominium complex is$70.00.This does not cover service and house wiring. Swimming Pool $35.00 per inspection+circuits Traffic Signals $7.00 per each standard Street Lights and parking lot lights $4.00 per each standard Transformers and Generators $8.00 per unit+$.40 for each KVA up to 100 KVA+$.30 for each KVA above 100 KVA Retro Fit Lighting $.65 per fixture Sign Transformer $8.00 per transformer Remote Control and Signal Circuits $.75 per device Reinspection fee(only one final perjob) $35.00 Fire Alarm System(New Installation or Alteration of Existing) Up to the 1st$1,200 in value 50.00 Over $1,200 value-use fire suppression fee Fire Commercial Cooking Ventilation Systems Inspection 75.00 Re-inspection 150.00 Fire Pumps 200.00 Fire Suppression&Special Fire Suppression Systems: FM 200 system,CO2 systems,spray booths,kitchen extinguisher systems,hoods,etc. No change Total valuation based on below fee schedule: Value Range 2004 LMC/AMM Recommendation $150 $500 $25.00 $501 $2,000 $25.00 for the first$500 $3.25/additional$100 $2,001 $25,000 $73.50 for the first$2,000 $14.75/additional$1,000 $25,001 $50,000 $415.75 for the first$25,000 $10.75/additional$1,000 $50,001 $100,000 $682.50 for the first$50,000 $7.50/additional$1,000 $100,001 $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first$100,000 $6.00/additional$1,000 $500,001 $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first$500,000 $5.00/additional$1,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first$1,000,000 $4.00/additional$1,000 2 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee fee Permits(continued) Fireworks/Pyrotechnic Special Effects 100.00 Permit requires rental of fire engine and crew for stand-by at display House/Building Moving 300.00 Demolition 300.00 Mechanical:HVAC,Gas Piping,Refrigeration and Fireplace (Includes all types of fireplaces-masonry,gas,gas log,gas insert,etc.) Value Permit charge $0- $999 $25.00 $1,001- $5,000 $31.50+2.60%over$1000 $5,001- $10,000 $135.50+2.15%over$5000 $10,001- $25,000 $243.00+1.85%over$10,000 $25,000- $50,000 $520.50+1.65%over$25,000 $50,001- over $933.00+130%over$50,000 Native Vegetation Landscape Permit 100.00 Parade/Special Event 25.00 Petroleum/Compress Gas Tanks Installation-per dispenser 75.00 Installation-per tank 75.00 Piping associated with tanks 75.00 Removal-per tank 75.00 Temporary LP Tank(per site) 75.00 Temporary above ground fuel tanks(per site) 75.00 Plan Review Fee-65%of the fee(no surcharge) Plumbing and Piping Fixtures Includes hydraulic sewer valves,rain water leaders,and alteration to existing systems. Value Permit charge $0- $999 $25.00 25.00 $1,001- $5,000 $31.50+2.60%over$1000 $5,001- $10,000 $135.50+2.15%over$5000 $10,001- $25,000 $243.00+1.85%over$10,000 $25,001- $50,000 $520.50+1.65%over$25,000 $50,001- over $933.00+1.30%over$50,000 Right Of Way Driveway Replacement Permit 100.00 Permanent Obstruction Permit,per obstruction(includes courtesy benches) 100.00 Temporary Obstruction permit No Charge Temporary Access Permit 25.00 In Boulevard Excavation Permit per opening 100.00 In Pavement Excavation Permit per opening(includes curb alterations) 200.00 Overhead Utility Repair per location No Charge 3 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Permits(continued) Right Of Way(continued) Underground Utility: Len�th Permit Char�e 0 to 100 Feet $250 administrative fee+$1/foot over 100 Feet $350 administrative fee+$.50/foot over 100 feet Service Drop meeting conditions: No charge Not parallel to right-of way at least 10'from any City facility or utility, less than 1'wide,and depth in accord with law or,if none,industry standard Stormwater Management Land Disturbance up to one-half acre(0 to 21,779 square feet) 100.00 Land Disturbance of one-half acre or more(21,780 square feet and up) 200.00 Sign Permit Base fee 50.00 Area fee(per sq ft of sign area) +2.75/sq ft +3.00/sq ft Temporary Sign over 18 sq ft Plan Review(Pylon and Monument Signs) u- _ .- .n. ._.., . 40.00 Standpipe Installation of each standpipe(up to 5 floors) 50.00 Each additional floor 25.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Partial Certificate of Occupancy 100.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 100.00 Extension of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 200.00 Penalty for expired Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 300.00 Tent/Canopy Inspections-required for tent exceeding 200 sq ft and 50.00 canopies exceeding 400 sq ft(per site) each additional tent and/or canopy(per site) 25.00 Tree Preservation Permit 100.00 Tree Preservation Mitigation Form-per caliper inch 150.00 Utility Permits Water Meter Permit 100.00 Water Tapping Permit 100.00 Water Cut-off Permit 100.00 Sewer Permit(connection) 100.00 Sewer Repair Permit 100.00 Sewer Cut-off Permit 100.00 4 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Licenses Renewal Date Auctioning Auctioneers do not need to be licensed in the City of Golden Valley.However,they have to show us a copy of a license or bond from the county or state and provide us a letter on the date,time and place of the auction. Chicken Coop License Initial Application Fee 75.00 Annual License Renewal Fee 1-Apr 25.00 Cigarettes-Tobacco Products over the counter 1-Jan 275.00 Contractors-Heating,Ventilation,Air Cond and Refrigeration 1-Apr 75.00 Dog Kennel-per kennel 1-Apr 200.00 Entertainment Amusement and Shows 1-Apr 50.00 (movies-per screen;caravans,circuses,amusement rides) Bowling Alley(each lane) 1-Apr 15.00 Dancing&Entertainment 1-Apr 375.00 Pinball Machine,Video Game or Pool Table each location 1-Apr 15.00 each device 1-Apr 15.00 Fireworks Retail consumer fireworks that sell other items 1-May 100.00 Retail consumer fireworks,retailers that sell only fireworks 1-May 350.00 Garbage Haulers-per vehicle 1-Apr 50.00 (See also Recylcing Haulers) Gasoline Stations Per Location Dispensers 1-4(each) 1-Apr 75.00 Over four dispensers(each) 50.00 Lawful Gambling License 1-Jan First year 250.00 Renewal after 1st year 100.00 Liquor License Application Packet 20.00 Liquor-Investigation Fee (Liquor On-sale,Off-sale,and Sunday sale and Wine) new applicant 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation Liquor-Miscellaneous Change thru the year per change 100.00 Liquor On,Off and Sunday Sale and Wine(renewal or misc changes) 5 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Licenses(continued) Renewal Date Liquor License(State law) Sunday sale 1-Jul 200.00 Off-sa I e 340A.408 1-J u I 200.00 On-sa I e 1-J u I 8,000.00 Wine On-sale 1-Jul 2,000.00 Club 1-Jul up to 200 members 300.OQ 200-500 members 500.00 501-1,000 members 650.00 1,001-2,000 members 800.00 2001-4000 members 1,000.00 4001-6000 members 2,000.00 Over 6000 members 3,000.00 Liquor-Non-Intoxicating Malt(On-sale) 1-Jul 500.00 Liquor-Non-Intoxicating Malt(Off-sale) 1-Jul 150.00 Liquor-Temporary Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Section 5.31-City Code 100.00 Massage Therapist-Individual Certificate(each individual/person) 1-Jan 100.00 Investigation fee 100.00 Massage Therapist Premise License 1-Jan Operating location 500.00 Investigation fee 200.00 New/Used Vehicle Sales 1-Sep 400.00 Peddlers and Solicitors 1-Jan 1st person 30.00 Each additional person(up to a max fee of$50.00 per time) 5.00 Pawnbroker and Precious Metal Dealer Location 1-Jan 5,000.00 Dealer 1-Jan 400.00 Investigation Fee 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation APS Transaction Fee 130 Recycling Haulers(Multi Family Apartment) -per vehicle 1-Apr 50.00 6 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Licenses(continued) Renewal Date Rental Dwelling License Single Family Dwellings One Unit Dwelling License Expires July 1 125.00 Re-inspection 100.00 Twin Homes&Duplexes License per Dwelling Unit Expires May 1 125.00 Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Condominiums&Townhomes License Per Dwelling Unit Expires Sept 1 125.00 Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Group Homes/homes with services Expires Nov 1 125.00 License Per Dwelling Unit Re-inspection(per unit/per address) 100.00 Multiple Unit Dwelling(3 or more units)per building 1-Mar 0.00 3-50 Units 125.00 51-150 Units 175.00 151+Units 250.00 Re-inspection(per building/per address) 100.00 License Transfer(pro rate) minimum 50.00 Star Program Fees(Based on participation level) Non-Participant $30/unit Level 1 $12/unit Level 2 $10/unit Level 3 $6/unit Level 4 $0/unit Administrative Citations on(all)Rental Dwellings 1st citation 100.00 2nd citation 250.00 3rd citation 500.00 4th citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 500.00 Citation Appeal 25.00 Sexually Oriented Business License Fee(operating location) 1-Jan 5,000.00 Investigation Fee 3,000.00 $500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation 7 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Street Assessments Residential/Single Family/Duplex,per dwelling unit on local street 6,000.00 6,600.00 Multi Unit Residential(more than 2 dwelling units)on local street 76.3/ft Residential/Single Family/Duplex,per dwelling unit on state aid street 1,500.00 1,650.00 Multi Unit Residential(more than 2 dwelling units)on state aid street 81.71/ft Other Zonings,Local Streets 91.73/ft Other Zonings,State Aid Streets 99.21/ft Administrative Fee for Driveways and/or Sanitary Sewer repairs $250/maximum (Seven percent of total or maximum fee-whichever lessor) Low Income Level for Senior/Retired due to Disability Deferral 2014 HUD Limits Miscellaneous Fees Address Change 50.00 Administrative Citations-Non Rental Housing 1st Citation 100.00 2nd Citation 250.00 3rd Citation 500.00 4th Citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 500.00 Alarm System-False Alarms(12 month period beginning March 1 of each year upon given notice) 1-3 false alarms 4-10 false alarms 100.00 11-15 false alarms 150.00 16 or more false alarms 250.00 Animal Control Impound Fee for dogs 50.00 Boarding Fee for dogs and cats per day(7 day maximum) 20.00 Dangerous Dog License 250.00 Building Plan/Storage Retrieval 50.00 Certification Fee(Special Assessment) 30.00 City Cemetery Cemetery Plot 500.00 Open/Close Fee: Crematory(up to 2 per lot) 200.00 each Burial 750.00 8 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Miscellaneous Fees(continued) Documents City Code Full book in binder 200.00 Updates 15/each Zoning Chapters Only 10.00 City Maps:,Plats,Record Drawings,Other Plats(i.e.address maps,building plans,comp pl� 10.00 Comprehensive Plan Copies of any black and white,letter or legal size documents of 100 or .25/pg fewer pages(Minnesota Rules,part 1205.0300,subpart 4.) Copies of any color,letter or legal size documents .33/page Digital Format Aerial photography time&material Custom Maps or Map Layers time&material Topography time&material Special Assessment Search(non-owner) 15.00 Video Reproduction(pertape,DVD,CD+shipping) 20.00 Domestic Partner Registration Initial Registration 40.00 Amendment/Notice of Termination 25.00 Certified copy of Registration 5.00 Equipment Charge per hour Fire Engine(includes personnel) 250.00 Fire Aerial Truck(includes personnel) 350.00 Police and Fire Rescue Truck(includes personnel) 250.00 Utility Vehicle(includes personnel) 100.00 Squad Car(includes personnel) 100.00 Utility Equipment(sewer jet,vac truck,sewer camera,sewer rodder) 200.00 Heavy(front end loader,360 Backhoe,Pickup sweeper, 125.00 tandem axle truck,aerial truck) does not include personnel costs Medium(single axle dump truck,water truck,tractor backhoe,utility tractor/ 80.00 accessory,15 ft cut lawn mower,brush chipper,asphalt roller)does not include personnel costs Light(truck-one ton and under,air compressor,water pump,generator, 45.00 steamer,asphalt/saw,concrete,cable tracer)does not include personnel costs Fire Boat(includes personnel) 75.00 Fire ATV(includes personnel) 75.00 Fire Life Safety Trailer(includes personnel) 200.00 Gas Lines,construction damage with Fire Department Response 250.00 Filing Fee(Administrative Citation Appeal)per violation 25.00 Fingerprinting Golden Valley Resident 10.00 Anyone employed in GV 25.00 Additional Card Forced Tree Removal cost of removal+20% Forfeited DWI Vehicle Administrative Fee 750.00 9 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Miscellaneous Fees(continued) Hydrant Meter Rental Residential(per day+consumption) 2.00 Commercial(per day+consumption) 5.00 Deposit(residential) 200.00 Deposit(commercial) 1000.00 Nuisance Service Call Fee(after three calis) 250.00 Personnel Off Duty Police Officer(minimum applies as determined by 75/hour City Manager/designee) Firefighters,Lieutenants,Captains,Batallion Chief 35/hour minimum Public Works Employee 50/hr 60/hr minimum Sump Pump Inspection 50.00 Weed Eradication/Lawn mowing-per hour(see minimums) Vacant land-1 hour minimum 125/hr Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property-3 hour minimum 125/hr SECOND OR MORE VIOLATIONS IN ONE SEASON Vacant land-1 hour minimum- 250/hr Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property-3 hour minimum 250/hr Planning&Zoning Fees Conditional Use Items Conditional Use Permit 400.00 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 300.00 Extension for Conditional Use Permit 125.00 Easement Vacation(each request) 500.00 Flood Control Management(Special Permit) 75.00 Floodplain Search Letter 25.00 Park Dedication Fees 2%of Land (per Minnesota Statute 462.358) Market Value Planned Unit Development Preliminary Design Plan 400.00 Final Plan of Development 400.00 Extension of Planned Unit Development 150.00 Planned Unit Development Amendment Preliminary Design Plan 250.00 Final Plan of Development 250.00 Extension of Planned Unit Development 150.00 Planned Unit Development-Minor 250.00 Rezoning 500.00 10 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Planning&Zoning Fees(continued) Subdivision 400.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat 125.00 Subdivision-Minor 250.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat 125.00 Variance from City Code- Zoning Chapters Single family residential 200.00 Extension 150.00 All others 300.00 Extension 150.00 Wetland Management(plus professional fees if necessary) 75.00 Zoning Examination Letter 100.00 Temporary Retail Sales in Industrial Zone 150.00 (for each sale,up to five days) Utility Fees Driveway Covers-Replace 90.00 150.00 Hydrant Inspection(Private) . . .. _ .. _ . , ....� ., ,.,. .� -,... . . :��.,.. 3J5/month Hydrant Maintenance(Private) Actual Cost materials,parts, labor+20% admin Meter Testing(to be returned if ineter is in error of 5%or more of read) 50.00 Sanitary Sewer Inspections and Compliance Fees(Ordinance No.352) Noncompliant discharge into sanitary sewer(or refuse inspection) Single Family Residential 500/month Non Single Family Residential 1000/month Application fee for noncompliant winter discharge into sanitary sewer 250.00 Application fee for certificate of sewer regulations compliance Single Family Residential(R-1 or R-2),per structure 250.00 Non Single Family Residential(all other structures),per structure 750.00 Fee to review residential video record completed by private licensed plumber 100.00 Fee to review non-residential video record completed by private licensed plumber 375.00 Water on/off per each event (business day) 50.00 100.00 (after hours) 75.00 165.00 Utility-Manual Read of Water/Sewer Meter 100.00 Water Meter and Parts(All) At cost+20% 11 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Utility Billing Rates-Effective April 1,2015 Residential Utility Rates-quarterly billing (includes all residential classes except those classified as apartments) ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Inspection Fee for Fire lines 6.00 Penalties(for late payment) 10% Sanitary Sewer(in 1000 gallons) Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-5 and under units-winter qtr consumption 54.18 56.89 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-6-15 units-winter qtr consumption 58.44 61.36 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-16-19 units-winter qtr consumption 64.00 67.20 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-20-25 units-winter qtr consumption 73.20 76.86 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-26-39 units-winter qtr consumption 95.52 300.29 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-40-59 units-winter qtr consumption 110.00 115.50 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-60-79 units-winter qtr consumption 116.73 122.62 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-80 to 99 units-winter qtr consumption 133.80 140.49 Residential(per dwelling unit)(Flat Rate)-100 and over units-winter qtr consumption 158.76 166.69 Retycling Residential curbside(per unit) 12.00 Storm Sewer Utility Rate Charge for a Residential Equivalent Factor of 1.00 66.00 Each single family residential property is considered to be 1/3 of an acre. Street Lights Ornamental(per unit) 10.50 10.80 Overhead(per unit) 6.75 7.05 Water Minimum fee,includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 7.90 9.00 Water meters up to and including 1" 7.90 9.00 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 54.45 62.03 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 76.00 86.57 Water meters over 4" 97.40 110.95 Above 1,000 gallons of flow per quarter up to 79,000(per 1,000 gallons) 4.75 5.00 80,000 gallons and over of flow per quarter(per 1,000 gallons) 4.78 5.03 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 Water Connection Fee(State Charge for each water hookup) 1.59 12 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Utility Billing Rates-Effective April 1,2015(continued) Irrigation Accounts(All)-Monthly Billing Minimum fee,includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 7.90 Above 1,000 gallons of flow per month(per 1,000 gallons) 4.78 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Commercial&Industrial Monthly Billing ACH Payment Credit (1.00) Inspection Fee for Fire lines 2.00 Penalties(for late payment on monthly billings) 5% Sanitary Sewer Water meters up to and including 1" 7.14 7.49 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 18.15 19.05 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 2530 27.19 Water meters over 4" 32.60 34.23 Based on per 1,000 gallons 3.80 3.99 Note:Water Meter Flow is used to establish sewer flow unless a separate sewer flow meter has been established. Storm Sewer Utility Rate Charge per acre for property with a Residential Equivalent Factor of 1.00 22.00 Street Lights Ornamental(per unit) 3.50 3.60 Overhead(per unit) 2.25 2.35 Water Connection Fee (State Charge for each water hookup) 0.53 Water Usage: Minimum fee,includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow 7.90 9.00 Water meters up to and including 1" 7.90 9.00 Water meters over 1"and including 2" 18.15 20.69 Water meters over 2"and including 4" 25.33 28.85 Water meters over 4" 32.46 36.98 Water rate above 1,000 gallons 4.75 5.00 Emergency Water Supply(per 1,000 gallons of flow) 0.20 13 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Brookview Golf Course Rates Regulation Course 18 Hole Non-patron 35.00 37.00 18 Hole Patron 28.00 30.00 18 Hole Sr Patron 24.00 26.00 18 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 28.00 30.00 18 Hole Non-patron League 35.00 37.00 18 Tournament 35.00 37.00 9 Hole Non-patron 19.00 20.00 9 Hole Patron 16.00 17.00 9 Hole Sr Patron 14.50 15.50 9 Hole Non-patron Senior 16.00 17.00 9 Hole Non-patron League 19.00 20.00 9 Hole Tournament 19.00 20.00 2nd Nine Non-patron 16.00 17.00 2nd Nine Patron 12.00 13.00 Sunrise/Sunset Rate 16.00 17.00 Twilight Non-patron 20.00 21.00 Twilight Patron 16.00 17.00 Junior Rate Patron 20.50/11.50 21.00/12.00 Junior Rate Non Patron 22.50/13.50 23.00/14.00 Par 3 Course 9 Hole Non-patron 12.50 9 Hole patron 9.00 9 Hole Sr Patron 8.00 9 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate 9.50 9 Hole League 12.50 9 Hole Tournament 12.50 9 Hole Junior Rate 8.00 9 Hole Junior Non-Patron Rate 9.50 2nd 9 Par 3 7.50 Patron Cards Resident Adult Patron 75.00/70.00 Non-resident Adult Patron 115.00/110.00 Resident Senior Patron(age 62+) 45.00/40.00 Non-resident Senior Patron(age 62+) 80.00/75.00 Resident Junior Patron(17 yrs&under) 35.00/30.00 Non-resident Junior(17 yrs&under) 40.00/35.00 Par 3 Patron Card 30.00 Driving Range Warm Up Bucket 3.00 Small Bucket 5.00 Large Bucket 7.00 10 Bucket Punch Pass 57.00 Large Patron Bucket 5.00 14 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Brookview Golf Course Rates(continued) Cart Rates 18 Hole Power Cart 30.00 30.00 18 Hole Tournament Cart 30.00 30.00 18 Hole Patron Cart 24.00 24.00 9 Hole Tournament Cart 20.00 20.00 9 Hole Power Cart 20.00 20.00 9 Hole Par 3 Power Cart 15.00 15.00 9 Hole Par Patron Cart 16.00 16.00 Pull Cart/Regulation Course 5.00 Pull Cart/Par 3 Course 4.00 Trailer fee/Use of personal power cart 14.00/9.00 15.00/10.00 Club Rentals 18 Hole full rental-Regulation 20.00/30.00 9 Hole full rental-Regulation 10.00/15.00 9 hole Par 3 half rental 10.00 LockerRental Season 20.00 Daily 1.00 Towel fee 2.00 Miscellaneous Fees USGA Handicap Service MGA Non-patron 40.00 Patron Annual 25.00 No Show Fee FULL fEE Lessons Adult Group 99.00 Junior Group 199.00 Lawn Bowling League Fee M-Th evenings(7 week league) 350.00 i., „�,,,,c..+�c��.... ��.. e�i�.,.,��,.� '��n,n�n c;....i�r,.,..+o.,..t.,i �Q-�TT�6FJF Single Court Rental-resident and golf patron 20.00/hour Single Court Rental-non-resident 25.00/hour Private Rental of Four Courts 80.00/hour 100.00/hour D.7....�.,.....F.,I..FC�..I^..��.-+� .,...-I��i...,��., �f Private Rental of Eight Courts-exclusive use 200.00/hour Summer Kids Leagues 35.00 30.00-50.00 Senior Leagues 35.00 30.00-50.00 Rental of Green/4 courts for corporate golf outings 120.00/hour 100.00/hour Q�.....��..4.�....J D..., ..t�....D....4-�I CiClR7-Y'GtY:VvTTtr Deck Rental(0-4 hours) 300.00 � ., i.,u„ ..-i.,0.,�2�ac^,�,c �n n��t Game Official For Private Rentals/Events �� 25.00/hour Game Equipment Use For Leagues&Rentals 0.00(Provided) 15 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees (A Non-Resident fee of$5.00 is recommended to be added to Youth,Adult and Senior Activities.) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrative fee. Youth Fees Baseball-Park 36.00 Basketball-Mites 42.00 Basketball-Youth 43.00-50.00 45.00-47.00 Bike Rangers 36.00 Catch,Kick&Throw 34.00 Chess Club 30.00 Drama Club(Summer) 62.00 Drama Club(Fall&Winter) 64.00 Explorers Hiking&Biking Club 34.00 Football-Flag 32.00 Football/Basketball/Soccer Skills 32.00 Hockey-Ice Skills Camp 52.00 Hockey-Rink Rat 46.00 48.00 Jewelry Making 33.00 Jump Rope 20.00 Kickball 31.00 Kids Club 46.00 Kids Korner 32.00 Pre-School Players 39.00 Pens,Pencils,Markers,&More 26.00 Pitch by Coach 36.00 Playgrounds 0.00-10.00 Preschool Playtime-per time 2.00 Preschool Playtime-10-time punch pass 15.00 Soccer-Fall 35.00 37.00 Soccer-Nerf 35.00 Summer Survivor 33.00 Tap&Ballet 41.00 T-Ball 36.00 Tennis-Full Day Camp 200.00-230.00 Tennis-Half Day Camp 180.00-200.00 Tennis-Teen Team League 195.00-200.00 Volleyball-Sand 31.00 Adult/Senior Activities Ballroom Dance-Swing&Social 50.00 Basketball-Open Drop-in Fee 4.00 10-time Punch Pass 28.00 Belly Dancing 56.00-80.00 Bridge-Beginning 32.00 Bridge-Intermediate 32.00 Broomball League-Co-Rec Resident 450.00 Non-Resident 540.00 Line Dancing 45.00-60.00 Painting'��'m��'��`Classes 40.00 16 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees(continued) (A Non-Resident fee of$5.00 is recommended to be added to Youth,Adult and Senior Activities.) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstretive fee. Adult/Senior Activities(continued) Soccer League-Co-Rec Resident 465.00 470.00 Non-Resident 615.00 620.00 Softball Leagues-Fall Resident 330.00 340.00 Non-Resident 450.00 455.00 Softball Leagues-Spring/Summer Doubleheader League-Resident 635.00 645.00 Doubleheader League-Non-Resident 835.00 840.00 S'+ag�e�;�6eag�►e-�� C1� S++�g�e��,;,�6ea ��,,., o„�;,�,..,+ g�gg Tae Kwan Do 54.00-70.00 Tai Chi 40.00-60.00 Tn I'1.�11�/Q In r n ..I. ..1 .�'•.,, , �,x a,,*m . _,,.«:x.,��..-.m �g Tennis League-Mixed Doubles 26.00 Tennis League-Singles 20.00 Volleyball-Open Drop-in Fee 4.00 10-time Punch Pass 28.00 Volleyball League-Sand Resident 230.00 Non-Resident 260.00 Yoga&Pilates 55.00-95.00 Senior Programs Bowling Tourney 5.00 Coffee Talk 2.00 Craft/Art Classes 6.50-70.00 Defensive Driving(refreshments only) 1.00 Living Well and Wise 1.00-4.00 Lunch Events 9.00-20.00 Membership Dues 5.00-8.00 Money Matters 1.00-3.00 Remember When 1.00-2.00 Special Events 4.00-20.00 Trips-Extended 2-6 Days 250.00-1200.00 Trips-One Day 8.00-95.00 17 City of Golden Valley 2015 Proposed Master Fee Schedule-Exhibit A 2014 Adopted 2015 Proposed Fee Fee Park&Recreation Fees(continued) (A Non-Resident fee of$5.00 is recommended to be added to Youth,Adult and Senior Activities.) Cancellations would incur a$5 adminstrative fee. Other Park&Recreation Fees Small Park Shelter Resident(up to 50 people) 95.00 Non-resident 110.00 Large Park Shelter Resident(up to 100 people) 125.00 Non-resident 145.00 Beer/Wine Permit(only with Picnic Shelter rental) 25.00 Food Truck per day-3 day maximum 40.00 Brookview Community Center Resident(over 75 people;12 hours) 560.00 Non-resident(over 75 people;12 hours) 645.00 Resident(up to 75 people;5 hours max) 25 per hour Non-resident(up to 75 people;5 hours max) 35 per hour Private Industry or Commercial Use-Resident/Non-Resident 55-65 per hour Non-Profit/Community Organization-Resident/Non-Resident 25-35 per hour 0-35 per hour Brookview Community Center-Deck(0-4 hours) - 100.00 Davis Community Center Gym 25 per hour Sand Volleyball Court(per court) " "`" " �`" �" ' `" 20.00/hour Tennis Court Tournament-per day/per court 40.00 Court/hr/wkday 6.00 Picnic Kit 15.00 Athletic Field Per hour 40.00 W/Lights per hour 55.00 Prep per field(extra drag) 35.00 Chalking per field 6.00 General Park Usage-Non-Brookview per hour 35.00 Commercial Use of Park per hour 100.00-125.00 Park Building per hour 40.00 Hockey Rink per hour 35.00 Youth Athletic Association per player Maintenance Fee-Resident per player 6.00 Maintenance Fee-Non-Resident per player 11.00 Invitational Tournament per field per day 50.00 18 C'l�� C�� " �_ � ,� ° �� . .� �, �� , � m ��. . City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) ��.,�.,,r;- ...„.:.., f-:-�=.fi��C�h7il��Hu7��..�...,..:.�-.:... I�k��d�iil�lli�hHa�"^',�.� .�, ,, �. ` ;��f�amfi��u�..,. .. �`_��"��ii�l��n�.�d.,r�,,�,��.... Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 3. G. Reappointment of City Manager to Joint Water Commission Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary Golden Valley needs to reappoint a Commissioner to the Golden Valley-Crystal-New Hope Joint Water Commission. This appointment has been the City Manager of each representing City. Attachments • Resolutian Reappointing the City Manager as City of Golden Valley Representative on the Golden Valley-Crystal-New Hope Joint Water Commission (1 page) Recommended Ac#ion Motion to adopt Resolution Reappointing the City Manager as City of Golden Valley Representative on the Golden Valley-Crystal-New Hope Joint Water Commission. Resolution 14-90 December 2, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THE CITY MANAGER AS CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY REPRESENTATIVE ON THE GOLDEN VALLEY-CRYSTAL-NEW HOPE JOINT WATER COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Golden Valley created a Joint Water Commission in 1963 to benefit the three communities; and WHEREAS, the Commission owns the trunk water distribution system found in the three cities and purchases water from the City of Minneapolis; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to appoint city personnel to represent the City of Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, it would be in the best interest of the City to reappoint the City Manager to the Commission for a one year term or until such time as there is a change to a joint powers organization; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that City Manager, Thomas D. Burt, is hereby reappointed as the City of Golden Valley's representative on the Golden Valley-Crystal-New Hope Joint Water Commission for a term expiring December 31, 2015. 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. �;��'�� _ ?� � � �� ; ��. � ti f � Administrative Services Department 763 593 8013/763 S93 3969(fax) . ,. . .r�g�z� S k;Niia"�,"'�I�t��tIiNBAtlµ�t�'�(u�"iiilf��h�Y.��w�- ...,,. ...��:. .. '":c .;.°n5�itjp �t�.4�.3�-'�.am'�..��iluiP'i4�`��kFM,.�-w��, `""yi�Cimip iiu�+.��,3�».�"��.u,� Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 3. H. Adoption af 2015-2016 Budget for Enterprise, Special Revenue and Internal Services Funds Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The 2015-2016 Budgets of the above funds with changes since the Proposed Budgets were submitted to the Council in September and October. All budgets were reviewed previously at the Council/Manager meetings in September, October and November. The 2016 Budget is approved "in concept" only and will be revised with the budget process in 2015. Attachments • Resolution Adopting the 2015-2016 Budget for Enterprise, Special Revenue and Internal Services Funds (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to Resolution Adopting the 2015-2016 Budget for Enterprise, Special Revenue and Internal Services Funds. Resolution 14-91 December 2, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2015-2016 BUDGETS FOR ENTERPRISE, SPECIAL REVENUE AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS WHEREAS, in 2014, the City Manager presented a biennial budget cycle with a proposed current budget year (2015) and an in concept budget proposal for the second year (2016); and WHEREAS, this proposed 2015 operating budget is submitted by the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and other applicable laws in effect on this date; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Galden Valley, Minnesota, that the 2015 Budgets are hereby given final approval. FUND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 7000 Recycling $451,460 7120 Water and Sewer Utility 9,760,560 7150 Brookview Golf Course 1,824,925 7200 Motor Vehicle Licensing 408,330 7300 Storm Sewer Utility 3,101,810 2020 Human Services Fund 67,100 8200 Vehicle Maintenance 355,565 TOTAL 2015 BUDGET $15,969,750 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing are through user fees, fundraisers, charges for services and those applicable revenues described in each specific budget. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council declares its intent to take all necessary actions legally permissible to the submission and approval of the City's budget both proposed and final. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. (:�� w. � � ` � ��. :: � x :,r� ��,._ � Planning Department 763-593-$Q95/763-593-$109(fax) . �i�lasrcr.�� ,. H ��-,-.:;.i �a� �.{'�aai"�r�....€�.�'-"':;-�.. � �, -.-; - . .. �::. ...� �:�. . ii� � � �N�I��3,�`:"-»�.�'�:".x�,�*. . .' �-rv_' f .. .. . . ., .�, „� v,Iw�s_� ��IN� t '. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 3. I. Approval of Plat - Sunnyridge Woods Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the November 5, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for the minor subdivision of Sunnyridge Woods (200 Meadow Lane North). After the hearing, the Council approved the Preliminary Plat which will allow three lots. The Final Plat of Sunnyridge Woods 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 City Code. Attachments • Resolution for Approval of Plat - Sunnyridge Woods (1 page) • Final Plat of Sunnyridge Woods (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat- Sunnyridge Woods. Resolution 14-92 December 2, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT — SUNNYRIDGE WOODS 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 Sunnyridge Woods covering the following described tracts of land: Lot 6, Sunnyridge 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 far 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. SUNNYRIDGE WOODS �.R °°�. "°. KNOW ALL PERSONS BV THESE PRESENTS:That Golden Valley Land Company,a MlnnesoW corporation,fee owner of[he following described property situated in � the Caunry of Hennepin,State of Minneso[a fo wi[: Lo[6,SUNNVRIDGE ADDRION. Has caused[he same ta be surveyetl and platted as SUNNYRIDGE WOODS and does hereby dedicate to the public for puhlic use the tlralnage and utillty easements as created by[his pia[. In wi[ness whereof said GolAen valley LanA Company,a Minnesota corporatlon,has wused[hese presents[o be signed by its proper ofFlcer this_tlay af ,2014. �`; GOLDEN VALLEY LAND COMPANY !�`. By ,Its Presldent -�± I � I ;:�` I Pe[er Knaeble �� +� .ti- . S89°30'34"E � ' STATE OF 199.77 -� couNn oF .� �.� . ..; �,; '�: -:<'., . + '`�; N . _,. ,� �� , 0 , y eter Knae , resident of sald Golden Va y ^ "^---�-Dralnage and Utlllty Easement--.., � ``' ` y,�<�• . Thls instrumen[was acknowledged before me on[hls da of 2 14 b P ble P Ile i�� ,�. 'r- w � Y � + ` , ,a_ � �_ N _ � Land Campany,a Minnesota corporallon,on behaM of the corpora[ion. __—______ �+� -:; � o r----------- � �----- --�,o N �•'= ,, _ I r-- a i i i � � � i � � � �°� / ,a. i.� ,��' �g I I � \\ W+ PO NotaryPrinted Name No[ary Publlc, _;' N�$ e 1 ig � \�� ;, �� I __ � / My Commission Expires � - c8� i �OC/L� � fll \\ O ' .; �a `+� ;; ��-p• I • j '� \ a _ _ ,. :.;, � \ � / , ��'' 1,'f h o m a s].A d a m d o h e r e b c e r tl t h a[t h i s l a t w a s re a r e d b m e a r u n d e r m d i re c t s u e rv i s i o n;t h a[1 a m a d u l L i c e n s e d L a n d S u rv e o r i n t h e S t a t e o f �+ i%� I '' i 3 W �--------------------� :; t J " Y H P P P Y Y P Y Y ' � i a� ggggpqi•E � ' 3 \ \ Minnesota;[hat this plat Is a correct representatlon of the boundary survey;[hat all mathematical data and labels are mrrectiy deslgnated an this plat;that all '�> �'�,^ �3gpp � � � manumen[s depicted on thls plat have been,or will be wrrec[I set wl[hin one year;that all waFer bounGaries and wet IanGs,as deflned In Mlnnesota Sta[utes, — — � '-- � ------------------- I \��,,� �`. � Sec[Ion 505. , ubd.3,as of[he date of this certlflcate are shown and labeled on th p , nd p bllc y are shown and labeled on this plat. � �— , 01 5 is lat•a all u wa s __1� W I �- � W i / ��) t - \ DateG Mis day of ,2014. I � I �„� J ` �� /��S ' � ` Triomas l.Adam,tJcensed Land Surveyor _ I I �i; (r I /� �� ` ` $ Minnesota Ucense No.43414 �= i 2 ,� , ,, °`g � T i i � 90� I - -- � � � �' R'� , \ STATE OF MINNESOTA •' I '=� j ;; I � �� ' ``�r' / � COUN7YOFDAKOTA �'� i �,�` � � i //4��j� ��.`�V _ Thls i�strument was acknowledged before me on this day of ,2014,by Thomas].Atlam. i � `�� - J R / � ;,. -- I ��= 1 L-----------------_— 5 � ` �., �ao• �'' e�•16 �.tY2 p�j6 � / No[ary Printetl Name Notary Public,Mlnnesota -� -- `N89°46'��W 8�.90`" '�"- � My Commission Explres January 31,2015 I �"'Set AK Nall / I '-' •\1, r I 1� / _i I ....� r r v r � �i�i ..�_ / ' CIT/COUNCIL,CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY,MINNESOTA i`� i � �'`��` This plat of SUNNYRIDGE WOODS was approved and acceD�etl by the Clty Coundl of the City of Golden Valley,Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this :� / �-`,��`'� 1 day of 2014. If applicable,Me written comments anE recommenAatlons of the Commissloner of T2nsportatlon antl the County L i; I _ _ �� Highway Engineer have been rxeived by[he City ar the prescribe0 30-Eay perlod has elapsed wI[hou[receip[of such commen[s anA recommendadons,as � provided by Minnesota Statutes,Sect{on 505.03,Subdivisfon Z. I I L , = Ciry CounGl,Ciry of GolOen Valley,Minnesota 60 � , ey ,Mayor By ,Clerk RESIDEM AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES,Hennepin Counh,MlnnesoW I hereby certiry[hat the Wzes payabie in 2014 and priar years have been paid for land described on this plat,Oated this day of ,2014. NMark V.Chapin,County AudRor By: ,Depury SURVEY DIVISION,Hennepin County,Mlnnesota Droinage an0 Utility Easements are shown thus: Pursuant to MN.STAT.Sectlon 3838.565(1969),[his plat has been approve0 thls day of ,2014. �6 6� I I Chrls F.Mavls,Coun[y Surveyor By: o is ao w so I I I I Scale in Feet -------�e e�— ------ COUNTV RECORDER,Hennepin Counry,Minnesa[a The west Iine of Lot 6,SUNNYRIDGE ADDITION has ' " a bearing of NO°OB'21"E I hereby certiy that the within plat of SUNNIRI�GE WOODS was recorded In this oH1ce this_day of ,2014,at_o'dxk_.M. Being 6 fee[In w1AM and aEjolning lo[Iines anG (XXX.XX)Denotes tlimenslon from[he plat being 10 feet In wiEM antl atljolning right of of SUNNYRtDGE ADDITION way Ilnes unless o[herwlse noted. • Denotes Iron monumen[found � Martin MCCormkk,County Remrder By: ,Depury o Denotes i/2 inch by 141nch iron monument set anA marked by Minnesota Ucense No.43414 , unless otherwise noted Rehder and Associates. Inc. c:i��y c�� ,�� . P., . . . . . . Administrative Services Department 753 593-8013/763 593 3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 3. J. Receipt of October 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 October 2014, the City is using$2,402,225 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments • October 2014 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages) • October 2014 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) � October 2014 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) • October 2014 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) • October 2014 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) • October 2014 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) • October 2014 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion #o receive and file the October 2014 Financial Reports. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures October, 2014 (unaudited) �V@f % 2014 October YTD (Under) Of Budget Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 00� Council $294,840 10,986 188,588 ($106,252) 63.96% 003 City Manager 762,980 49,679 547,679 (215,301) 71.78% ooa Transfers Out 294,710 0 294,710 0 100.00% (1) 005 Admin. Services 1,676,280 112,493 1,366,179 (310,101) 81.50% 006 Legal 135,000 8,728 98,404 (36,596) 72.89% (2) oo� Risk Management 300,000 64,513 267,482 (32,518) 89.16% 011 General Gov't. Bidgs. 556,990 5$,897 467,767 (89,223) 83.98% o�s Planning 346,195 21,549 239,697 (106,498) 69.24% o1s Inspections 651,545 59,232 523,885 (127,660) 80.41% ozz Police 5,202,175 386,846 3,917,449 (1,284,726) 75,30% 023 Fire 1,200,190 75,837 859,478 (340,712) 71.61% os5 Physical DevAdmin 334,315 11,362 283,459 (50,856) 84.79% oss Engineering 691,880 63,039 398,931 (292,949) 57.66% os� S#reets 1,429,410 128,037 1,201,207 (228,203) 84.04% os5 Gommunity Center 74,100 7,192 45,437 (28,663) 61.32% 066 Park & Rec. Admin. 679,345 48,678 522,199 (157,146) 76.87% os� Park Maintenance 1,051,490 73,308 847,305 (204,185) 80.58% oss Recreation Programs 502,830 26,703 245,798 (257,032) 48.88% (3) TOTAL Expenditures $16,184,275 $1,207,079 $12,315,654 ($3,868,621) 76.10% (1)This transfer was made in June, 2014. (2) Legal services are through September. (3)Tennis program expenditures are lower due to contractual arrangement. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Revenues October, 2014 Percentage Of Year Completed 83.33% Over % 2014 October YTD (Under) of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $12,358,005 9,821 6,427,082 ($5,930,923) 52.01% (1) Licenses 210,785 6,710 257,801 $47,016 122.31% Permits 725,000 154,882 1,093,555 $368,555 150.84% Federal Grants 0 0 15,930 $15,930 State Aid 255,390 1,882 150,974 ($104,416) 59.12% (2) Hennepin CountyAid 31,205 0 31,758 $553 (3) Charges For Services: General Government 45,050 486 42,095 ($2,955) 93.44% Public Safety 163,870 10,164 143,961 ($19,909) 87.85% Public Works 141,000 13,629 131,346 ($9,654) 93.15% Park & Rec 525,270 32,713 344,061 ($181,209) 65.50% (4) Other Funds 981,500 70,639 778,276 ($203,224) 79.29% Fines & Forfeitures 320,000 26,513 243,817 ($76,183) 76.19% (5) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (6) Miscellaneous Revenue 227,200 16,228 169,440 ($57,760) 74.58% Transfers In 100,000 8,333 83,333 ($16,667) 83.33% (7) TOTAL Revenue $16,184,275 $352,000 $9,913,429 ($6,270,846) 61.25% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January(delinquencies). (2)Police Training was be paid in August. Safe and Sober is billed on time spent. (3)Vialent Offenders Task Force is run by Hennepin County. (4)Tennis progam was changed after budget was approved. (5) Fines/Forfeitures are through September 2014. (6) Investment income is allocated at year end. (7)Transfers are monthly. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund October 2014 (unaudited) Over 2014 October YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,500 0 56,955 455 100.81% Recycling Charges 332,400 29,262 240,253 (92,147) 72.28% (3) Miscellaneous Revenues 9,000 7,328 7,328 (1,672) Interest on Investments 5,000 0 0 (5,000) 0.00% (1) Total Revenue 402,900 36,590 304,536 (98,364) 75.59% Expenses: Recycling 447,135 19,586 302,754 (144,381) 67.71% (2) Total Expenses 447,135 19,586 302,754 (144,381) 67.71% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Recycling Services are through September. (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 October, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 October YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,251,750 490,550 3,169,082 (1,082,668) 74.54% Emergency Water Supply 0 20,872 20,872 20,872 Sewer Charges 3,300,970 296,404 2,547,216 (753,754) 77.17% Meter Sales 5,000 694 17,939 12,939 358.78% MCES Grant Program 118,730 0 0 (118,730) Penalties 110,000 19,816 126,893 16,893 115.36% Charges for Other Services 230,000 113,110 593,971 363,971 258.25% (1) State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,000 4,123 34,680 (10,320) 77.07% Certificate of Compliance 70,000 7,150 83,225 13,225 118.89% Interest Earnings 35,000 0 0 (35,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 8,166,450 952,719 6,593,878 (1,572,572) 80.74% Expenses: Utility Administration 1,377,255 125,937 1,205,101 (172,154) 87.50% Sewer Maintenance 2,488,530 349,554 2,044,017 (444,513) 82.14% Water Maintenance 4,363,650 646,264 3,233,294 (1,130,356) 74.10% Total Expenses 8,229,435 1,121,755 6,482,412 (1,747,023) 78.77% (1)This includes MCES Grant Program for residential reimbursements of$294,242. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report- Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund (3)(4) October, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 October YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 880,780 47,528 717,951 (162,829) 81.51% Driving Range Fees 105,000 3,548 100,824 (4,176) 96.02% Par 3 Fees 173,200 12,144 111,657 (61,543) 64.47% Lawn Bowling 18,730 1,692 14,905 (3,825) 79.58% Pro Shop Sales 78,500 6,173 74,455 (4,045) 94.85% Pro Shop Rentals 227,800 20,644 226,522 (1,278) 99.44% Concession Sales 215,200 20,987 258,397 43,197 120.07% Other Revenue 70,155 435 79,165 9,010 112.84% Interest Earnings 6,000 0 0 (6,Q00) 0.00% (1) Less: Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (35,000) (5,964) (25,442) 9,558 72.69% Total Revenue 1,740,365 107,187 1,558,434 (181,931) 89.55% Expenses: Golf Operations 655,995 54,189 547,482 (108,513) 83.46% (2) Course Maintenance 778,840 43,821 532,086 (246,754) 68.32% Pra Shop 105,705 5,083 100,899 (4,806) 95.45% Grill 177,910 13,144 195,765 17,855 110.04% Driving Range 48,075 3,928 38,523 (9,552) 80.13% Par 3 Course 3,500 2,134 20,027 16,527 572.20% Lawn Bowling 141,965 1,220 171,732 29,767 120.97% (5) Total Expenses 1,911,990 123,519 1,606,514 (305,476) 84.02% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. (3) Course opened April 9 and closed November 6. (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 October 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 October YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 3,800 0 0 (3,800) 0.00% (1) Charges for Services 396,410 28,794 301,161 (95,249) 75.97% Total Revenue 400,210 28,794 301,161 (99,049) 75.25% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 400,210 26,292 291,259 (108,951) 72.78% Total Expenses 400,210 26,292 291,259 (108,951) 72.78% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund October, 2014(unaudited) Over 2014 October YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 45,000 0 0 (45,000) 0.00% (1) Storm Sewer Charges 2,226,920 196,706 1,838,063 (388,857) 82.54% Bassett Creek Watershed 998,800 0 0 (998,800) 0.00% Miscellaneous Receipts 200,000 71,865 99,234 (100,766) 49.62% State Grant-Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 3,470,720 268,571 1,937,297 (1,533,423) 55.82% Expenses: Storm Utility 2,474,535 53,401 1,057,089 (1,417,446) 42.72% (2) Street Cleaning 124,690 3,371 92,836 (31,854) 74.45% Environmental Control 309,225 30,601 197,167 (112,058) 63J6% Debt Service Payments 433,510 0 1,604,967 1,171,457 370.23% (3) Total Expenses 3,341,960 87,373 2,952,059 (389,901) 88.33% (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 20Q4C Issuance 5 years early. 2014 Equipment Replacement Fund(CIP)-Fund 5700 2014 Oct YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Proceeds-Certificate of Indebtedness 750,000 0 747,600 (2,400) Sale of Assets 35,000 11,678 66,314 31,314 Miscellaneous 0 93 149 149 Interest Earnings(allocated at year end) 17,394 0 0 (17,394) Total Revenues 802,394 11,771 814,063 11,669 Expenditures Program# Project Number Project Name 5700 Bond Expenditures 0 0 15,240 (15,240) 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars(Police) 35,000 0 34,270 730 (1) 5702 U&E-002 Computers and Printers(Finance) 60,000 18,665 49,666 10,334 5703 V&E-003 Imaging System(Finance) 26,000 0 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 0 27,883 17,117 5800 V&E-084 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus(Fire) 300,000 0 264,781 35,219 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 70,120 9,880 Total Expenditures 899,000 18,665 764,513 134,488 (1)Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. �1��'� �.�'{ il�IiN'�', ,�� al Plannin De artment � � 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) ��"'',��,��v`�.��"�'�: - �r�:`��.��, a�m�,r�...:., � .... ".a� ~'� r�� Executive Summary For Action G�Iden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 60 day deadline: October 28, 2014 60 day extension: December 27, 2014 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120- 1801 Noble Drive -The Lecy Group, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The Lecy Group is seeking approval of a Planning Unit Development (PUD) Permit to create three single family lots at 1801 Noble Drive with access via a shared driveway. The proposal consists of two lots—a vacant lot of 3.27 acres and a 0.2 acre lot, 20 feet wide, which contains a driveway. A single family home previously stood on the larger lot but was demolished in August of 2014. Three luxury homes are proposed to be constructed in its place. The site has roughly 510 feet of lakeshore on Sweeney Lake, to the southeast, and is surrounded by mostly undeveloped properties zoned for Single Family Residential (R-1). The driveway accesses Noble Drive to the north and also provides access to the single family home at 1807 Noble Drive, The property immediately to the north (no existing address) was recently approved for subdivision into two lats. A 30 foot strip of land that could have prvvided the right-af-way necessary to construct a public street was proposed as a part of that subdivision but was not approved. As the only lot frantage is the 20 foot wide parcel that currently provides access to the site, the Applicant is without the adequate amount of frontage on an improved public street needed to qualify this proposal as a typical minor subdivision. The Applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac at the south end of the driveway which would provide the typical 80 feet of width at the front yard setback for each of the new lots being created. A PUD is necessary to allow the use of a shared driveway to provide access to these lots from Noble Drive. On November 10 the Planning Commission recommended approval (7-0) of the request. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated November 10, 2014 (6 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated November 10, 2014 (6 pages) • Applicant's Narrative (3 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department dated November 3, 2014 (2 pages) • Memo from the Engineering Division dated November 5, 2014 (6 pages) • Site Plans dated October 15, 2014 (6 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120 subject to the following conditions: 1. The revised plans prepared and submitted by Civil Site Group, dated 10/15/14, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 3, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to lason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 5, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. No additional driveway or utility access shall be allowed along the private street. 5. Prior to Final Plan approval, the Applicant shall show, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, that the snow storage area and the infiltration basin area do not overlap. 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 120" in its title. 7. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan approval. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. In additian the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5(E): 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. The Applicant has worked to accommodate the unique characteristics of the site, including the lack of adequate frontage on an improved public street for the three single family lots and the reliance on a narrow shared driveway for access. While this situation is less than ideal, the efforts of the Applicant have resulted in a Preliminary PUD Plan that sufficiently addresses the many challenging aspects present. Staff believes this standard has been met. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable partions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. Much of the site's wooded areas are left undisturbed and a conservation easement will be established along the shoreline of Sweeney Lake to protect the slope, trees, vegetation, and natural habitat. Staff believes this standard has been met. 3. Efficient and Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. The size of each of the three proposed single family lots—well over the minimum area required—is consistent with the surrounding residential uses and the amount of impervious (hard cover) surface is well below the maximum allowed. Staff believes this standard has been met. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The use of this property for single family homes is compatible with the neighboring properties and the density being proposed is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes this standard has been met. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. Staff believes this standard has been met. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Under the current proposal, the amount of frontage on Noble Drive has been determined to be adequate to serve the development. In addition, the proposed private street has been evaluated and found to be acceptable in place of the public street typically required. Staff believes this standard has been met. Y 1 2" ''�} ��: 1 i f� �= � � ~ � � ti: t� ; `'-. ,4 .l � ,, �. :: � � . -�..'y ''� .� � := '<� = ,�:' ° � � � ��.._ � n �� :�`J.�/'�.,. ,� a::� ,� � A `�- '' ` .` ! �� , • Subject Property: ,� ' � �.,. �;, 1801 Noble Drive J��- _ /, � �i;.�� r,�� ; - - � . �r x' � - o, � ! 4;� i \ \ � -_ / ` \ / �...� \ l\ '�.+";� {�j i t`';7tt;il:llr`:•t •\ / \ '� � ! �� 1f `\ . \ �� .. �.._. �' %� �'' �.. f � f � � f,/�\�` � 21�� f °� � � �` '' ��,=Gy,L� ` � a� � ( ~ ��f ��`. � � _ �..�,, 1 � � f� � � � � �,��`.,� �'�,�.t_� �. � ��```-��--_ ~ f � �' � I -- _ `"�..� , � J � �� \, i r, i\, '\�',t�� i' I � ��y --'�"--e.,_ � 1-`-`' �. d � �� I �� -__� f�, ' � �' } � �� TY�4 ".f.tl✓F�� /' • � � ! f �" _--__�, � ' � , ;. , � � A�Reci�Rci � � .. ' � f . �Theodore W1:it7 Regror�al Park f city af "'�' � CCJ��t�C'� �I� E �� 1 � I� � �II� � � . �t�. �.� Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) , , :. . _. , �. . , �;r .. �. . 3� ,.'e.,"`.s'S, ,�'T ;... � ^t�... # „ . .a_ u �Y,<+.... . � . ,. � .+��,. � P ,w�'��: Date: November 10, 2014 To: Goiden Vatley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing– Preliminary PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120–1801 Noble Drive–The Lecy Group, Applicant Background The Lecy Group is seeking approval of a Planning Unit Development (PUD) Permit to create three single family lots at 1801 Noble Drive with access via a shared driveway. The proposal consists of two lots—a vacant lot of 3.27 acres and a 0.2 acre lot, 20 feet wide, which contains a driveway. A single family home previously stood on the larger lot but was demolished in August of 2014. Three luxury homes are proposed to be constructed in its place. The site has roughly 510 feet of lakeshore on Sweeney Lake, to the southeast, and is surrounded by mostly undeveloped properties zoned for Singte Family Residential (R-1). The driveway accesses Noble Drive to the north and also provides access to the single family home at 1807 Noble. The property immediately to the north (no existing address) was recently approved for subdivision into two lots. A 30 foot strip of land that could have provided the right-of-way necessary to construct a public street was proposed as a part of that subdivision but was not approved. Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD would allow the Applicant to subdivide the larger lot into three single family lots, each with more than half an acre of land above the ordinary high water line (OHWL). As the only fot frontage is the 20 foot wide parcel that currently provides access to the site,the Applicant is without the adequate amount of frontage on an improved public street needed to qualify this proposal as a typical minor subdivision. The Applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac at the south end of the driveway which would provide the typical 80 feet of width at the front yard setback for each of the new lots being created. A PUD is necessary to allow the use of a shared driveway to provide access to these lots from Noble Drive. 1 �� .. ''J�:]�,..` ; "��'-,�` 1807 � 1800 1640 Noble ` 1644 . ��' a s� 1 fi34 p�y� � 1649 ;� � 1624 ' � 1629 �� ''�: 1614 _ _ _ � ; 1605 � � �' -� 1604 i 1801 1535 y�: Noble �' � ��, � , _ � . :� .n �, � 1550 ; F O ` �� 1546 V '' 1538 � � 1� � 8 � PUD 120 - Site AAap Were it not for the unique circumstance of the 20 foot wide parcel that precludes the ability of the Applicant to meet the minimum lot width requirements at the front setback line, this proposal could be processed as a minor subdivision and would meet all the requirements of the zoning district. Similarly, the length of the narrow driveway creates some challenges in providing adequate sewer and water connections and emergency vehicle access to the proposed lots. In order to address this situation,the Applicant has chosen to pursue the subdivision of the larger lot through a PUD and has proposed a number of approaches to deal with the shared access. Utilities (sewer and water) are proposed to be located underneath the driveway and constructed to standards reserved for situations in which the typical 10 feet of separation between sanitary sewer and watermain is not possible. The Engineering Division has reviewed these plans and believes they are acceptable as shown. After the installation of utilities, a new private 16 foot wide driveway would be constructed within the 20 foot wide parcel to standards that allow for the weight of emergency vehicles. "No Parking— Fire Lane" signs would be posted along the length of the driveway and a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac would be constructed at the southern terminus, providing the ability for emergency vehicles to turn around. Snow removed from the shared driveway would be plowed into a snow storage area located in the northwest corner of the Lot 1, adjacent to the cul-de-sac. Based on projected building footprints and driveway locations for the three proposed homes,the 2 Applicant has calculated that the amount of impervious surface will be only slightly greater than the amount that existed under the previous single lot configuration with a large home and circular driveway (0.59 acres vs. 0.46 acres). A significant amount of lakeshore will be returned to a natural state and serve as a buffer for the lake which will assist in improving water quality. A stormwater filtration pond is proposed for Lot 1 to manage runoff from the new development. Land Use and Zoning Considerations As a PUD, the City can offer flexibility from the regular zoning requirements in order to achieve a better development. The following table summarizes how closely the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District are met under the current proposal: R-1 Single Family Residential Sweeney Lake Woods Use Single family homes Single family homes Dimensional Standards Minimum lot area 10,000 square feet 24,834 to 37,494 square feet above the OHWL Minimum lot width at front 80' 20' at driveway; 80'+ at front setback line setback line from cul-de-sac Structure coverage 30% maximum Sufficient lot area to allow to meet standards Impervious coverage 50% maximum Sufficient lot area to allow to meet standards Front setback 35' 35'+from cul-de-sac Side setback 12.5'to 15' plus 0.5' for every Sufficient lot area to allow to foot in height over 15' meet standards Rear setback 20%of lot depth Sufficient lot area to allow to meet standards Height 28' for pitched roof houses; Undetermined at this time 25'for flat roof houses The Applicant has pointed to a minor subdivision that was approved in 2012 for nearby 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle with a variance from the required minimum lot width at the front yard setback. The primary difference for that application was the ability of the Applicant to provide the necessary width with the construction of a half-circle paved area adjacent to the road right-of-way. For various reasons, the City preferred to not have this paved area constructed. In the current proposal, however, the option to create a cul-de-sac adjacent to the right-of-way—and therefore to meet the minimum lot width requirement at the front yard setback—is not available. PUD Standards and Guidelines There are a handful of standards and guidelines set within Section 11.55 of the City Code that regulate PUDs. The following table summarizes how closely the requirements of this section are met under the current proposal: 3 Planned Unit Developments Sweeney Lake Woods Lot size No minimum NA Frontage 100' or adequate to serve the 20' development Principal building setbacks No closer than its height to Sufficient lot area to allow to the rear or side property line meet standards of a single-family district Preservation—wetlands and Minimum 25' riparian buffer 25' or greater ponds strip of natural vegetation Private streets Not allowed without waiver See below for factors for granted by City granting a waiver Maximum hard cover percent 38% 17% estimated —single family use Private Streets Private streets shall not be approved unless a waiver is granted by the City based on the following and other relevant factors: a. Extension of a public street is not physically feasible. b. Severe grades make in infeasible to construct a public street to minimum standards. c. A public road extension would adversely impact natural amenities. d. No feasible present or future means of extending right-of-way from other directions. e. If the City determines the need for a public street extension,the right-of-way for a public street shall be provided by dedication on the plat. Private Street Desi�n Standards a. The street must have adequate width consistent with the Transportation Plan and must be located and approximately centered within an easement of least four (4) wider than the street. b. The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. c. The design and construction standards must result in a functionally sound street in balance with its intended use and setting. d. The number of lots to share a common private access drive must be reasonable. e. Covenants which assign driveway installation and future maintenance responsibility in a manner acceptable to the City must be submitted and recorded with the titles or the parcels which are benefited. f. Common sections of the private street service three or more dwellings must be built to a seven-ton design, paved to a width of twenty feet, utilize a minimum grade, and have a maximum grade which does not exceed ten percent. g. Covenants concerning maintenance and use shall be filed against all benefiting properties. h. Street addresses or City-approved street name signs, if required, must be posted at the point where the private street intersects the public right-of-way. Engineering and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities. A 4 memorandum from the Engineering Division that addresses access, easements, sanitary sewer and water services, grading, stormwater management, and tree preservation is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses driveway construction, driveway width and length, cul-de-sac size, and water supply is attached. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot.Applications for PUDs must be consistent with the Intent and Purpose provisions and the PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to in the City. In order to be approved as a PUD,the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventiona/provisions of the ordinance. While the Applicant has worked to accommodate the unique aspects of the site, the lack of adequate frontage on an improved public street for the three single family lots and the reliance on a narrow shared driveway for access creates a less than ideal situation. Staff believes this standard has not been met. 2. Preservation. The PUD p/an 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. Much of the site's wooded areas are left undisturbed and a conservation easement will be established along the shoreline of Sweeney Lake to protect the slope, trees, vegetation, and natural habitat. Staff believes this standard has been met. 3. Efficient–Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservationJ of the land. The size of each of the three proposed single family lots—well over the minimum area required—is consistent with the surrounding residential uses and the amount of impervious (hard cover) surface is well below the maximum allowed. Staff believes this standard has been met. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan resu/ts in development compatible with adjacenr uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The use of this property for single family homes is compatible with the neighboring properties and the density being proposed is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes this standard has been met. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general hea/th, safety and genera/welfare of the people of the City. Staff believes this standard has been met. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD/ntent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Under the current proposal, the required amount of frontage on a public street does not meet the minimum standard of 100'and the PUD plan relies on a shared private drive rather than a public street. A waiver may be granted by the City to allow a private street if certain factors are found to be relevant. In addition, the current proposal does not meet the design requirements outlined for private streets. Staff believes this standard has not been met. 5 Recommendation The Applicant has managed to resolve many of the technical and engineering challenges and to meet most of the PUD standards as part of this development. However, the key issue of the private shared drive for access remains a concern. The Fire Department has asked that any roadway be constructed to standards that can accommodate emergency vehicles and that it be a minimum of 18 feet wide. In addition,the proposed 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac does not provide enough area to maneuver emergency vehicles without direct access to a full width public street. Unless the City determines that the factors necessary to allow for a waiver from the public street requirement are valid,the proposed private driveway would not meet the standards laid out for PUDs. Based on the above information and the current proposal, Staff recommends denial of the Preliminary Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) Memo from the Fire Department dated November 3, 2014 (2 pages) Memo from the Engineering Division dated November 5, 2014 (6 pages) Site Plans dated October 15, 2014 (6 pages) 6 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 A regular meeting of the Planning Co mission was held at the G alley City Hall, � cil Chambers, 7800 Golden Val y Road, Golden Valle :. �° innesota, on Monday, Novem 10, 2014. Chair Kluchka Iled the meeting��tirder at 7 pm. /=' y�. �� Those present were�I,anning Com .�issioners��ker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhar��er. Also;� rese�fi�i as Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emil , oellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. k � �:,�_ y, 1. Approval of Minu� " ,� �,. October 13, �14, Regular �lanning Comm�ssion Meeting �� li;:� ..�,� Blum referr�� o the ninth paragra;� h on page four and said tta� word "duplicitous" should be repla with the word "duplic ' ive." v��'��.;� i' �-..� M D by Waldhauser, second by Johnson and motion carried unanim`"�sly to rove the October 13, 2014, m utes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Sweeney Lake Woods — 1801 Noble Drive — PU-120 Applicant: The Lecy Group Address: 1801 Noble Drive Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the one existing single family property into a new three-lot single family development Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to reconfigure the existing vacant parcel at 1801 Noble Drive and the existing driveway parcel into three single family lots with access via a shared driveway. He stated that Lot 1 will be 37,494 square feet, Lot 2 will be 26,632 square feet, and Lot 3 will be 24,834 square feet, all of which are greater than the minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet. He added that if not for the lack of adequate frontage on a public street, this proposal could be reviewed as a minor subdivision rather than a PUD. Zimmerman discussed several of the staff's concerns including: the installation of utilities in a narrow right-of-way, fire and emergency access, the insufficient lot width at the front setback line, and the challenges with shared driveways. He stated that the proposed 16 foot wide driveway is not acceptable and that 18 feet of width is the absolute minimum width allowed. He referred to the PUD language in the City Code and explained that public streets are required unless waived by the City. He added that staff is recommending denial of the Preliminary PUD Plan as it does not meet all six of the necessary PUD findings. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 2 Kluchka asked about the vacant tracts H & B shown on the plans. He also asked how many lots would be appropriate for a shared driveway. Zimmerman stated that tract B is the Wessin property that was recently approved for subdivision. He noted that the driveways for that subdivision will have access on Noble, not on the proposed driveway for this current proposal. He added that tract H is a vacant landlocked parcel. Kluchka asked if the owners of these proposed new lots would have to agree to future access. Zimmerman said yes. Segslbaum asked about the distinctions regarding public versus private streets. Zimmerman stated that streets, whether public or private have to be constructed sufficiently to get fire vehicles in and out. He added that another issue is city versus private maintenance of the street. Segelbaum noted that a homeowner may prefer private streets so they can control access and don't have to give up ownership. Zimmerman agreed and added that public streets require more land for utilities and emergency access. Cera asked if the applicant has agreed to the 18 foot wide driveway requirement. Zimmerman said yes. Cera asked if the owners of the property to the west have been approached. Zimmerman stated that Mr. Wessin owns the property to the east and west of the driveway parcel and that he is not interested in selling it. Cera asked if a private street would be a unique situation. Zimmerman said there are few developments in the City with private streets. Baker asked if a 20 foot wide driveway would be allowed if this were a subdivision proposal rather than a PUD proposal. Zimmerman said no, a 20 foot wide street would not be allowed in a subdivision proposal. Baker said there is a risk of encroaching on the neighboring properties if they pave 18 feet in 20 feet of right-of-way. Waldhauser noted that if the area is considered a driveway the setback requirement is 3 feet, but if it is considered a street the setback requirement is 2 feet. Baker asked about the nature of the proposed conservation easement. Zimmerman referred to the City Engineer's staff report and explained that the applicant will be required to dedicate conservation easements over a portion of the shoreline adjacent to Sweeney Lake which is consistent with recent subdivisions on Sweeney Lake. Baker asked if the easements could be removed in the future. Zimmerman said no, they are permanent easements to create a buffer for the lake, preserve trees, and protect water quality. Blum referred to the comments about the proposed driveway being 18 feet in width and said he did not notice that written in the Fire Chief's staff report. Zimmerman stated that in conversations, the Fire Chief has said that 16 feet in width is too narrow, but that 18 feet, although not ideal, would be acceptable. Waldhauser stated that if this property were developed differently, or if just one new house was built, the applicant would not need any approvals and all of the safety issues would remain, so she thinks the City loses a lot of things without a PUD. Kluchka asked if the applicant held a neighborhood meeting. Zimmerman said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 3 Segelbaum asked if the applicant has seen the staff reports and if there have been any objections to any of the conditions in the staff reports. Zimmerman said the applicant has received the staff reports and that he has not heard any abjections. Johnson noted that the state fire code requires a minimum of 20 feet in width for a private driveway and questioned why the City would entertain anything narrower. He referred to the size of the proposed cul-de-sac and asked if the diameter of that cul-de- sac will be wider as discussed in the Fire Chief's staff report. Zimmerman stated that the Fire Chief has said he is comfortable with an 18 foot wide driveway and that applicant is willing to widen the diameter of the proposed cul-de-sac. Patrick Sarver, Civil Site Group, showed a rendering of the site. He stated that Mr. Lecy purchased the property in June of 2013 and has experience building high quality developments. He said because of the PUD process they have an opportunity to save a significant number of trees and improve the water quality. He stated that the only non- conforming issue is that their property doesn't adjoin a public street. He referred to two other recent developments in this same area and showed the Commissioners a table that compared the amount of hard cover, shoreline buffer and water quality of all three proposals and said theirs is the best of the three. Waldhauser asked if they would be able to construct an 18 foot wide road on 20 feet of right-of-way. Sarver said yes, they can build an 18 foot wide road to a safe level and they would like to work with the Fire Chief regarding the issue of turning emergency vehicle around in the proposed cul-de-sac space. Baker asked Sarver to point out the filtration basin on the plans. Sarver noted that the proposed filtration basin is to the west af Lot 1. Baker asked if the filtration basin would provide for the run-off from lawns and driveways. Sarver said yes. Blum noted that the snow storage area is also shown in the same area as the filtration basin and asked if that would impact filtration. Sarver stated that the snow storage area would be adjacent to the filtration basin area. Waldhauser said that snow storage would affect filtration over time. Segelbaum asked how the applicant could say which trees will stay and that the lake buffer won't be removed when these proposed homes will be custom built. Sarver stated that the lake buffer will be easement that can't be moved, built in, or removed. He stated that the applicant will go to great extent to keep every tree possible and that homeowners will be guided through the process. Ruth Lecy, The Lecy Group, Applicant, said she doesn't want to offend the prior owner of this property but she feels the City has received grossly inaccurate information regarding the condition of the house. She explained that the property was bank-owned, neglected, and was on the market for over 600 days. She discussed several of the needed repairs including: a leaky roof, replacement of 1927 single pane windows, new appliances, replacement of light fixtures, replacement of original bathrooms, replacement of carpeting, replacement of front steps, and repair of a leaking well in the basement. She added that many of the materials from the home have been salvaged and have not been sold, as they will be used in the construction of the proposed new homes. She discussed Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 4 the history of Lecy Bros. Construction and several of the awards they have received. She showed the Commissioners similar projects they've done in other cities. She reiterated that they will not be selling the lots to another builder. They will be custom building, upper-bracket homes and protecting as many trees as possible. Cera said he appreciates the re-use of the salvaged materials. Kluchka opened the public hearing. George Wessin, 1152 Hamel Road, Hamel, stated the Planning Commission brought up the feasibility of building a public street and said the answer is yes. He added that the property he owns adjacent to this proposal is for sale and has been for a long time. He confirmed that parcel H shown on the plans is a landlocked piece of property. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said it would be good to see some development that can be done without damage to Sweeney Lake or to other properties in the area. She said it seems that there is a property owner in the area who does not want this land developed except as one single family home, which in this market would not work. She said there isn't going to be another proposal like this and the alternative is to leave it sit vacant, which is maybe the goal of the neighborhood. She stated that it was her understanding that the homeowner to the southwest would also like to develop a portion of their property which would also require access. She added that this proposal looks reasonable except for the 18 foot wide driveway, but this is a step in the right directian. Cera questioned if a PUD is the appropriate mechanism to develop this property. He said two lots might fit better than three. Kluchka said he thinks this is a creative and appropriate use of a PUD because it gives the City a way to make improvements. Segelbaum stated that staff has recommended denial, but he gets the sense there is some potential for flexibility. He said it is not feasible to extend the public right-of-way so it seems appropriate to use the PUD process. He said three lots doesn't seem excessive and suggested adding a condition that there be no additional access off of the driveway because he would not want the City to lack cantrol over the safety issues. Kluchka suggested adding a condition regarding additional utilities as well. Segelbaum said he is more concerned about driveways than utilities because the existing driveway is undersized and he doesn't want to see it overused by ad�ing more driveways to it. Blum asked if there is any potential of obtaining more land to the west. Segelbaum stated that the property owner hasn't been willing to sell that land. Cera said maybe the praperty owners could come to some sort of agreements for a public road. Baker said he doesn't think restricting the number of access drives is a good idea. Kluchka noted that the applicant would have to come back to the City for a PUD amendment, then the City would have a say in how the property is further developed. Segelbaum stated that a future homeowner might work with the property owner to the west to make the private drive become a public street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 5 Johnson said that if Staff can work out the issues regarding the width of the driveway then he would be comfortable recommending approval of this proposal because the primary goal is the best use of the property. Kluchka suggested conditions/findings as follows: 1) the proposal as revised meets the City's requirements for the driveway width, cul-de-sac diameter, and water and sewer special construction techniques, 2) there would be a conservation easement, 3) there will be an infiltration basin and snow storage, and 4) there will be no additional driveway or utility access along the private driveway. Cera stated that the Engineering staff report covers many of conditions/findings discussed. Kluchka stated number one above could say as noted in the City Engineer's staff memo. Waldhauser asked if adding a sprinkler system to the proposed new homes was a condition listed in any of the staff reports. Kluchka said he thinks the applicant is planning on installing sprinkler systems. Lecy clarified that is an option they are considering. Waldhauser said she doesn't see a reason why the Planning Commission should add that as a condition. Segelbaum said the memo they received from the Fire Chief said the access was inadequate. He suggested that a condition be included that requires an updated memo from the Fire Chief stating that the revised access is adequate. Blum suggested a conditian be added stating that the snow storage area and the infiltration basin area cannot be overlapping. The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods, PUD #120 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 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. 7. There is sufficient information to waive the requirement of a public street in order to ' permit a private street to be constructed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 6 Conditions: 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 3, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. An updated memo from the Fire Chief stating that the access is adequate is also requested. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 5, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. There will be no additional driveway or utility access altowed along the private d riveway. 4. The snow storage area and the infiltration basin area shall not overlap. Zimmerman questioned if the words "private street" should be used or if the words "private driveway" should be used. Kluchka said he thinks private driveway is more flexible. Waldhauser said they've been talking about it as a private street so the words "private street" should be used. Segelbaum agreed that it has to meet the standards of a street so the words "private street" should be used. Informal Public Hearing — Ge ral Land Use Plar� Map Amendment— 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 an 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode land Avenue North — CPAM' S Applic t: City of Golden V ley �,,,�N°"} � �� Addresses: 751-7775 Medi ine Lake Road-:��430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue N � and 2485 hode Island:Avenue North �%M �f:, Purpose: To chang he d� sign�Z��in on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial ` igh��ensity Residential for the properties at 7751- 7775 Medicine �e Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island /�� n North and from Light Industrial to High Density Residentialrf��th pro "° .rty at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North Zimmerman stated that staff;,�`riet with ,he City C �.�cil in June to do long range planning for di fferen t areas wi t hin t�� Ci ty. He ' p laine d t ha �,deve loper has come forwar d wi t h a potential proposal for a�rt�='apartment an: townhomes o�` he southeast quadrant of the Winnetka Avenue an�'fVledicine Lake oad intersection.\� -h�ese uses would be � inconsistent with th�rcurrent Compreh` nsive Plan designati' . and the zoning of the properties. He st�i�ed that the CounciP' vision for this quadran ' for a mixed use area, however the c�'rent Mixed Use Comp�ehensive Plan designation' nd the established I-394 Mixed se zoning district do not'translate well to this area, sok` ff is recommending that the fo = properties be reguided a� d rezoned to High Density Resi tial. � , Baker sked how many units have b ' n discussed. Zimmerman said appro 'mately 300. Cer aid he still intrigued by the Mix d Use option and making the whole corner Mixed U would be more creative. He sug sted modifying the existing Mixed Use definition to f' this proposal. Zimmerman stated th t the developer has not been able to obtain the Narrative of the Lecy Group's proposed PUD: This is the proposal to develop the property at 1801 Noble Drive into three singfe-family lo#s. (See attached legal description for the property at 1801 Noble Drive N. Golden Valley, MN.) The PUD will use the 3.2 acres of land to create three home sites; each will be larger than .57 acres. The PUD will create two home sites, in addition to the one already established, on the lake. The original older home has been removed. Ruth Lecy and Roy Lecy personally own 1801 Noble Drive N. They own the Lecy Group, which researches and purchases property to be used by Lecy Bros Homes and Remodeling for new home building sites. Roy Lecy owns 50% of Lecy Bros Homes. Lecy Bros Homes has been in business #or 32 years and has built over 800 houses in the metro area. More than 90 of the houses have been built on lakeshore property. Ruth has been a realtor since 1983. Several months ago, The Lecy Group submitted a three lot subdivision plan that met all the city codes and requirements. We could not proceed with our conforming subdivision until the city received a 30' easement from the Wessin's to build a public street. City staff wanted a new public street built that would provide access and services for 11 potential lots. They, the city, wanted the city sewer lying west of our private drive to be upgraded. A subdivision larger than 3 lots requires the construction of a very expensive storm water management system. We were never given the option to build a city street tha# provided access and services for only our proposed three lots. A smaller city street designed to access only our three lots would have cut the cost of building the street by 50%. We were only presented with the op#ion of a city street to accommodate 11 lots. Our proposed PUD will utilize our existing private driveway to provide access to the three lot subdivision. The 3 proposed lots meet all city codes; except they will not have 80' of frontage on a public street at the 35' setback. All three of the lots in the proposed PUD will have over 80' of frontage at the 35' setback from the proposed cul-de-sac. The city recently granted the property owners directly west of 1801 Noble Drive a similar variance. The Fellman / Haines subdivision on St. Croix Circle does not have 80' of street frontage at the 35' setback. Access to our proposed three lots by a private driveway is very similar to accessing our property by a smaller city street built to access only our 3 lots. The private driveway will be built to handle the weight of emergency vehicles, and it will have posted signage that states "No Parking- Fire Lane." We are proposing to build a 60' diameter cul-de-sac; which is equal to a public street; for emergency vehicie turnaround. We wil! instalf pubiic water to the 3 lots and install a fire hydrant at the cul-de-sac. The lots will be connected to city sewer. Hardcover and its impact on the water quality of Sweeney Lake is a concern. The addition of hardcover, described as any impervious surtace, such as roofs, sidewalks, driveways, and patios; prevents the soil from absorbing and natural filtering storm water run off before it enters the lake. Adding hardcover has a negative impact on any lake. The installation of water filtration ponds provides a piace to catch storm water run off and allows it to be filtered before it enters the lake. Adding storm water filtration ponds improves the water quality of the lake. We have included a storm water filtration pond in our proposal. We are very concerned about maintaining and improving the water quality of Sweeney Lake. The recently approved Wessin subdivision will add hardcover from finro homes and finro very long driveways. The Fellman / Haines subdivision created one new home on the lake and adds hardcover equal to the square footage of the home, patios, and driveway. Neither of these finro subdivisions has made an attempt to mitigate the negative affect of added hardcover on the water quality of Sweeney Lake. The Lecy Group removed significant hardcover when the old existing house was removed. The hardcover was extensive because of the size of that home and its very large footprint; the large veranda; the brick patio; the large circular driveway and the extra parking area. The hardcover that was removed will be close to the amount of hardcover created by the building of two new houses. The present 300' of groomed lakeshore will be reduced to 60'. The remaining 240' will be replanted in to a riparian buffer, to assist in improving the water quality of the fake. Lot 3, of the subdivision, will install a private storm water filtration pond, to filter storm water before it en#ers the lake. Our three lot subdivision will not have a negative impact on the water quality of Sweeney Lake. The proposed home location and driveway for lot 1, on the Wessin approved plat, are located in a densely wooded area. Half of the home proposed for lot 2, on that plat, is also located in a very wooded area. Many mature trees will have to be removed to accommodate their driveways and houses. Our proposed three lot PUD has minimum tree removal and thus less impact on existing trees than the Wessin's finro lot subdivision. We always do our best to preserve the mature trees. Approval, by the city, of our three lot subdivision will not establish a precedent for using private driveways as access to a development. The configuratian of the land and the circumstances are unusual. We can't image other developable land, within the City of Golden Valiey, that will come close to having the problems involved with the Wessin's and Lecy Group's subdivisions. The Lecy Group will establish a homeowners association for the PUD. Its purpose will be to manage and maintain the private driveway. It will be responsible for snow removal, maintenance, and replacement when required. There is an easement on lot 1 for snow storage. In summary, the Lecy Group's PUD will: 1 ) Allow three new families to live in Golden Valley and enjoy Sweeney Lake. It will add dollars to the tax rolls, and active citizens to the city. 2 ) Contrary to most lakeshore development, the Lecy Group's 3 lot PUD does not have a negative impact to the water quality of the lake. If the city were to require all future new houses built on Sweeney Lake to install storm water filtration ponds, it would be the easiest, and most cost effective, way for the Lake Association to help improved the water quality of Sweeney Lake. 3 ) Lecy Bros Homes custom designs each home to maximize the natural beauty and features of the site. Each home is unique. Lecy Bros Homes has built over 90 homes on area lakes since 1983. 4 ) The 60' cul-de-sac on the private drive, the addition of a fire hydrant and a private driveway that can handle emergency vehicles will help resolve the city's safety concerns for the houses to be built in this PUD and the approved Wessin subdivision. 5) The proposed home on Iot 1 will be located 200' from the neighbor to the west. The proposed home on lot 3 will be 80' from the proposed home on Wessin's lot 2 to the north east. According to Jacqueline Day and the Wessin's, there will not be a neighbor to the north west. The Lecy Group's PUD does not affect the privacy of adjoining property owners. 6) The three lots proposed by the Lecy Group will average 170' of lakeshore. / Jf '� f ....r"' / Roy L.�cY Rut Lecy l`.�1ai_�� u � �.��..�� '�� Fire Department �' 763-593-8079/763-593-8D98 {faxj Date: November 3, 2014 To: Jason Zimmerman, Pianning Manager From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: Preliminary PUD#120— 1801 Noble Drive—Sweeney Lake Woods The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the preliminary PUD plans dated September 15, 2014 for 1801 Noble Drive—Sweeney Lake Woods. This preliminary PUD proposes a splitting of one lake lot into 3 lake lots. These three lots are proposed to be accessed by an approximately 450 foot private driveway. The driveway is proposed to be a bituminous surface, 16 feet wide with no curb, running in a 20 foot swath of land that is land locked between the Hanson Wood Shores property/preliminary plat (east side) and the Wessin property (west side). Both sides of the private driveway will be signed "no parking". At the end of the driveway the developer is proposing a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac with no curb. A private fire hydrant is located in the cul-de-sac with a 6-inch water main feeding it from Noble Drive/ Major Drive. The 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac, driveway length, driveway width and how it is constructed is of concern for the following reasons: - Private driveway construction:The plans do not give specifics on what standard the driveway will be constructed to. Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) section 503.2.3 states: "Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities". In general the fire department will NOT drive a fire engine or a ladder truck on private driveway for the purpose of providing emergency services unless the surfaces have been designed to carry the imposed load of a commercial vehicle. Roadways that are not designed to support the imposed loads will incur damage when driven on. Large emergency vehicles may be in danger of breaking through the bituminous surface and getting stuck. These same concerns would also impact garbage trucks and other large commercial vehicles. - Private driveway width and length: The width of the driveway is less than the minimum 20 foot wide fire apparatus access road as required by the Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) section 503.2.1. The proposed drive surface width of 16 feet is NOT acceptable. Fire engines and ladder trucks are 8 feet 6-inches in width (not including truck mirrors) and a road width of 16 feet will NOT allow two trucks to pass on this private driveway, with or without snow. Also, during a fire event, the narrow driveway will not be wide enough to have an ambulance pass a parked fire engine along the side of the driveway. This creates a situation where the ambulance will be stuck at the scene until fire trucks clear the scene. If the ambulance parks on the public street, the ambulance crew would need to use their cot to transport the patient from the fire to the waiting ambulance 450+feet away. - The length of the private driveway far exceeds the 150 foot threshold for requiring a "fire apparatus access road" per Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) section 503.1.1. The code requires a minimum of a 20 foot wide fire apparatus access road and an appropriate turnaround. Fire roads are designed to a 20 foot width to allow two fire engines to pass each other on the road. This private driveway is about 450 feet (1 % football fields) in length prior to the cul-de-sac. Based on the size of the cul-de-sac, once one or two fire trucks are on scene, ALL other arriving trucks will need to stage on the private driveway. Once the event is mitigated, the trucks staged on the driveway will need to back all the way out to Noble Drive/ Major Drive due to no ability for vehicles to pass each other along the private driveway. - 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac: This is smaller than the City's standard size cul-de-sac of 90 foot diameter, but there are many cul-de-sacs of this size throughout the City. Please note that the Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) appendix D recommends a 96 foot diameter cul-de-sac. With a 60 foot cul-de-sac the fire department will be able to turn a fire engine around with one back up movement. ft will be nearly impossible to turn the ladder truck around which means after an emergency event the ladder truck will need to back all the way out to Noble Drive/ Major Drive. The fire department trains to turn a fire engine around on a 70 foot diameter cul-de-sac located in the 1400 block of Yosemite Avenue North. A 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac that is not accessed with a full width public street is not acceptable. The proposed private fire hydrant fed from a 6 inch pipe feed from Noble Drive/ Major Drive should be adequate. Based on Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) the required/anticipated water flow demands to suppress a fire at one of these homes is between 1500 and 2000 gallons of water per minute from the fire hydrant. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, icrelly��oldenvallevmn.�ov � ��11 ��" y �`� �`� ��. � ` .