Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-17-15 CC Agenda Packet (entire)
AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber March 17, 2015 6:30 pm The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Roll Call B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment D. 2014 Police Department Annual Report 3 E. State of the City Presentation 4 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 - March 3, 2015 5-9 B. Approval of City Check Register 10 C. Licenses: 1. Multi-Family Rental Property Licenses 11-12 2. Solicitor's License - Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) 13-15 3. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - 16-18 Meadowbrook Elementary School PTO 4. General Business Licenses 19-21 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - February 23, 2015 22-36 2. Open Space and Recreation Commission - December 22, 2014 37-38 3. Human Services Fund - February 9, 2015 39-40 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Award Contract for 2015 Spring Brush Pickup Program 41 2. Award Contracts for 2015 Pavement Management Program 42-48 F. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine Brookview Park 49-50 G. Appointments to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and its 51-52 Technical Advisory Committee 15-20 H. Adoption Ordinance 545, amending Section 4.31: Stormwater Management 53-69 Ordinance, Second Consideration I. Call for Administrative Hearing - Alcohol Sale Violation - Pallop Ratnasingha (Owner) 70-77 - Nong's Thai Cuisine 15-21 J. Receipt of January Financial Reports 78-86 K. Agreement with Springsted, Inc. for City Manager Executive Recruitment Services 87-90 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #546 - Final PUD - Struthers Parkinson's Center - 6701 91-134 Country Club Drive Park Nicollet Methodist, Applicant B. Public Hearing - First Consideration - Ordinance #547 and #548 regarding the 135-200 Moratorium on Subdivisions and PUD that include Single Family Residential Components C. Public Hearing - Amending Section 11.21, Height and Side Yard Setbacks 201 D. Public Hearing - Special Assessments for 2015 Pavement Management Program 202-208 15-22 E. Public Hearing - Special Assessments for 2016 Pavement Management Program 209-215 15-23 F. Public Hearing - Special Assessments for 2017 Pavement Management Program 216-222 15-24 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Authorization for Joint Powers Agreement for the Sochacki Park, Mary Hill and Rice 223-233 Lake Nature Area with Three Rivers Park District and City of Robbinsdale 15-25 B. Ordinance #549 - Adding a Month to the Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and 234-235 Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components C. METRO Blue Line Extension Update 236-238 D. Announcements of Meetings E. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 1. D. 2014 Police Department Annual Report Prepared By Stacy Carlson, Chief of Police Summary Chief Carlson will present an overview of police department operations during 2014. Crime rates, community outreach, and productivity will be outlined. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 1. E. State of the City Video Presentation Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary The State of the City video that has been prepared by staff will be presented at the meeting. 6tv Of UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING pro I �� GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA no. March 3, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Schmidgall, Fonnest and Snope. 1B. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of March 3, 2015, as revised: the addition of 3K-Board/Commission Appointments to the Consent Agenda and move Consent item 3J-Appointment of Representatives to Community Advisory and Business Advisory to New Business item 6B and the motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the consent agenda of March 3, 2015, as revised: removal of item 31-Approval of Revisions to Guidelines for Advisory Committees and the motion carried unanimously. 3A. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting - February 17, 2015 3131. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3132. Approve Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - February 9, 2015 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - January 27, 2015 3. Environmental Commission - January 26, 2015 4. Human Rights Commission - January 27, 2015 5. Joint Meeting of Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission Minutes - November 24, 2014 6. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - January 15, 2015 3D. Approve purchase of traffic signal materials from Millerbernd Manufacturing Company in the amount of $42,272 for the TH 55/Winnetka Avenue Intersection Improvement Project. 3E. Adopt Ordinance No. 543 amending the City Code, adopting the 2015 State Building Code and Incorporation of the 2014 National Electric Code. 3F. Adopt Resolution 15-18 temporarily restricting vehicle parking for Run the Valley. 3G. Authorize the contract for professional services with Prairie Restorations, Inc. for the 2015 Golden Valley Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities in the amount of$30,165. 3H. Adopt Resolution 15-19 requesting variance from Standards for State Aid Operations, Olson Memorial Frontage Road, State Aid Project 128-420-001. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- March 3, 2015 3. ITEM ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA 3K. Board/Commission Appointments to the Human Services Fund of: Ms. Andrea MacArthur 1 year term which expires - May, 2016 Ms. Denise LaMere-Anderson 1 year term which expires - May, 2016 3. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 31. Approve the Revisions to Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. Council Member Fonnest requested an amendment to Section III. Commission Organization and Procedures for the Chair and Vice-Chairs to read "Terms of the office shall be a maximum of two years and shall rotate." There was Council discussion regarding the guidelines and the proposed amendment to the Section. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the revisions to the guidelines for Advisory Commission, Committees, Boards, and Council as amended and the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #544 - Final PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120 - 1801 Noble Drive - The Lecy Group, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from Council. Mr. Roy Lecy, Applicant, said he spoke with Mr. Waschek, owner of the property west of his, and he was interested in not adding hardcover and felt it made sense to add sewer and water access through Mr. Lecy's property. He said he hoped if Mr. Wascheck went ahead with the access agreement that the approval would not need four meetings. He said regarding the Haines' property, he does not have a problem allowing the property access to his road and he was not trying to land lock them. He said the Wessin property has added hardcover and has hada negative impact on the quality of the lake. He said because he added a water retention basin their development plans would not have a negative impact. He explained the filtering process of the water retention basin. He said the Watershed District recommends a ten foot buffer from the wetland, therefore he should only be required to have a ten foot one and not a twenty five foot one as required for a wetland designation. He said if he was required to add twenty five feet, his lots would be different from the other lots on the lake which can groom right down to the shoreline. He answered questions from the Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Haines, 1550 St. Croix Circle, gave a brief history of the lots that he has owned on Sweeny Lake. He said the proposed ordinance states under condition number five that no other access may be made without a PUD amendment, so he may not be allowed access to his land. He said that he may join the Homeowner Association for Noble Drive. He asked Council to consider removing condition number five from the recommendations. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- March 3, 2015 4A. Public Hearing - Final PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods - continued Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was much Council discussion regarding the Final PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods located at 1801 Noble Drive and possible amendments to the conditions in the ordinance. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Ordinance #544, Approval of Final PUD Plan, Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120, The Lecy Group, Applicant upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Fonnest, Snope and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to amend Ordinance #544, condition five to read: No additional driveway or utility access shall be allowed along the private driveway without a PUD Amendment, except for Lot 2, Block 1, Hanson Wood Shores upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Fonnest, Snope and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to amend Ordinance #544, condition four to define the riparian buffer strip as a ten foot buffer upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Fonnest, Snope and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Ordinance #544, with the approved amendments Approval of Final PUD Plan, Sweeney Lake Woods PUD No. 120, The Lecy Group, Applicant upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Fonnest, Snope and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Proposed Code Amendment to Section 4.31: Stormwater Management of the City Code Public Works Specialist Eckman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Ordinance #545, Amending Section 4.31: Stormwater Management of the City Code upon first consideration upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Fonnest, Snope, Schmidgall and Clausen, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6B. Appointment of Representatives to the Community Advisory and Business Advisory Committees for the METRO Blue Line Extension. Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the appointment of the representatives to the METRO Blue Line Extension Committees. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- March 3, 2015 613. Appoint of Representatives to the Committees - continued MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to appoint Ms. Alison Pence from Courage Kenny Rehabilitation Institute to the Business Advisory Committee and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to appoint Ms. Gillian Rosenquist to the Community Advisory Committee and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to appoint Mr. Rich Baker to the Community Advisory Committee and the motion carried unanimously. 6C. Announcements of Meetings Some Council Members may attend the Community Open House about the Proposed Freight Rail Connection on March 7, 2015, from 9 am to 12 pm at the Crystal Community Center. Some Council Members may attend the League of Women Voter's workshop on understanding mental illness issues on March 7, 2015, at 9 am at the St. Louis Park City Hall. The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on March 10, 2015, at 6:30 pm. The next METRO Blue Line Corridor Management meeting will be held on March 12, 2015. Some Council Members may attend the METRO Blue Line Extension Planning Advisory Committee on March 11, 2015, at 6 pm at the University Research Outreach and Engagement Center. Some Council Members may attend a meeting with Congressman Ellison regarding Rail Safety on March 11, 2015, from 6:30 to 8 pm at the Crystal Community Center. The Community Blood Drive will be held on March 11, 2015, from 1 to 5 pm in the City Hall parking lot. A City Council Strategic Planning Retreat will be held on March 12 and March 14, 2015, in the Council Conference Room. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Historical Society Meeting on March 12, 2015, at 7 pm at the Golden Valley Historical Society. Open for Business will have office hours at the City of Golden Valley on March 13, 2015, from 9 to 11 am in the Council Conference Room. The next City Council Meeting will be held on March 17, 2015, at 6:30 pm and will include a State of the City Presentation. City Manager Burt reviewed the upcoming agenda for the Council/Manager Meeting on March 10, 2015. The 21St Annual Run the Valley event will be held on April 11, 2015. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- March 3, 2015 6D. Mayor and Council Communication Mayor Harris updated Council on the discussions at the State Capital regarding the following Bills; Flood Mitigation, Joint Water Commission, and Highway 55/Douglas Drive. Mayor Harris stated since the last Council meeting, the Cities of New Hope and Plymouth have passed a resolution in support of petitioning the Surface Transportation Board to require an Environmental Impact Statement. He said the TwinWest Chamber has also taken a position similar to the City on the issue. On March 10, 2015, at 5:30 pm, the Council will have an informal meeting to discuss what is happening ay the Capital. 7. Adjournment MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen, and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 pm. Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk citv of MEMO, RANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. City of go 1 d e- n! MEMORANDUM valley Fire Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Multi-Family Rental Property Licenses Prepared By Dave Gustafson, Fire/Property Maintenance Specialist Jill Lund, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the complex name, address and fees of those who have submitted an application for approval for multiple family rental licenses. ANDERSON TRIPLEX - 6212 Golden Valley Road Base building fee $ 125 STAR Status Level 0 90 Total License Fee $ 215 CROSSWOOD APARTMENTS- 5601 Glenwood Avenue Base building fee $ 125 STAR Status Level 0 $ 1,050 Total License Fee $ 1,175 LAUREL at WEST END (formerly Laurel Estates) APARTMENTS - 5610 Laurel Avenue Base building fee $ 175 STAR Status Level 4 0 Total License Fee $ 175 THE LAUREL (formerly Laurel Terrace) APARTMENTS - 250 Turners Crossroad Base building fee $ 175 STAR Status Level 4 0 Total License Fee $ 175 MALLARD CREEK APARTMENTS - 8300/8400 Golden Valley Rd Base building fee $ 350 STAR Status Level 4 0 Total License Fee $ 350 SOUTHWIRTH APARTMENTS - 501 Theodore Wirth Parkway Base building fee $ 175 STAR Status Level 2 600 Total License Fee $ 775 MEDLEY PARK TOWNHOMES - 2343/2350/2389/2391 Mendelssohn Lane Base building fee $ 500 STAR Status Level 0 900 Total License Fee $ 1,400 Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of license as recommended by staff. city' of n ii"yyr + '' R t D x t valley, City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) 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 Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG), 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. PEDDLERISOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION 0 b TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ , 7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: Peddler SOlicito (circle Enclose the sum of$ for t— (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. KAiW00j_,X '?UU1L- Iyt�ere��' �eSeGrCV1 �Yo�n� CNA t(e > (Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed) (c C', A-���1 13--73 g 0l 0('A MN Business ID Federal Business ID (FEIN) Define Busin s �ON-�0r� (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual) 2-11' L Vvkw'ge i Ckfin (Address) 1A;V\-Vl en o�\ S Wvwu s 55�t City, State and Zip Code) (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, 0 hereby makes app'plication for (Applicant Name) period of 'l ' through 12/31/ t6, subject to the conditions"and provisions of said City Code. (Signature of Applicant/ 'rincipal"Officer) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): No �Ob( a \r tea+ s m . 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: o (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF 00 ) - ) ss. COUNTY OF k,V6VW P Il h) ) UVA V-\S o V--N of (Officer/Individual) (Name of Organization) being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. MAGDA ANNA BILSKA Notary Public state of Minnesota G My Commission Expires / January 31, 2Dt 7 Signature of Applicant/Prinsi l Officer) Subscribed and swohrn�to before me this day of 1 aL , 20 levll"Iz� (fig natur COO �. 1! 1�v S�Olden MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) R" ..2 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. C. 3. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Meadowbrook Elementary School PTO Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments • Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Meadowbrook Elementary School PTO. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 8/14 LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 1 of 2 An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: Application fee (nonrefundable) • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and If the application is postmarked or received • awards less than$50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. 30 days or more before the event,the application If total prize value for the year will be$1,500 or less,contact the Licensing fee is$50; otherwise the fee is$100. Specialist assigned to your county. Organization Information Organization Name: ' Previous Gambling Permit Number: 9,0(jj cch Minneto T ID Number, if any: Federal Employer ID Number(FEIN), if any: 0 () !a- T,rpe of Nonprofit Organization (check one): Fraternal Religious Veterans Other Nonprofit Organization Mailing Address: City: State and Zip: County: 53d A-ve ltc WIN 5 �� Name of Ch of Executive Officer(CEO): Daytime Phon • Em il: Nonprofit Status Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status: Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Minnesota Secretary of State Business Services Division 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 651-296-2803 IRS income tax exemption (501(c)) letter in your organization's name. Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS at 877-829-5500. IRS-Affiliate of national,statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter). If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: a. an IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. Gambling Premises Information Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): VoWlr/wW'"UAI Address (do not use PO box): City or Township: Zip Code: County: 0v SIN �;6 � r� Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicat the date of the drawing): U t () Check a ch type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: Bingo* =Paddlewheels* =Pull-Tabs* =Tipboards* Raffle (total value of raffle prizes awarded for the year: # � ) *Gambling equipment for bingo paper, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under the LIST OF LICENSEES, or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 8/14 Page2of2 Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. he application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period,and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days3he period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after (60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days. he application is denied. e application is denied. Print CityName: ,ql VI ` le Print County Name: S' natu f CR Per-so el: Signature of County Personnel: Title: Date: ® Title: Date: TOWNSHIP(if required by the county). On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or Local unit of government must sign. deny an application, per Minn. Statutes,section 349.166.) Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer: Title: Date: Chief Executive Officer's Signature The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will be completed and returned to the B d within 30 days of the event date. Chief Executives Officer's Signature:: Date:l 6� 6 Print Name: I ! �r/t Requirements Complete a separate application for: Financial report and recordkeeping required. • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days,or A financial report form and instructions will be sent with your . all gambling conducted on one day. permit,or use the online fill-in form available at Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are www.mn.gov/gcb. conducted on the same day. Within 30 days of the event date,complete and return the Send application with: financial report form to the Gambling Control Board. Your a copy of your proof of nonprofit status,and organization must keep all exempt raffle records and reports for application fee(nonrefundable). If the application is 3-1/2 years(Minn. Statutes,section 349.166,subd. 2(f)). postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is $50; otherwise the fee is$100. Make Questions? check payable to State of Minnesota. Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 651-539-1900. To: Gambling Control Board This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e. large 1711 West County Road B,Suite 300 South print, Braille) upon request. Roseville, MN 55113 Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety;Attorney General; on this form(and any attachments)will be used address will be public information when received Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota by the Gambling Control Board(Board)to by the Board. All other information provided will Management&Budget,and Revenue; Legislative determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor,national and international gambling be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board issues the permit. When the Board issues regulatory agencies;anyone pursuant to court Minnesota. Your organization has the right to the permit,all information provided will become order;other individuals and agencies specifically refuse to supply the information; however, if public. If the Board does not issue a permit,all authorized by state or federal law to have access your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private,with the to the information;individuals and agencies for information,the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of information after this notice was as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given; and anyone with your written consent. If your organization supplies the information members,Board staff whose work requires requested,the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart- c/' /�f � 4 MEMORANDUM EMORANDUM 90 le-IT � �� y Physical Development Department J63-593-8090/763-593'3997 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. C. 4. General Business License Prepared By Shannon Dietrich, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee ofthose who have submitted an application for approval. #6836 Collision [enter Motor Vehicle Facility $25.00 900 Florida Avenue S. #6828 Lubrication Technologies Bulk Oil Storage $25.00 900 yNende|ssohn Avenue N. #6835 Schu||er'sTavern Dancing/Entertainment $375.00 7348 Country Club Drive #6833 American Amusement Arcades 5Arnusennent Devices $75.00 2lOOWest 9Om Street atG4OOWayzata Blvd #6833 RZKXP Corporation Z Amusement Devices $30.00 7345 Country Club Drive at 7348 Country Club Drive #6829 Theisen Vending Co 3 Amusement Devices $45.00 2335 Nevada Avenue N. at 7348 Country Club Drive #5030 Chester Bird American Legion 3 Amusement Devices $45.00 2OOLilac Drive North atZODLilac Drive North #6834 Mendota Valley Amusement 5 Amusement Devices $75.00 390 Richmond Street E. at 7775 Medicine Lake Road #6824 Ace Solid Waste 1 Recycling Truck $50.00 6601 McKinley Street N.W. #6825 Ace Solid Waste 1 Refuse Truck $50.00 6601 McKinley Street N.W. #6811 Allied Waste Services 9 Recycling Trucks $450.00 9813 Flying Cloud Drive #6815 Allied Waste Services 13 Refuse Trucks $650.00 9813 Flying Cloud Drive #6813 Aspen Waste Systems Inc. 3 Recycling Trucks $150.00 2951 Weeks Avenue S.E. #6814 Aspen Waste Systems Inc. 5 Refuse Trucks $250.00 2951 Weeks Avenue S.E. #6827 Dick's Sanitation 1 Recycling Truck $50.00 8984215 th Street W. #6826 Dick's Sanitation 2 Refuse Trucks $100.00 8984 215th Street W. #6810 Randy's Environmental Services 2 Recycling Trucks $100.00 4351 Highway 12 S.E. #6820 Randy's Environmental Services 11 Refuse Trucks $550.00 4351 Highway 12 S.E. #6812 Waste Management of MN Inc. 2 Recycling Trucks $100.00 10050 Naples Street N.E. #6817 Waste Management of MN Inc. 8 Refuse Trucks $400.00 10050 Naples Street N.E. #7068 Garbageman of the Twin Cities 4 Refuse Trucks $200.00 13895 Industrial Park Blvd #6818 Michael P. Hall Inc. 3 Refuse Trucks $150.00 3119 150th Lane N.W. #6819 Sanimax USA Inc. 9 Refuse Trucks $450.00 505 Hardman Avenue #6822 Suburban Waste 1 Refuse Truck $50.00 15718 Village Woods Drive #6816 Baldy Sanitation 1 Refuse Truck $50.00 5906 Henry Street #6823 Budget Waste Systems Inc. 2 Refuse Trucks $100.00 3516 East Lake Street Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 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, February 23, 2015. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those 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 February 9, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the third paragraph on page four and asked that discussion regarding access to the west of the Sweeney Lake Woods proposal be clarified. Baker referred to the fifth paragraph on page five and asked that the word "not" be removed from the fourth sentence. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 9, 2015, minutes with the above noted changes. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Struthers Parkinson's Center— 6701 Country Club Drive — PU-39, Amendment#4 Applicant: Park Nicollet Address: 6701 Country Club Drive Purpose: To allow a building addition approximately 2,700 square feet in size and the construction of an outdoor memory care walk/garden. Goellner stated that the Applicant is seeking approval to amend their existing PUD in order to expand the Struthers Parkinson's Center. She explained that the project consists of renovating 5,535 square feet to expand their rehabilitation program services, building a 2,680 square feet addition to create a gathering space and expand their education and training capabilities, and creating an indoor/outdoor movement therapy garden with enhanced landscaping and artwork. Goellner referred to the parking requirements and explained that 160 spaces are required. Currently, there are 182 spaces on the property and the proposed plans show 163 spaces. She added that no proof of parking is required and that an agreement for maintenance, insurance and shared parking is suggested as a condition of approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 2 Goellner stated that Staff is recommending approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff reports. Segelbaum asked about changes between the Preliminary Plan and the Final Plan. Goellner said there was a slight change in the square footage of the proposed addition. Baker asked if the shared parking agreement was discussed during the Preliminary Plan review. Goellner said yes. She stated that the access easement is perpetual but the maintenance and the shared parking agreements have expired and need to be re- established. Rose Wichmann, Manager of the Struthers Parkinson's Center, said she feels that they have met all of the requirements and noted that the shared parking and maintenance agreement is under way. Kluchka asked Wichmann about the timing of their construction. Wichmann said they want to start construction as soon as the frost comes out of the ground. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said this is a good plan that meets the City's requirements and is favorable to the City and the surrounding area. Segelbaum agreed. Goellner added that the Applicant has added a design plan per the Planning Commissions' request. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment No. 4, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 3 Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EAPC and Larson Engineering, Inc. submitted with the application dated February 6, 2015, 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 December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. A reciprocal cross easement agreement shall be signed by property owners within PUD. No. 39 and reviewed by the City Attorney at the time of Final PUD approval. The agreement shall be recorded with Hennepin County upon Final PUD approval. 5. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. A final design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments — Moratorium Study of Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments with Single Family Residential Components — ZO00-96 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider adding/amending language in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code regarding Subdivision requirements. Zimmerman reminded the Commission of the six-month moratorium placed on subdivisions and PUDs with a single family residential component. He stated that the City Council directed Staff to study the following: increasing the minimum lot area requirement, improving standards for preserving green space, minimizing irregular shaped lots, preserving neighborhood character, and limiting the use of small residential PUDs. He added that the City Council is considering implementing a Construction Management Agreement that will address complaints arising as part of the construction process such as noise, runoff, emergency access, etc. separate from the subdivision study. Zimmerman stated that there are several issues that were discussed as part of the study for which no action is recommended including: building height, housing styles, quality of construction, house spacing, and street/traffic impacts. Some of the issues recommended for further study in the future include: enhanced tree preservation regulations with landscaping requirements, stormwater drainage and flooding, neighborhood character preservation and sustainability. Zimmerman discussed the proposed changes to the Subdivision Code. He explained that the minimum lot area requirement would have two tiers — 10,000 or 15,000 based on the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 4 average size of the lots surrounding the subject property. The threshold for the larger minimum lot area requirement would be an average of 18,000 for all R-1 properties within 250 feet of the subject property and would apply to all R-1 lots created through subdivision after 2014. Lots less than 4,000 square feet would be excluded from the calculation. Zimmerman explained that these proposed changes would be made in the Subdivision section of City Code to prevent the creation of numerous non-conforming lots. Another change proposed in the Subdivision Code would be to require the minimum lot width to remain the same between 35 feet and 70 feet from the front lot line. This would better preserve a sufficient area within a lot at the likely location of the building pad and would limit narrowing in the front portion of a lot where a house would likely be built. Also, the submission of an existing tree survey will be required when applying for a Minor Subdivision. This will help in better understanding the site conditions when reviewing subdivision applications. He added that a final tree preservation plan would remain as an administrative review as part of the stormwater management plan. Other changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance will happen separately in the future. Zimmerman referred to the proposed changes in the Zoning Code. He explained that new definitions are being proposed for front, side and rear lot lines in order to help clarify setbacks for irregular shaped lots. Also, in order to reduce confusion regarding measuring lot depth, the rear yard setback would change from 20% of the lot depth to 25 feet. This will also provide consistency with other setbacks which are specific numbers and not percentages. He added that these Zoning Code changes may create some non- conformities with respect to existing structures. Zimmerman referred to the proposed changes for the PUD section of the Zoning Code. He explained that residential PUDs must have a minimum area of two acres unless they can demonstrate unusual physical features of the property, are directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way which has been developed previously as a PUD and will function as an extension to an existing PUD, or is located in a transitional area between different land use categories. Kluchka asked about the process for making the proposed changes. Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation will go to the City Council for consideration. He added that the changes in the Zoning Code require one hearing at City Council, and that the changes in the Subdivision Code require two hearings. Segelbaum asked if the second hearing means that there are two hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Zimmerman said no, the two hearings for the Subdivision Code are just at the City Council. Segelbaum asked about significant changes since the last time they reviewed the proposed new language. Zimmerman said the rear lot line language is new. Waldhauser said she thought the shorter side of a corner lot would be the only front. Zimmerman said that City Code currently states that corner lots have two fronts and that the lot line opposite the narrower front is the rear. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 5 Kluchka asked if there is an impact to the lot width definition if there are two fronts. Zimmerman said the lot would have to meet the width requirement on both fronts. Baker asked if the change to the rear lot line is the only one that will result in non- conforming properties. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked why that can't be avoided. Zimmerman stated that the Subdivision Code applies to all of the zoning districts and the new lot line change is for R-1 only. Kluchka asked why the proposed changes aren't being made in all of the zoning districts in order to avoid non-conformance. Zimmerman said he would research the advantages of moving the requirements to the Subdivision Code. Waldhauser asked about the exclusion of parcels under 4,000 square feet when considering the minimum lot area. She questioned why the proposed language doesn't exclude any parcel under 10,000 square feet. Zimmerman stated that there are existing lots that are less than 10,000 square feet in size with homes on them. Baker asked how many lots there are that are less than 4,000 square feet. Zimmerman said there are a few, most are left over right-of-way or remnants that would just bring down the average. Baker noted that someone could acquire a 4,000 square foot lot, add it to their existing lot and then subdivide. Zimmerman agreed. Cera asked if there is anything built on any of the 4,000 square foot lots. Zimmerman said he didn't believe so. Blum asked if by using the formula to determine which lots have to meet the new minimum lot size requirements it is possible that it could become non-conforming over time, or if the lot sizes around that parcel change and become smaller or larger if it would then become non-conforming. Zimmerman said that would be unlikely because as there are more small lots the average comes down so the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet. Kluchka asked if the new tree preservation requirements would only affect people proposing a subdivision or if it would apply to everyone. Zimmerman said the current language being proposed would only apply to new subdivision proposals. He reiterated that the tree preservation requirements will be discussed more in the future. Kluchka referred to the owners of property that may be affected by these proposed changes and asked how they have been notified. Zimmerman stated that there has been a lot of publicity in the SunPost newspaper and in the City's newsletter, a post card was sent to every owner of a single family property, the consultants have sent emails to everyone who signed up to receive information, and information has been on the City's Facebook page. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Mae Held, 5001 Colonial Drive, said her property is three acres in size. She said she came to one of the listening meetings to find out that no one cares about the landowner. She said it is not her responsibility as a homeowner to provide green space for her neighbors and she is going to be impacted by the proposed changes because she will be restricted by the same ordinances as someone with a '/4 acre lot. She said the City is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 6 saying maintain your property, pay your taxes, and we'll decide what you can do with it. She said they are taxed on a fully divisible property and if they can only remove 20% of their trees that would mean 2/3 of their property is unbuildable. She said she thinks she needs it reflected in her taxes if her lot is unbuildable and if her property is not developable that reduces the value. She said she really hopes the City cares about the landowner and not just people who want her green space but don't pay her taxes or maintain her property. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said there has been a subdivision near him that was divided in a way he was not aware of. He referred to the statements made about not being able to dictate the quality of housing, but affordable housing near his house concerns him. He said another thing that concerns him is what could happen with the leftover MnDOT properties from the Highway 100 project. He questioned if new homeowners would be required to put in new trees. He added that he is concerned about the roofs of the new homes near him being on top of the sound wall. Peter Ralph, 1421 Rhode Island Avenue North, said he re-built his house about six years ago with the intent of meeting the requirements for a future subdivision. He referred to the proposed new requirement regarding the size of lots that are within 250 feet and asked if that measurement would be from the edge of a lot, or the center of a lot. He referred to the proposed language requiring that lots be 80 feet in width for a distance of 70 feet and asked if there will be an option for variances because he thinks he would be off by about three inches. He said he wants to know what he needs to do to pursue a subdivision and said there should be provisions for unique circumstances. Steve Shapiro, 219 Meadow Lane North, said he sent letters to the City talking about subdivisions as being a corn field concept and not something that should be an independent kind of activity that takes place in a built up urban environment like Golden Valley. He said all these projects that they've been talking about, on whatever scale, are really developments and the neighbors and the City should want to know who is going to build them, what they are going to look like, how are they going to stage construction, etc. He said the subdivision at Glenwood and Meadow Lane where they took one house and made it into four is a development. He said 200 Meadow Lane is a much smaller site and they are going to stuff three houses on there and they have no idea what it is going to look like, how it is going to be staged, or the quality of construction. He referred to Ms. Held's comments regarding her three acre lot and said even under the most generous reallocation of land site you're talking about 9 or 10 houses, and that is certainly a development and people in the neighborhood would certainly want to know who is going to build it and how it is going to look. He said he urges the City to consider, after it determines the requirements of the Subdivision ordinance, that it is made incidental to construction, and in order to carry out a project they would need curb cuts, subdivision, grading permits, to be considered one of the aspects of development, not just the raw land notion that you are going to carve up a site into however many parcels and pray that it gets done right because the City would be putting too much trust in the people that are splitting up the land because they aren't the ones that are developing it. He referred to the proposal on 200 Meadow Lane and said he contacted the City about the "tree trust" around the perimeter of the property that was promised. Under the current subdivision Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 7 requirements the City can't require anything like that. So even though the applicant said they would do a perimeter easement to protect the trees for the neighbors, the City can't require it, so it won't be done. He said he urges the City to consider subdivisions not as a pure raw activity, but as an incidental to a much more intensive review of developments in the City. Paul Meland, 309 Meander, said he has seen a lot of change. He said he purchased his home because he knew it would be a good place to raise his kids. He said the sales packet when he bought his house showed that there is another lot as part of his. He doesn't have plans to subdivide his property, but the 10 homes being constructed in the neighborhood are going to have a huge impact. He said putting restrictions on lot size is going to impact him financially. He said the change has already happened and he is in favor of preserving character, but he is not in favor of his investment being impacted. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he supports what Mr. Meland said. He stated that if a property is under 30,000 square feet in size in a neighborhood with larger lots, under this new proposal it won't be able to be subdivided. He said that, along with the issue of fairness and takings, needs to be taken into consideration. He said another thing that needs to be considered in regard to the average lot size issue is whether the City uses a mean or a median to figure the average lot size. He recommended using the median instead of the mean because it throws out the high ones and the low ones and won't skew the average. He added that the buildable portion of properties should also be considered because some of the larger platted lots have a wetland or something that impacts the buildable area. Matt Pavek, 510 Cloverleaf Drive, said he has attended every meeting on this topic. He said he works a lot with land owners and it is interesting that three people in this public hearing have talked about how these proposed changes will impact them economically because they won't be able to subdivide their lot when they could before. He stated that the rules requiring 10,000 square feet with 80 feet of width have been in place for 35 years and that is something people have planned their entire lives around. He said that lots sell from $150,000 to $350,000. So, if someone can't subdivide a lot that they thought could, they could lose a life changing amount of money because their home will go down in value. He said this needs to be weighed against the concerns of trying to blend in with the neighborhood and it hasn't really been discussed in all of the meetings he's attended. He said the concerns are valid, but they can't possibly trump a person's retirement account, college fund or nest egg. He added that it might not legally be considered a taking, but it would feel like a taking so maybe the City and its residents should pay these people who can no longer subdivide their property. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane North, said he is a proponent of larger lot sizes in particular areas. He said it doesn't make it right that lot sizes have been the same since the 1980s and what has been recommended is a move in the right direction and the right thing. He said maybe the people who think they can subdivide need to come forward and see what can be done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 8 Leroy Hagel, 200 Cutacross Road, said he has written many letters to the City Council and he is anti-subdivision in Tralee. He said standing before an impressive tribunal ready to pounce on their prey is intimidating, but the stakes are high so he wants to state his view. He said he received a letter from the property owner across the street when they subdivided their property and he wishes to avoid hard feelings, but there are just different goals and divergent views of the situation at hand. He said he is a dissenter who is open to ridicule in a very public way as opposed to a developer, speculator, or promoter. When they want something it is a rosy picture subject to accolades. He said he is opposed to any subdivision of any lots in Tralee because Tralee is a heritage, is different, it stands out, and is a tax generator. He said in the future, the discerning buyer will raze the old house on their property to build high end houses matching the real estates' character and value netting tax revenue to rival the tax take from subdividing now if the City would just wait longer. He said the City will have saved what is left of Tralee, a unique heritage worth saving with less hassle over new lots, etc. He said the City can expect plenty of disgruntled owners to deal with when subdividing, and he would expect more expense to the City also. He referred to the siting of two new houses across the street from him and said they appear to be the result of some clever, ingenious surveying similar to fitting a puzzle piece in a puzzle game; they sit forward and do not line up with existing houses next door. He said he had family come to visit and the first words out of their mouths were what's with the houses on the road and what did he think about them. He said he was taken aback by their comments and said trouble is inherent in subdividing. He invited the City to do it right and judge for themselves their first impression. He said he remains hopeful that subdivisions will be halted in Tralee. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said she would like to preserve the larger lots in her neighborhood where the average lot size is about 30,000 square feet. She said she knows this is a politically charged topic with people for and against. She said she hasn't heard a lot about the Comprehensive Plan and the vision for Golden Valley and said her discussions, decisions, and beliefs come from the Comprehensive Plan. She said if the sustainability discussion is being postponed this might be putting the cart before the horse, She said she loves her neighborhood and it is unique to any other area in Golden Valley. She stated that the property next door to her is removing 20 oak trees, but there has been no mention of removing any buckthorn. She questioned why that isn't being addressed. She reiterated that they have a unique neighborhood and that the concept of having different neighborhoods is okay. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, said there are two sides and it's a very difficult decision to listen to all the arguments in terms of the impacts to the people who have larger lots and the impact to the surrounding neighbors and why they moved there. He said it is not urban planning here and what he wants to see Golden Valley really be like. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the questions about tree preservation and taxable property and asked if that issue has been discussed. Zimmerman said he has spoken with the County Assessor regarding Ms. Held's property. He explained that the taxes assessed are not just based on the property's ability to be subdivided, there are other issues as well, such Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 9 as size, terrain, wooded areas, etc. but there aren't any additional taxes levied because it may be subdivided. He said there are assessments based on whether the property can be subdivided, but those are always deferred until a subdivision actually takes place. Zimmerman referred to Ms. Held's question about this proposal limiting the number of trees that could be removed or make her land undevelopable. He said the answer is no, 20% of the trees can be removed. If more trees than that are removed there is a mitigation process and it doesn't mean that the land can't be subdivided. Cera said Ms. Held's property is beautiful and he doesn't see any issues with it being able to be subdivided. Blum asked if the nature of the ability to subdivide a particular lot changes if the deferred assessment would also change to reflect that. Zimmerman said yes, it would. Deferred assessments would be payable if the property is subdivided. Kluckha referred to the questions regarding quality construction and asked how that can be controlled. Zimmerman said it comes down to the Building Code. He said the City doesn't dictate the style of houses, or what price they are sold at. The City controls safety and code compliance. Kluchka referred to the questions of state-owned remnant lots counting in the square footage when figuring lot area. Zimmerman said they would not count because they are not zoned R-1 Single Family residential, they are considered right-of-way. Kluchka asked if property owners will have to plant trees with the new subdivision requirements. Zimmerman said they won't have to, and that the requirements are considering trees that are removed. If there are new landscaping requirements approved in the future that will likely be discussed. Kluchka asked how the 250 radius around a proposed subdivision is drawn. Zimmerman said it would be drawn from the edge of the subject property and would follow the perimeter of the lot. Cera asked if the subject property itself counts in the average lot size determination. Zimmerman said no, the 250 foot radius would be considering the context of the lots around it. Gera stated that counting the subject parcel would raise the average. Kluchka asked what a homeowner will need to do to follow these proposed rules. Zimmerman said the average homeowner won't know the average lot size within 250 feet of their property, but it will be fairly simple for staff to provide that information. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to review the front yard setback changes. Zimmerman explained that the current Subdivision Code requires lots to be 80 feet wide at the front yard setback line. The proposed new language states that the width of the lot has to remain 80 feet wide for a distance of 70 feet back from the front setback line. Kluchka asked what kinds of variances are available. Zimmerman said variances aren't allowed from the Subdivision Code, but applicants may be able to round up to the next whole foot as stated in the Zoning Code. Segelbaum said he thinks there is some confusion Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 10 regarding variances being allowed or not in subdivision proposals. He asked for some clarification regarding variances when this item goes to the City Council. Kluchka asked about the differences between median, mean, and average. Zimmerman said he couldn't recall why the consultants recommended using the mean to figure the minimum lot size. He said he would follow up with them and get some clarification. Baker said he would like to see illustrated examples analyzed using mean and median. Kluchka asked if non-buildable land, or wetland areas are being excluded in the calculations. Zimmerman stated that everything on a lot would count toward the lot area and that wetland delineation would need to be done in some cases. Baker asked if this is really an issue and if there are large areas of unbuildable property. Waldhauser said there have been cases where parts of lots were unbuildable. Kluchka said that could be a cause for a variance. Cera noted that a wetland is a positive amenity for a property. Baker stated that in terms of calculating using mean or average, if the goal is to preserve similar sized lots, they need to consider how those types of lots affect that. Kluchka questioned if new subdivision rules should be considered for people who already own subdividable lots, or if those lots should be grandfathered. Waldhauser asked about people who bought lots before the 1980s when the requirement was for larger sized lots and noted that those properties weren't grandfathered. Kluchka referred to the question about buckthorn. Zimmerman said that could be addressed in the larger tree preservation/landscaping discussions. Segelbaum asked how the proposed new language meets what is stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Baker said that is a rhetorical question because the City is in the midst of a subdivision study and the issues have to be addressed now. Waldhauser added that this study, and some of the recommendations that have been made are in response to the Comprehensive Plan already in place. Baker said they've engaged the community as a result of this study and hopefully, people will be engaged in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Kluchka asked if the Commission should look at the results of median vs. mean. Johnson said they need discuss the pros and cons and not just look at the results of the two. Johnson said the median accommodates outliers better. Cera said that median seems to be a better reflection because one large lot could change the average. Johnson said that is not true, and it depends on what they want to accomplish. Kluchka questioned if the issue needs to be better researched. Zimmerman noted that 90% of the lots estimated to be subdividable are under 50,000 square feet. Segelbaum stated that the consultants gave a reason why they went with mean and not median. He said if the average lot size is 18,000 square feet, then the new lots have to be 15,000 square feet in size, so there is a balance. He said he thinks they would get the same result in many instances using median or mean. Baker said his preference would be to recommend that both options are brought to the City Council with some analysis and background information. Cera questioned what would be a better reflection of a neighborhood, the mean or median. Waldhauser said if the City is trying to preserve the look or feel of a neighborhood she Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 11 thinks the median would reflect that better. Segelbaum said if they use median instead of mean it could potentially allow many more subdivisions. Kluchka said the intent is not clear, but it sounds like using median is the more appropriate approach. Kluchka asked the Commissioners what they think about the proposed lot size changes. Baker said he thinks the City Council has chosen to undertake this study for a reason and if it was solely to make a few people happy they wouldn't have done it. He said he thinks the consultant's recommendation is a good one. Segelbaum agreed. He added that a few non-conforming properties may be created, but it is a nice compromise. Blum said it seems that there is a legitimate interest in housing diversity in Golden Valley which they've heard from a lot of people, and these changes will serve that interest. He referred to one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan which is to protect and respect traditional neighborhoods and this change reflects that goal, part of which is making sure properties don't get subdivided down to the smallest lots possible. Cera said there is a law of unintended consequences. He said he thinks in a year or two there will be a different group of people with different problems such as "McMansions" and lots being overbuilt. He said they also need to address the zoning and building issues such as where a house can built, the coverage, the impervious surface, the building pad, etc. because people could potentially build a 12,000 square foot home. He said they are not necessarily addressing the right thing. Baker said this is not a perfect solution, but it is a good one. He said he doesn't think they are going to see 12,000 square foot homes because if someone has the money to build at 12,000 square foot home they are not going to build it a dense residential neighborhood, they are going to build it in Wayzata or Minnetonka, so he is not compelled by that argument. Kluchka said he agrees that the proposed recommendations are an interesting compromise, however he has concerns in three areas. The first is how homeowners were notified, the second is that this is potentially a financial taking. He said he feels strongly that 140 property owners need to be clearly notified that their property's sale value could be reduced. He said the City hasn't been clear and forthcoming with the effect this will have. He said his last concern is, as much as he wants his neighborhood to stay the same, or as much as he wants Golden Valley and traditional neighborhoods to stay the same, staying the same costs everybody more money because asphalt, labor and pipes cost more, as they will see with the sewer crisis. He added that unless they find the right places for density, the costs are going to keep coming to the City and everybody will have to pay more to the City if density isn't allowed to happen. Cera asked if they are going to vote on the recommendations individually or as a group. Kluchka said he would like to separate the recommendations. Baker said they should be careful about throwing around the number of 140 homeowners being affected by this because they won't all be impacted. Kluchka said 50% of them will be adversely impacted according to the study. He reiterated that they haven't been forthright in their communicating. Baker referred to the implications made about the tax base and said as long as the City is continuing to do things like what's being done along Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 12 Pennsylvania Avenue, the City is not going to have to grapple with the kind of issues that have been raised because things are being done in other parts of the City to raise the tax base. Blum agreed that there needs to be density and growth in the right places, but he doesn't think these proposed changes will have negative impacts because the changes are narrowly tailored to subdivisions. He added that he doesn't think the City needs to notify people that the value of their land may change over time as the law changes. There are inherent risks in real estate and the City doesn't need to guarantee a return on any investments people make. Johnson said his concern is the tree survey requirement because there is a way around it. It could force people to make decisions about their trees before they choose subdivide their property. He added that it doesn't seem to be in sync with the other proposed requirements. MOVED by Cera to recommend using the median when determining the average lot size. Kluchka said he was looking for a recommendation to approve that, but wanted to discuss the issue of minimum lot size. MOVED by Segelbaum, and seconded by Baker to recommend the suggested change to the definition of minimum lot size, as it is recommended which is based on the average lot size of properties within 250 feet. Cera proposed that the median be used when figuring the average. He stated that he did some math using 6 lots and 7 lots and there could be a big difference between using the average and using the median especially when there is one big lot in the equation. Kluchka asked if anyone would like to second the motion to add median as a recommended metric. Segelbaum said he would prefer it be studied further, Kluchka agreed it should be reviewed further. There was no second. Kluchka said the motion on the table is to recommend that the minimum lot area definition as proposed, be recommended to the Council. The motion carried 5 to 2. Cera and Kluchka voted no. Kluchka referred to the recommendations regarding tree preservation and the idea that there needs to be an existing tree survey created at the time subdivision. He referred to the issue brought up that trees could be cut down before a survey was created in order to get around the requirements. Segelbaum said he thinks it is an investment to cut trees down and speculative of the applicant when they don't know if their subdivision will be approved or not, so he doesn't think is very likely to happen. He added there will be a benefit in having a tree survey when reviewing subdivision proposals. Baker reiterated that there will be more work done in the future regarding tree preservation. Blum added that the tree survey requirement will have a direct relationship towards greater transparency. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of requiring the submittal of an existing tree survey when applying Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 13 for a subdivision. Kluchka added that the Commission strongly supports further study of the tree preservation standards and landscape standards in subsequent ordinance revisions. Kluchka referred to the proposed recommendations regarding PUDs. He said the issue is whether a minimum lot size of 2 acres for residential PUDs should be created. Segelbaum said he's worried that all flexibility is being taken away. Waldhauser said there are three exceptions to allow smaller PUDs listed in the recommended language. Baker questioned if PUDs have been misused in the past. Blum said the City needs to make sure the PUD process isn't being used to circumvent the requirements and he thinks the language is legitimate and has been fairly crafted. Kluchka stated that the City has more control when the PUD process is used and he likes the idea of having input in residential PUD proposals. Waldhauser questioned who makes the decision that a proposal can be considered as a PUD. Zimmerman suggested that language be added stating that the City Manager or his/her designee are allowed to determine when a proposal can be considered as a PUD. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed language regarding PUD standards and guidelines with clarification about how the Applicant demonstrates the need for a PUD. Kluchka suggested the remaining items including lot width, lot line definitions, rear yard setback and the other miscellaneous changes be considered in one motion. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the rest of the proposed language changes as specified in the staff report. Waldhauser added that she was in favor of only having one front lot line on corner lots. She said she thought the consultants gave them the option of choosing one front over the other that would fit best within the context of the neighborhood and then the other front yard would be considered a side. --Short Recess- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 5. Other Business • Land Use Planning for Golden Valley Road/Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area Zimmerman referred to two vacant Commercial properties located in the Golden Valley Road/Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area. He stated that there has been recent interest in auto uses at those properties so the City Council would like the Planning Commission to consider other possible land uses for this area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 14 Waldhauser stated that if the Golden Villas multi-family proposal gets built, they probably wouldn't want auto uses around it. Zimmerman stated that the VFW has expressed interest, or the two parcels in question could be used for housing. He stated that one idea is to consider a pedestrian overlay district to freeze things in place. Waldhauser said she liked the example pedestrian overlay language included in the agenda packet. Segelbaum said it would be nice to be consistent with the downtown area. Kluchka questioned how far they should go in calling something pedestrian friendly and questioned what the City would get out of it. Johnson asked about the downside of auto uses. Kluchka said he wouldn't want service centers or gas stations that are disruptive to neighborhoods. Zimmerman noted that they would currently be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Baker stated that these two parcels wouldn't be conducive for a gas station. Waldhauser said she thinks the properties are too narrow to be used for anything real dynamic. Kluchka referred to the highway slip ramp and asked if the plan to do improvements or close it are still in place. Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum said he is always in favor of walkability. Baker said this area isn't downtown and he doesn't see this as a walkable area. He questioned why this area is being studied and said it feels artificial. Kluchka said that the pedestrian overlay may be the right thing to do and suggested that it be considered during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Baker agreed that the area should be studied when the Comprehensive Plan is amended. Zimmerman noted that in the meantime another use could go in these properties. Segelbaum asked what else they could do besides the suggested pedestrian overlay district. Zimmerman said they could recommend rezoning the properties. Waldhauser questioned if the Commercial Zoning District could be divided. Kluchka said he thinks a pedestrian overlay district should exist. Baker agreed that he liked the idea, he is just not compelled to use it in this area. The Commissioners agreed. • Planning Commission Annual Report Kluchka referred to the Commission's Annual Report and asked the Commissioners if they had a sense of priority for any of the items listed. Waldhauser asked if the items in the report were for 2014 or 2015. Kluchka said they are pertaining to items in 2014 and that the report is not a work plan for 2015. Blum said he is surprised that they haven't had a lot of discussion about light rail and added that that seems to be one of the hottest issues. He stated that a lot of city attorneys he works with were raising the issue of marijuana production, growing, and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 15 distributing and creating land use controls around those types of facilities. He said he doesn't want something to slip in where it is not wanted and wants to be prepared for these facilities. Zimmerman stated that the City has been contacted and that those types of used would fit in the Commercial Zoning District as a pharmacy. • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes December 22, 2014 1. Call to Order Mattison called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Roger Bergman, John Cornelius, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Gillian Rosenquist, Anne Saffert, Jerry Sandler, and Dan Steinberg. Director of Parks and Recreation, Rick Birno. Absent: Commissioner Dawn Speltz. 3. Approval of Minutes — November 24, 2014 MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Sandler to approve the November 24, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Sandburg Fields — Grant Application Update Birno announced that the City was awarded the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant for $325,000. The grant will be used to repair and reconstruct Sandburg Fields. 5. Community Center Update Cornelius said the Community Center Task Force and the consultants at HGA presented to the Council their vision for the new community center. He said the Council was very supportive of the vision, but expressed concern on funding the project. City staff and Council will meet and discuss next steps in the community center process at winter strategic planning sessions. 6. Pathway to Play Concept Presentation Birno explained a new concept which would partner with Three Rivers Park District, to add a trail loop off the Regional Trail near Schaper Park. The trail loop would act as a starting point to the Pathways to Play, which would include nature themed play structures and nature education for kids and families along the Regional Trail. Birno said Three Rivers would design the project in-house and Golden Valley would maintain the structures. Birno will be presenting the concept to the City Council at the January Council/Manager meeting. MOTION: Moved by Sandler and seconded by Cornelius to move forward by presenting the proposed plan to City Council. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Metro Blue Line Extension — Transit Station and Parking Discussion Rosenquist gave an update on the last meeting. She said after the December open house, the task force decided they needed to refocus their efforts on safer connections and less on big development around the Golden Valley Road station. Discussion then focused on transit station parking. Rosenquist said there will be another city wide Golden Valley resident open house on January 7. Metro Transit and Hennepin County will also be hosting an open house on January 29. Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation Commission December 22, 2014 Page 2 8. Summer Playground Discussion Birno said they plan to create a mobile playground program, and add an intern this summer. Birno said to create better structure and safety; all summer playground participants will be required to pre-register beginning this year. The program will remain free of charge. Birno asked Commissioners their thoughts on charging a minimal fee in the future for the Summer Playground program. Discussion will continue at a later date. Birno also said if the summer mobile playground program is successful and offered at parks without shelters, the OSRC may need to discuss the need for sun shelters to be installed. 9. Sochacki/Mary Hills Project Update Birno said Three Rivers Park District is looking for input on naming the project area. After discussion, Birno said he would communicate to Three Rivers that both staff and Commissioners would prefer the Governments Policy Board include OSRC members. 10. Updates Mattison updated the Commission on the Lions Park area parking and traffic issues. Lions Park area residents requested the City Council review the memo of actions items. At the December Council/Manager meeting, Birno and Mattison presented the memo. Council approved the memo, subject to monitoring next season. Birno said the USDA will begin deer removal in Golden Valley on December 23. Birno said the Met Council will be implementing a large sewer replacement project near South Tyrol Park this summer. He said the Summer Playground program at that location may need to be moved to a different location during the project. 11. Adjournment MOTION: MOVED by Steinberg and seconded by Sandler to adjourn at 9:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Mattison, Chair ATTEST: Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant Golden Valley Human Services Fund (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes February 9, 2015 Present: Hilmer Erickson, Kathryn Frommer, Jennifer Rudolph, Connie Sandler, Toots Vodovoz, Peggy Watkins, and Andrew Wold. Also present: Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison. Not Attending: Elissa Heilicher, Alan Ingber, Craig McDaniels, Call to Order: Wold called the meeting to order at 6:47 p.m. Agenda Changes or Additions: No additions or changes to the agenda. Run the Valley: T-Shirt design/quote: Fackler received quotes from three companies. Premier Specialties submitted the lowest quote. Members decided Premier Specialties should print the shirts. Sponsor Update: Fackler reported checks have been received from Park Nicollet Clinic for $1,000 and LDI/Liberty Carton for $525. Bassett Creek Dental will be sending a check for $550 and will sponsor the Kids Fun Run with "goodie bags" for 50 participants. Park Nicollet will also supply bags for the runners packets. Members suggested contacting Gurstel Chargo and Herring Legal PLLP. Volunteers: Fackler will be working with the GVHSF to find volunteers for this event. The sign-up sheet for GVHSF members will be e-mailed. Vodovoz offered to assist Fackler with contacting funded agencies to provide volunteers. Marketing/Publicity: Fackler reported that the race information is on active.com, zapevent.com, raceberryjam. com, Race Guide 365, and the MDRA website. A blast e-mail was sent to last year's participants. Information will also be sent to the SunPost, Channel 12, LIVE events, Golden Valley City newsletter and the Park and Recreation brochure. Wold will approach Snap Fitness to see if flyers can be left at their facility. Fackler will take brochures to Park Nicollet and Bassett Creek Dental, Registration: Fackler reported that there are 11 registered for the 5K Run, 16 registered for the 10K Run, and 5 registered for the 5K Walk. This is slightly lower than last year at this time. Calendar Review: The 2015 meeting dates were distributed. April 11 th - Run the Valley. The Golf Classic and Lawn Bowling Tournament date will be set in March. Other Business: December 2 Council Meeting:Wold reported on the Council meeting. A question about the allocation process was asked by Mayor Harris which Wold answered. No other questions were asked and Council approved the recommended allocations. Solicitation Letter. A letter was sent to residents using the water bill addresses. Approximately 6,500 letters were sent. As of today, $11,221 has been received from the current campaign. Herring resignation: Wold announced that Herring resigned due to his election to the Robbinsdale School Board which meets on the same evenings. Member Roster: Fackler passed out the roster and asked for corrections as needed. Adjournment: Erickson moved to adjourn the meeting, Sandler seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Wold, GVHSF Chair Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison o Iden MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Award Contract for 2015 Spring Brush Pickup Program Prepared By Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor Tim Teynor, Assistant City Forester Summary The 2015-16 Adopted Biennial Budget, Recycling (7001, page 111) includes $68,000 for Spring Brush Pickup. Staff advertised for bids. There were three specification holders for the project, but only one firm submitted a bid. The results of the bid opening are as follows: Tim's Tree Service $66,410 The 2015 Spring Brush Pickup Program is a three-week program scheduled to begin on April 27, 2015. The City will be divided into three sections with one week designated for pickup in each. Section 1 Entire area north of Highway 55 and west of Douglas Drive Week of April 27 Section 2 Entire area north of Highway 55 and east of Douglas Drive Week of May 4 Section 3 Entire area south of Highway 55 Week of May 11 Golden Valley's recycling program (which includes curbside recycling, brush pick-up and leaf drop-off) is supported through user fees. Residents pay$12 per quarter ($4/month) per household for recycling services on their utility bills. Staff provides information to residents about the 2015 Spring Brush Pickup Program through the CityNews, postcards mailed to their homes, and on the City's website. Recommended Action Motion to award the contract to Tim's Tree Service in the amount of$66,410 for the 2015 Spring Brush Pickup Program. , f Vk goldenl *'4^� MEMORANDUM va ley Physical Development Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Award Contracts for 2015 Pavement Management Program a. Construction Contract b. Construction Engineering Services c. Purchase of Fire Hydrants Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary Award Construction Contract Bids for the 2015 Pavement Management Program (PMP), City Improvement Project 15-01, were opened on March 5, 2015. Seven bids were received. The bids are listed as follows: GMH Asphalt Corp. $2,133,887.25 Valley Paving, Inc. $2,183,267.87 Palda &Sons, Inc. $2,246,934.76 Park Construction Co. $2,270,918.88 Northdale Construction Co. $2,483,576.86 Northwest Asphalt $2,738,989.37 Construction Budget $2,570,000.00 Staff has reviewed the bids and found them to be accurate and in order. Construction Observation and Engineering Services Staff has received a proposal from the consulting engineering firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), dated March 6, 2015, for construction staking and engineering services for the 2015 PMP. Engineering services include specialized work in geotechnical engineering for soil conditions and environmental engineering. The construction staking includes all survey work during construction, and record drawing survey and drawing preparation following construction. Construction observation for this project will be performed by both City and SEH staff. The proposal includes a not-to-exceed amount of$181,000. It is expected that construction will begin as weather permits in late April to early May 2015, and be completed in the fall. Purchase Fire Hydrants Due to specific requirements for fire hydrants used in Golden Valley, hydrants have been purchased separately for the PMP projects for several years for use within the project. The cost of these hydrants will be charged to the project utility budget. Two quotes were received to purchase 30 fire hydrants as follows: Dakota Supply Group $83,970.00 American Underground Supply $100,178.00 The addition of the fire hydrants to the PMP budget results in an adjusted Sewer and Water budget of$647,934.12. This total is within the overall utility budget for the project. Attachments • Location map (1 page) • Professional Services Agreement dated March 6, 2015, from Susan Mason and Daniel Erickson, SEH, to Jeff Oliver, City Engineer (4 pages) Recommended Actions 1. Motion authorizing a contract with GMH Asphalt Corp., in the amount of$2,133,887.25 for the construction of the 2015 PMP, City Improvement Project No. 15-01. 2. Motion to authorize entering into a contract with SEH, Inc. for observation, construction, staking, and engineering services for the 2015 PMP, not to exceed $181,000. 