-� _ }4�'°��.. . , � Public Works r U�ra tm�nt 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: November 5, 2014 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Marc Nevinski, Physical Develo nt Director � Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Sp i ist Subject: Sweeney Lake Woods (1801 Noble Drive) Preliminary PUD Review Engineering staff has reviewed the Preliminary PUD Plans for a proposed single-family develop- ment located at 1801 Noble Drive on Sweeney Lake. This property is located on the west side of Sweeney Lake, south of Noble and Major Drives. The Developer has removed the existing single- family home and proposes subdividing the property into three single-family parcels. The comments contained in this review are based upon plans submitted to the City on September 15, 2014 and revised on October 14, 2014. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan: The property being considered for subdivision does not have frontage on a public street as required by Golden Valley City Code. The existing single-family parcel has access onto Noble Drive via a 20-foot wide parcel that extends southward from Noble Drive and the Developer has proposed platting this parcel as an outlot with a private driveway, within the parcel. The proposed driveway is 16-feet wide and does not include concrete curb and gutter as required for all streets. The proposed driveway width will make it difficult for two vehicles to pass in opposing directions during summer months without leaving the driveway. Furthermore, during winter months it is likely that the driveway will become narrower due to snow banks and vehicles will not be able to pass. The proposed driveway width is of concern to Fire Chief John Crelly, as outlined in his memorandum dated November 3, 2014. In this memo, Chief Crelly outlines the difficulty the Fire Department will have accessing and exiting the site in the event a fire response occurs. The Fire Department memo concludes that the private driveway must be a minimum of 18-feet wide. Furthermore, given the length of the private driveway, the minimum diameter of the cul-de-sac G:\Developments-Private\Sweeney Lake Woods\Preliminary PUD Review 110514.docx should be increased to 70 feet. Engineering staff supports these recommendations by Chief Crelly. Engineering staff recommends that the private driveway and cul-de-sac be designed and constructed to a minimum seven (7)ton per axle capacity in order to accommodate construction vehicles, fire vehicles, garbage trucks and utility maintenance vehicles with a minimum risk of pavement failure. The Developer will be required to submit design calculations and typical street sections as part of the final PUD submittal. The private access roadway will be owned and maintained by the Developer and/or a homeowners association. Maintenance of the roadway must include pavement preservation and replacement, as well as street sweeping and snow removal. The Developer has shown a snow storage area on the north end of Lot 1 adjacent to the cul-de- sac. However, this snow storage area overlies a proposed stormwater filtration basin. Snow storage over the proposed filtration basin will result in compaction of the engineered soils and decreased water quality benefits. Therefore, staff is recommending that the filtration basin or the snow storage area be relocated. There are existing undeveloped properties immediately adjacent to the proposed PUD on its western boundary. The Developer will be required to dedicate a 25-foot wide driveway/access easement across the northern portion of Lot 1 to allow the adjacent property owners access to this parcel in the future. The driveway/access easement must also be dedicated over the entirety of Outlot A, which contains the private driveway. The Developer must submit a copy af this easement to the City as part of the final PUD submittal and must have the easement recorded along with the final plat. A copy of the recorded easement must be provided to the Engineering Department for its records. The preliminary plat submitted for review includes drainage and utility easements on each of the three parcels. However,the dimensions of the easements were not included. The preliminary plat must be revised to include easement dedication consistent with City Code. tn addition, the preliminary plat must also include drainage and utility easements covering all of Outlot A, in order to accommodate the City sanitary sewer and water for the PUD. The Developer will also be required to dedicate a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the northern portion of Lot 1 to allow the adjacent property owners future access to the public utilities within Outlot A. The preliminary plat must also include drainage and utility easements over Sweeney Lake that encompass the regulatory flood protection elevation (two (2) feet above the base flood elevation of the lake). The Developer must show the base flood elevation contour on the final PUD Plans. The Developer will be required to dedicate conservation easements over a portion of the shoreline adjacent to Sweeney Lake. This easement must extend a minimum of ten (10)feet above the ordinary high water level of the lake or ten (10)feet upland of the delineated wetland limits on site, whichever is at a higher elevation. The terms of the conservation easements will be consistent with recent subdivisions on Sweeney Lake, including the Hidden Lakes PUD, and will allow each homeowner with limited access to the lake through an improved access corridor. G:\Developments-Private\Sweeney Lake Woods\Preliminary PUD Review 110514.docx 2 The City reconstructed Noble and Major Drives as part of its 2006 Pavement Management Project. The special assessment roll for the project included deferred special assessments based upon the development potential of the parcel, estimated at that time to be $31,500. The deferred special assessments will be re-evaluated based upon this proposed PUD at the time of final approval and the PUD Agreement. Utility Plan: The Developer has proposed extending sanitary sewer and water into this development via extensions of existing facilities to the north as shown on the Preliminary Utility Plan dated October 14, 2014. The materials and locations shown on this plan are acceptable as shown. However, the City reserves the right to require modifications of these plans based upon further review during the final PUD process. The plans are also subject to the review of the Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There is adequate capacity in the City sanitary sewer and water systems to provide service to the proposed PUD. The watermain connection within Noble Drive will require open-cutting the street. A City Right- of-Way Management Permit is required for all excavations and obstructions within public right- of-way or easements. The sanitary sewer and watermains within this PUD will be owned and maintained by the City, but will be constructed by the Developer. Therefore, the Developer will be required to design the utilities according to City standards and specifications and submit the plans for review and comment. The plans must include drawings showing plan and profile views. The Developer will also be required to submit a financial security for 150%of the estimated construction costs of the sanitary sewer and water systems. This security will be further detailed in the PUD and Development Agreements at the time of final PUD approval. The security will include costs for a City representative to provide construction observation during utility installation. This proposed development is subject to the City's Inflow and Infiltration Reduction (I/I) Ordinance. The Developer has removed a portion of the sanitary sewer service that served the single-family home that formerly sat on this property at the time of building demolition. However, the portion of the service that was left in place must be disconnected from the sanitary sewer system or be brought into compliance with the ordinance. The three proposed homes must undergo an I/I inspection and be deemed compliant with the code, prior to occupancy of the homes. All private utilities (gas, electric, and communications) serving the development must be placed underground, consistent with City Code. There is limited space within the 20-foot corridor of Outlot A and most of that space will be devoted to water and sewer facilities. In order to provide the required clearance from the City's water and sewer mains, the Developer and private utility companies may need to explore the installation of private facilities through joint trench G:\Developments-Private\Sweeney Lake Woods\Preliminary PUD Review 110514.docx 3 construction. This has been done in many other developments within the City. The Developer must submit a revised Utility Plan showing the proposed location of the private underground facilities with the final PUD submittal. Stormwater Management: This proposed PUD is located within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed and is subject to the review and approval of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Based upon the size of the development and the number of units proposed, the BCWMC trigger for requiring water quality improvements is not met. However, the BCWMC requires the implementation of construction Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control. Therefore, the BCWMC will review the plans for conformance with its erosion and sediment control policies. Sweeney Lake is listed as an Impaired Water for nutrients by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study was completed and approved for the lake. The proposed development must be in compliance with the approved TMDL Study. The TMDL implementation program identifies several Best Management Practices that may help to improve the water quality of Sweeney Lake. Three (three) of these Best Management Practices apply to this development and staff strongly recommends that they be included in this PUD: 1. The construction of filtration or infiltration basins is recommended to reduce the volume of stormwater and its accompanying sediment and nutrient loads. The Developer has submitted plans which include a filtration basin. Stormwater calculations and additional design details will need to be provided to the City before final PUD Plan submittal. The BCWMC will also review and comment on the design. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City outlining the recommended maintenance requirements for the basin. 2. The establishment of vegetative buffers along the shore is recommended. As part of the approval of this development, a 10-foot native or natural vegetation buffer is required to be established along the lake and wetland areas. 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 ten (10j feet in width and should be shown and described on the final PUD Plans. The dedication of a permanent conservation easement, as discussed earlier in this review, will ensure that the buffer is preserved and maintained into the future. 3. A program for targeted street sweeping is recommended. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City that outlines a program for routine sweeping of the private driveway and cul-de-sac. This would be similar to the Street Sweeping Agreement with the Hidden Lakes neighborhood. The Developer will be required to submit a Wetland Delineation Report for the site prior to final PUD submittal. The results of this delineation will determine the extent of the conservation and drainage and utility easements, as discussed earlier in this review. G:\Developments-Private\Sweeney lake Woods\Preliminary PUD Review 110514.docx 4 The preliminary Grading Plan submitted by the Developer indicates that the proposed private driveway for the site will be graded at the time of utility installation, and that the proposed lots will be custom-graded at the time of home construction. Therefore, City Stormwater Management Permits will be required at the time of utility and driveway construction, and also for each home at the time of construction. The Stormwater Management Permit Applications must include a Stormwater Management Plan that is prepared in accordance with City standards, and must demonstrate that existing drainage patterns can be maintained with stormwater runoff accommodated within the property being developed to the extent practical. This development is subject to the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance, due to its proximity to 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 Grading Plan 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. This PUD is also subject to the MPCA Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of the permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is required before work can begin. Tree Preservation: This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Developer has submitted a preliminary Tree Preservation Plan, but did not include the tabulations for significant tree removal and replacement. Because each lot will be custom-graded, a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot prior to the start of home construction. The City Forester will review the tree inventory,tabulations, and plans in more detail when final PUD Plans are submitted and at the time of permitting. Summarv and Recommendation: Engineering staff supports the approvat of the proposed Preliminary PUD located at 1801 Noble Drive, called Sweeney Lake Woods, subject to the comments contained in this review. Major points are summarized as follows: 1. The private driveway must be increased to a minimum of 18-feet wide. 2. The minimum diameter of the cul-de-sac must be increased to 70 feet. 3. The private driveway and cul-de-sac must be designed and constructed to a minimum seven (7)ton per axle capacity. 4. The Developer must dedicate a 25-foot wide driveway/access easement and drainage and utility easement across the northern portion of Lot 1, as discussed in this review. The driveway/access easement must also be dedicated over the entire Outlot A, which contains the private driveway. 5. The Developer must dedicate drainage and utility easements over Sweeney Lake that encompass the regulatory flood protection elevation (two (2) feet above the base flood elevation of the lake). G:\Developments-Private\Sweeney lake Woods\Preliminary PUD Review 110514.docx �j 6. The Developer must dedicate permanent conservation easements along the lakeshore, as discussed in this review. 7. A Wetland Delineation Report must be submitted to the City prior to final PUD Plan submittal. 8. Stormwater calculations and additional design information for the filtration basin must be provided prior to final PUD Plan submittal. 9. The Utility Plans must be modified to show the location of proposed underground private utilities. Approval is also subject to the comments of other City staff, the City Attorney, and other organizations with review authority. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager John Crelly, Fire Chief RJ Kakach, Engineer Eric Seaburg, Engineer Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor Mark Ray, Street Maintenance Supervisor AI Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Director of Finance G:\Developments-Private\Sweeney Lake Woods\Preliminary PUD Review 110514.docx 6 �.l.V�l�i;�� G R O lJ P dB31 W.35TH ST.SIIRE 200 ST.LOUIS PRflK,MN 55618 CHJSileGrouO�rom MatlPavek PatSarver ]63-21339Lt 853-250.2003 GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA SHEETINDEX I S S U E D �O R• SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE C-0.0 TITLE SHEET Z C-1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN/SURVEY � C•2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT,SITE PLAN � Y �� . � , P LAT/P U D C3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN � a R E L i M I N A RY G4 0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN _ � Q � C-5.0 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN � > O _ ' .. J � t� � � - , CITY SUBMITTAL W � � . � _� � }; � � � . . _ � , W Q 1�i� w W �i � ' DEVELOPER: MASTER LEGEND: � M�' _ (n z ��'- � � �- THE LECY GROUP ------g32 ------ �%.r CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL .�� 15012 HIGHWAV 7 � � MINNETONKA,MN 55345 .+°` EXISTING SPOT GRA�E ELEVATION 952-944-9499 —q�g PROPOSED2'CONTOURELEVA710NINTERVAL ' �� SPOTGRAOEELEVATION(GUTTEWFLOWLJNE . �.. ., _�"�� UNLESSOTHERWISENOTED) PROPERTYOWNER: 02zoa�„z2„� SPOTGRAOEELEVATIONBACKOFCURB(TOPOP � � iHE LECY GROUP CURB) U - 15012HIGHWAY7 azznr.� SPOTGRADEELEVATIONTOPOFWALL w � MINNETONKA,MN 55345 <ssoe SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALL ¢ � 952-944-9499 a . �� DRAINAGEARROW . " �� EMERGENCYOVERFLOW IHEREBYCERpFYTHATTHISPIAN, SPECIFIGATION,OR REVORT WAS EOF SITE LOCATION ENGWEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: vneanaeoevMeonuNoearavoirsecT ------'--------� SILTfENCElGRADINGLIMIT SUPERVISIONANOTHATIAMADULY SITE LOCATION MAP N CIVILSITEGROUP �--� LICENSEDPROFESSIONALENGINEER 4931 W 35TH STREET INLET PROTECTION UNDER THE�N5 SFO A E STATE OF 1��1 SUITE 200 ST LOUIS PARK,MN 55416 STABILIZED CONSTRUC710N ENTRANCE 763-213-39H Ma ewR.Pavek � SOILBORINGLOGA710N onrEs-1574 ucErvsErvo.4a263 S U RVEYO R: CURB AND GUTfER(T.O=TIP OUn ISSUE/SUBMITTAI SUMMARY ACRELAND SURVEYING -----��Q------ 9140 BALTIMORE STREET � PROPOSED MANHOLE STORM s-Dsu PftELIM'PPUT/PUD SUBMffTAL SUITE 100 . . .. .__. .._... BLlUNE,MN 55449 � PROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORM �� . 7617 8 3-1 8 8 0 � � � �� PROPOSEOGATEVALVE WETLAND DELINEATOR: �. PaoPaseoFiaeHvoaaNr J � N/A Qa PROPOSEDMANHOLESANITARY . � � � �_ PROPOSFD SIGN ....-. .....-. ... � ` PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - � . ___ _.____ ._ --�--T— PROPOSEDSTORMSEWER ' -- �-�� - �� -� �— PROPOSED WATER MAIN REVISION SUMMARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: �_,_ E7USTING SANITARV SEWER DATE DESCRIPTION Tgp p — EXISTING STORM SEWER — �� — EXISTING WATER MAIN —G—�.— EXISTING GAS MAIN —e—�— FXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC --c — EXISTINGUNDERCaROUNDCABLE TITLESHEET Q EXISTING MANHOLE m E%ISTING ELECTRIC BOX ❑ EXISTWG CATCH BASIN 3',E EXISTING LIGHT � EXISTING HYDRANT O EXISTING GAS METER � �O■0 o EXISTING STOPBOX e EXISTING GAS VALVE ►� EXISTING GATE VALVE ��c°s a ��q- .�'� � niu-aa.ws- sw'n � �.nlpn / INV.�BJO.]3 1� o � �- w�i'�� __ I ��BENCHMMK:lOP M7T � :M�. ��.. ,' � i F7E MNRAqT.REV.�M6Y0 / o- _ 2 ea7.o �' `� � (tazo o�n�) � �wc— � / g��a N�'�'�� ` �' . �� ir i�"'Z ��+� �\ .� �• �:�---��-�-_-._�.�-.�c.o � \ �`'bp� ." �,�°'�°� �l,JOB�E °"°° � \ �'° I h4.:_: �. E/MAJOR / \� ��V �A.� � ��'! �R�E / � o � Q R�876��: °°' ��b �.�i.s�'�'F-"�-� �� _ /� \ ��42�T� �` ,$�' v.k+M e`°' „ �� RFwq�i � — �: a. ,,,5 , � Q�� \\ �:� \ :;', y \� .. \ ._ < .r• •• ,� \ ,, � 3... � : � ,• o c;;` ,,,,e j*.;.ea�, \ °�� / M \ --' �a F!" ^ y � — —— —— — �-� � EKISTING CONDITI�NS SURVEY yµe � �OF� � 6�� , PoM�B/9.OG __ _ _ _ 5° ¢ � �N��,.� SWEENEY SHORE -�--- _ . s � `�" ,.,?p�, n,• �2� LEGEND a i T� ��y� � N' ¢ • DEN07E5 IRON YONIIMENT FOUND `��..,�� e�� n�� ~for� Lecy Group O DENOlES IRON MONUMENT SET I � '� . SV a h w OFN01E5 Uil1TY POLE d x"'��R.. ^..I � � DENOIES SIREET LIGMT I Q �� DENO7FS SANITARY SEWEtt MANHOLE � af��, ai.�`�. ❑ DENOIES CATCH BASIN I �u s.<e+e" pd DENOlES GATE VALVE }� DENOIES FlRE HYORANT I/ ''::,�,r.�'"^:DENOTES E7a5TINCa COPITOUR � ......, �'. � ! —^�—DEN07E5 OVERHF�ID WIRE � d�... `,. F" �' —i—DENOIES WAIERMAIN ._....__ ��_ : I =>—DENOTES SMIITARY SEWER —DENOIES D0511NG FENCE � ' a -" x.t0�i.2DEN07ES E)OS71N6 ELEYA710N. 1 � � , _s+'a . DENOIES 7REE UNE u�iv-eai�i.s°8i I �e�e �OFHO7E5 CONCREIE I M��. •. I .�'_DENOIES BIliM11N0U5 Kdsa � r,E - � -cn PROPERTY DESCRIPTION I a �i � :w That part of Tmct E, REqS1IItE VEY N0. 1104, Hennapin County, I ,8.,= i,�, �v,=w'� f� MNnesota, rrhich Iles eouthMy of Ne rxordad plat of HEATHBROd(E. I A ';'_ P.LD.}18-028-24-42-0034 r �� ` ` and �) ....--`�. � ._ _ , I F'-......"...� :� . . RVEY NO 1104 Hanrrop Cou Y Inneeota ��. m ..............._I._....._............................._.,._. , _ � Tmct A. REGISTERED LAND SU . . in nt� M ,as.9 PID.�18-029-24-43 0002 � �, `�_ `; `�..we3 f.. .en',� w NOTE$ I `�- - - This surwy waa proparod without the baneflt of tltl�rrork. Eaaemmt, �� appurtenancss and ancumbrances may axLt in oddtUon to thoee Ie,o.a I }-- . '+ :�, ehown hxaan. Thls wrvey L wbject to rerieion upon reeeipt ot a I Ttl .� a titls Ineurcnee commftmsnt ar attomeys tiUs opMlon. 1e�:,?.e? '�p.,ca.. j�a�"'" .�? w - ADDITONAL BWNDARY WORK NEEDm TO FlNALIZE BWNDARY CORNERS / rew-eat.�z Y.,,..� � v'. �` INV.�l31.E1 ' �,.� �l `�. ,<eW.0 C O ..r''.. �� `. � w �. 9 �- oo ;.�x� _ ,...._......_...._.._.,,�....._._.,,,e.o� ""`( ....._ '"� �"f� !� ` _m_ �`;', / f,,........... .�_.` JI �.a7r f 't;� ��,� M' .,N,° ` l FCUO MARI�A! .S Y ` "._-..+'"� µ�,h l tA A � �°� SBS`53'il"3� 117's � i � ..zY ��: � 6 i _ ,.�aa. .._ xa.,E — —— �—— —— —,v—y,� sI�*` ��;c` ' «w• � , •�,�w ,a„� '' � I -"'.__...____-. � a i00♦ / 1 .ID� ` .•✓ _.;.�� sy'„e�+'`� . / � ��3 1 fr S7 ,ss;, �°p� / ! Q a�q7 {` ,:a�s_t�MOTi 'e�a° i>�`?o ; f � 4��,36,� � 0�6 ��^,...�' � r �3 ��, �� ai:� � � ; ,�'� 0 G'/ � l, te+ot� ��xc� ewN �D�� 'w'.+i � aw.x ,� Yes.o Ysaa° i / �� \ e•"" �, � tBJ9� n�a1 r j 1t -�-��.ea'Oi�A �' j ��xeD�b :. "y", +e�' � y� 1 � / �`. / ,nae:�ea I '�'�%`�� '�a a P��6 � �° \� dw' ,� ' �� ,p� 'i;' �X�-� � 332.5 �'�� l �y �s7�° `4V ��'�. <Ws� ,�j � ylo.1 d,► ! :: n�'::raw naa .,.:Y� b� � \., `�..._�� l^� J � .��a�" r r' icv p�w� � e,� 1 l'^yy,no ..e�'�' a 1! t°'°'' �I!* tl� � „i�?y��y�e�'�4.-�� s�� x ` r'? �,i,/3� �^,h�� B�1 'x Y�.fe19 1 �� 1� 9E�e° `^ ' �:, ` 0 � '£ �` � ��. � :��1 .� �� y � "b�l � �l ; r` �q 1 �l 1 t7 •'� y1�bx LM(,M f �N1A �F � � �j}b e�x3� ' �� .�1,�SK...._... "~ �� rN�b ��A R t1 eix) eZgE* ql.t t T ,, ,f ��1� w�.fl bW� .. ..,.....,_.. ��A r' ►r�°6 _�s»� � _ L'� i�. '`Oa y ; � �:}F ��a�o y ersc ��e.y' A� °��.s , '.} ,- �,��i�1'"°"�c"� v! ' � � �` : \ u� �..�. : l � ` �', i.,«5 � . i M 5 ��1tlF` �.f� m�t5�s I � {r� � � �g y{ '�. .:,.M.f... �!h •�t 4�'�FS~ �� i�11 x Y` �['! / } �F.0u�.9 �y�yyM��-9e • �..-�f ��- . .�.,. �ir�16F �� .� � i� '�"+'�...�'�X � `�[�'W"' ��:,. ! �,»,y.. syi.� h1�. iiP ME e•° ..,. ' .A� -�. t ' � J� A[+ � . ;� sq�� x6�a�� ,i„a;' �,�> ' �r ; , �' �r'+' w ,�� i �a�°I' j, '- �a:o c 'lI�`� 1� " �•� - ' ,� e,� .ec� j1Z1 ' �0. J., �,9 !'� r82''1 1;, , ti �W ', r, lit 1F � .�qY'�. .g ��' rt�� r/'` .eJ�� 3e �E7'�, �O Y��__�y�r � + a � o Lr f.w r% � ,%�a `�S, �t�t � N �,pr �1 y �� ; ` � �� :�.� W�+� � �Fug.� 3r.•fa'�y�� :�'�13F'� ,stY �l3�A� :'�� .� Cj . .� OQ. ,e:,ae u . * E �s4 �o �P :[�e � ��r� ; �..�' wg`y-� 1�}� �.�.'.. V1� �ia� . ` !��, , M1 r $�� ye�,�,��"- .' �'`�+'` x�'� � \ \. � x�e �... _ '� �?� d�f I �iw ffi�" ��w4.s'o� / v°� �. � �y,� ` , �r� �J��''k' �/ \ {�. , �t.. �� .i�1�4�s ��,.�t� ��'1•"�'1�2 °»� a'� n /' 1� V �ir \ =' µe,s*�S� emf` &K.x� � °t�° �.eV� '�AF'�A �--�i' G�� d•�'0'i�°.� �� " � '� t �� SJIlL�t .�..�„��ie S!�� r � J�(.i$' �V yryf�'g -\ ^ �.� /'��j�a YI�'�': �i 1" � !' ,c'_1..,,1 � �':ert�..a :�� ac�T ��.S�t. +° �., � r B� o �1�� p � �„�,,f''��trT �)' 0 '� i ��02�E� �,�i\ ` �'� �! :��J1 5 \�w � �� J�SZ�� "\ ,. + 8 1_.., aK� .: f•�f .�1 �� .... z. , �„ _ �' �• E g .. ._• fi\� °a4:. �4 �. � �.� � ...._ � ��it..� r ��, l.e�•� �R... *�, � -�1�� asAzna �� i� _, ,,� 1 ,.:-� �''� ��,�' _ +�:. ��+'_ "„„' '� �� ...�,�. � ��e�`,,+,,! �� • ,... .�� '��,.0]3 J ..�I . _ . :..r' . . . '.. ....,. ,--' ,'. y��J �� `:� I f �� 1 '., sN•� ........:......- _ ' _..... � .•-.. .'-� ` .'� �,!� (�:� i s �' —�� a^ •• NORTH X � � ,,�5� .e�'' � .�;�' -;,'`� �' A ,� �' ' � - —� m g• ;,�''_�—� ,. z � � :. .!, ,� �'' � e,�o- � \,a3,.9 F s . n � N � �' � GRAPHIC SCALE � Z � ./�'� - b a �s � � 3 ,.-_.___ 4 • 0 .ljl p3'Z'..� ��:'�� -�w21. ��y vF ■ �O - r'`�/. . ., � (Qi�'CEET) E OZ� .`...�.�`�/ �� 1 iaoh— 90 (S. J/R'U10N�(!E o�� a_ � � 4 I Aereby certMy that tlfis wrvsy. plan � / '°� � '�ici* �/ �j'� or repoA wa�prapared by ms or under � ti my dlraet supeMefm and that I am ✓ .o � a duly Raqtatw�d Land Survsyor undar °r� r7 the laws of tl�a Stote of Minnwota. f � �CBwM�p 11N11 CbM Al�b'�o�� xic R.Hacut s wa�nd b�y�ad III 7�Q9-�-2�Y7 acrelandeurv Ag ad. o DabeSEPT.iS7F1-2074 Rp.No.44125 JOb�14027 aw�w rro,�eoae� �r a�••�•bu.yw. ina.o snvzm� amea wi cm �/ / � \ �r�b6 '� � � ��,=s" �.1V�1i�:tLC' �� i i ` / � I �� G R O V P I ``\�� ST.LWISP/RK,MN 65d16 � � �f<< CmlSiteGrouP.mm `'\ �� ) / `� MaXPavek PatSarver \\/ '\' \/\\ / / �.\`M �csz�s3su nz-zso-zom \ \� � � . . / i ��o —,, �, �� \ � � 3 .6Zs �� '\ � �� / AREA ABOYE OVINL= `� \ � � 24,934$Q it / \\ �� '\ � � � 0.57 Ac. `�` TOTAL AREA- �n / � `\\ \ � / 39.790 Sq Ft V� � � \ � �� 0.91 Ac. i � � � / . \� `� /�/ n � `��` ' `\ o�p�'Lc4�„��j � � .. 1I I � // �/�i;i* `\` "``� / ��N9jlg4�r i /� / � '��'� ; � i " I , ��, % �.��$� � r ; � m�� i �� i F �/;�/ �' 2 `\ �s � 9� / �Z I 3�"'{9f � / �� !� I ,� / ..�,1.�b�, AR 26 fi32�OH'hi�`�\ � � Q � � �� \'�'�j 0.6/Ac �_�--_ �� O� ' /'�� I i �� TOTPLMEA= `� I —�— ��,� � ` l2.168 5a Ft !f. I ----_��TB _ � � � i � � '�j � �� b� 0.96Ac y O ��a I � Q �� / � \ ;��i:' b"�� `w � � �y � _ � F � �� i� �� ',' �: I . � �' � ' �I n/. '/ /i' � �''� � �s �t. ,`\� � �I � i I 1 � I� "�, % /i i� O ` �, � � j -' I / I / . /g� � �'� � �� I �� m 16 BfiUMINOUS DRIVE,NO GURB 20'WIDE CORRIDORE � � �Z I� MATCHEXISTINGGRADESIGN'NO ! / !i�� \� AV �V' � ay.4 ��' i ' � PARIONG FIRE LANE' � _. .. _ ... � ��3��/ \ �� /`\ w.ad'' ``��` - g � :.r : � � ' � �,,� . � ' ' ,-`_ ; ��;/ �/ �`� . "y\ y; �.____-___--__—�a �� 9F'£r � � � y`� ` i� /'/ \ � `��' J \� � � �. - _< �„e9 y96a_k � /t'8 ��' � % r�-�'..^��, � Q � —i—i i— 6�z0>p ` . �" , ,\3 � • � '�. ;�R`� �`�� 1 . . � - .. . e��s\M..0 BE rc$a` �g��¢' --� � � i �1.•�i//.•�.. ```\\\ AREAABOYEOM`Al F\� � J W � �. . � 4 �� . w.b � � _\ [$ �� anp �'� i � -� � .�' F �' L8'SE! 7 /� �51 � `- � �� £ ZI'9b4='2I _ o� 179.35 �_� _ , � ``a� . i i �\\ 3.49{59Ft Of, p 1 bs` :Sae__�—�� fG'` _� '-"OO,LZaLi 0 _'�_S03`54'14"E '��_'_� � f ` 8 ; . '\. �OTALnaEA= ♦J� JO F . . V ------------�- Q . � 5 �' ��' ..'�� '�. �� x�= [ . : � 1 ¢ [ � .\� 57,32059Ft (7 i :. � K�� .�' F� � _ : , . R OUTLOT A(PR TE DPo -- - ��' /�' � \ L31 Aa �� j � I 3� �Q a�P — _� _ ) ' � -o. � �� -- _. . t�s.se C1 � /°'�.��i' \ �`� W (� � �p � y.6S9Z,Ll=�__—__ NO3'S4'LJ"W a�� 1 t� � / - �.'� \�j �`� \ � Z W j Z C99b=g a;a � R R� � i / / � " •\ \� ♦ W W � a 96 rrc ^�n ��`��,�,� � �a„=r �i.,.. � , `� . W Q J I I -�T.� � _� a ��1, -�.� w�-�.�. � 'i `��\� \ J I � 1 ,� \ � w L1J � � j � . 16'BITUMINOUSDRNE,NOCURB 3j i '� \i � \ j\ � ,`\ Q L� . � � � ..- �.MALEH FXISTING GRADE I �� / . � � Z r - I :. /.:.. � NOPARKIN�.:. �I i � •`� / \ ``\ '_�,:.. r � ' � I V / . � '� :.=: 0 1 i . -. �1�2 /;fi � .::�. � \ FILTRATIINJBASIN� � �' � �� I " �. - _ - - _ - - _ _ - - - _ __ . __ . _. . . �__ \ \� � . ____'__'_____._____ "___. . . .__' _'__'. . L._ ." I IJ . _ .'_ __. . __.____ __—__—__ ` � � i � 3�A9,fZa00S -' Y �` �� -1�_1—�' __�".�".�'_��'�_'�'_—__—"_'N '_ � [ ` -------------ir------� �— __-----__ ______________„�yo- Tp OS'i45 ` 0 � � � sa i"q ; I� � I � I I �� o � � � < <�s� � � "' o ' w � o � � � I o �0'RAD CUL-0ESAC.NO CURB o .:........ ..._-.. � :.....:::�. :..;..: ,..�: I � I I ,; MATCH EXISTING GRADE o a 3 I I � I I HEREBV CERTIFY THI1T TMIS PIAN. I � I • I SPEqFICATION.OR REPORT WA5 I �----------------------F I �_______________ _ VREVARED9YMEORUNDERMV � I SUPERVISION AND THAT I PM A DULV LICENSED FROFESSIONAI ENGINEER I � I VNDERTHElAW55FO pESTATEOF /�// � I /� I � �� I M ewR.Pavak /�i/ i I oa*Es-tS-ta ucEHseNo.uzs3 / � i� � � � ISSUE/SUBMITTALSUMMARY /i� � � : �( _T_ � �/ DATE DESCRIGTIDN I � 3tStd PREl1M.PUITIPUDSUOMRTFL / / ( n � � . I � ._. _. . .. �, . . ... . . I � � . . � . _._ _. . . . . . � . —___'___ - � -__- -__-_ -__L_-__-__-T--___-__ � ` . . r-- �----------------- r-------------- --r---�-.---r- - �-- - ; ._ � I � 1 h I � � � � � � /. :� � � � � � � � _ � I �� -- - � I � �� / .. . REVISION SUMMARV I � \ I � - I / , - DATE DESCRIPTION � . SITE INFORMATION: ZONING NOTES: SRE SIZE (3lOTS� 139,278SF(320 ACRES) F�(ISTING ZONING R-1 SWGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AVERAGELOTSIZEABOVEOHW 29,6535F PROPOSEDZONING PUD GOPHER STATE ONE CALL MINIMUMLOTS12E=10,OOOSF UW1M/.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG PRELIMINARY PLAT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH=80'@ FRONT SETBACK (800)252-1166 TOLL FREE � SITE PLAN (651j 454-0002 LOCAL FRONT SEBACK(FSB)=35' ^/'� SIDE SETBACK(SSB)=15'FOR SiRUCTURES 15'OR LESS IN HEIGHT,15'PLUS 0.5'FOR EACH P=40'-0' (\ -__// . ADDI710NAL 1'OF STRUCTURE OVER 15'(12S FOR LOTS lESS THAN 100'IN WIDTH) �� —� V`�O zo�-o• o aa-o� REAR SETBACK(RSB)=20%OF LOT DEPTH /� � . � � � 'rs,tb6 .: �`- �. �i ; ; \'��SM `.1V"Yt�Y�� I G R O V P � / � � \\ ``��E. ST.LWISPARK,MN55d18 d&ll W.35TH ST.SURE 2W �- / ��I GivASikGroup.com / I � � Mad Pavek Pn Sarver -� _, , � � �.� ��z,�.. ��_��, ,`\` ��,� -y`\\ �� ,''°�` -�, �, � � � 3 �=°�ZS , � � i �� / �� \ / / AREA ABOVE ONNL- \ � � 24,834 Sq Ft / \�� '\/\ � � � 0.5]Ac. `� �n / � \\\ I \ / / 39,190 SQAFt V' � � \\ �\ /� : 0.91 Ac. �jj / \ ` y ♦ / v��_ �� . .. \, 1 �� m �� `�` ' `\� 4�� / . � � ' I // l��i�r,�```````� / s�,e';jr��`-' I / ; � � „ ��sl �� i '��a d� � � ` 9 � =d r � ' ��/ � ``� ''`'sa;� �- i °-� � I � / ;� �/ 2 `e\ sF (� I ; 'r 4'C+ AREA ABO�E ONNL� � s�e � _ j I �� ` Y`�b 26,632 59 Ft b[. �---,__�_ ��R� Q I � �/ � TOTAL�AREA= `� � 42,168 Sp Ft !f ' ____ ___ ��.. _ ' ��.`�i/. �� \� ! ��/I b��y�'`b�',�y, 0.96 Ac. \a \ I I Q�� 'I W� jll \ . /'/ ��i@ ay�� '��` ,� I• �� s i i r > I ^' � ,� �� ``\ i ' i � � y �/ ; 5 � ;'/x l7 "�, � Q r/1/�.' , � � � � � � '� �..r 30d t /g� . O N �" gi I . � �.m �' i6 BRUMINOUS DRNE NO CURB 20'WIDE CORRIDORE / / ��0p7��n� �`� � � � �� \°a� � � � � ! O MATCH EXISTING GRADE SIGN"NO / �� 0 1'£$� � / / � i ��• \ � � �y � ��' ::: / /' . . JD � . � : / � Z PARKING FIRE LANE' -. . � - � � � � y y+ Z �..: �: . �r � $ g i� % � � � .: .:. ��i o ��! ;� ; ,�, . � � / � e�� --I ------------'�a �' F. I �i� 'a,`, � � �.� �1Vy�. �� '" ��` '1 .. W T v 8 __ i ' \\�'' ``\. i � _ ._ .. -� / ,e�y96x� � �LL ../�� O�'�'ODhb,� s \ / . .�.,,��' �\ � � Q -' ' °'z°'p . /s ; ;..8 °laFe��p.�J i �'� .j ..\�� ?i > O .. _ � e�s[ l� ,'} , ga�9 - �' �.`b� ``�� Q Z z�',a" .`M..[e,Zg ft �<� s 6 i . � s. �� d'y� �• �\ AREA ABOVE OHWL� \e J w Sg,5�Zg^6 / � � n'ne `_� _ Z I'946=N� .. . _ �H E -. _ 17��.35 _�_-_ ' `iy i ' / � � 0.86 Ac. SJ' J y 8�SEI �� ` 8 37.494 SQ Fl °� � � �/ _ i � __---___'--___---_-___�J�i £ � �� ....00.LZoG[=� � I $03�54'li" �� . . l .� i ; / .•� ', '\� TOTALAREA� O , 'i � LI� i � � � °=r� `S� 3,� '-- ----- --- - DRNE) � i . �� r�, 57,320 SC Ft � � c� � � � ��^ �ezFe�M , _. , , p�.OT A(PR __ _ , � � • �.'` ;:�' a i ♦ � � .�. ,.3,A<. I I � P�o 1 . . .. . _. " ... ��.� � . f '' . � _ � ._.. ... - � m � Ji � N=' I .659 0__~�__ _�-��NO3'S4']4"W� 1"/536 � _ �� .�� ':sF Y`ry5 'y . \ M W _ �.. Z U os� �,tm , _ �' .� '�� \ W Z w I zeG I- � � �a�r - � J � �'p` . R,•�' A A , 4 ' :� i •\ \ W I � zt'9vv x �K . q .PR ECT �S'r'' W ► �. � ._ __ � d � v6�1t1 or�. � ��y�w ��'� aa 1 . ��` Q � v G I � � � � � tl ••I � ��',� '�,. /1 ... OO�Kx I =� a n a "'-i � �. W w W I . �l_'_---�3�r �`� ��- __,� �� mmY$�i 1 � �`� � �p = I I j . i6'81NMINOUS DRIVE,NO CURB i$ � `j 1 r / � e �y,p J� � \ �� ` I . � � �..MA�H F1tlSTWG GRADE � j � ♦- �♦ �. � ��j O j I . � % . � \� � Z r I � I ' .. NOPARHING.:. �� ,�, �� ` i �p.� � � \\ �\ � � - I � . ,51�� ♦ e 3 � �.\� ow � : ° � � � i FILTRATION BASIN� � , ��- : --� -- __- ----- -- -- ---- - � I I u � , -- -- -- ----- -----------� _ � � � _ .' __._. . ___ .