3. Motion to authorize purchase of fire hydrants from Dakota Supply Ground, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in the amount of$83,970.00. Naper St General Mills Res � a Nature Area Ic r_ iN Ile,, Olympia St r I � I Lakeview Park 12015 PMP I I Z i Q Winsda i v Z c Q a, o Qa Plymouth Ave N I city 0Y" Print Date:8/27/2014 in e Sources: Ql dei -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for 9 ei�� 2 015 PMP Property Lines(2014)&Aerial Photography(2012). -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 150 300 600 Feet .A SEH Building a Better World for All of Us® March 6,2015 RE: City of Golden Valley,Minnesota 2015 PMP Construction Services SEH No. 125641 City No. 15-01 Mr. Jeff Oliver City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 Dear Jeff: Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Golden Valley in providing professional engineering services for the 2015 Pavement Management Program(PMP)construction season. This letter serves as the supplemental Letter Agreement in accordance with the Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Golden Valley and SEH. Background The City of Golden Valley has completed the design and intends to reconstruct approximately 0.73 miles of streets as part of their 2015 Pavement Management Program(PMP). The proposed street improvements are located south of Naper Street,north of Plymouth Avenue North,east of Hillsboro Avenue North,and west of Flag Avenue North. The proposed 2015 PMP improvements include the construction of storm sewer pipe, drainage structures, sanitary sewer repairs,water main replacement,and street reconstruction including concrete curb and gutter. The City will be providing overall construction administration of this project. SEH prepared the plans and will be providing construction staking services, a Resident Project Representative(RPR), a full time intern,construction observation services,and record plan services as described below and detailed in the task summary. Scope of Work Construction Staldng SEH will provide a survey crew to provide the construction staking of the proposed improvements for the neighborhood streets included in the 2015 program. Staking tasks for this project will include placement of horizontal control, saw cuts for removals,utility staking for private utilities, silt fence, cut sheets, sanitary sewer stakes,water main stakes, storm sewer stakes,water service stakes, curb and gutter stakes, blue tops after curb is in place,removals, and travel. All survey coordination for construction staking and observation will be between the survey crew chief and the City. Engineers I Architects I Planners I Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,3535 Vadnals Center Drive,St.Paul,MN 55110-5196 SEH is 100%employee-owned I sehinc.com 1 651.490.2000 1 800.325.2055 I 888.908.8166 fax Mr. Jeff Oliver—2015 PMP Construction Services March 6,201 S Fuge 2 Resident Project Representative(RPR) The on-site representative for Resident Project Representative(RPR) is the Engineer's agent at the site and will act as directed by and under supervision of the Engineer. The RPR shall serve as the liaison with the contractor,working principally through the contractor's superintendent. They will assist in helping the contractor understand the intent of the Contract Documents. The field personnel will review the progress schedule, shop drawings, and required submittals, Schedule of Materials Control and consult with the Engineer concerning acceptability. The RPR will be responsible for maintaining job site files,for correspondence,meeting reporEs,field orders,and supplemental agreements. They will keep a daily diary or log book. Records pertaining to quantities and applications for payment will be the responsibility of the RPR. The RPR will also keep information pertaining to record plans and will schedule the survey crew based on the staking requests from the contractor's representative. Observation SEH will provide observation services including attendance of the pre-construction meeting and shop drawing review on drainage structures for the project area.A budget has been included for minor technical support if needed for geotechnical or traffic control issues that may arise. Time has also been included to assist with project closeout activities. Record Plan Services SEH will perform a record survey of the project area,which includes providing final top of structure and invert surveys on new sewer structures.Benchmarks will be reestablished in the construction area in conjunction with the record survey. The City will complete the record drawings. Project Team Daniel Erickson will be available to answer design related questions and provide some coordination as required between city staff and the surveying and will provide project management of our contract with the City. Tim Wegwerth will be available to review design issues in the field or attend the weekly project construction meetings as necessary. Troy Anderson will serve as Resident Project Representative (RPR)and will assist the City with field representation. A full time intern will also be provided to assist with RPR duties. Nick Domiano will be the lead Survey Crew Chief assigned. Mike Kotila will be available to provide traffic engineering support as necessary. Brent Theroux will be available to provide geotechnical field support as may be required with the subgrade correction work. Schedule We anticipate the majority of construction services to take place within the months of May to November. The record plan survey will follow completion of the construction. Compensation SEH proposes to be compensated for the scope of work proposed in the Agreement on an hourly basis. Compensation will be based on the hourly cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses, including reproductions,mileage, car allowance,and equipment.Additional services required beyond the tasks and estimated hours as described can be negotiated or provided as extra work on an hourly basis. We have estimated these costs to be$181,000. Mr. Jeff Oliver—2015 PMP Construction Services March 6,2015 Page 3 The City of Golden Valley will be invoiced for actual labor and reimbursable expenses incurred by SEH to complete the work. The person/hour task budgets for each phase of the work are attached. This agreement is an understanding of the project to date. If this document satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of our agreement,please sign in the space below and return one copy to our office. We look forward to working with you,your staff, and the community on this project.Thank you for the opportunity to continue to work with the City of Golden Valley. Respectively submitted, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ,5��kf W4-00� Y r XvI. Mason,PE Daniel P.Erickson,PE Principal Project Manager amc Enclosures s:\fWgo1dAuommon\propose1s\2g15(construction services)\const service 2015 pmp,docx ' Approved this day of , 2015 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota By: Title: 2015 Construction Services Deliverables: Construction Observation,Staking,Full Time RPR,Record Plan Services Task ProjectMmtaaZw Project 1$giotec Staff Pngineer futera Tratfie Ehgineer Ce tech Engineer RPR Admin Survey C— I Observation Precon meeting 4 Shopreview 4 8 4 2 6 g Field review/weekly cousouction meetings 8 32 I6 800 8 16 800 Project closeout - 4 20 2 Construction Staking Horizontal control Saw cuts for removal 4 2 Utility Staking for pnvate utility companies 4 Silt fence O nsheets 2 Sant 4 sewer stakes 6 Water main stakes 16 Stone sewer stakes 16 Services water 8 Curb and gutter stakes 24 Blue tops after curb is in place Removals 10 Travel 8 12 3 RecordDrawings Serve Record plan e 4 8 16 Total hours 18L4L._._ 81 34 34 800 8 16 8521 41 128 Project labor cost this phase $170,354 Equipment charges 1Vfileage and Expenses 7,655 Survey Van and Equipment 2,991 Total project cost this task $181,000 Union components or assumptions: Survey Crew and RPR based on project schedule(May to November). Construction services are largely dependant on weather and contractor's schedule. Construction schedule based on 5 days per week at 10 hours a day for 16 weeks. Estimate assumes 5 days per week at 10 hours a day for 16 weeks for both a RPR and intern Materials testing by others. 9)roklerl MEMORANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/76'3-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. F. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. "No person shall possess, display, consume or use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the Council." As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $25 to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations who have requested that option. Attachments • Beer and/or wine request list (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve the requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION CC DATE DATE TIME SHELTER APPROVED Laurie Jost 06-06 5 pm - 10 pm Small 03-17-15 Julie Ratoff 06-20 11 am - 4 pm Small 03-17-15 Carol Groothius 07-25 11 am - 4 pm Small 03-17-15 Joann Albrecht 08-01 11 am - 4 pm Small 03-17-15 Ed Thurmes 08-06 11 am - 4 pm Large 03-17-15 Ed Thurmes 08-06 5 pm - 10 pm Large 03-17-15 J. Matthew Solle 08-07 11 am - 4 pm Small 03-17-15 J. Matthew Solle 08-07 5 pm - 10 pm Small 03-17-15 cit,yo MEMORANDUM go 1 d e n 41414r va ey Physical Development Department 763-593-8030 1763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. G. Appointments to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and its Technical Advisory Committee Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) is a joint powers organization made up of the nine cities that contribute storm water runoff to Bassett Creek. Each of these communities appoints one commissioner and one alternate commissioner to provide representation at the BCMWC. Furthermore, the BCWMC has a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of member cities' staff members. Each of these appointments is for a three-year term. The City Council, as a member of the BCWMC, is charged with making the appointments to the BCWMC and its Technical Advisory Committee. The current appointments are as follows: Commissioner: Stacy Hoschka Alternate Commissioner: Jane McDonald-Black TAC Member: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Alternate TAC Member: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Commissioner Hoschka and Alternate Commissioner McDonald-Black wish to continue representing Golden Valley at the BCWMC. Attachments • Resolution Appointing Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, and its Technical Advisory Committee (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Appointing Stacy Hoschka as Commissioner and Jane McDonald Black as Alternate Commissioner to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, and Jeff Oliver as Member and Eric Eckman as Alternate Member to its Technical Advisory Committee. Resolution 15-20 March 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING STACY HOSCHKA AS COMMISSIONER AND JANE MCDONALD BLACK AS ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, AND JEFF OLIVER, MEMBER, AND ERIC ECKMAN, ALTERNATE MEMBER, TO ITS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council of Golden Valley is a member of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission; and WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission has been organized under State of Minnesota Statutes to manage the storm waters of cities whose boundaries fall within the water management area; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has adopted a Joint Powers Agreement joining the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission; and WHEREAS, the City has advertised for Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner in accordance with M.S. 103B.227; and WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission has a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of its member cities' staff members; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Golden Valley appoint Stacy Hoschka as its Commissioner and Jane McDonald Black as its Alternate Commissioner to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission for a term ending January 31, 2018, and Jeff Oliver as Member and Eric Eckman as Alternate Member to its Technical Advisory Committee. 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. city, o g 0M MEMORANDUM o valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. H. Second Consideration - Ordinance 545 - Amendment to Section 4.31: Stormwater Management Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary The City has a stormwater management ordinance that was last updated in 2010. The ordinance is the regulatory mechanism that helps the City to enforce its stormwater requirements to ensure the protection of its water resources. The ordinance is part of the City's overall stormwater management program that is required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). In response to changing federal regulations, the MPCA reissued its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in 2013. The City applied for and received permit coverage under the new permit in April 2014. As part of the MPCA approval, the City is required to make updates to its stormwater management program, including its Stormwater Management Ordinance, within 12 months of permit coverage. Updates to the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance are based upon Environmental Protection Agency rules,the MPCA Construction Permit, the MPCA MS4 Permit and guidance documents, recommendations from the Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) draft watershed management plan. The City Attorney has also reviewed the ordinance. Major revisions to the ordinance include the following: 1. Updating and clarifying the project thresholds which trigger permit applications and project reviews by the City and its partner agencies. 2. Construction site stormwater runoff controls - adding recommended language and references to the MPCA Construction Permit for sites equal to or greater than one acre. 3. Post-construction stormwater management - adding recommended language from the MPCA MS4 Permit and BCWMC watershed plan for sites equal to or greater than one acre. This includes requirements for new development, redevelopment, and linear projects. 4. General Performance Standards - Buffers - adding the new BCWMC buffer requirements for conformance with the watershed plan. 5. Illegal Discharge - adding recommended language regarding the prohibition of illegal discharges into the City's stormwater system and surface waters, including the City's authority to inspect private properties to ensure compliance. The first consideration of this ordinance was held at the March 3, 2015, Council meeting. Staff has not received any comments regarding changes to the proposed ordinance since the first consideration. If the Council adopts the ordinance on its second consideration, it will be effective upon publication. Attachment • Ordinance#545, Amending the City Code Section 4:31: Stormwater Management (14 pages) • Summary of Ordinance#545, Amending the City Code Section 4:31: Stormwater Management (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on second consideration, Ordinance #545, Amending Section 4.31: Stormwater Management of the City Code. ORDINANCE NO. 545, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 4:31: Stormwater Management The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 1(A) is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Statutory Authorization. This Section is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 462; Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500-6120.3900, Minnesota Rules Chapters 8410, 8420 and 7050.0210. Section 2. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 1(C) is hereby amended to read as follows: C. Purpose. The general purpose of this Section is to establish regulatory requirements for land Development and Land Disturbing Activities aimed at minimizing the threats to public health, safety, public and private property and natural resources within the community resulting from construction Site Erosion, post-construction Stormwater runoff, and Illicit Connections. Section 3. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 1 is hereby amended by adding Sections (D) & (E) to read as follows: D. This Section is intended to meet the current construction site erosion and sediment control and post-construction stormwater management regulatory requirements for construction activity and small construction activity (NPDES Permit) as defined in 40 CFR pt. 122.26(b)(1 4)(x) and (b)(15), respectively. E. This Section is intended to meet the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) developed under Minnesota Statutes 2009, Section 115.03, subdivision 5c. Section 4. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 2(A)(5) is hereby amended by changing the last sentence to read: Examples of BMPs can be found in Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2000, Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual, Metropolitan Council 2001, State of Minnesota Stormwater Manual, MPCA, Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1992, and Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Minnesota Department of Transportation 2013, as these documents may be amended from time to time. Section 5. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 2 is hereby amended by adding new Sections (15) & (25) to read as follows and renumbering subsequent subsections as needed: 15. Hazardous Materials: Any material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. 25. Redevelopment: For the purposes of determining post-construction stormwater management requirements, any construction activity where, prior to the start of construction, the areas to be disturbed have fifteen percent (15%) or more of existing impervious surface(s). Section 6. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 3(A)(B)(C)(D) is hereby amended to read as follows: A. City of Golden Valley. The City of Golden Valley is the permitting authority for Land Disturbing Activities listed in Subdivision 4(A) within the boundaries of the BCWMC and the MCWD. The City may issue a Stormwater Management Permit approving Land Disturbing Activities in these areas. B. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Although the BCWMC is not a permitting authority, it has the authority to review and approve projects that disturb an area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more, or will result in more than two hundred (200) cubic yards of cut or fill, and projects listed in the BCWMC document "Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals." Such projects must comply with BCWMC guidelines, policies, standards and requirements. The BCWMC will review the Applicant's submittal only after the project has received preliminary review by the City indicating general compliance with existing local watershed management plans. C. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD is the permitting authority for Land Disturbing Activities in excess of five thousand (5,000) square feet or fifty (50) cubic yards within the MCWD boundaries. In addition, projects meeting criteria listed in the MCWD regulatory rules may also be subject to review and permitting. Where required, the MCWD Permit is in addition to a Permit required by the City of Golden Valley. D. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The MPCA is the permitting authority for Land Disturbing Activities requiring an NPDES Permit for construction activity, including the requirements for developing and implementing a SWPPP. The NPDES Permit is required for construction activity that results in land disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre, or a common plan of development or sale that disturbs greater than one (1) acre, as defined in the NPDES Permit. Where required, the NPDES Permit is in addition to Permits required by the City of Golden Valley and the MCWD. Section 7. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 4(A)(1) is hereby amended by revising Sections (h) & 0) to read as follows: h. Construction, expansion or modification of a Stormwater Management Facility or Stormwater BMPs. j. Those activities required to meet the standards of the BCWMC as set forth in the current version of BCWMC's "Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals," as amended from time to time. Section 8. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 4(B)(5) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5. Stormwater Management Plan and Narrative. Plans must be prepared to City standards and the standards of BCWMC, MCWD, and MPCA, if applicable. For construction sites equal to or greater than one (1) acre, plans must be submitted that: a. Meet the requirements of Part III and Part IV of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. b. Meet the post-construction stormwater management requirements listed in Subdivision 5 of this Section. Section 9. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 4(D) is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Performance Standards for Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control. 1. All Grading material and Soil however placed on a Grading Site shall remain within the limits of the Grading Site and not travel onto adjacent property, streets, or other public or private property as dust, mud, chunks, or otherwise, unless approved by all affected adjacent property owners and the Administrator. 2. All proposed Stormwater BMPs must be maintained in accordance with the plans, details, and specifications approved by the City. 3. Projects within the BCWMC boundaries that disturb an area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more or will result in more than two hundred (200) cubic yards of cut or fill shall meet the current requirements for Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plans specified by the BCWMC. Projects required to meet water quality standards of the BCWMC shall meet the current design and maintenance requirements for the proposed BMPs as specified by the BCWMC. 4. Projects within the MCWD boundaries that disturb an area of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more or will result in more than fifty (50) cubic yards shall meet the erosion and sediment control requirements specified in the current regulatory rules. 