__.'._.- _-L r- �` \\ ♦ i ob �� -�.a � � ��_' _'�_'.�__�__ F- 3.Ob.Tce�S � � ' � _1�__ . . . . � _��_�� S'Ib$ � � -- --------------------------- ---_�__- ` T-_-___-__--�i_____, �- p F . . � � � � � O; �� . ' � , � � � I � o u i i � � GENERAL GRADING NOTES: e�ocKNo. w GENERAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES: �STRUCTURELABEL.NP. a 1.SEE SITE PLAN i0R HOWZONTAL LAVOUT 8 GENERAL GRAOING NOTES. H. FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETE�.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE TYP.CITV CURB 100'(STATION AREAS WITMIN LIMI75 OF GRADIN�,INCLUDING ADJACENT TR4NSRION AREAS.PROVIDE A 1.SEE STORM WATFR POLLUTION PREVENTI04 PLAN(SWPPP)FOR EROSION AND UTILIN STRUCTURE. UTILIN LINE,TVP.(SAN.,WATERMAIN I SPECBFlCATION ORHREGORTwns 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SIfE GRADING CONSTRUCTION QNCLUDING BUT � NOT LIMITED TO SI7E PREPARATION,SOIL CORRECTION,EXCAVATION,EMBANKMENT,ETC.)IN SMOOiH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES,WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR �DIMENTATION NOTES AND DETAIIS. �,P�S�) PREPAREO BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMEMS Of THE ONMER'S SOILS ENGINEER.ALL SOIL SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN,OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND p,TryE CONTRAGTOR SHALL ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILIN FORCONTROLLING PLL FINISHEO c GRADE MH UTILIN$ERVICES LINES,NP. SUPEftVI510N ANDTHAT I FM P DULY G+OO LICENSEO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FXISTING GRADES.AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADEO SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SILTATION AND EROSION OF THE PF2QIECT AREA.ALL EROSION COMROL AND SILTATION UNDER TNE LANS OF THE STFTE OF TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONC.WALK FINISHED ELEV.@ LOT CORNER MI ESOTA. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRE�SOILTE5T5 AND INSPECTIONS WITH SUBSE�UENT CONSTRUCTION OPER4TION5,TRAFFIC AND EROSION.REPAIRALL AREAS THAT CpNTROL MEASURES SHALL COMPLV WITN MINNESOTA'S BEST MANAGEMENT PRACT�CES HAVE BECAME RUTfED BY TRAFFlC OR ERODED BV WA7ER OR HAS SETTLEO BELOW THE MqNUAL.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO CONTROI FRONT UT�LITV THE SOIIS ENGINEER. EASEMENT CORRECT GRADE.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE EROSION AND SILTATION INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED T0,STAKED STRAW 6ALE5,ROCK 3.GRADING ANO EXCAVATION ACTIVI71E5 SHALL BE PERFORME�IN ACCORDANCE YNTH THE RES70RE�TO E�UAL OR BEfiFR THAN OWGINAL CONDITION OR 70 THE REQUIREMENTS OF ENTRANCES AND/OR SILT FENCES.CONTROL SHALL COMMENCE WRH GRADING AND � � Ma ew R.Pavek NATIONALPOLLUTIONDISCHARGEELIMINATIONSYSTEM(NPDES)PERMITRE�UIREMENTSB THENEWWORK. CqNTINUETHROUGHOUTTHEPROJECTUNTIIACCEPTANCEOFTHEWORKBYTHEOWNER. SUGGESTEDORNEWAY _ 6.00 I ROADNAME on*e9-1S14 ucENservo.e1263 PERMIT RE�UIREMENTS OF THE CfiV. lHE CON7RACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES;ALL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION AS LOCA710N F:9s<.00 i� 12. Pfi10R TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE,A TEST ROLL WILL BE RE�UIRED ON THE ' 3 �I� ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARV 4.PROPOSED SPOT GRA�ES ARE FLOWL1NE FMlISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS.UNLESS STREE?ANOIOR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOMED REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION AND THE DEPOSITING OF SILT.TME OWNER MAY,AT DRNEWAY SLOPE F:935.50 BUILDINCa FRONT PAD OTHERWISE NOTED. TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GR0.5S WEI�HT OF 25 TONS.THE TEST ROLLING SHAIL BE AT MISIHER OPTION,DIRECT THE CONTR4CTOR IN HISIHER METH00.S AS DEEMED FITTO GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TB:9aa.50 I�SETBACK �/TE DESCRIPTION PROiECTPROPERNANDiMPROVEMENTS.ANY�EPOSRINGOFSILTORMUDONNEWOR 9 WO ¢tsia PRELIM.PLATIVlIDSUBMIifAL 5.GRADES OF WAIXS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5%MAIC LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND t%MIN. THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLEfED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED LOT NO i SIDE UTILRY EASEMENT . .. . BY7HE SOILS ENGINEER THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE EXISTING 7AVEMENT OR IN E%ISTING STORM SEWERS OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED � � P:935.00 LOT DIMENSIONS _ . AND 2%MAX.CROSS SLOPE.UNLESS OTHERVJISE NOTED. pFTFR EACH RAIN AND EFFECiEO AREAS CLEANED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, LOWEST FLOOR ELEV. � SiREEf OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE.CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE ! i BUILDING PAD 6.PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEE�3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RE�UIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER NLL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTR4CTOR. TOP OF BLOCK ELEV. �� - ---- - --�-� - -�-� . ..__ ._.._ DRAWINGS.MAXIMUMSLOPESINMAINTAINEDAREAS154:1 13. TOLERANCES 9 x ex�T RECOMMENDEDHOUSENPE .. 7.PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS,FREESTANDING WALLS,IX2 COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES REAR PAD GROUND ELEV. ��- BUILDING SIDE SETBACK � '� GREATERTHAN4'INHEIGHTSHALLBEDESIGNEDANDENGINEEREDBYAREGISTERED 13.1.lHEBUILDINGSlJBGRADEFINISHEDSURFACEELEVATIONSHALLNOTVARYBVMORE CITYOFGOLDENVALLEYGRADINGNOTES: - �^ �� _:_��_-. : � RETNNING WALL ENGINEER.DESICN DR4WINGS SHALL BE SUBMfTTED FOR REVIEW ANO TM�0.30 FOOTABOVE,OR 0.30 F00T BELOW,THE PRESCRBE�ELEVATION AT ANY BUILDING REAR SETBACK _ � SILT FENCE,TYP - ' ��- APPROVALPRIORTOCONSTRUCTION. �MWHEREMEASUREMENTISMADE. 1.RESERVEDFORSPECIALCINNOTES �� 132. THE STREET OR PAftKING AREA SUBGRADE fINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT REAR UTILITY EASEMENT �7' ' --� :-- _-.- 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHP1L BE RESPONSIBIE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES VARV BY MORE THAN 0.0.5 F00T A80VE,OR 0.10 F00T BELOW,THE PRESCRIBED REVISION SUMMARY ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE PROPOSED CONTOURS THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPEFi GRADES.THE ��/ DnrE DESGRIPTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINRHED GRADES 13.3. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WfTHIN 0.30 F007 A00VE EXIST.CONTOURS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER/IANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SO�DING OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION,UNLESS DIRECTED OTHFRWISE BY THE ENGINEER. ACTIVITIES. 13.4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1121NCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. 9.IFEXCESSORSHORTAGEOFSOILMATEPoALEXISTS,THECONTRACTORSHALLTRANSPORT 14.MNNTENANCE TYPICAL LOT INFORMATION: ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SIlE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR,OR �4.1. THE CONTRAGTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRA�ED AREAS FROM 7RAFFIC AND IMPORTSUITPBLEMATERIALTOTHESITE. EROSION,ANDKEEPAREAFREEOFiRASHANDDE8R15, GOPHER STATE ONE CALL PRELIMINARY 10. EXCAVATE 70PSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHFR EXCAVATED OR REGRADED PNO 142. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETfLED,ERODED AND V�fMN,GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON 7HE SITE.THE COMRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH RU7TED AREAS TO SPECIFlED TOLERANCES.DURING hIE CONSTRUCTION,IF REQUIRED, (800)252-1166 TOLL FREE � GRAD ING PLAN TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING IXJ THE SITE AS SPECIFIED.EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL 8E PLACED AND DURING THE WARftANTY PERIOD,ERODED AREAS WHERE 7URF IS i0 BE (651)45L0002 LOCAL N IN EMBANKMENTAREAS,OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS,ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS.THE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEE�ED AND MULCHED. CIXJTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT WTAREAS,WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABUSHEO,TOA DEPTH �4.3.WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SU85E�UENT • �17 .0 Of d INCHES.RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TOA �NSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEAiHER,CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, 1"=40'-0' �� SURFACE,RESHAPE,AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER MINIMUM DEPTH OF 41NCHES. CONSTRUCTION. v 20'-0' 0 40'-0' �� iS�b �e ;; ,' i ' ��5" ...1V�ttv�`C� .( / � ��.� G R O V P � / � ae3i w.asrH sr.suRE zoo � /� i / �W��\ sr.�cmasrtnGwroc.�omsns ��\' '� � � / � ic.mszi�aaa ssz-xso-zow ��\ ��\�' y�� / ``�`� ,'\ _\ ��\'\ �\ ,' % g �`:�2 .�� `�� I� �� / AREA ABOVE OHNL� � ��\ �� 24,834 Sq Ft / � � � �\ / � �.57 Ac. / TOTAL AREA� �^ / \�� \ / / 39.J90 S9�t v/' / .. \ \ / ."�y�.�.� � 0.91 Ac � `L � � � � `p � � ♦ � � \ 1 / / � �y�l��` � /' \, �O��C�9�\ / � ` � I / � `` `� � � I � � � S ````� � ` >tea'lf� I" � � �� s�`�9` � � $� 1 � � i'�� \� '`� / . �`o °o de� ♦ fL � � • m,,� � 9� i .. � ' . ' � ''sm,� �5 � � � � � � 2 �. '�`� � I i�o � _ j ' /$ �` lx � AREA ABOVE OHWL= \ � � ,� � I � � �y�� 26.632 5a Ft �p _� �- ��' � ' } /� `�`�`� TOTAL�AREA� `� I ----_ ��Lyc. _ � ' �'! � "�/ / `�L i� � y {2,168 SQ Ft \!f � '��+� � I ` \ � .p� 0.96Ac y � � Q: � / \ �� `S�� ' ,r�+},� -6i��`'y� ��a I .... �f r \ � ^I �l �,'' ' T��`*� v��S� \`\ � � � �.. � y l �l ! /�� \`\ 1 i ,'l �a r O ` , 6 g^ ��' � � � � 1 � ;�/�� > �. � ��, I I r w / ��m 16'BRUMINOUS DRNE,NO CURB 20'WIDE CORWDORE � � � � [ � � CONNECT TO MATCH EXISTING GRADE SIGN'NO � /y� � � � � � � ° �' �� i I / Z � WATERMNN WI WEf TAP PARKING FIRE LANE' 252 LF 8'DIP SANITARY � i� Gf��'�i� �� j=y.�� o ��' � � � � MHi SEWER(a10.40k � �' '6�0'*�� -� N`/'' / . .� . � _ I _.i� RE=843.0 i� y� -r.-------- -- I 9£'£6 539LF6' 8 90LF8'DIP IE-832.36 � �i `'a�� ,` / /��// \ /_�/ . j .\J : `\ W w �_.__ I 9g�g6y WA7ER SANITARYSEWER / , v; /. � .�\\-j ♦ J � -� i_i -T-,- •£t,9�� 0.40% �: MH2 r�8 t�f / \�/ 'r'/ �-\``` 'Y'b `\ � Q � -. < �`� ��SG SE � RE=B03.0 �p�I' _' SAN:ryttl; �-.'�''� `�\\� � �f` Q > O � i - . .� � �^E 1 +;S / �M.Cf,2�F #2 a m m ` �yy p y3 ' � \��S a� L8' £[ <no IE=833.46 � �. � G�,�� 15, y� �`� _ _ �l .z ZI'9b� `o� 179.�5 �� --- _______________-_ a^ �� x�_ �S�`\� � ��"�LZo I=V � I S03"54'tl"E .�� a •y ��/Tx 1 �' . f _�- :� ♦e Z ��` AREA ABJ�OHYA \f• J W� � ____ �� i� j 370,T�q�Ft vOS,� � � Eq (S g ecp� 3�L� ( I_ �� r�� - �� . � ��'/ `\\� � T REA� C� � d t� on 1 .F k {/ I ��/ \ �:\�� 57.32o Sa t � ' I I �: '�� 175.36 �r � � � � � .� i.3i n� \� W � � � �� 659 �_�_� - NO3�54'14"W _ +t.- /f��i�..`.�.9 \ .3� `\ �\ 2 � V � � Q I Zi.Zo([� .ory�t t , �'?�r i � \�7l `� Z W � EX SAN MH I 96 9b ^ cF'-� R ' i�.��t � /�/:%../ ' �.\\` � �� J � � � RE=B48.09 �'a5\ :$ � ��"3._l, � \ �`� Q � IE16'=831.04 � ^f ".� , �m�-_ ��' �� \� � W W I .. i N0� ROP IE 8'S=B32.00 1' �- _ � �, �/�� \ � � m = I NOTE: 1� i ��'i�1 °p%" .� \ � 16'81TUMINOUS DRIVE,NO CURB 18 i b( �-�_-_ � PROPOSEO WATERMAIN FROM STREE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER AND 3 \' � \ � � I � MATCHE%ISTINGGRADE � �� - � � `\`� � /A 0 � - CONNECTION TO EX MH SHALL BE � �WATERMAIN FROM EX MH TO MH 2 SHALL �I i � \ � V/ Z I � INSTALLED 5.0'FROM EXISTING � INSTALLED 3.0'APART,MAINTNN AT NO PARKING � . � - 4 .,f/ ��. \\ I � SANRARY,MAINTAIN AT LEAST 78' ST 18'VERTICAI SEPARATION 8 °�� i G � ' �1 /"� J � \ O � . �. .� FILiRATION&4SIN �'� � � VERTICAL SEPARATION 8 SHALL BE � SAN Y SHALL BE DIP WATER WORKS v: i ��1' _ - - _ � - \ �� I INSTALLEOONUNOISiURBEDEARiH � GRADEPIPE.PER105TATESTANDARDS � � . -�. - . . . . . ._-- ._--_-. . ----. . .___'_. . . ___. . . . __._ .' __.__._ ' j.c.-- --"--�-., � � � ( SHELF PER 70 STATE STANDARDS � iRENCH XES SHALL BE USED AS o y�� ` �� _��y�� S�a �� _--__-�__- � �'��'�'�� - �� 3..04IZe005 -T- ---I r--7F2ERCfiBCp(ES SHALL BE USED AS I-------�2E$UIR�p qtLMION------ o � OS"TCS � � � REQUIRED fOR INSTALLATION � $_ :: o I � 5 �.\ � I � \ �a S7 ; I� � � $• i I I \�@a -< <ms< <-� I "'„ °o � ''�y � � w GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: 'o � i.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZOMAL DIMENSIONS AND IAYWT AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 10. ALL MATERWLS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 7NE CIN. THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES(MMUTCD)ANO THE CITY. a NOTES. THIS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE,BARRICADES,FLASHERS.AND 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PIAN. 11. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PIPE(DIP�UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTE�. FLAGGERS AS NEEDED.ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES.NO SGECIFlCATION,OR REPORT WAS 2.CONTAACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIfY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND �p, qLL SANRARY SEWER SHALL 8E POLriINYL CHLORIDE(PVC)UNLESS O7HERWISE NOTED. ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITFIWTAPPROVAL BY THE CITY. PrtEranED ev ME ore uNoea Mv DiaEcr TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUC710N.THE CONiRACTOR SHALL IMMEDUTELY SUVERNSION NND TMAT I AM A DULV NOTIFV THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARW710NS FROM THE PLANS. 13. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE REINfORCFD CONCREfE PIPE(RCP)OR HIGH DENSIN 25.ALL STRUCTURES,PUBLIC AND PRIVATE,SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES LICENSED PROFESSIONFL ENGINEE0. UNDERTHE 1AW50FTHE STATE OF 3.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY GUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/0R ELEVATION OF POLYETHYLENE(HDPE)UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. WHERE REQUIRED.THE RE�UIREMEN?S OF ALL OWNERS MUST 8E COMPLIED WI7H. tni�IESOTA. EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON REfARDS OF THE VARIOUS 14. qLL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SNALL BE GASTIGHT OR STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVEO AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS RE�UIREMENTS FOR Ui1LIN COMPANIES AND,WHERE POSSIBLE,MEASUREMENTS TAI�N IN THE FIELD.7HE WATERTIGHT.APPROVED RESIIIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WAiERTIGHT TRAFfIC LOADING. INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLEiE.THE CONTRACTOR CONNEC710N5 TO MNNHOLES,CA7CHBASINS,OR OTHER STRUCTURES. 26.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRNATE UTILITV COMPANIES. Ma iew R.Pavek MUSTCALLTHEAPPROPRIATEUTILINCOMPANYATLEAST48HOURSBEFOREANY 15. PIPELENGTHSSHOWNAREFROMCENTERTOCENTEROFSTRUCTUREORTOENDOF onrElonUla ucervservo.4a263 EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES.IT SHALL BE THE 21.CANTR4GTOR SHALL COOR�INATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES. FLARED END SECTION. COORDINATE THE INSTALUTION OF IRRIGATION SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT MIPACT ISSUEISUBMITTAI SUMMARY RESPIXJSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICM INSTALLATION OF U7ILJTIES. CONRICT WffH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PIANS.THE LOCAipNS OF 16.UTILITIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 5 OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.THE onrE DESCRIPnoN SMALL UTIIJTIES SHALL BE OBTNNED BY THE CONIRACTOR,BY CAWNG GOPHER STATE ONE CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATEIY RESPONSIBIE fOR THE FlNAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. 28.CONTRACTOR SHALL MNNTNN ASAUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT GONSTRUCTION AND SUBMR s-tsu PRELIM.FIATIVUD SUBMRTAL CALL 1}iE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPNR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECNRAL M1D MECHANICAL PLANS. THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION Of WORK. �- �� --�-� -�-�---- �� .. . .. .._ .... . W RING CONSiRUC710N AT NO COST TO Tfff OWNER, 17. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET.ALL CATCH � � �� 4.ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETE�BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGMEER. BASINS IN GUTTERS SNALL BE SUMPED 0.15 FEET PER DETAILS.ftIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON -- � ""��" ----" -�-- rHisP�woor+orr�F�crsun+ae�e�evnnoNs. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY UTILITY NOTES: --- -- - IXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSURABLE SOILS SHALL BE 1.RESERVEO FOR SPECIAL CITY NOTES COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.THE UTIIITV BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION 1& A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS RE�UIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN,UNLESS OTHERWISE � � �� SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL � � NOTED.EXTR4�EPTH MAY BE REDUIRED TO MAINTNN A MINIMUM OF 18'VERTICAL -- -��- -��--- � BE RESPONSBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REOUIREO SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPEC710NS SEPAHATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES.E7RRA DEPTH WATERMHIN IS � ��- � � � WITH THE SOIIS ENGINEER INCIDENTAL. .._-____-_.__._ .._ _ 5.UTILININSTALL4TIONSHALLCANFORMTOTHECURRENTEDIiIONOF'STANDARD 1g, pMINIMUMOF181NCHESOFVERTICALSEPARATIONANDIOFEETOFHORIZONTAL � REVISIONSUMMARY SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION°AND'SANITARV SEWER SEPARA710N IS REDUIRE�FOft ALl WATERMP.IN,STORM SEWER AND SANI7ARY SEWER PIPES, nnre DESCRIVIION ANDSTORMSEWER INSTALLATION'ASPftFPAREDBYTHECITYENGINEERSASSOCIATIONOF UNLESSOTHERWISENOTED. ia�aie UTILT'REVISIONS MINNESOTA(CEAM),AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THE PROJECT SPECIFlCATIONS. 20.ALL CONNEC710N5 TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIN STANDARDS AND COORDINATED WITH THE CIN PRIOR TO CONSiF2UCTI0N. 6.ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCOROANCE TO CITY RE�UIREMENTS. 21.CONNECTIONSTOEX�STINGSTRUCTURESSHALLBECOREDRI�LED. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN,TURN OFF,INiERFERE WITH,OR ATfACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE �COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS'MTH THE MECHANICAL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TO OR TAP WATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZEO TO DO SO BY PRELI M I NARY DRAWINGS. THE CITY.ANY ADVERSE CONSEW ENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDUIED W1MN.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE THE LIABILIN OF THE CONTRACTOR 23.COOR�INATE INSTALLATION AN�SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH (800)252-1166 TOLL FREE � UTILITY PLAN ADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CIN STAFF. (651)454-0002 LOCAL 8.CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND REUSEO OR PLACED AT � THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER. 24.ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMEO PER THE REQUIREMENTS Oi �� 9.ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS MOOIFIEO THE CfTY.ALL PAVEMENTCONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUf.ALL TRAFPIC CONTROLS SHALL 1"=40'-0' HEREIN. 8E PROVIDEO BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE RE�UIREMENTS OF 40�_p•� ��O �a =� �'wa > J ' ' ' w¢ 0 .��gN a� df1021J A�3� 3H1 €��aw„ a � s a �a . - yfa <g�a=�< a N � � �° � �0=6� NW`A3lldAN3alOJ'3f1N3�d3180N 1081 �goo��s ; � � 4 a y � � > / , .I ` " Z v °a`�sf � 5 '�o '- 2' ,� 3�� °am4'w �' � y� � �.S y W w �' :� w�-u�wS�� J' ul a � .� o d'W ��'N � 3�Ib�� J13N33MS - 6�;= o � w a � � � Q� Q � f� i�3roaa '/� b /, 'I � Q 1 / ' I � ' ' o / � N I ( �' 1 W �::::;�.: , 1 J J (9 W�Q " � m J K�U � �� I � W UJO S. � J W�� 4�� Q Z 4 tr'i� �m � p W rv� t:::;;:' � �'` � W a�,� �//e•� IOY.V[ � Ee Q �Nb �/ , *_ � P'I � ~ R'O ll.� �^' � _� - / /// � W � t�7 f i� o�.:�'' � � 2 F �s i r/� I� � �� /i � Z �� U' � � �� I p � �� !/ �fcl .�Fi • � J �� P,`�F' ti�„`'=� �, ,�%� I � �� 6 �y ��-5 � �--- ;�' „� , a °� .1� 0"'�� i� �% 1 � 6 9 i ! 9 ya3y / g.� ��i.i I ��/�t��`'��0.0'� � t�� c„k'` .o<<',.�*'� Iwa ��JPe,LS?F�,yQ /� �iF cen} rc"' S � p�''J6�2'1' ..� / � �a"^�6:' •�,*�"' � ��-,i' N '� , ' � .,�� I �' ��° i `, �,�, u�_ ,>,t;a � ,,:�. A A so ��'�" � `� ,e.�°s�4 �t�''�� °s+ .:'E�°`'+ew F` a�a''e � �''.��:�'� 1 �� Aa d �"� ss�� .,,9 ��I,'��r�ii� �Rl�F� ,` I ... ,;� � � � `\ ,p'"+� �r,�m'�-u. ��",�;�^��"�"�= I�'�'�� W i �\ + °y+ �' � � I I- ti� ,��`S .�,u�� ,n.� � \ � O � r ,�, �c,�� \/�7�'.s°`� �� y� .„�,. '"=u" � i °3 Z �S•'/ / `\ O y`� Y `` . , I� � � � � I.Y.. F � � �\ r� • ;,�;`-_�: � .o } � , � � �� ,a,� � I W ' J ,,»„�y � �` � ► � v� c'� n � t�•; `; W�� ♦ ��.��' j / .�: ' , � w . � �' !; �'� "'�;� .,,�'.�_��'%,r=�?.�.. ' � ��;N'i •�i I o � I � y � J � Yh. � `\ � � � o`a"x{.'.+'�'I � � / `` ♦ ` 1 p 1 , n+a8 / i ..s'�''.` ; � ' a �,,:��.. ._�.n� O g �� 2�v\ �� i! .,�� .,�.� r�ri�� ♦ I "'9 �� I > � A��,� �� .w.... ,�� " � y�4' I� � 1 C..) �' � ``��awq� � a� ; ' I � � � S .�.�.. � � � `'fe �h.� ao�:rcu s ,i�, .. �.,,x�,t � I� / � � `\K�'�� n,.��`A /�,�� g 1 / ��_ �^�^` r;... ,,,• . �I l •�-�� i/ I �� I / 3„ve��S�\�,. ��t ,� ,/�.�� ' 03 <.s«9`,"�.t �`�� e�1'�' �jL ,� `"�g,�s / s o.; t �"��,�u,.-- LI'l0I ��Ll�£Saf7A5 I . .. 1 1 -�- � I I � oo� ,�o � � � n °� � � �� PI I� I r 1 Q 1� � � � � � � � I I � Z i I � I �I �. I� � ,� � �> i �� Q �� i NI O I z I � � � � i ,C«I I � � i , � i I - I --W I �.... i I � � I I . I I �" � I i.... � I D D W�� ; ��A � ,, � .. � I Q � JND NuP O I �N W6�� i':': ��_� � ' �_�____��_ � ��'I �i ------� '"� 2' -:� � N/ �+ \ Li \ V IN \\ FI /`�� IRi � / / _. H \�� w� � H � � � � � it):;I � � b� \ �� /� ,,---�>-_ w�n� � „�e,re,z __,_�'---_'—='� am�' 'uz I 9H�9LN�� /�/ �•�� c'W &b'ly N / ,' ��, 3niao . ,,,� �.�\ /� � --_,�=OrVW/3�I21a 318oN � �" �� % �—�, "'^�s �'--- �� / �-�-�--____� '��''-�,�, N I�'Q„ I / // vavw-naa unxox�°L°�x`�i �I -'-°-�t_ � I � i / / inx eoi�Hxvnwwe� � � o �I � / ' � � � � i , � � , �----- � % � , � ,--------------� � , � - I � , I � , � , , _``` j � , , � , , � , � � , � I � � I / � ��-�_`\``` I � � I � I � � I % � �,�\_ I � � I / �---------------1- I / � � I--------------- /� � � I I �,�� . ;�� r Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) > ��"' . �„�"��'�� ."��. ."� . "��°`��`� .._ ��.�; Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing-Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map - 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 24$0 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island North Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the lune 4, 2014, Council/Manager meeting the City Council identified a handful of areas in the City where the long range plans might incorporate nodes of mixed use activity. One such area was the southeast corner of the Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road intersection. Recently, a development proposal has come forward that would potentially redevelop a number of properties in that quadrant for an apartment and townhomes. These uses would be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. This opportunity has spurred the consideration of an amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map to reguide the land uses to be consistent with the Council's vision and lay the groundwork for future redevelopment. Though the Council's vision for this quadrant is for a mixed use area, the current Mixed Use designation within the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the established I-394 Mixed Use zoning district, are specific to the I-394 corridor and do not translate well to other parts of the City. It is anticipated that as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update, the specific definitions of these Mixed Use categories would be revised to make them more generally applicable across the City. Until then, Staff is recommending utilizing other, existing, land use and zoning categories that could serve in the interim until the update is completed. On November 10 the Planning Commission recommended approval (7-0) of this proposal. Preliminary plans indicate up to 309 units could be constructed on 1Q.86 acres of land, resulting in a residential density of roughly 28 units per acre. This carresponds to the High Density Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the City's High Density Residential (R-4j zoning district. Three of the four properties (7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North) are guided for Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan; the fourth (2430 Winnetka Avenue North) is guided for Light Industrial use. Under the current proposal, the General Land Use Plan Map would be amended so that all four would be guided as High Density Residential, which accommodates densities of 20 to 30 units per acre. Any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment must be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment. No rezoning or final project approval should be given by the City Council until they have heard from the Metropalitan Council regarding the amendment. The City may review development proposals as long as final action is not taken prior to Metropolitan Council review of the proposed amendment. Attachments • Lacation Map (1 page) • Memo to Planning Commission dated November 10, 2014 (2 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated November 10, 2014 (3 pages) • Guided and Proposed Land Uses (1 page) • Comprehensive Plan Table 3.2: Definition of Land Use Categories (1 page) • Resolutian for Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan's General Land Use Plan Map Re-designating the Proper#ies at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island North from Commercial to High Density Residential and 2430 Winnetka Avenue North from Light Industrial to High Density Residential (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to Resolution for Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan's General Land Use Plan Map Re-designating the Properties at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island North from Commercial to High Density Residential and 2430 Winnetka Avenue North from Light Industrial to High Density Residential. Sub�ect Properties: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Ave N . , - . 2485 Rhode Island Ave N _ . _ . , NEW HOPE 9 , __ � � � � .__. � � .. ��,....- _. ......,. .__. ........ ......_...... :_ . �� . . .�._ , _._.._.... ......... ��... -..... ....,-... . :: . 3 ... ......._... ......._. (._..:........ ....�, ��H��NH��:'�. <.,.,... . . ..h. .. �;+��N��r�1��HN�11� . ... \NN�It��N��I��H�NII�M��H II�H�/��I�M�N��I�M��I��q��/�I�� Z550 7825 � � 7775 7751 2'2:2 2 2575 + � , �� 8025 y5�: . 25.. 2'2'2�2 2548 556 � 2550 �2556��25 7759 �2560 "<, r, � 2552 2562 252 2480 25544 25� 25 2480 Z�g 2500 2566 2 24dS 2400 w 2440 Y445 2450 i _ 2 440 ' 2ass sozo sass � � aoao . 2aso 2 aoo � 2415 , r„".y 8045 8015 8005 7979 2409 '< _ .. i v�� kc..k �u,...., < � � .:: '�er�,t�-�r�' ��- soao so2o sooa ,, "�°"� . � � � :.� � _ - zaso �� ,�, �,,,. � 7980 2337 'S `- � �r'�`� ,. : , _. �a�v'�°f . '�`,�t„ � 8045 8015 2315 2320 2325 � �� ,'�` .,. �r � 'z ` #- � �: �' yr�,..—� �C : ,.']M` ": 'q�`" , � � � 2300 2300 I � • cit�> r�� . � ~ �� Plannin D e artment ��. �`� g � 763-593-8095/763-593 8109(fax) Date: November 10, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map —7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, 2485 Rhode Island North Background At the June 4, 2014, Council/Manager meeting the City Council identified a handful of areas in the City where the long range plans might incorporate nodes of mixed use activity. One such area was the southeast corner of the Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road intersection. Recently, a development proposal has come forward that would potentially redevelop a number of properties in that quadrant for an apartment and townhomes. These uses would be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. This opportunity has spurred the consideration of an amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map to reguide the land uses to be consistent with the Council's vision and lay the groundwork for future redevelopment. General Land Use Plan Map Amendment Though the Council's vision for this quadrant is for a mixed use area, the current Mixed Use designation within the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the established I-394 Mixed Use zoning district, are specific to the I-394 corridor and do not translate well to other parts of the City. It is anticipated that as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update, the specific definitions of these Mixed Use categories would be revised to make them more generally applicable across the City. Until then, Staff is recommending utilizing other, existing, land use and zoning categories that could serve in the interim until the update is completed. The current developer has purchase agreements for three properties and is pursuing a fourth. Staff recommends evaluating the reguiding of all four properties for high density residential use but retaining the option to remove the fourth property from consideration if a deal cannot be reached to include the property in the project before the amendment advances to the City Council. Preliminary plans indicate up to 309 units could be constructed on 10.86 acres of tand, resulting in a residential density of roughly 28 units per acre. This corresponds to the High Density Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the City's High Density Residential (R-4) zoning district. Three of the four properties (7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North) are guided for Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan;the fourth (2430 Winnetka Avenue North) is guided for Light Industrial use. Under the current proposal, the General Land Use Plan Map would be amended so that all four would be guided as High Density Residential, which accommodates densities of 20 to 30 units per acre. Any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment must be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment. No rezoning or final project approval should be given by the City Council until they have heard from the Metropolitan Council regarding the amendment. The City may review development proposals as long as final action is not taken prior to Metropolitan Council review of the proposed amendment. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, reguiding 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North from Commercial to High Density Residential, and 2430 Winnetka Avenue North from Light Industrial to High Density Residential. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Guided and Proposed Land Uses (1 page) Comprehensive Plan Table of Land Use Definitions (1 page) High Density Residential (R-4) Zoning District Section of City Code (3 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 6 Conditions: 1. recommendations and requireme s outlined in the memo from the Fire Departm Jason Zimmerman, Pla ning Manager, date ember 3, 2014, shall become a part o 's approval. An upd ted memo fro e Fire Chief stating that the access is adequate is o requested. 2. The recommendations an uiremen o ' ed in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, in anager, dated November 5, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. There will be no additional dri ay or tility ess allowed along the private driveway. 4. The snow storage ar and the infiltrati n basin area sha overlap. Zimmerman qu ioned if the words "privat streeY' should be used or if words "private dri ay" should be used. Kluchka ' aid he thinks private driveway is re flexible, aldhauser said they've been talk g about it as a private street so the words "priv e street" should be used. Segelbaum greed that it has to meet the standards of a st et so the words "private street" should used. 3. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North — CPAM-55 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Density Residential for the properties at 7751- 7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North and from Light Industrial to High Density Residential for the property at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North Zimmerman stated that staff met with the City Council in June to do long range planning for different areas within the City. He explained that a developer has come forward with a potential proposat for an apartment and townhomes on the southeast quadrant of the Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road intersection. These uses would be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning of the properties. He stated that the Council's vision for this quadrant is for a mixed use area, however the current Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation and the established I-394 Mixed Use zoning district do not translate well to this area, so staff is recommending that the four properties be reguided and rezoned to High Density Residential. Baker asked how many units have been discussed. Zimmerman said approximately 300. Cera said he still intrigued by the Mixed Use option and making the whole corner Mixed Use would be more creative. He suggested modifying the existing Mixed Use definition to fit this proposal. Zimmerman stated that the developer has not been able to obtain the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 7 corner property. He added that the I-394 Corridor hasn't had any vertically mixed uses proposed and thinks more horizontally mixed uses next to each other might work. Johnson asked if this would be the largest high density area in the City. Zimmerman said he wasn't sure. Segelbaum asked if the City thinks it is appropriate to include the corner in the proposal even if they are not interested in this particular development. Zimmerman stated that the Council wants to get things started with this proposal and they don't want to reguide or rezone the corner property without their consent. Kluchka suggested that the corner property could maybe be changed in the future. Baker questioned accommodating a developer who is applying for something right now, as opposed to slowing down and looking at the whole area. He said the City should be looking at the long view and he doesn't see the benefit of accommodating what may not be a viable project. Zimmerman stated that creating a new land use category is a very long process. Cera questioned why there isn't a rezoning request along with the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. Zimmerman stated that the rezoning request will happen along with the development application. Waldhauser said this is a good location for higher density housing. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Todd Schachtman, Intuitive Investments, 9905 St. Johns Road, Minnetonka, said he grew up in this area and wants it to be vibrant and energetic again, so when the opportunity came up to look at the VFW parcel it struck him that this could be something much better for the City. He said there is an opportunity with his proposal to help fix the flooding issues in the area and he is at a point where this is a formative development and he is ready to go with this first step in the process. He said his proposal will have an everlasting impact on the northern gateway to the City and he is planning for apartments and townhomes to provide choices for a wide variety of demographics. He stated that what the VFW has meant to the area is very important so he is considering call the project �.iberty Crossing to pay homage. The VFW will also be able to use a community room in the apartment building and hopefully this will be a project people are proud of. He said that he ideally wants the corner property as well, but it just didn't happen. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked about underground parking and if it would be compatible with the soils in this area. Zimmerman said he knows that soil borings have been done and if the soils work, underground parking could be a possibility. Baker stated that he noticed nothing has been mentioned about a commercial component with this project. He said he wants to see more mixed use development and wants to continue to explore the idea of Mixed Use zoning. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 10, 2014 Page 8 Schachtman stated mixed use projects in general are tough to finance, and to find lasting tenants. He said he'd love to incorporate a commercial use and he is still considering the corner property because it would be the best option for retail, but Walgreens is an obstacle because a new retail use would not be contiguous. He said he will continue to look at all the options however, he thinks the definition of mixed use, and the definition of retail will change in the future. Kluchka asked if the High Density designation prevents the applicant from doing any other types of uses. Zimmerman said no, and added that the dominant use would be High Density residential. Baker asked if re-designating the property would restrict in any way the future use of the property. Zimmerman said no, the properties can be reguided or rezoned in the future. Johnson asked what "dominant use" means. He said that this looks like it would be the largest high density area in the City and questioned why they wouldn't want to try to segment it. Zimmerman stated that zoning allows one land use but a PUD would allow variation from that. Kluchka questioned if High Density residential is the right thing for this space. Baker said he thinks this is an excellent place for High Density development. Johnson said he is concerned about the volume of peop�e in one area and reiterated that this one area would be two or three times bigger than other High Density areas in the City. Cera stated that townhomes would be a better fit in the Medium Density category. Zimmerman stated that the categories are based on the number of units per acre. Segelbaum asked why traffic isn't being considered at this point. He said this sounds like a good project, but he thinks it is premature to consider reguiding the Comprehensive Plan at this point. Waldhauser asked why the staff report says the City wants to retain the option to remove the fourth property from consideration if needed. Zimmerman stated that the car wash site is being considered, but its purchase has not yet been finalized. Johnson asked if the rezoning decision is based on more concrete criteria. Zimmerman said ultimately the Council could decide not to rezone the properties. Kluchka added that approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment just allows the developer to keep moving forward. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Density Residential for the properties at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North and from Light Industrial to High Density Residential for the property at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North. Resldentfal 0 Lrnx Densiry :.a�9-s:�.,..,�: �Medium-Lou�Density s�n s ux�,:2 ••��k,f��i ��u��u��r�u�� 0 Metlium-High Density �:, s v ,^.-,:Y �� Q Hfgh Denstty s�o „ ��:�.:R E�`qp�� 7751-75 Co►r�mercial � �+�r � ��: �� 2542 0 Omte ► � �.' 2466 2476 �Retailtservice �� :�.«�o,:.: , �. 2564 2520 d►dustrial � ' � o � 24 2500 Q Light Intlustrial ?��:�a=o�. Z � ; � N N �Industrial aa�.��a�o-.�. ,�",Q ' � � 0 2414 2436 Di•1 Q � � �_______ __ __ Z N �M�xed use �� Q ! C�y �c t.� � � �` 2400 m m � �Open Space- :o.:.-c=,w�c,ov.,:,•.e . ._. '�,, c��1 cQv �, 0 Schools antl Religious Faciitties . o Q j l._._ .._...:.�q �Public FaciliUes-:.,sxy,ec,. � N �+ , � -Semi-Public Faciltties-v��.,m„ . ' i � , � __..-_.. � ,L '� o � �� ,........�-_w-- �_ -- 'e a, rn s�. �-' ---- � y,� _ ; _ � o :" _ `t �'�'/: ry�ry0 O�aJ �pQ ,�� .. � , N � .,,� i i� � ��"�t��QQ C� �.C� ,�,00 2337 �' �`t 0�•� �.�. .�ph �'h ^� : w 6"` �20 2� ' . �.N j },. 9 _. . 1 ; _ � . w v a� �", � � G , � e,�e° 0,�04 0,�� $� �,yo �oo� „�� _ _ _ ___. __ ._ _ _ _ _ _._ ��'� �►V� � p ryy � : �p �5 ;�0 7955 7925 �.^_ _:'...:-..___._�._,�� ` a�" ti�' � � �; ; � � � M � , _ __ ; ' , m m m m ! -•, _� � _� �� _.,� -_ . _ �� ...� �- � � � �` ; Guided land Uses Residenflsl OlowDenstty :<.��,•sr�.�.,��, _If �Metllum-Low�Density banirnxru•e u��+�t►�►M�4M�jp��o��o�u�u�n�u�o��o��u� ti 4�' i6 Q Metlium+ligh Density •z:o,ss >:<•:..: �� ..:. High Density ... ...... �� y "'�751-75.._. __ ..o o� .�,...._ � � �� ^8" Commercisl i� � . _�._�_. 2542 �omce �� ,_ 2486 2476 �Retaill5ervice aw r�c«:a-:. ��,�,�. 2564 2.`720 k►dustdal Ag0 � o � 2`00 24 OLightlndustrial ��L�«,o-:. 2 � �; � �n � N N ��ndustria� o+�.a�«w-:.: �� , N �; 0 2414 2436 r� � ; � -- � N ; ; �bllxetl U se ,��A� �' � '" �`-' ; � � Q `�' 2400 �Open Space-a.s-�a•on�,�wx,.,-o cti � N � � 9 �, o � c ; � � Schools and Reli �ous Facilities � , � .__._-- -______ .___;_ ",�� Publlc FaCIIIt1eS-ti•��.-«�� v c� j � N —Semi-Public Faciltties-t-w.,,,.�,t -. � � � C /'.�-- --"""`"' ----_ »�- � '2 � w e° �b a, ' o � � i� r__. <� __.l � �C� ��y° :��da � r�o� �o� ;�cp ^ � � � .� 1 � . � �, , � y �F1�11�f Q{�C� ��, ,�, 2337 � ,� , ` , _ �' " �� , _ y , ��' � �o`� a � ; ,�s�.� ,,��,�Zd �gz5 ! �' ,.. .� �r � ., N� jJ � w v� v� ,�"� ,� � o ( �° ��.0° '�,,°� '��.cA �04 �ti° '�da t� �� j� � �� I r�, , �, -' � �� L._�_. _ _ �_. . _ __ .,__ _ _ _- ��!'t� ��/� � y ; O -_ - O 7955 7925 , _ b,y�L �,yh�' � ,�5 �� - � -______ �-__- � _.� m m m m '� � � _..� _ r � _n _a 'etit _.,c� _ _ __ w; � n n. n ' Proposed �.and Uses : .� �- • • � -•• Residential, Low-Density Single-family detached homes are the predominant tow-density residential use, with small clusters of (0.1 to 5 homes per gross two-famity attached homes mixed in at scattered locations as appropriate. Other types of residential acre of land area) structures in planned unit developments(PUDs)may also be appropriate as long as the overall density of development falls within the acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is single family. Residential,Medium- Medium-density residential uses indude two-family attached homes in clusters of more than 10 units,or Density(from 5 to 11.99 townhomes,or other types of housing in PUDs where the average density of development falls within the homes per gross acre of land acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." area) Residential, Medium- Townhomes, apartment buildings,and condominiums are the permitted medium-high-density residential High-Density(12 to 19.9 uses. Other types of housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet homes per gross acre of tand the minimum density threshotd.Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." area) Residential, High- Apartment buildings and condominiums are the predominant high-density residential uses. Other types of Density(20 to 30 homes housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet the minimum density per gross acre of land area) threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." This limited use category features general office buildings. Medical or laboratory facilities where work is Commercial Office performed in a predominantly office setting are also acceptable uses. Office areas may indude mixed-use office/residential PUDs.Metro Council equivalent is part of"commercial." Commercial uses indude retail sales/services, restaurants, hotels/motels, and for-profit entertainment/ Commercial Retail/ recreation facilities, as well as anything allowed in an office area. Mixed-use commercial/residential Service PUDs are also a possibility. Metro Council equivalent is"commerciat,"except that does NOT dassify any residential care facilities as commercial uses. This category includes warehousing and storage, assembly and light manufacturing, truck/van terminals, Light Industrial utility installations, offices, and large-scale specialty retail operations such as lumber yards, greenhous- es, and vehicle sales/rental lots. Metro Council equivalent is part of"industrial." Industrial This category includes anything that could go into a light industrial area, as well as railroad uses, animal care facilities, and heavy manufacturing. Metro Council equivalent is part of"industrial." This category indudes a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and business-oriented land uses. Mixed Use This area was established to encourage a compact urban area that will serve as a gateway to the city. Transit-oriented development is expected to spur high-density development that is encouraged to include a mix of uses.Approximatley 25 percent of this area is expected to include residential development. Open Space (public and These uses include golf courses, ball fields, playgrounds, parks, nature areas, and storm water ponding private) areas. Metro Council equivalent is"parks and recreation,"except the Metro Council does not specify ponding areas or nature areas. Schools and Religious These inctude education facilities at all levels, the cemetery, places of worship for all denominations, Facilities and miscellaneous religious installations.Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public." Public Facilities, Administrative or service installations(except those otherwise classified)at all tevels of qovernment fall Miscellaneous into this category.Metro Council equivalent is part of"public,semi-public." Semi-Public Facilities, Residential treatment or care facilities, hospitats and surgical centers, private ctubs, and other not-for- Miscellaneous profit facilities(except those otherwise classified)fall into this category.Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public,' except for residential treatment or care. Wetland Properties in this category are generatly those listed in the National Wetland Inventory. By definition,all wet- land areas are considered to be"in use."Metro Council equivalent is"wetland development constraint." This category indudes all areas with a land elevation below the 100-year flood level. By definition all flood- Floodplain Way areas are considered to be"in use."Metro Council equivalent is"floodplain development constraint." Sweeney/Twin Lake, Wirth Lake, DNR unnamed basin#27-36(in Wirth Park, along the creek north of Open Water Highway 55), and Bassett Creek are classified as open water areas. By definition,all open water is consid- ered to be"in use."Metro Council equivalent is"open water." This category indudes all land reserved for street or highway uses and for certain transit facilities, Right-of-Way, Road whether by easement or by fee title. By definition, all such right-of-way is considered to be"in use." Metro Council equivalent is "roadways,option 2." Right-of-Way, Railroad This category indudes all land reserved for railroad uses,whether by easement or by fee title. By defini- tion, all such right-of-way is considered to be`in use. There is no Metro Council equivalent. • • •- • � � - ' 11: 1 : Resolution 14-93 December 2, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP RE-DESIGNATING THE PRUPERTIES AT 7751-7775 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD, 2480 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, AND 2485 RHODE ISLAND NORTH FROM COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND 2430 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO HIGH DENSTY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the City Council has met at the time and place specified in a notice duly published with respect to the subject matter hereof and has heard all interested persons, and it appearing in the interest of the public that the General Land Use Plan Map as heretofore adopted and enacted by the City of Golden Valley be amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, that pursuant to the provision of Chapter 11.90, Subd. 7 of the City Code for the City of Golden Valley, and subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council for conformity with regional systems plans as provided in state law, the General Land Use Plan Map for the City of Golden Valley is hereby amended by changing the property at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island North from Commercial to High Density Residential and 2430 Winnetka Avenue North from Light Industrial to High Density Residential as the official land use designation for the properties located at and legally described as follows: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road: Lot 1, Block 1, Golden Valley VFW Post Number 7051 2480 Winnetka Avenue North: The West 374 Feet of the North 205 Feet of the South 860 Feet of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29 Township 118 Range 21 Except Road 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North: Lot 2, Block 1, MCTAC Addition 2430 Winnetka Avenue North: Lot 1, Block 1, MCTAC Addition 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 resalution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. � � � �I�� a., � � � Administrative Services Department 763 593-8013/763 593-3969(fax) � �"�...�. '��.�,@�,��.��e�h6��i� � ,,,a �n A, �u _la ��4�t@iauli�"��;.r��'��r��Uii�i6u(ui i��'. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing-Adoption of 2014 Property Tax Levy Payable 2015 and 2015-2016 General Fund Budget Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At this meeting, City Council will consider the resolution adopting the 2014 property tax levy payable in 2015 and the 2015 General Fund Budget. The 2016 budget is for future planning purposes and is approved "in concept" only. Staff will present an overview of the 2015-2016 budget process. The 2015-2016 Proposed General Fund Budget is located on the City website at http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/budget/index.php. Attachments • Resolution Adopting the 2014 Property Tax Levies for Taxes Payable 2015 (1 page) • Resolution Adopting the 2015 Budget of the General Fund Budget (2 pages) • 2015-2016 Proposed General Fund Budget (distributed previously) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting the 2014 Property Tax Levies for Taxes Payable 2015. Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting the 2015 Budget of the General Fund Budget. Resolution 14-94 December 2, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2014 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FOR TAXES PAYABLE 2015 WHEREAS, the City Council has approved for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed budgets require monies to be raised from property taxes on taxable property in the City of Golden Valley; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, that the following sums of maney be raised by property tax on taxable property in the City of Golden Valley for taxes payable in 2015 as set out in the 2015-2016 adopted City budgets are hereby levied; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that the 2Q15 General Fund Budget are hereby given final approval. PURPOSE TAXLEVY General Fund $13,440,310 SPECIAL LEVIES: Tax Abatement Levy 300,000 Certificate of Indebtedness 795,861 Bonded Indebtedness 4,015,257 TOTAL LEVIES $18,551,428 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 A Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 14-95 Qecember 2, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESQLUTION ADOPTING THE 2015 BUDGET OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, in 2014, the staff presented a biennial budget cycle with a proposed 2015 current budget year and a 2016 "in concept" budget proposal; and WHEREAS, this proposed 2015 operating budget resolution and the accompanying proposed tax levies contained in Resolution 14-94 are submitted by the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and other applicable laws in effect on this date; and BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that the 2015 General Fund Budget are hereby given final approval. DIVISION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Q01 Council $330,450 003 City Manager 774,940 004 Transfers Out 475,000 005 Administrative Services 1,726,920 006 Legal Services 139,050 007 Risk Management 300,000 011 Building Operations 560,590 015 Inspections 704,575 016 Planning 303,780 022 Police 5,568,860 023 Fire 1,255,045 035 Physical Develapment 285,180 036 Engineering 759,890 037 Streets 1,473,370 065 Cammunity Centers 75,615 066 Park and Recreation Administration 698,640 067 Park Maintenance 1,095,74Q 068 Park and Recreation Programs 374,490 TOTAL 2015 BUDGET $16,902,135 Resolution 14-95 - Continued December 2, 2014 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the sums appropriated shall be: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Ad Valorem Taxes $13,266,155 Licenses 221,565 Permits 800,000 Federal Grants � State Grants 292,805 Charges for Services 1,573,985 Fines and Forfeitures 320,425 Interest on Investments 100,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 227,200 Transfers In 100,000 TOTAL 2015 BUDGET $16,902,135 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council deelares 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 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. �i�� ?� �.:s, � � � � ��, �= � � , � � ��:: �� Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) �..;�� 1�. �_: .��.,q�� :. � Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting December 2, 2014 Agenda Item 4. D. Public Hearing-Adopting Modification No. 2, Tax Increment Financing Plan for Highway 55 West Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (Renewal and Renovation) Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary On November 12, 2014, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) adopted a resolution modifying the existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan within the Highway 55 West TIF District No. 1 in order to support the project proposed by Golden Villas, LLC. On November 24, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified plan for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and adopted a resolution affirming its conformance. The existing plan for Highway 55 West TIF District No. 1 (Renewal and Renovation) identifies the statutory authority, highlights current conditions in the project area, outlines anticipated improvements, and identifies goals, objectives, policies, and administration for the proposed project area. The modified TIF plan outlines the anticipated income created by the new project within the district and planned expenditures. If the modified Financing Plan is approved, state statutes allow the district to continue for 15 years. However, the City Could choose to close the district when increment covering the expenditures has been received. The Financing Plan creates an overall budget, but the City Council is required to authorize each project to be financed by the TIF. Attachments • Modification No. 2, Tax Increment Financing Plan for Highway 55 West Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (Renewal and Renovation) (22 pages) • Housing and Redevelopment Authority Resolution 14-6, Resolution Approving Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1 (2 pages) • Planning Commission Resalution 14-01, Resolution of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Finding That Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1 Conforms to the General Plan for the Development and Redevelopment of the City, As Amended (Amended 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update) (1 page) � City Council Resolution 14-96, Resolution Adapting Modification No. 2, Tax Increment Financing Plan for Highway 55 West Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (Renewal and Renovation) (3 pages) Recommended Action Motian to adopt Resolution Adopting Modification No. 2, Tax Increment Financing Plan for Highway 55 West Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (Renewal and Renovation). City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation)District Within Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area (Highway 55 TIF Renewal and Redevelopment Project) Adopted by Housing and Redevelopment Authority: October 9, 2012 Planning Commission Review: November 26, 2012 Adopted by City Council: December 18, 2012 Administrative Amendment Adopted: January 15, 2013 Modification No. 2 Dated: November 13, 2014 (Draft) Prepared by: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55101-2887 (651) 223-3000 WWW.SPRINGSTED.COM INTRODUCTION The purpose of Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District Highway 55 TIF Renewal and Redevelopment Project is to account for a delay in scope and timing of the proposed private development. The original TIF Plan anticipated the development of a 142 unit apartment building, with construction commencing in 2013. This TIF Plan modification is prepared to update the development scenario to account for the development of a 162 unit apartment builtling with construction commencing in 2015. The modification also accounts for an increase in the project budget to account for the revised size and scope of the proposed development. The proposed motlifications to the TIF plan are highlighted by underlined text. The proposed modification does not increase the overall size of the District, but does increase the overall size of the budget. The sections being modifietl are: F, I,J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, V,X, and Y. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pa e s A. Definitions..............................................................................................................................................................1 B. Statutory Authorization..........................................................................................................................................1 C. Statement of Need and Public Purpose.................................................................................................................1 D. Statement of Objectives........................................................................................................................................1 E. Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as a Renewal and Renovation District.......................................1 F. Duration of the TIF District.....................................................................................................................................3 G. Property to be Included in the TIF District..............................................................................................................3 H. Property to be Acquired in the TIF District.............................................................................................................3 I. Specific Development Expected to Occur Within the TIF District..........................................................................4 J. Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4 K. Estimatetl Public Costs..........................................................................................................................................5 L. Estimated Sources of Revenue.............................................................................................................................6 M. Estimatetl Amount of Bonded Indebtetlness..........................................................................................................6 N. Original Net Tax Capacity......................................................................................................................................6 0. Original Local Tax Rate.........................................................................................................................................7 P. Projectetl Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity and Projected Tax Increment.....................................................7 Q. Use of Tax Increment............................................................................................................................................8 R. Excess Tax Increment...........................................................................................................................................8 S. Tax Increment Pooling and the Five Year Rule.....................................................................................................9 T. Limitation on Administrative Expenses..................................................................................................................9 U. Limitation on Property Not Subject to Improvements-Four Year Rule...............................................................10 V. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions..................................................................................................10 W. Prior Planned Improvements...............................................................................................................................10 X. Development Agreements...................................................................................................................................11 Y. Assessment Agreements.....................................................................................................................................11 Z. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing Plan.............................................................................................11 AA. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Plan............................................................................................12 AB. Filing TIF Plan, Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements......................................................................12 Map of the Tax Increment Financing District and Renewal and Redevelopment Project Area................EXHIBIT I AssumptionsReport...............................................................................................................................EXHIBIT II ProjectedTax Increment Report............................................................................................................EXHIBIT III Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Report........................................................................EXHIBIT IV MarketValue Analysis Report................................................................................................................EXHIBIT V RedevelopmentDistrict Findings...........................................................................................................EXHIBIT Vl Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Section A Definitions The terms defined in this section have the meanings given herein, unless the context in which they are usetl intlicates a different meaning: "Authoritv" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley. "Citv„ means the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota; also referred to as a"Municipalitv". "Citv Council" means the City Council of the Goltlen Valley;also referred to as the'GoverninQ Bodv". "Countv„ means Hennepin County, Minnesota. "Redevelopment Project Area" means the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area in the City, which is described in the corresponding Redevelopment Plan. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Project Area. "Proiect Area" means the geographic area of the Redevelopment Project Area. "School District"means Independent School District No. 270, Minnesota. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "TIF Act"means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, both inclusive. "TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Retlevelopment) District No. . "TIF Plan"means the tax increment financing plan for the TIF District(this document). Section B Statutory Authorization See"Statutory Authorization"on page 4 of the Retlevelopment Plan for the Project Area. Section C Statement of Need and Public Purpose See"Statement of Need antl Public Purpose"on page 4 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area. Section D Statement of Objectives See "Statement of Objectives"on pages 4-5 of the of the Retlevelopment Plan for the Project Area. Section E Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as a Renewal and Renovation District Renewal and Renovation districts are a type of tax increment financing district in which the following conditions exists: 1) i) parcels comprising at least 70% of the area of the district are occupietl by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots,or other similar structures; ii) 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substantlard; and iii) 30 percent of the other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions such as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not SPRINGSTED Page 1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well-being of the community. 2) the contlitions tlescribed in clause(1)are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the tlistrict. For purposes of determining whether a building is structurally substandartl, whether parcels are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures, or whether noncontiguous areas qualify,the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 469.174, subtlivision 10, paragraphs(b)through(fl, apply. For districts consisting of two more noncontiguous areas, each area must individually qualify under the provisions listed above,as well as the entire area must also qualify as a whole. The TIF District qualifies as a renewal and renovation district in that it meets all of the criteria listed in (1) and (2) above. An executive summary of a report prepared by LHB Corporation that details the qualifications is included in Exhibit VI.A copy of the entire report with supporting facts antl tlocumentation for this determination is on file with the Authority and is available to the public upon request. The full report will be retained by the Authority for the life of the TIF District. "Structurally substandard" is defined as buildings containing defects or tleficiencies in structural elements, essential utilities antl facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection (including egress), layout antl condition of interior partitions, or similar factors. Generally, a builtling is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to a new building, or coultl be motlified to satisfy the existing code at a cost of less than 15%of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type. A city may not find that a buiiding is structurally substandard without an interior inspection, unless it can not gain access to the property and there exists evidence which supports the structurally substandard finding. Such evidence includes recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence. Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained. A parcel is deemetl to be occupied by a structurally substandard building if the following conditions are met: (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district; (2) the demolition or removal of the substantlard building was performed or financed by the City, or was performed by a developer under a development agreement with the City, (3) the City found by resolution before such demolition or removal occurred that the building was structurally substandard and that the City intended to include the parcel in the TIF tlistrict, and (4) the City notifies the county autlitor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district. In the case of(4) above, the County Auditor shall certify the original net tax capacity of the parcel to be the greater of (a)the current tax capacity of the parcel, or (b)a computed tax capacity of the parcel using the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in which the demolition or removal occurretl, antl the appropriate classification rate(s) for the current year. A parcel is deemed "occupied" if at least 15%of the area of the parcel contains builtlings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots; or other similar structures. At least 90 percent of the tax increment from a renewal and renovation district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation as a redevelopment district. These costs include, but are not limitetl to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of land, removal of hazardous substances or SPRINGSTED Page 2 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota remediation necessary to develop the land, and installation of utilities, roatls, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated atlministrative expenses of the Authority may be included in the qualifying costs. Section F Duration of the TIF Disirict Renewal and Renovation districts may remain in existence 15 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. The Authority anticipates that the TIF District will remain in existence the maximum duration allowed by law(projected to be through the year 2032). Modifications of this plan (see Section Z) shall not extend these limitations. All tax increments from taxes payable in the year the TIF District is decertifietl shall be paid to the Authority. The Authority has elected to delay receipt of increment for a periotl of four vears; therefore, the anticipated first potential collection vear would not occur until 2016 in the event that inflationarv increment is qenerated The Authoritv anticipates that inflationarv increment will not be qenerated and therefore the first collection vear will be in 2017. The Authority reserves the right to allow the TIF District to remain in existence the maximum duration allowed by law (projected to be through the year 2032), and anticipates that the TIF District may be active for the maximum duration allowed (see Section P). However the Authority will tlecertify the TIF District as early as possible shoultl the projected increment be received in a shorter time periotl than originally projectetl. All tax increments from taxes payable in the year the TIF District is decertified shall be paid to the Authority. Section G Property to be Included in the TIF District The TIF District is an approximate 4.46-acre area of land located within the Project Area. A map showing the location of the TIF District is shown in Exhibit I. The boundaries and area encompassed by the TIF District are described below: Parcel Number Le al Descri tion 31-118-21-32-0009 THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING E OF W 749 8/10 FT THOF AND W OF E 291.14 FT THOF N OF STATE HWY NO 55 AND S OF WATERTOWN ROAD 31-118-21-32-0008 W 211 14/100 FT OF E 291 14/100 FT OF THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING S OF MPLS WATERTOWN ROAD AND N OF STATE HWY NO 55 31-118-21-32-0007 E 80 FT OF THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING S OF MPLS WATERTOWN ROAD AND N OF STATE HWY NO 55 31-118-21-31-0001 THE W 115 FT OF THAT PART OF NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING NLY OF STATE HWY NO 55 AND SLY OF 6TH AVE N 31-118-21-31-0002 THE E 115 FT OF W 230 FT OF THAT PART OF NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING NLY OF STATE HWY NO 55 AND SLY OF 6TH AVE N 31-118-21-31-0040 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. 0030 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TRACTS S&W The area encompassetl by the TIF District shall also include all street or utility right-of-ways located upon or adjacent to the property describetl above. Section H Property to be Acquired in the TIF District The Authority may acquire and sell any or all of the property located within the TIF District; however, the Authority tloes not anticipate acquiring any such property at this time. SPRINGSTED Page 3 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Section I Specific Development Expected to Occur Within the TIF District The proposed project includes the redevelopment of a currently blighted site by the construction of a 162-unit market rate apartment project. The proposed apartment qroiect is anticipated to be a six-storv 162-unit Class A market rate apartment buildinp, anticipated to contain a mix of 113 one-bedroom antl 49 two-betlroom units The averaqe unit size of the apartments is 846 sauare feet The apartment proiect will require site work improvements Proposed to be constructed as a result of the apartment project are public improvements proposed for the area to include improvements to the Highway 55 access/exit to Decatur Avenue North, sidewalks antl lighting to improve pedestrian safety, burial of overhead electrical lines, regional storm water facilities and sanitary sewer lining. These improvements are necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the blighted site, by facilitating a safer pedestrian neighborhood and removing costs prohibitive to the redevelopment of the project area. The Authority anticipates using tax increment revenues to finance a portion of the eligible public costs related to redevelopment of the project area and the develoqment of the apartment proiect throuqh the reimbursement of TIF eliqible expenses includinq land acquisition, as well as related administrative expenses. The Authority anticipates tlevelopment commencing in 2015 for the apartment portion of the project. The public improvements are slatetl to be undertaken in conjunction with the apartment project. It is likely that multiple projects will occur within the District, although it is assumed that all project costs eligible for TIF assistance will have been initiatetl by 2018. Section J Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing In establishing the TIF District,the Authority makes the following findings: (1) The TIF District qualifies as a renewal and renovation district; The City of Golden Valley retained the services of LHB to inspect and evaluate property within the proposed Tax Increment Financing District to be established by the Authority. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the proposed district met the statutory requirements for coverage and if the buildings met the qualifications requiretl for a Renewal and Renovation District. These findings are described more completely in Section E and Exhibit VI. (2) The proposed development, in the opinion of the Authority, woultl not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan. Factual basis: Proposed deve%pment not expected to occur.• The proposed retlevelopment consists of the acquisition and demolition/renovation of substandartl buildings,and the undertaking of necessary public improvements within the proposetl TIF District boundaries in the City of Golden Valley for development of new market rate apartments. The cost of acquisition and demolition/renovation of the existing buildings coupled with the cost of the public improvements, make the total cost of this effort significantly higher than reasonably incurretl for similar developments on a clean site. The Authority anticipates undertaking the public improvements necessary to provitle for an area safe for both pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and to remove costs prohibitive to the redevelopment of the project area. No higher market value expected.� SPRINGSTED Page 4 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota If the proposed redevelopment did not go forward, for the same reasons described above, no large scale alternative redevelopment of the project site would likely occur. The currently blightetl building is now closed and vacated, antl it is highly unlikely that significant improvements would be made. It is conceivable that the existing buildings could be rehabilitated and reopened, but even if that occurred, the result would be only a modest increase in market value compared to the significant value growth createtl by the proposetl redevelopment. In short,there is no basis for expectation that the area would redevelop or be renovated in any significant way purely by private action without public subsidy given the improvements necessary for the development of the project area. To summarize the basis for the Authority's findings regarding alternative market value, in accortlance with Minnesota Statutes,Section 469.175,Subd.3(d),the Authority makes the following determinations: a. The Authority's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the site will increase without the use of tax increment financing is anywhere from$0 to some modest amount based on small scale renovation or redevelopment that could be possible without assistance; any estimated values would be too speculative to ascertain. b. If the proposed development to be assisted with tax increment occurs in the District, the total increase in market value would be approximately 37 240 007, including the value of the building (See Exhibit II). c. The present value of tax increments from the Distnct for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be 5 069 240(See Exhibit V) d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur,the Authority finds that no alternative woultl occur that would produce a market value increase greater than 32170 767(the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c)without tax increment assistance. (3) The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the Authority as a whole,for development of the Project Area by private enterprise. Factual basis: The anticipated redevelopment of the project site may include the construction of a new 162-unit market rate apartment builtling,and the retlevelopment of project area consistent with the City's design goals. (4) The TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the Authority as a whole. Factual basis: The City Planning Commission has determined that the development proposed in the TIF Plan conforms to the City comprehensive plan. Section K Estimated Public Costs The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax increments of the TIF District. Land/Building Acquisition, Demolition, Special Assessments, Public Utilities, Site 4 545 891 Improvements/Preparation Costs,and other Eli ible Im rovement Costs Bond/Note Interest Pa ments 3,387,437 Administrative ex enses 881,480 Other Ex enditures Total $8 814 808 SPRINGSTED Page 5 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Go/den Valley, Minnesota The Authority reserves the right to administratively adjust the amount of any of the items listetl above or to incorporate additional eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased. The estimatetl cost of capitalized interest is includetl in the loan interest payment amount. The Authority reserves the right to spend available tax increment outside of the TIF District boundaries and within the project area. Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue Tax Increment revenue 8 814 808 Interest on invested funds Bond roceeds Loan roceeds Grants Other Total $8 814 808 The Authority anticipates using future tax increments for reimbursement of public costs incurred from Section K. As increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, these taxes will be reserved by the Authority as reimbursement for public costs incurred, either through internal funtling or general obligation or revenue debt. The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance, internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, fetleral or state funtls, and investment income. Section M Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness The Authority anticipates issuing tax increment bonds to finance a portion of the estimatetl public costs of the TIF District, to internally loan funds to the TIF District from allowable Authority and/or City in an amount not to exceed 5 455 069(eligible costs+20%allowance for cost of issuance). Section N Original Net Tax Capacity The County Autlitor shall certify the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. This value will be equal to the total net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District as certified by the State Commissioner of Revenue. For districts certified between January 1 and June 30, inclusive, this value is based on the previous assessment year. For districts certified between July 1 and December 31, inclusive,this value is basetl on the current assessment year. The Certified Estimated Market Value of all the land within the TIF District as of January 2, 2012,for taxes payable in 2013,was$3,457,000 and the original net tax capacity of the TIF District is 65 390. For the qurposes of this TIF plan the oriqinal net tax capacitv is anticipated to be adiusted to$53 000 at the time of proiect initiation based on a portion of the propertv beinq reclassified to rental to coincide with the tlevelopment and the remaininq area continuinq to be classifietl commercial/industrial. Each year the County Autlitor shall certify the amount that the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased as a result of: (1) changes in the tax-exempt status of property; (2) reductions or enlargements of the geographic area of the TIF District; (3) changes due to stipulation agreements or abatements;or (4) changes in property classification rates. SPRINGSTED Page 6 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Section 0 Original Local Tax Rate The County Auditor shall also certify the original local tax rate of the TIF District. This rate shall be the sum of all local tax rates that apply to property in the TIF District. This rate shall be for the same taxes payable year as the original net tax capacity. In future years,the amount of tax increment generated by the TIF District will be calculatetl using the lesser of(a)the sum of the current local tax rates at that time or(b)the original local tax rate of the TIF District. The Certified Oriqinal Local Tax Rate for the TIF District is the sum of the local tax rates for taxes levied in 2012 and pavable in 2013, is 148.328%as shown below 2012/2013 Taxinq Jurisdiction Local Tax Rate City of Golden Valley 58.204°/a Hennepin County 49.461% ISD#270 29.730% Other 10.933% Total 148.328% Section P Projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity and Projected Tax Increment The Authority anticipates that the apartment project will be 80%comqleted bv December 31 2015, creating an initial tax capacity for the TIF District of $294,420 as of Januarv 2 2016. The captured tax capacity as of that date is estimated to be 240 430 and the first-year of tax increment is estimatetl to be $356,625 pavable in 2017. The first full year of increment is projected to be in $456,480 in taxes pavable 2018. A complete schedule of estimated tax increment from the TIF District is shown in Exhibit IV. The estimates shown in this TIF Plan assume that commercial class rates remain at 1.5%for the first $150,000 of estimated market value and 2.0%of the market value above $150,000; antl that rental class rates remain at 1.25%. The projections also assume a 3%annual increase in market values. Each year the County Auditor shall determine the current net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District. To the extent that this total exceeds the original net tax capacity, the tlifference shall be known as the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. For communities affected by the fiscal disparity provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473F and Chapter 276A, the original net tax capacity of the TIF District shall be determined before the application of fiscal disparity. In subsequent years, the current net tax capacity shall either(a) be determined before the application of fiscal disparity or (b)exclude the product of any fiscal disparity increase in the TIF District (since the original net tax capacity was certified)times the appropriate fiscal disparity ratio. The method the Authority elects shall remain the same for the life of the TIF District, except that a single change may be made at any time from method (a)to method (b) above. »The Authority elects method (a),or M.S. Section 469.177, Subtlivision 3(a). The County Autlitor shall certify to the Authority the amount of captured net tax capacity each year. The Authority may choose to retain any or all of this amount. It is the Authority's intention to retain 100%of the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. Such amount shall be known as the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. Exhibit II gives a listing of the various information and assumptions used in preparing a number of the exhibits containetl in this TIF Plan, including Exhibit III which shows the projected tax increment generated over the anticipated life of the TIF District. SPRINGSTED Page 7 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Section Q Use of Tax Increment Each year the County Treasurer shall deduct 0.36%of the annual tax increment generated by the TIF District and pay such amount to the State's General Fund. Such amounts will be appropriatetl to the State Autlitor for the cost of financial reporting and auditing of tax increment financing information throughout the state. Exhibit III shows the projected deduction for this purpose over the anticipated life of the TIF District. The Authority has determined that it will use 100% of the remaining tax increment generated by the TIF District for any of the following purposes: (1) pay for the estimatetl public costs of the TIF District (see Section K) and County administrative costs associated with the TIF District(see Section T); (2) pay principal and interest on tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimatetl public costs of the TIF District; (3) accumulate a reserve securing the payment of tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District; (4) pay all or a portion of the county road costs as may be required by the County Board under M.S. Section 469.175, Subdivision 1a;or (5) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County antl School District. Tax increments from property locatetl in one county must be expendetl for the direct antl primary benefit of a project located within that county, unless both county boards involved waive this requirement. Tax increments shall not be used to circumvent levy limitations applicable to the Authority. Tax increment shall not be used to finance the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the State or federal government, or for a commons area used as a public park, or a facility used for social, recreational, or conference purposes. This prohibition tloes not apply to the construction or renovation of a parking structure or of a privately owned facility for conference purposes. If there exists any type of agreement or arrangement providing for the developer,or other beneficiary of assistance,to repay all or a portion of the assistance that was paid or financed with tax increments, such payments shall be subject to all of the restrictions imposed on the use of tax increments. Assistance includes sale of property at less than the cost of acquisition or fair market value, grants, ground or other leases at less then fair market rent, interest rate subsidies, utility service connections, roads, or other similar assistance that would otherwise be paid for by the developer or beneficiary. Section R Excess Tax Increment In any year in which the tax increments from the TIF District exceed the amount necessary to pay the estimated public costs authorized by the TIF Plan,the Authority shall use the excess tax increments to: (1) prepay any outstanding tax increment bonds; (2) discharge the pledge of tax increments thereof; (3) pay amounts into an escrow account dedicatetl to the payment of the tax increment bonds;or SPRINGSTED Page 8 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (4) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School District. The County Auditor must report to the Commissioner of Education the amount of any excess tax increment redistributetl to the School District within 30 days of such redistribution. Section S Tax Increment Pooling and the Five Year Rule At least 75%of the tax increments from the TIF District must be expended on activities within the district or to pay for bonds used to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District (see Section E for additional restrictions). No more than 25%of the tax increments may be spent on costs outside of the TIF District but within the boundaries of the Project Area,except to pay debt service on credit enhanced bonds. All administrative expenses are considered to have been spent outside of the TIF District. Tax increments are considered to have been spent within the TIF District if such amounts are: (1) actually paitl to a third party for activities performed within the TIF District within five years after certification of the district; (2) used to pay bonds that were issued and soltl to a third party, the proceeds of which are reasonably expected on the date of issuance to be spent within the later of the five-year period or a reasonable temporary periotl or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund. (3) used to make payments or reimbursements to a third party under bintling contracts for activities performed within the TIF District, which were entered into within five years after certification of the district; or (4) used to reimburse a party for payment of eligible costs(including interest) incurred within five years from certification of the district. Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the TIF District,at least 75%of the tax increments must be usetl to pay outstanding bonds or make contractual payments obligated within the first five years. When outstanding bonds have been defeased and sufficient money has been set aside to pay for such contractual obligations, the TIF District must be decertified. The Authority does currently anticipate that an eligible portion of tax increments will be spent outside the TIF District (including allowable administrative expenses), and such expenditures are expressly authorized in this TIF Plan. Section T Limitation on Administrative Expenses Administrative expenses are defined as all costs of the Authority other than: (1) amounts paid for the purchase of land; (2) amounts paid for materials and services, including architectural and engineering services directly connectetl with the physical development of the real property in the project; (3) relocation benefits paid to, or services provitled for, persons resitling or businesses located in the project; (4) amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178;or (5) amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clause(1)to(3). Administrative expenses include amounts paitl for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, planning or economic tlevelopment consultants, and actual costs incurred by the County in atlministering the TIF District. Tax SPRINGSTED Page 9 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota increments may be used to pay administrative expenses of the TIF District up to the lesser of(a) 10%of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or(b) 10%of the total tax increments received by the TIF District. Section U Limitation on Property Not Subject to Improvements- Four Year Rule If after four years from certification of the TIF District no demolition, rehabilitation, renovation, or qualifietl improvement of an adjacent street has commenced on a parcel located within the TIF District, then that parcel shall be excluded from the TIF District and the original net tax capacity shall be adjusted accordingly. Qualified improvements of a street are limited to construction or opening of a new street, relocation of a street, or substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The Authority must submit to the County Autlitor, by February 1 of the fifth year,evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the TIF District. If a parcel is excluded from the TIF District and the Authority or owner of the parcel subsequently commences any of the above activities, the Authority shall certify to the County Auditor that such activity has commenced and the parcel shall once again be included in the TIF District. The County Auditor shall certify the net tax capacity of the parcel, as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue, and add such amount to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. Section V Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Exhibit IV shows the estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions if the maximum projected retainetl captured net tax capacity of the TIF District was hypothetically available to the other taxing jurisdictions. The Authority believes that there will be no adverse impact on other taxing jurisdictions during the life of the TIF District, since the proposed development would not have occurretl without the establishment of the TIF District antl the provision of public assistance. A positive impact on other taxing jurisdictions will occur when the TIF District is decertified and the tlevelopment therein becomes part of the general tax base. The fiscal antl economic implications of the proposetl tax increment financing district, as pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 2, are listed below. 1. The total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the district is estimated to be 8 846 656. 2. To the extent the project in the TIF District generates any public cost impacts on city-provided services such as police and fire protection, public infrastructure, and the impact of any general obligation tax increment bonds attributable to the district upon the ability to issue other debt for general fund purposes, such costs will be levietl upon the taxable net tax capacity of the Authority,excluding that portion captured by the District. 3. The amount of tax increments over the life of the district that would be attributable to school tlistrict levies, assuming the school districYs share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remainetl the same, is estimated to be 1 773172. 4. The amount of tax increments over the life of the district that woultl be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same is estimatetl to be 2 949 979. 