5. Projects with land disturbing and on-site activities equal to or greater than one (1) acre shall meet the requirements of Part III and Part IV of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit for erosion and sediment controls and waste controls. Section 10. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 4(E)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Inspections. The Applicant is responsible for regular inspections and record keeping needed to document compliance with the Permit requirements. At a minimum, the Applicant must inspect the construction project once a week and within twenty-four (24) hours of a rainfall event of one-half (1/2) inch or greater in a twenty-four (24) hour period. The City may conduct inspections as needed to ensure that both Erosion and Sediment Control measures and Stormwater BMPs are properly installed and maintained prior to construction, during construction, and at the completion of the project. The Applicant shall notify the City a minimum of seventy-two (72) hours prior to the following required City inspections: Section 11. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 4(F)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Amount and Type. The Applicant shall provide security for the performance of work to provide all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures described and delineated in the approved Permit in an amount not less than one hundred and twenty five percent (125%) of the approved estimated cost of performing the described work. The type of the security shall be one (1) or a combination of the following to be determined by the Administrator: Section 12. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 4(F)(1) is hereby amended by adding Section (c) to read as follows and renumbering subsequent subsections as needed: c. Irrevocable Letter of Credit in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; or Section 13. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 4(G)(6)(e) is hereby amended to read as follows: e. The Applicant fails to establish Wetland, Stream, or Shoreline buffers as described in the Stormwater Permit. Section 13. City Code Section 4:31 is amended by adding a new Subdivision 5 to read as follows and renumbering subsequent Subdivisions as needed: Subdivision 5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management A. The following projects must include a site plan with post-construction stormwater management BMPs that meet the requirements of this Section and are designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit: 1. New development and redevelopment projects with land disturbance of greater than or equal to one (1) acre, including projects less than one (1) acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale. 2. Non-residential development and redevelopment projects greater than one half (1/2) acre and less than one (1) acre that, at the time of permitting, discharge stormwater through their private systems directly to a surface water without being routed through a stormwater management facility or BMP. B. Rate Control. Post-construction stormwater runoff rates must not exceed pre- project rates for the two (2), ten (10), and one hundred (100) year twenty four (24) hour precipitation events. C. Stormwater volume control techniques and practices including, but not limited to, infiltration, evapotranspiration, reuse/harvesting, conservation design, urban forestry, and green roofs, shall be given preference as design options provided they are consistent with City zoning, subdivision, and Planned Unit Development requirements, and sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration reduction requirements. D. The Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) and performance goals developed under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 2009, Section 115.03, subdivision 5c, along with the MIDS calculator and design sequence flowchart, and design criteria in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, is the recommended method for achieving the post-construction stormwater management requirements described in this Section. E. For new development projects there shall be no net increase from pre-project conditions (on an annual average basis) of: 1. Stormwater discharge Volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in 5(G) below. 2. Stormwater discharges of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3. Stormwater discharges of Total Phosphorus (TP) F. For redevelopment projects there shall be a net reduction from pre-project conditions (on an annual average basis) of: 1. Stormwater discharge Volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in 5(G) below. 2. Stormwater discharges of TSS 3. Stormwater discharges of TP G. Stormwater management limitations and exceptions 1. Limitations a. Infiltration prohibited. The use of infiltration techniques are prohibited when the infiltration structural stormwater BMP will receive discharges from, or be constructed in, the following areas: 1) Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater under an NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit. 2) Where vehicle fueling and maintenance occur. 3) Where less than three (3) feet of separation from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock exists. 4) Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by infiltrating stormwater. 5) Within twenty five (25) feet of a sanitary sewer pipe due to the possibility of inflow and infiltration of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. b. Infiltration restricted. The use of infiltration techniques will be restricted when the infiltration device will be constructed in areas: 1) With predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils 2) Within one thousand (1,000) feet up-gradient, or one hundred (100) feet down-gradient of active karst features 3) Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13 4) Where soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour c. Linear Projects 1) Linear projects on sites where infiltration is not prohibited or restricted that create one (1) acre or greater of new impervious surfaces, shall meet the requirements of Subdivision 5(E) for the increase in impervious surface. 2) Linear projects on sites where infiltration is prohibited or restricted that create one (1) acre or greater of fully reconstructed surface, shall meet the requirements of Subdivision 5(F) above for the impervious surface. 3) Mill and overlay and other resurfacing activities are not considered fully reconstructed. 4) A reasonable attempt must be made to obtain right-of-way, property, or easements during the project planning process for volume control practices. For linear projects where the lack of right-of-way or property precludes the installation of volume control practices to meet 1 or 2 above, exceptions as described in 5(G)(2) below can be applied. 2. Exceptions. A lesser volume control standard on the site of the original construction activity may be applied, at the discretion of the City, under the following circumstances: a. The permittee or owner of the construction site is precluded from infiltrating stormwater due to limitations under Subdivision 5(G)(1)(a), (b), or (c) above, and b. The permittee or owner of the construction site implements volume reduction techniques, other than infiltration, on the site of the original construction activity that reduce stormwater discharge volume but may not meet the requirements of post-construction stormwater management. H. Mitigation. There may be circumstances where the permittee or owner of a construction site cannot cost effectively meet the conditions for post-construction stormwater management for TSS and/or TP on the site of the original construction activity. For this purpose, the City or permittee/owner shall identify locations where mitigation projects can be completed. Any stormwater discharges of TSS and/or TP not addressed on the site of the original construction activity must be addressed through mitigation and, at a minimum, shall ensure the following requirements are met: 1. Mitigation project areas are selected in the following order of preference, with consultation and approval of the City: a. Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from the original construction activity b. Locations within the same Department of Natural Resource (DNR) catchment area as the original construction activity c. Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area up-stream d. Locations anywhere within the City 2. Mitigation projects must involve the creation of new structural stormwater BMPs or the retrofit of existing structural stormwater BMPs, or the use of a properly designed regional structural stormwater BMP. 3. Routine maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs already required by this Section cannot be used to meet the mitigation requirements. 4. Mitigation projects shall be completed within twenty four (24) months after the start of the original construction activity. 5. The City shall determine, and document, who is responsible for long-term maintenance on all mitigation projects. 6. If the City receives payment from the owner and/or permittee for mitigation purposes in lieu of the owner or permittee meeting the conditions for post- construction stormwater management, the City shall apply any such payment received to a public stormwater project, and all projects must be in compliance with this Section. Section 14. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 6(A) is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Freeboard. The elevation separation of buildings with respect to lakes, streams, ponds, basins, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management Facilities shall conform to the following: 1. All new and existing structures and uses located in the Floodplain are subject to Section 11.60 of the City Code. 2. For structures and uses located outside the Floodplain, the following shall apply: a. The lowest floor elevation of all new principal and accessory structures, and additions to existing structures, shall be at least two (2) feet above the Calculated High Water Level of adjacent Wetlands, basins, ponds, and Stormwater Management Facilities, or be structurally flood proofed in accordance with Section 11.60 of the City Code. Calculated High Water Levels shall be determined by the City based on the relevant federal, state, BCWMC, and City studies. Section 15. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 6(B)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. The top of bank of a pond, filtration basin, or infiltration basin, as determined by the Administrator, unless such a feature is incorporated into the architectural design of the building and the construction plans are prepared and signed by a licensed structural engineer. Section 16. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 6 (C)(1) & (2) are hereby amended to read as follows and renumbering subsequent subsections as needed: 1. Native or Natural Vegetation Buffers must be established or preserved in accordance with this Section and the requirements of the BCWMC. 2. The buffers zone widths are as follows: a. Streams. Ten (10) feet or twenty five percent (25%) of the distance between the ordinary high water level and the nearest existing structure, whichever is less. b. Wetlands. Based on a Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MnRAM) classification or similar classification system, buffer widths will be as follows (measured from the delineated wetland edge): i. Preserve — Seventy-five (75) feet average and minimum of fifty (50) feet ii. Manage 1 — Fifty (50) feet average and minimum of thirty (30) feet iii. Manage 2 or 3 — Twenty five (25) feet average and a minimum of fifteen (15) feet c. Lakes. Minimum often (10) feet in width measured from the OHWL. d. Stormwater Management Facilities. Buffers shall extend from the normal water level, or bottom of a dry basin, up to the top of bank of the Stormwater Management Facility, as determined by the Administrator, and shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width. Section 17. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 6(C)(3) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. The following standards shall guide the creation or restoration of buffers to achieve the goals and policies of the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The Administrator may modify or waive standards depending on each project Site and goals for the water body. a. The use of a meandering buffer strip to maintain a natural appearance is encouraged in areas of flat topography. b. An access corridor, not to exceed twenty (20) feet in width or twenty percent (20%) of the buffer edge, whichever is less, is permitted. c. Accessory structures intended to provide access to Wetlands such as stairways and docks are permitted in the access corridor. d. The City may require that the buffer be placed in a conservation easement. e. Monuments identifying the conservation easement, designed in accordance with City standards, should be placed every one hundred (100) feet to delineate the buffer edge and at intersections with property lines. f. Buffer strip vegetation should be appropriate to the goals for the water body. Where acceptable natural vegetation exists in buffer strip areas, the retention of such vegetation in an undisturbed state is preferred. Section 18. The second sentence in City Code Section 4:31 Subdivision 6(D)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows: All such facilities shall be inspected annually or more often, with reports submitted to the City, and maintained in proper condition consistent with the performance standards for which they were originally designed. Section 19. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 6(D)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Owners of private Stormwater Management Facilities shall enter into an agreement with the City describing responsibility for the long-term inspection, operation, and maintenance of the facilities. Section 20. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 7(B) is hereby amended by adding sections (2) & (3) to read as follows and renumbering subsequent subsections as needed: 2. The commencement, conduct or continuance of any illegal discharge to the storm drain system is prohibited except as described as follows: a. The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by this ordinance: water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising ground water infiltration, uncontaminated pumped ground water, sump pump discharge, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, water from crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn watering, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, and street wash water. b. Discharges or flow from firefighting. c. Discharges associated with dye testing; however, this activity requires a verbal notification to the City's Public Works Department prior to the time of the test. 3. The prohibition shall not apply to any non-stormwater discharge permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge to the storm drain system. Section 21. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 7(C) is hereby amended by adding Section (4) to read as follows: 4. Watercourse Protection. Every person owning property through which a watercourse passes, or such person's lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property free of trash, debris, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse. Section 22. City Code Section 4:31, Subdivision 7, is hereby amended by adding Sections (E), (F), (G), (H), (1), and (J) to read as follows: E. Notification of Spills or Leaks. 1. Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has information of any known or suspected release of materials which are resulting or may result in illegal discharges or pollutants discharging into stormwater, the stormwater management system, or surface waters, said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a release of hazardous materials, said person shall immediately notify emergency response agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services. This shall include immediate notification of the Minnesota Department of Safety Duty Officer, if the source of the illegal discharge is a spill of leak as defined in Minn. Stat. 115.061. If the discharge of prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment, the owner or operator of such establishment shall also retain an on-site written record of the discharge and the actions taken to prevent its recurrence. Such records shall be retained for at least two (2) years. F. Compliance Monitoring. 1. Right of Entry. City inspectors and regulators shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities subject to regulation under this Section of the City Code as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this ordinance. a. If a discharger has security measures in force which require proper identification and clearance before entry into its premises, the discharger shall make the necessary arrangements to allow access to representatives of the City. b. Facility operators shall allow approved City employees ready access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination, and copying of records that must be kept under the conditions of an NPDES permit to discharge stormwater. c. The City shall have the right to set up on any facility such devices as are necessary to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility's stormwater discharge to ensure compliance with this Section. d. The City has the right to require the discharger to install monitoring equipment as necessary. The facility's sampling and monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the discharger at its own expense. All devices used to measure stormwater flow and quality shall be calibrated to ensure their accuracy. e. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the operator at the written or oral request of the City and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne by the operator. f. Unreasonable delays in allowing the City access to a facility is a violation of this Section. A person who is the operator of a facility commits an offense if the person denies the City reasonable access to the facility for the purpose of conducting any activity authorized or required by this Chapter. 2. Search Warrants. If the City has been refused access to any part of the premises from which stormwater is discharged, and is able to demonstrate probable cause to believe that there may be a violation of this Section, or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to verify compliance with this Section or any order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall public health, safety, and welfare of the community, then the City may seek issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction. G. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties. 1. Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Section. Any person who has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this Section, may be subject to the enforcement actions outlined in this Section or may be restrained by injunction or otherwise abated in a manner provided by law. In the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, the City is authorized to enter upon the subject private property, without giving prior notice, to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. The City is authorized to seek costs of the abatement as outlined in Chapter 10 of the City Code. 2. Warning Notice. When the City finds that any person has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this Section, or any order issued hereunder, the City may serve upon that person a written Warning Notice, specifying the particular violation believed to have occurred and requesting the discharger to immediately investigate the matter and to seek a resolution whereby any offending discharge will cease. Investigation and/or resolution of the matter in response to the Warning Notice in no way relieves the alleged violator of liability for any violations occurring before or after receipt of the Warning Notice. Nothing in this subsection shall limit the authority of the City to take any action, including emergency action or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a Warning Notice. 3. Notice of Violation. Whenever the City finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this section, the City may order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. A. The Notice of Violation shall contain: a. The name and address of the alleged violator; b. The address when available or a description of the building, structure or land upon which the violation is occurring, or has occurred; c. A statement specifying the nature of the violation; d. A description of the remedial measures necessary to restore compliance with this Section and a time schedule for the completion of such remedial action; e. A statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation is directed; f. A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the City by filing a written notice of appeal within five (5) days of service of notice of violation; and g. A statement specifying that, should the violator fail to restore compliance within the established time schedule, the work will be done by a designated governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator. B. Such notice may require without limitation: 1. The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting; 2. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; 3. That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and desist; 4. The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property 5. Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; and 6. The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. 4, Civil Penalties. In the event of alleged violator fails to take the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or otherwise fails to cure the violations described therein within five (5) days, or such greater period as the City shall deem appropriate, the City may impose a penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1000.00) (depending on the severity of the violation) for each day the violation remains unremedied after receipt of the notice of violation. H. Appeal of Notice of Violation. If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice of Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within five (5) days of the decision of the municipal authority upholding the decision of the City then representatives of the City shall enter upon the subject private property and are authorized to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner, agent or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow the government agency or designated contractor to enter upon the premises for the purposes set forth above. 1. Cost of Abatement of the Violation. Within five (5) days after abatement of the violation, the owner of the property will be notified of the cost of abatement, including administrative costs. The property owner may file a written protest objecting to the amount of the assessment within five (5) days. If the amount due is not paid within a timely manner as determined by the decision of the municipal authority or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the charges shall become a special assessment against the property and shall constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment. J. Violations Deemed a Public Nuisance. In addition to the enforcement processes and penalties provided in this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Section is a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator's expense, and/or a civil action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken. Section 15. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 3.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 16. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopt by the City Council this 3rd day of March, 2015. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 545, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 4:31: Stormwater Management This is a summary of the provision of the above Ordinance which has been approved for publication by the City Council. This ordinance amends Chapter 4 of the Golden Valley City Code relating to Stormwater Management and is in response to changing federal, state and watershed regulations. The City applied for and received permit coverage under the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) reissued Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in April 2014. As part of the permit approval, the City is required to make updates to its stormwater management program, including its Stormwater Management Ordinance, within 12 months of permit coverage. Amendments to the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance are based upon Environmental Protection Agency rules, the MPCA Construction Permit, the MPCA MS4 Permit and guidance documents, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) draft watershed management plan. The ordinance shall take effect upon publication. NOTICE: The foregoing is only a summary of the ordinance A printed copy of the full text of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk. Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of March, 2015 /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk of v city A-1, MEMORANDUM valley Police Department 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. I. Call for Administrative Hearing- Alcohol Sale Violation - Pallop Ratnasingha (Owner) - Nong's Thai Cuisine Prepared By Stacy Carlson, Police Chief Summary The Police Department conducted compliance checks for Golden Valley businesses serving liquor license suspensions stemming from compliance check violations occurring on December 30, 2014. Nong's Thai Cuisine, 2520 Hillsboro Avenue North, failed the compliance check by selling alcohol to an undercover police officer. The owner of Nong's Thai Cuisine, Pallop Ratnasingha, has requested an administrative hearing before the City Council. It is recommended that the administrative hearing be held on April 7, 2015, at 5:30 pm. Attachments • City Code Section 5.02 (6 pages) • Resolution calling for an Administrative Hearing on Alcohol Sales Violation - Nong's Thai Cuisine (1 page) Recommendation Motion to adopt Resolution calling for an Administrative Hearing on Alcohol Sales Violation - Pallop Ratnasingha (Owner) - Nong's Thai Cuisine. § 5.02 Section 5.02: Applications and Licenses Under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration Subdivision 1. Application All applications shall be made at the office of the City Clerk, at least sixty (60) days prior to the projected effective date, upon forms prescribed by the City, or if by the Commissioner, then together with such additional information as the Council may desire. Information required may vary with the type of business organization making application. All questions asked or information required by the application forms shall be answered fully and completely by the applicant. Every application for the issuance or renewal of a liquor or non-intoxicating malt liquor license must include a copy of each summons received by the applicant during the preceding year under Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.802. Source: Ordinance No.55, 2nd Series Effective Date: 1-17-91 *Subdivision 2. Limitations on Licenses Off-sale licenses shall be issued only to exclusive liquor stores and drug stores. On-sale licenses shall be issued to hotels, clubs, restaurants or organizations with the approval of the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety or congressionally chartered veterans, provided the organization has been in existence for at least three (3) years and liquor sale will only be to members and bona fide guests. These limitations shall not apply to pre-existing licenses. Source: Ordinance No. 316, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-26-04 *Subdivision 3. False Statements It is unlawful for any applicant to intentionally make a false statement or omission upon any application form. Any false statement in such application, or any willful omission to state any information called for on such application form shall, upon discovery of such falsehood, work an automatic refusal of license, or if already issued, shall render any license issued pursuant thereto void and of no effect to protect the applicant from prosecution for violation of this Chapter, or any part thereof. Source: City Code Effective Date: 6-30-88 *Subdivision 4. Investigation Fees At the time the initial or renewal application is made, an applicant for a license under this Chapter shall accompany such application with payment of a fee to be considered an investigation fee to cover the cost to the City in processing the application and the investigation of the applicant or the applicant's manager or agent. No such fee shall be required of an applicant for a temporary non- intoxicating malt liquor license. For investigations conducted outside the State of Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 6 § 5.02 Minnesota, the City may recover the actual investigation costs, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any fees due in excess of the fee accompanying the application must be paid prior to the license hearing and before the City Council considers the application. Failure to fully pay investigative fees within thirty (30) days of billing shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of license. Source: Ordinance No. 57, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-91 *Subdivision S. Action A. Granting. The Council may approve any application for the period of the remainder of the then current license year or for the entire ensuing license year. All applications including proposed license periods must be consistent with this Chapter. Prior to consideration of any application for a license, the applicant shall pay the license fee, and if applicable, pay the investigation fee. Upon rejection of any application for a license, or upon withdrawal of an application before consideration by the Council, the license fee shall be refunded to the applicant. Failure to pay any portion of a fee when due shall be cause for revocation. Source: City Code Effective Date: 6-30-88 B. Issuing. If an application is approved, the City Clerk shall forthwith issue a license pursuant thereto in the form prescribed by the City or the Commissioner, as the case may be. Except as otherwise specifically provided, all licenses shall be on a fiscal year basis, July 1 through June 30. For on-sale licenses issued and which are to become effective other than on the first day of the licensed year, the full fee shall be paid with the application but may be prorated after issuance. Licenses shall be valid only at one location and on the premises therein described. There shall be no prorations for off-sale licenses. C. Transfer. No license shall be transferable between persons or to a different location. Any change in individual ownership, incorporation or substitution of partners is a transfer. Provided, however, that as to the issued and outstanding shares of a corporate licensee, only the transfer of shares which constitutes either 1) an increase in the transferee's aggregate interest to five percent (5%) or more, or 2) a new acquisition of five percent (5%) or more, shall be a transfer for the purpose of this Section. The enlargement, alteration, or extension of premises previously licensed shall be considered a transfer to a different location. Upon learning that a license has been transferred by the licensee, the Council shall revoke the license unless a new, complete application for the transferee has been receive by the City within twenty (20) days of the transfer, in which event the Council may consider issuance of a new license to the transferee. Source: Ordinance No. 121, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-15-94 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 6 § 5.02 D. Refusal and Termination. The Council may, in its sole discretion and for any reasonable cause, refuse to grant any application. No license shall be granted to a person of questionable moral character or business reputation. Licenses shall terminate only by expiration, revocation, or ceasing to do business. E. Public Interest. No license under this Chapter may be issued, transferred, or renewed if the results of any investigation show, to the satisfaction of the Council, that such issuance, transfer, or renewal would not be in the public interest. Source: City Code Effective Date: 6-30-88 F. Revocation or Suspension. In addition to any criminal penalty provided by State Statute or this Code, the following civil penalties shall apply to violations of this Chapter or the conditions of any license issued hereunder: 1. Revocation on the first violation for the following types of offenses: a. Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity; b. Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension. 2. The following matrix applies to these violations: a. Sale to underage person; b. Sale after/before hours; c. Consumption after hours; d. Illegal gambling, prostitution, adult entertainment on premises; e. Sale to obviously intoxicated person; f. Sale of liquor that is not permitted by the license; g. Licensee permits illegal acts upon the licensed premises; h. Licensee has knowledge of illegal acts upon the licensed premises, but failed to report same to police; i. Licensee fails to cooperate fully with Police in investigating illegal acts upon licensed premises; j. Activities of licensee creates a serious danger to public health, safety or welfare. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 6 § 5.02 License Type 1ST Violation 2ND Violation 3RD Violation 4T" Violation On-sale Liquor $500 plus $1,000 plus $2,000 plus Revocation 1 day suspension 3 days 10 days suspension suspension Off-sale Liquor $750 $1,500 plus $2,000 plus Revocation 1 day 6 days suspension suspension _ On-sale $350 plus $700 plus $1,500 plus Revocation Non-intoxicating 1 day suspension 3 days 10 days malt liquor/wine suspension suspension Off-sale $250 plus $500 plus $1,000 plus Revocation Non-intoxicating 1 day suspension 3 days 10 days malt liquor suspension suspension Violations will be counted over a period of three (3) years. No fine, suspension or revocation shall take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the Council, a committee of the Council, or a hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, as may be determined by the Council in action calling the hearing. Such hearing shall be called by the Council upon written notice to the licensee served in person or by certified mail not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date, stating the time, place and purpose thereof. The licensee may agree to such fine, suspension or revocation without a hearing by providing the City Manager with a written notice of hearing waiver and acceptance of penalty. Source: Ordinance No. 209, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-11-99 In lieu of the civil penalties and license suspensions imposed above, the licensee may choose to surrender the license to sell alcohol for a minimum period of twelve (12) months from the date of license surrender. Source: Ordinance No. 316, 2nd Series Effective Date: I1-26-04 G. Corporate Applicants and Licensees. A corporate applicant, at the time of application, shall furnish the City with a list of all persons that have an interest of five percent (5%) or more of common stock issued in such corporation and the extent of such interest. The list shall name all shareholders and show the number of shares held by each, either individually or beneficially for others. It is the duty of each corporate licensee to notify the City Clerk in writing of any change in legal ownership, or beneficial interest in such corporation or in such shares. Any change in the ownership or beneficial interest in the shares entitled to be voted at a meeting of the Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 6 § 5.02 shareholders of a corporate licensee, which results in the change of voting control of the corporation by the persons owning the shares therein, or any other change in ownership or control of a corporation, shall be deemed equivalent to a transfer of the license issued to the corporation, and any such license shall be revoked thirty (30) days after any such change in ownership or beneficial interest of shares unless the Council has been notified of the change in writing and has approved it by appropriate action. At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in stock ownership or any other change in the ownership or control of a corporation, the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee to be determined by the Council. The Council, or any officer of the City designated by it, may at any reasonable time examine the stock transfer records and minute books of any corporate licensee in order to verify and identify the shareholders, and the Council or its designated officer may examine the business records of any other licensee to the extent necessary to disclose the interest which persons other than the licensee have in the licensed business. The Council may revoke any license issued upon its determination that a change of ownership of shares in a corporate licensee or any change of ownership of any interest in the business of any other licensee has actually resulted in the change of control of the licensed business so as materially to affect the integrity and character of its management and its operation, but no such action shall be taken until after a hearing by the Council on notice to the licensee. Source: Ordinance No. 46, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-25-90 *Subdivision 6. Duplicate Licenses Duplicates of all original licenses under this Chapter may be issued by the City Clerk without action by the Council, upon licensee's affidavit that the original has been lost, and upon payment of a fee for issuance of the duplicate. All duplicate licenses shall be clearly marked DUPLICATE. *Subdivision 7. Posting All licensees shall conspicuously post their licenses in their places of business. Source: City Code Effective Date: 6-30-88 *Subdivision S. Manager or Agent Before a license is issued under this Chapter, the applicant or applicants shall appoint in writing a natural person as its manager or agent. Such manager or agent shall, by the terms of his written consent, (1) take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises, and, (2) serve as agent for service of notices and other process relating to the license. Such manager or agent must be a person who, by reason of age, character, reputation, and other attributes, could qualify individually as a licensee. If such manager or agent ceases to act in such capacity for the licensee without appointment of a successor acceptable to the City, the license issued pursuant to such appointment shall be revoked. The licensee shall notify the City of any change of manager or agent. The licensee shall provide the City with all Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 6 § 5.02 information on the new manager as if licensee was submitting a new application for a license. The City may conduct an investigation into the new manager or agent and the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee to be determined by the City. The City shall revoke the license if the new manager is determined to be unacceptable to the City and licensee fails to replace the new manager with a manager acceptable to the City. At all times when customers are on licensed premises, there shall also be a person responsible for the conduct thereon, and, upon inquiry by any peace officer of an employee, such person's identity shall be immediately made known. Source: Ordinance No. 48, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-25-90 *Subdivision 9. Persons Disqualified A. No license under this Chapter may be issued to: 1. A person who within five (5) years of the license application has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a Federal or State law, or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution, of alcoholic beverages; 2. A person who has had an intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquor license revoked within five (5) years of the license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent (5%) of the capital stock of a corporate licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; 3. A person under the age of twenty-one (21) years; or 4. A person not of good moral character and repute. B. No person who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer or wholesaler may have any ownership, in whole or in part, in a business holding an alcoholic beverage license from the City. Source: Ordinance No. 121, 2nd Series Effective Date: I2-15-94 *Renumbering Source: Source: Ordinance No. 316, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-26-04 Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 6 Resolution 15-21 March 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON ALCOHOL SALE VIOLATION - NONG'S THAI CUISINE WHEREAS, as per City Code the City conducts annual compliance monitoring of establishments that sell alcoholic beverages; and WHEREAS, per City Code an administrative penalty including liquor license suspension is imposed on the licensee; and WHEREAS, the City conducts compliance monitoring of establishments serving a liquor license suspension; and WHEREAS, during such compliance check held on March 2, 2015, an employee at Nong's Thai Cuisine, 2520 Hillsboro Avenue North, sold alcohol to an undercover police officer during the suspension in violation of City Code; and WHEREAS, per City Code an administrative penalty is imposed on the licensee; and WHEREAS, City Code also provides that any licensee be given the opportunity to be heard by the City Council; WHEREAS, Nong's Thai Cuisine has requested an administrative hearing be held; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby schedules an administrative hearing on April 7, 2015, at 5:30 pm. 