5. No atlditional information has been requested by the county or school tlistrict that would enable it to determine additional costs that will accrue to it due to the development proposetl for the district. Section W Prior Planned Improvements The City shall accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor(or notice of district enlargement), with a listing of all properties within the TIF District for which builtling permits have been issuetl during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the SPRINGSTED Page 10 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota TIF District by the net tax capacity of each improvement for which a building permit was issued. The City does not believe the issuance of the permits will have a significant impact on the original net tax capacity for the District. Various permits have been issued for property within the TIF District within the last 18 months are a listetl below: Permit Value of Pro ert Address Pro ert ID Number Permit Date Work Pertormed Im rovement 9100 Olson Memorial Hi hwa 31-118-21-32-0007 11-1-2012 Move Interior Wall $25,000 9100 Olson Memorial Hi hwa 31-118-21-32-0007 12-4-2012 Electrical-Office Remodel $0 9100 Olson Memorial Hi hwa 31-118-21-32-0007 12-12-2012 Duct Work $1,700 9010 Olson Memorial Hi hwa 31-118-21-32-0001 03-29-2012 Install 4 S rinkler Heads $1,000 9010 Olson Memorial Hi hwa 31-118-21-32-0001 07-23-2012 Si n Removal $0 8950 Olson Memorial Highway 31-118-21-31-0040 09-07-2011 Replace Furnace and Gas $1,921 Pi in Section X Development Agreements If within a project containing a renewal and renovation district, more than 25% of the acreage of the property to be acquiretl by the Authority is purchased with tax increment bonds proceeds (to which tax increment from the property is pledged), then prior to such acquisition, the Authority must enter into an agreement for the development of the property. Such agreement must provitle recourse for the Authority should the development not be completetl. The Authoritv does not anticipate acquirinq anv propertv located within the TIF District however the Authoritv does reserve the riqht to acquire propertv antl enter into an aqreement if deemed necessarv The Authoritv does anticipate enterinq into a development aqreement but not for purqoses related to the acquisition of propertv with tax increment bonds. Section Y Assessment Agreements The Authority may, upon entering into a development agreement, also enter into an assessment agreement with the developer, which establishes a minimum market value of the lantl and improvements for each year during the life of the TIF District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County or City Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land, and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears to be an accurate estimate, shall certify the assessment agreement as reasonable. The assessment agreement shall be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of each county where the property is located. Any modification or premature termination of this agreement must first be approved by the City, County and School District. The Authoritv does anticipate enterinq into an assessment aqreement Section Z Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Any reduction or enlargement in the geographic area of the Project Area or the TIF District; a determination to capitalize interest on the tlebt if that determination was not part of the original TIF Plan, increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the Authority; increase in the total estimated public costs;or designation of property to be acquired by the Authority shall be approved only after satisfying all the necessary requirements for approval of the original TIF Plan. This paragraph does not apply if: (1) the only modification is elimination of parcels from the TIF District; and (2) the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminatetl equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcels in the TIF DistricYs original net tax capacity, or the Authority agrees that the TIF SPRINGSTED Page 11 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota DistricYs original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated. The Authority must notify the County Autlitor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the TIF District. The geographic area of the TIF District may be reduced but not enlarged after five years following the date of certification. Section AA Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Upon adoption of the TIF Plan, the Authority shall submit a copy of such plan to the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor. The Authority shall also request that the County Autlitor certify the original net tax capacity antl net tax capacity rate of the TIF District. To assist the County Auditor in this process, the Authority shall submit copies of the TIF Plan, the resolution establishing the TIF District and adopting the TIF Plan, and a listing of any prior planned improvements. The Authority shall also send the County Assessor any assessment agreement establishing the minimum market value of land antl improvements in the TIF District, and shall request that the County Assessor review and certify this assessment agreement as reasonable. The County shall distribute to the Authority the amount of tax increment as it becomes available. The amount of tax increment in any year represents the applicable property taxes generated by the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. The amount of tax increment may change due to tlevelopment anticipated by the TIF Plan, other development, inflation of property values,or changes in property classification rates or formulas. In administering and implementing the TIF Plan,the following actions should occur on an annual basis: (1) prior to July 1, the Authority shall notify the County Assessor of any new development that has occurred in the TIF District during the past year to insure that the new value will be recorded in a timely manner. (2) if the County Auditor receives the request for certification of a new TIF District,or for motlification of an existing TIF District, before July 1, the request shall be recognized in determining local tax rates for the current and subsequent levy years. Requests received on or after July 1 shall be usetl to determine local tax rates in subsequent years. (3) each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount of the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. The amount certified shall reflect any changes that occur as a result of the following: , (a) the value of property that changes from tax-exempt to taxable shall be addetl to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. The reverse shall also apply; (b) the original net tax capacity may be modifietl by any approved enlargement or reduction of the TIF District; (c) if laws governing the classification of real property cause changes to the percentage of estimated market value to be applied for property tax purposes,then the resulting increase or decrease in net tax capacity shall be applied proportionately to the original net tax capacity and the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. The County Auditor shall notify the Authority of all changes made to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. Section AB Filing TIF Plan, Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements The Authority will file the TIF Plan, and any subsequent amendments thereto,with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175,subtlivision 4A. The Authority will comply with all reporting requirements for the TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivisions 5 and 6. SPRINGSTED Page 12 Exhibit I MAP OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING(Renewal and Renovation) DISTRICT Within Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area T.OGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 . � f`¢ 93�; � q�r '� B� � � •{ . s s � �t�p �i¢ -�- ' ��n �� `` v '�? r�+ � � °� •r x � riP �y� �� 7�f � � � �41qF1W y'+ yp ' � ' $ _._..e__ �� '� 7�1 ..i�..., � , a 2 �m 4 N� �� _....._.___.�_ y� t� i� rr y�,, P� ��i�l�� WMI�i� _� i��= ,��ATl" •} �� e t ti s •;,�mav.a�= T-- � � � ►fao �� o e 1 °� 4 � � s U ��° i� t de iwN � �� n l/ I 9 f � �.r--� o °� � q. IIeY d � . uf' � p 0 . ��-^ • i Qt�� ' ' 9 N9.55 I^ �y.1Pa 0 Ru�1iwY 55 . � — � � Ny - � 6�'H�y� '�'� t S I m . . . ON�M��l951 9l �7B Q - � 7{ C � y�{i� f�" � IY2 y�� a7� � �Oi .� H a 42t � f013� > t � �� ;�� f�� t17 � f0 12 1S ' z : � S, ��p� i°S ts��' w.�-�� .� , �+ � :aa�a: s � e+ ,� e.n. "_ ous ^`�r , �,.,��, � _ _._ . . � . .r'�'{,•� �� ]OtSH Genual Mllls Nature Pr�:erve r� {��]'�! � E Tot 6ewrM MI!!i Ion/ �O� �� V,. ..1 �.�r.R... �W,,,r� t �i .,` u�+wa�n:�s�+a�t:anl,.e: � � ■BotrWary oi Nwy 55 West RedevebpmeM Projeet Nes � =Boundary oi Rmwal and Rawvacion TIP Districl http://gis.logis.org/I,OGI S_Arcl M S/i ms?ScrviceName�v_LOGISmap_OV SDE&ClientV,.. 9/18/2012 SPRINGSTED Page 13 Exhibit ll � Assumptions Report City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Renewal&Renovation)District $23.4 Million Highway 55 TIF District-Amendment No.2 Type of Tax Increment Financing District Renewal&Renovation Maximum Duration of TIF District 15 years from 1st increment Projected Certification Request Date � 12/04/12 Decertification Date � 12/31/32 (16 Years of Increment) 2014/2015 Base Estimated Market Value � $3,457,000 Original Net Tax Capacity $53,990 Assessment/Collection Year 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 Base Estimated Market Value $3,457,000 $3,457,000 $3,457,000 $3,457,000 Increase in Estimated Market Value � 0 � 0 � 19,234,400 � 24,620,032 Total Estimated Market Value � 3,457,000 � 3,457,000 � 22,691,400 � 28,077,032 Total Net Tax Capaciry $53,990 $53,990 $294,420 $361,740 City of Golden Valley 58.204% Hennepin County 49.461% ISD#270 29.730% Other � 10.933% Local Tax Capacity Rate 148.328% 2012/2013 Fiscal Disparities Contribution From TIF District 0.0000% Administrative Retainage Percent(maximum = 10%) 10.00% Pooling Percent 0.00% Bonds Note(Pay-As-You-Go) Bonds Dated � 12/31/14 Note Dated 12/31/14 Bond Issue @ 0.00%(NIC) $0 Note Rate 5.50% Eligible Project Costs � $0 Note Amount $3,790,600 Present Value Date&Rate � 12/31/14 5.50°/o Notes Projections assume no future changes to tax and classification rates. Assumptions are based on a 3%market value inflator. Projections assumed development 80%constructed in 2015. Projections are based on a post development estimated market value for the project of$24M SPRINGSTED Exhibit lll Projected Tax Increment Report City of Golden Valley,Minnesota Tax Increment Financing(Renewal 8 Renovation)District $23.4 Million Highway 55 TIF District-Amendment No.2 Less: Less: Retained Times: Less: Mnual Less: Mnual Total Original Fiscal Captured Tax Annual StateAud. Revenue Admin. Mnual Period Net Tax Net Tax Disp.@ Net Tax Capacity Gross Tax Deduction Net of Retainage Net Ending Capacity Capacity 0.0000% Capacity Rate Increment 0.360% OSA Deduction 10.00% Revenue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12/31/17 294,420 53,990 0 240,430 148.328% 356,625 1,284 355,341 35,534 319,807 12/31/18 361,740 53,990 0 307,750 148.328% 456,480 1,643 454,837 45,484 409,353 12/31/19 370,973 53,990 0 316,983 148.328% 47Q174 1,693 468,481 46,848 421,633 12/31/20 380,482 53,990 0 326,492 148.328% 484,280 1,743 482,537 48,254 434,283 12/31/21 390,277 53,990 0 336,287 148.328% 498,808 1,796 497,012 49,701 447,311 12/31/22 400,366 53,990 0 346,376 148.328% 513,772 1,850 511,922 51,192 460,730 12/31/23 410,757 53,990 0 356,767 148.328% 529,185 1,905 527,280 52,728 474,552 12/31/24 421,460 53,990 0 367,470 148.328% 545,061 1,962 543,099 54,310 488,789 12/31/25 432,484 53,990 0 378,494 148.328% 561,413 2,021 559,392 55,939 503,453 12/31/26 443,839 53,990 0 389,849 148.328% 578,255 2,082 576,173 57,617 518,556 12/31/27 455,534 53,990 0 401,544 148.328% 595,603 2,144 593,459 59,346 534,113 12/31/28 467,581 53,990 0 413,591 148.328% 613,471 2,208 611,263 61,126 550,137 12/31/29 479,989 53,990 0 425,999 148.328% 631,875 2,275 629,600 62,960 566,640 12/31/30 492,768 53,990 0 438,778 148.328% 650,831 2,343 648,488 64,849 583,639 12/31/31 505,932 53,990 0 451,942 148.328% 670,356 2,413 667,943 66,794 601,149 12/31/32 519,490 53,990 0 465,500 148.328% 690,467 2,486 687,981 68,798 619,183 $8,846,656 $31,848 $8,814,808 $881,480 $7,933,328 SPRINGSTED Page 15 Exhibit lV Estimated Im acton OtherTaxin Jurisdictions Re ort � City of Golden Valley,Minnesota � Tax Increment Financing(Renewal&Renovation)District � $23.4 Million Highway 55 TIF District-Amendment No.2 W ithout Prolect or TIF District W ith Project and TIF District Projected Hypothetical 2013/2014 � 2013/2014 Retained New Hypothetical Hypothetical Tax Generated Taxable � 2013/2014 Taxable Captured Taxable Adjusted Decrease In by Retained Taxing Net Tax Local Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Local Local Captured Jurisdiction Capaciry(1) Tax Rate Capaciry(1) + Capacity = Capacity Tax Rate(*) Tax Rate(*) N T C (") �CityofGoldenValley 26,707,577 � 58.204% 26,707,577 ' $465,500 27,173,077 57.207% 0.997% 266,298 Hennepin County 1,233,679,768 � 49.461% 1,233,679,768 465,500 1,234,145,268 49.442% 0.019% 230,154 ISD#270 87,531,458 � 29.730% 87,531,458 465,500 87,996,958 29.573% 0.157% 137,661 Other(2) --- � 10.933% --- 465,500 --- 10.933°/ --- --- Totals 148.328% 147.155% 1.173% * Statement 1: If the projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TIF District was hypothetically available to each of the taxing jurisdictions above,the result would be a lower local tax rate(see Hypothetical Adjusted Tax Rate above) which would produce the same amount of taxes for each taxing jurisdiction. In such a case,the total local tax rate would decrease by 1.173%(see Hypothetical Decrease in Local Tax Rate above). The hypothetical tax that the Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TIF District would generate is also shown above. Statement 2: Since the projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TIF District is not available to the taxing jurisdictions, then there is no impact on taxes levied or local tax rates. (1) Taxable net tax capacity=total net tax capacity-captured TIF-fiscal disparity contribution,if applicable. (2) The impact on these taxing jurisdictions is negligible since they represent only 7.37°/of the total tax rate. SPRINGSTED Page 16 Exhibit V Market Value Anal sis Report � City of Golden Valley, Minnesota � Tax Increment Financing (Renewal 8� Renovation) District � $23.4 Million Highway 55 TIF District -Amendment No. 2 Assumptions Present Value Date � 12/31/14 P.V. Rate - Gross T.I. � 5.50% Increase in EMV With TIF District ` $37,240,007 Less: P.V of Gross Tax Increment 5,069,240 Subtotal $32,170,767 Less: Increase in EMV Without TIF p Difference $32,170,767 Annual Present Gross Tax Value @ Year Increment 5.50% � 2016 � 0 0 1 2017 � 356,625 307,799 2 2018 � 456,480 373,444 3 2019 � 470,174 364,594 4 2020 � 484,280 355,955 5 2021 � 498,808 347,520 6 2022 � 513,772 339,284 7 2023 � 529,185 331,244 8 2024 � 545,061 323,395 9 2025 � 561,413 315,732 10 2026 � 578,255 308,250 11 2027 � 595,603 300,946 12 2028 � 613,471 293,814 13 2029 � 631,875 286,852 14 2030 � 650,831 280,054 15 2031 � 670,356 273,418 16 2032 � 690,467 266,939 $8,846,656 $5,069,240 SPRINGSTED Exhibit VI RENEWAL AND RENOVATION QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT EXECUTNE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of Golden Valley to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment Financing Renewal and Renovation District ("TIF DistricY') proposed to be established by the City. The proposed TIF District is located in the City of Golden Valley, bounded by Golden Valley Road on the North, Highway 55 on the South, and Decatur Avenue North on the West (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB's work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether five buildings on seven parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Renewal and Renovation District. .�, „ _� � �.�:'��'�..�" �.��.�. � � _ ��.�� `� �� , . � x� � � �., �� .� � > :r� �^�-'�'� .� _ " "a�'.' ,.<..�.�,"�, .�;'. , �,F` �»�n.3..."�� : ,�.:. e�.�"�.",� a+�-.. � �` � �* '� ,�- � t _ .. . �.._.�....._. �� . � 's��,,,�e'�'.� M;r�'�<�::: � �� e�- � ' .,., . _.. �w-� .� '7 � � ._r. . ��r s��- �'a5:�,�/ .-. „� , ..., � � A4 � r ;�i��,;�4 ��* . - ��i4� � t IOD "'wy .�:.. �i- �� µ'S�k� ° 6 � �� > ,-�_s • �`:�,-��°3 � 4� : ,z �� 2w Diagram 1 -Proposed TIF District SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists of six (6) parcels and a section of public road, with five (5) commercial buildings. All five of the buildings received a curbside visual inspection. Three buildings in the proposed TIF District received an on-site interior and exterior inspection. Building code and Condition Deficiency reports for each building inspected by LHB are located in Appendix B. SPRINGSTED Exhibit VI CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying current statutory criteria for a Renewal and Renovation District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10a, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Renewal and Renovation District because: • The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. • 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which meets the 20 percent requirement. • 50 percent of the other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance which is above the 30 percent requirement. • The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District. SPRINGSTED Resolution 14-6 November 12, 2014 Commissioner Harris introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (RENEWAL AND RENOVAT�ON) DISTRICT NO. 1 BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "Authority"), as follows: WHEREAS, the Authority has previously adopted a redevelopment plan (the "Project Plan") and redevelopment project under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, designated as the Highway 55 West Renewal and Renovation Project Area (the "Redevelopment Project") and a tax increment financing plan of the Authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, designated as the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1, as amended by an administrative modification adopted January 15, 2013 (as so modified, the "Financing Plan"). The Financing Plan established Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1 (the "TIF District"). WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Authority approve Modification No. 2 to the Financing Plan (the "Amended Financing Plan") to account for a delay in scope and timing of the proposed private development and to increase the budget of the TIF District, all as reflected in the Amended Financing Plan and presented for the Authority's consideration; WHEREAS, the Autharity has investigated the facts relating to the Amended Financing Plan and has caused the Amended Financing Plan to be prepared; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "City Council"), has scheduled a public hearing on the Amended Financing Plan to be held on December 2, 2014, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (the "Public Hearing"); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Amended Financing Plan is hereby adopted based on the findings herein, subject to approval by the City Council following the Public Hearing. Section 2. Findinqs. The Authority hereby makes the following findings: (a) The District consists of a contiguous geographic area within a "project" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 8, and is a proper "tax increment financing district" within the meaning of Section 469.174, subdivision 9. Based on the information in Amended Financing Plan and representations of the developer, the District contains the following conditions: Parcels consisting of 70% of the area of the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures; 20% of the buildings are structurally substandard; and 30% of the other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions, such as inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or Resolution 14-6 - Continued November 12, 2014 conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well-being of the City. The foregoing conditions are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the District. Therefore, the District qualifies as a "renewal and renovation district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10a. (b) The private redevelopment proposed to be encouraged in the Redevelopment Project pursuant to the proposed Project Plan would not, in the opinion of the Authority, reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Authority, the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated ta result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Amended Financing Plan. The studies and analyses supporting these findings are identified in the Amended Financing Plan. (c) The Amended Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. The redevelopment activities are compatible with the City's zoning ordinances and other related regulations and encourage efficient use of existing infrastructure as set forth in the City's Land Use Plan. (d) The Amended Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. The redevelopment activities contemplated in the Project Plan would help to retard blight in the Redevelopment Project and provide an increase in employment and housing opportunities in the City and enhance the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing jurisdictions. Section 3. Transmittal. The Authority does hereby transmit the Amended Financing Plan to the City Council for approval after the same have been considered by the City Council subsequent to the Public Hearing. Section 4. Filinq. Fallowing approval by the City Council, the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to file the Amended Financing Plan with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 4a. Steven T Schmidgall, Chair ATTEST; Thomas D. Burt, Executive Director The mation for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Fonnest and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following vated in favor thereof: Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope and the following voted against the same: Clausen, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Chair and his signature attested by the Executive Director. Commissioner Kluchka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 14-01 RESOLUTION OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (RENEWAL AND RENOVATION) DISTRICT NO. 1 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, AS AMENDED (AMENDED 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE) WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") of the City of Golden Valley (the "City") has previously adopted a redevelopment plan (the "Project Plan") and redevelopment project under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, designated as the Highway 55 West Renewal and Renovation Project Area (the "Redevelopment Project") and a tax increment financing plan of the Authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, designated as the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1, as amended by an administrative modification adopted January 15, 2013 (as so modified, the "Financing Plan"). The Financing Plan established Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1 (the "TIF District"). WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City and the Authority approve Modification No. 2 to the Financing Plan (the "Amended Financing Plan") to account for a delay in scope and timing of the proposed private development and to increase the budget of the TIF District. WHEREAS, the City and the Authority have caused to be prepared and submitted the Amended Financing Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") for review prior to the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Amended Financing Plan to determine its conformity with the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update for the City, as approved by the City Council on March 17, 2009 and amended thereafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Amended Financing Plan conforms with the general plan for the development of the City as a whole, is compatible with the City's zoning ordinance and other related regulations and encourages efficient use of existing infrastructure as set forth in the City's Land Use Plan. John Kluchka, Chair ATTEST: Chuck Segelbaum, Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum and upon a vate being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Chair and his signature attested by the Secretary. Resolution 14-96 December 2, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (RENEWAL AND RENOVATION) DISTRICT NO. 1 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "C�"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01, The City approved a redevelopment plan (the "Pro�ect Plan") and redevelopment project of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley (the "Authoritv"), under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, designated as the Highway 55 West Renewal and Renovation Project Area (the "Redevelopment Project") and a tax increment financing plan of the Authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the "Act"), designated as the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1, as amended by an administrative modification adopted January 15, 2013 (as so modified, the "FinancingPlan"). The Financing Plan established Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (the "District"). 1.02. Pursuant to the Act, the Authority has adopted Modification No. 2 to the Financing Plan (the "AmendmenY' and together with the Financing Plan, the "Amended Financing Plan"). The Amended Financing Plan updates the development scenario and increases the budget of the District, and provides for other conforming changes, all as reflected in the Amended Financing Plan and presented for this Council's consideration. 1.03. Members of the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County and of the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 270 have been given an opportunity to meet with the City and comment on the Amended Financing Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivisions 3 and 4, this Council on December 2, 2014, conducted a public hearing on the desirability of approving the Amended Financing Plan. Notice of the public hearing was duly published as required by law in the New Hope Golden Valley Sun Post, the official newspaper of the City, on November 20, 2014. The City not received written comments on the Amended Financing Plan from the county and the school district after providing the county and the school district board with information on the fiscal and economic implications of the Amended Financing Plan not less than 30 days before the date of the public hearing. 1.04. In addition to the notice and opportunity described in Section 1.03 hereof, the City delivered written notice to the member of the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County who represents the District. The notice contained a general description of the boundaries of the District, the proposed development activities to be undertaken therein, an Resolution 14-96 - Continued December 2, 2014 offer by representatives of the City to meet and discuss the proposed District with the county commissioner and a solicitation of the commissioner's comments with respect to the District. Section 2. Approval of Amended Financing Plan. On the basis of the Amended Financing Plan and the information elicited at the public hearing referred to in Section 1.03, it is hereby found, determined and declared: 2.01. The Amended Financing Plan provides the means to finance certain public redevelopment costs of the Redevelopment Project, including the redevelopment activities described in the Project Plan that benefit the District. The Amended Financing Plan contains a statement of objectives for the improvement of the Redevelopment Project, a statement as to the develapment program for the District, and a statement of the property within the Redevelopment Project which the Authority intends to acquire. The Amended Financing Plan also estimates the public redevelopment costs of the Redevelopment Project, the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, the sources of revenues to finance or otherwise pay public costs of the District, the most recent net tax capacity of taxable real property within the District, the captured net tax capacity of the District at completion, and the duration of the District. The Amended Financing Plan also describes and identifies the development activities to be undertaken or expected to be undertaken in the District and all parcels to be included in the District. The Amended Financing Plan further contains alternative estimates of the impact of the proposed tax increment financing on the net tax capacities of all taxing jurisdictions in which the District is located. All the captured tax capacity is necessary for the objectives of the District. 2.02. The District consists of a contiguous geographic area within a "project" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 8, and is a proper "tax increment financing district" within the meaning of Section 469.174, subdivision 9. Based on the information in the Amended Financing Plan and representations of the developer, the District contains the following conditions: Parcels consisting of 70% of the area of the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures; 20% of the buildings are structurally substandard; and 30% of the other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions, such as inadequate street layaut, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well-being of the City. The foregoing conditions are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the District. Therefore, the District qualifies as a "renewal and renovation district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10a. 2.03. The private redevelopment proposed to be encouraged in the Redevelopment Project pursuant to the Project Plan would not, in the opinion of this Council, reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable Resalution 14-96 - Continued December 2, 2014 future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. Furthermore, in the opinion of this Council, the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Amended Financing Plan. The studies and analyses supporting these findings are identified in the Amended Financing Plan. 2.04. The Amended Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. The redevelopment activities are compatible with the City's zoning ordinances and other related regulations and encourage efficient use of existing infrastructure as set forth in the City's Land Use Plan. 2.05. The Amended Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. The redevelopment activities contemplated in the Project Plan would help to retard blight in the Redevelopment Project and provide an increase in employment and housing opportunities in the City and enhance the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing jurisdictions. 2.06. Upon review of the Amended Financing Plan, the information elicited at the public hearing and on the basis of the findings in Sections 2.01 through 2.05, this Council hereby approves the Amended Financing Plan, 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.