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. City of ' t a ME Po�� R N vailey' Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. J. Receipt of January 2015 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 January 2015, the City is using $675,730 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments • January 2015 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages) • January 2015 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) • January 2015 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) • January 2015 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) • January 2015 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) • January 2015 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) • January 2015 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the January 2015 Financial Reports. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Revenues January 2015 (unaudited) Percentage Of Year Completed 8.30% Over % 2015 January YTD (Under) of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $13,266,155 0 0 ($13,266,155) 0.00% (1) Licenses 221,565 1,525 1,525 ($220,040) 0.69% Permits 800,000 149,528 149,528 ($650,472) 18.69% Federal Grants 0 0 0 $0 State Aid 261,600 0 0 ($261,600) 0.00% (2) Hennepin County Aid 31,205 0 0 ($31,205) (3) Charges For Services: General Government 19,065 5,884 5,884 ($13,181) 30.86% Public Safety 176,120 3,380 3,380 ($172,740) 1.92% Public Works 141,000 1,035 1,035 ($139,965) 0.73% Park & Rec 396,300 24,272 24,272 ($372,028) 6.12% Other Funds 841,500 0 0 ($841,500) 0.00% Fines & Forfeitures 320,425 0 0 ($320,425) 0.00% (4) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (5) Miscellaneous Revenue 227,200 31 31 ($227,169) 0.01% Transfers In 100,000 8,333 8,333 ($91,667) 8.33% (6) TOTAL Revenue $16,902,135 $193,988 $193,988 ($16,708,147) 1.15% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January(delinquencies). (2) Police Training will be paid in August. Safe and Sober is billed on time spent. (3)Violent Offenders Task Force is run by Hennepin County. (4) Fines/Forfeitures have not been received for January 2015. (5) Investment income is allocated at year end. (6)Transfers are monthly. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures January, 2015 (unaudited) Over % 2015 January YTD (Under) Of Budget Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. ool Council $330,450 19,699 19,699 ($310,751) 5.96% 003 City Manager 774,940 36,286 36,286 (738,654) 4.68% 004 Transfers Out 475,000 0 0 (475,000) 0.00% (1) 005 Admin. Services 1,726,920 53,175 53,175 (1,673,745) 3.08% 006 Legal 139,050 0 0 (139,050) 0.00% (2) 007 Risk Management 300,000 63,576 63,576 (236,424) 21.19% oil General Gov't. Bldgs. 560,590 3,381 3,381 (557,209) 0.60% 016 Planning 303,780 15,880 15,880 (287,900) 5.23% 018 Inspections 704,575 35,848 35,848 (668,727) 5.09% 022 Police 5,568,860 314,020 314,020 (5,254,840) 5.64% 023 Fire 1,255,045 74,044 74,044 (1,181,001) 5.90% 035 Physical Dev Admin 285,180 20,766 20,766 (264,414) 7.28% 036 Engineering 759,890 14,628 14,628 (745,262) 1.93% 037 Streets 1,473,370 105,108 105,108 (1,368,262) 7.13% 065 Community Center 75,615 3,249 3,249 (72,366) 4.30% 066 Park& Rec. Admin. 698,640 36,405 36,405 (662,235) 5,21% 067 Park Maintenance 1,095,740 54,161 54,161 (1,041,579) 4.94% 068 Recreation Programs 374,490 19,492 19,492 (354,998) 5.20% TOTAL Expenditures $16,902,135 $869,718 $869,718 ($16,032,417) 5.15% (1)This transfer will be made in June, 2015. (2) Legal services have not been billed for January. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund January 2015 (unaudited) Over 2015 January YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,770 0 56,955 185 100.33% Recycling Charges 332,875 28,477 268,795 (64,080) 80.75% (2) Miscellaneous Revenues 3,000 0 7,328 4,328 Interest on Investments 9,000 0 0 (9,000) 0.00% (1) Total Revenue 401,645 28,477 333,078 (68,567) 82.93% Expenses: Recycling 451,460 0 0 (451,460) 0.00% (3) Total Expenses 451,460 0 0 (451,460) 0.00% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2)January Services are all booked to Dec 2014 for January(2/3)/February (1/3). (3) Republic Services are billed in Feb for Jan. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund January, 2015(unaudited) Over 2015 January YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,360,500 136,354 136,354 (4,224,146) 3.13% Emergency Water Supply 183,600 9,244 9,244 (174,356) 5.03% Sewer Charges 3,276,450 169,905 169,905 (3,106,545) 5.19% Meter Sales 8,000 367 367 (7,633) 4.59% MCES Grant Program 0 17,200 17,200 17,200 Penalties 110,000 2,345 2,345 (107,655) 2.13% Charges for Other Services 90,000 4,001 4,001 (85,999) 4.45% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,500 3,969 3,969 (41,531) 8.72% Sale of Assets 10,000 0 0 (10,000) 0.00% Certificate of Compliance 75,000 4,550 4,550 (70,450) 6.07% Interest Earnings 15,000 0 0 (15,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 8,174,050 347,935 347,935 (7,826,115) 4.26% Expenses: Utility Administration 2,436,590 25,382 25,382 (2,411,208) 1.04% Sewer Maintenance 2,752,485 354,881 354,881 (2,397,604) 12,89% Water Maintenance 4,571,485 694,200 694,200 (3,877,285) 15.19% Total Expenses 9,760,560 1,074,463 1,074,463 (8,686,097) 11.01% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report- Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund January, 2015 (unaudited) Over 2015 January YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 838,265 0 0 (838,265) 0.00% Driving Range Fees 105,000 0 0 (105,000) 0.00% Par 3 Fees 137,370 0 0 (137,370) 0.00% Lawn Bowling 38,000 0 0 (38,000) 0.00% Pro Shop Sales 80,000 0 0 (80,000) 0.00% Pro Shop Rentals 244,000 1,050 1,050 (242,950) 0.43% Concession Sales 281,000 1,536 1,536 (279,464) 0.55% Other Revenue 72,280 0 0 (72,280) 0.00% Interest Earnings 2,000 0 0 (2,000) 0.00% (1) Less:Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (35,000) 0 0 35,000 0.00% Total Revenue 1,762,915 2,586 2,586 (1,760,329) 0.15% Expenses: Golf Operations 682,945 19,270 19,270 (663,675) 2.82% (2) Course Maintenance 695,665 20,021 20,021 (675,644) 2.88% Pro Shop 106,300 10,361 10,361 (95,939) 9.75% Grill 244,355 736 736 (243,619) 0.30% Driving Range 49,715 0 0 (49,715) 0,00% Par 3 Course 25,770 0 0 (25,770) 0.00% Lawn Bowling 20,175 0 0 (20,175) 0.00% Total Expenses 1,824,925 50,388 50,388 (1,774,537) 2.76% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report- Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund January 2015 (unaudited) Over 2015 January YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 2,000 0 0 (2,000) 0.00% (1) Charges for Services 406,330 27,881 27,881 (378,449) 6.86% Total Revenue 408,330 27,881 27,881 (380,449) 6.83% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 408,330 22,021 22,021 (386,309) 5.39% Total Expenses 408,330 22,021 22,021 (386,309) 5.39% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund January, 2015 (unaudited) Over 2015 January YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 45,000 0 0 (45,000) 0.00% (1) Storm Sewer Charges 21228,920 129,510 129,510 (2,099,410) 5.81% Bassett Creek Watershed 1,453,000 0 0 (1,453,000) 0.00% Miscellaneous Receipts 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! State Grant-Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 3,726,920 129,510 129,510 (3,597,410) 3.47% Expenses: Storm Utility 2,510,590 18,087 18,087 (2,492,503) 0.72% (2) Street Cleaning 125,535 0 0 (125,535) 0.00% Environmental Control 294,465 6,445 6,445 (288,020) 2.19% Debt Service Payments 171,220 0 0 (171,220) 0.00% Total Expenses 3,101,810 24,532 24,532 (3,077,278) 0.79% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. 2015 Equipment Replacement Fund(CIP)-Fund 5700 2015 Jan YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Proceeds-Certificate of Indebtedness 800,000 0 0 (800,000) Sale of Assets 35,000 0 0 (35,000) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 Interest Earnings(allocated at year end) 20,365 0 0 (20,365) Total Revenues 855,365 0 0 (855,365) Expenditures: Program# Project Number Project Name 5700 Bond Expenditures 0 0 0 0 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars(Police) 75,000 0 0 75,000 (1) 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers(Finance) 80,000 0 0 80,000 5703 V&E-004 Phone System(Finance) 69,500 0 0 69,500 5712 V&E-024 Unmarked Police Vehicle 34,000 0 0 34,000 5712 V&E-027 Rotary Mower(Park) 98,000 0 0 98,000 5733 V&E-050 Bobcat Toolcat 50,000 0 0 50,000 5742 V&E-082 Fire Pumper 575,000 0 0 575,000 5795 V&E-091 Pickup Truck(Park) 50,000 0 0 50,000 5800 V&E-087 Pickup Truck(Fire) 40,000 0 0 40,000 5786 V&E-083 Passenger Vehicle(Fire) 40,000 0 0 40,000 5783 V&E-127 800 Mhz Radios(Fire) 165,500 134,033 134,033 31,467 5797 V&E-129 800 Mhz Radios(Police) 162,180 141,136 141,136 21,044 Total Expenditures 1,439,180 275,169 275,169 1,164,011 (1)Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. city . golde' nt-. �r MEMORANDUM valley City Administration Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 3. K. Agreement with Springsted, Inc. for City Manager Executive Recruitment Services Prepared By Thomas D. Burt, City Manager Summary At the March 10, 2015, Council/Manager meeting, the Council directed staff to bring forth an agreement with Springsted, Inc. for City Manager executive recruitment services. The attached agreement provides for flexibility in the process and services to be included, as to be determined with the City Council. The contract amount is not to exceed a total of$18,500 which includes all expenses. Attachments • Agreement for Organizational Management Consulting Services (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Agreement for Organizational Management Consulting Services with Springsted, Inc. for the City Manager Executive Recruitment. AGREEMENT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of March 2015, by and between, the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota("Client")and Waters&Company Executive Recruitment/A Springsted Company("Consultant"). WHEREAS, the Client wishes to retain the services of the Consultant on the terms and conditions set forth herein, and the Consultant wishes to provide such services; NOW, THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Services. Consultant shall provide human resources consulting services to the Client to provide an executive recruitment for a City Manager. The scope of services to be provided will be determined in partnership with the City Council and City staff. 2. Compensation. The Client shall compensate the Consultant for only those services provided and agreed upon at a professional fee not too exceed $18,500 which includes all out of pocket expenses. No changes to the fee or out of pocket costs can occur without the express approval of the Client. The professional fee will be invoiced as determined by the Client upon approval to proceed with the search process. 3. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof, and shall continue until terminated by either party by written notice given at least 60 days before the effective date of such termination, provided that no such termination shall affect or terminate the rights and obligations of each of the parties hereto with respect to any project, whether or not complete, for which the Consultant has provided services prior to the date that it received such notice. 4. Indemnification; Sole Remedy. The Client and the Consultant each hereby agree to indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, liabilities, demands and cause of action (collectively referred to herein as "Damages")which the other may suffer or be subjected to as a consequence of any act,error or omission of the indemnifying party in connection with the performance or nonperformance of its obligations hereunder, less any payment for damages made to the indemnified party by a third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party hereto shall be liable to the other for Damages suffered by the other to the extent that those Damages are the consequence of: (a) events or conditions beyond the control of the indemnifying party, including without limitation changes in economic conditions; (b) actions of the indemnifying party which were reasonable based on facts and circumstances existing at the time and known to the indemnifying party at the time the service was provided; or(c) errors made by the indemnifying party due to its reliance on facts and materials provided to the indemnifying party by the indemnified party. Whenever the Client or the Consultant becomes aware of a claim with respect to which it may be entitled to indemnification hereunder, it shall promptly advise the other in writing of the nature of the claim. If the claim arises from a claim made against the indemnified party by a third party, the indemnifying party shall have the right, at its expense, to contest any such claim, to assume the defense thereof, to employ legal counsel in connection therewith, and to compromise or settle the same, provided that any compromise or settlement by the indemnifying party of such claim shall be deemed an admission of liability hereunder. The remedies set forth in this paragraph shall be the sole remedies available to either party against the other in connection with any Damages suffered by it. City of Golden Valley Agreement Page 1 Confidentiality; Disclosure of Information. 4.1 Client Information. All information,files, records, memoranda and other data of the Client which the Client provides to the Consultant or which the Consultant becomes aware of in the performance of its duties hereunder ("Client Information") shall be deemed by the parties to be the property of the Client. The Consultant may disclose the Client Information to third parties in connection with the performance by it of its duties hereunder. 4.2 Consultant Information. The Client acknowledges that in connection with the performance by the Consultant of its duties hereunder, the Client may become aware of internal files, records, memoranda and other data, including without limitation computer programs of the Consultant ("Consultant Information"). The Client acknowledges that all Consultant Information, except reports prepared by the Consultant for the Client, is confidential and proprietary to the Consultant, and agrees that the Client will not, directly or indirectly, disclose the same or any part thereof to any person or entity except upon the express written consent of the Consultant. 5. Miscellaneous. 5.1 Delegation of Duties. The Consultant shall not delegate its duties hereunder to any third party without the express written consent of the Client. 5.2 No Third Party Beneficiary. No third party shall have any rights or remedies under this Agreement. 5.3 Entire Contract; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral negotiations, understandings or agreements with respect hereto. This Agreement may be amended in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties, and this Agreement shall not preclude the Client and the Consultant from entering into separate agreements for other projects. 5.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 5.5 Severabilitv. To the extent any provision of this Agreement shall be determined invalid or unenforceable, the invalid or unenforceable portion shall be deleted from this Agreement, and the validity and enforceability of the remainder shall be unaffected. 5.6 Notice. All notices required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered, transmitted by first class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: If to the Client: If to the Consultant,to: Waters&Company/A Springsted Company 380 Jackson Street Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55101-2887 Attention: David J. Unmacht City of Golden Valley Agreement Page 2 The foregoing Agreement is hereby entered into on behalf of the respective parties by signature of the following persons each of whom is duly authorized to bind the parties indicated. FOR CLIENT Waters&Company/A Springsted Company Name David J. Unmacht Title Senior Vice President City of Golden Valley Agreement Page 3 city 0f V1. go I d e nl!,. v MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-533-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 "60 Days" Deadline: March 23, 2015 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing- Final PUD Plan for Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment#4 - 6681 & 6701 Country Club Drive - Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Applicant Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, owner of Struthers Parkinson's Center at 6701 Country Club Drive, is requesting an amendment to PUD No. 39. The two properties in PUD No. 39 are zoned "Institutional (1-3)" and are guided for long-term office use on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area for the PUD is 4.8 acres. The PUD is bounded by Country Club Drive to the north and trunk highway 55 to the south. The proposed PUD amendment would allow the Applicant to expand the Struthers Parkinson's Center. The proposed building addition would increase the footprint by 2,680 square feet from 15,320 square feet to 18,000 square feet. The new addition will consist primarily of brick and glass. The accent brick will match the existing fagade material. The building expansion would require a reduction in the size of the parking area and in the number of parking spaces. A portion of the building, totaling 5,535 square feet, would be remodeled as part of this project. The additions and renovations would relocate and expand rehabilitation program services, create a gathering space, expand education and training capabilities, and create an indoor/outdoor movement therapy garden with enhanced landscaping and artwork. The proposal meets the parking requirements and no new parking spaces are required. Combining both properties, 160 parking spaces are required for the entire PUD site. The applicant proposes that 163 spaces be provided. Between the two buildings, there are 35 parking spaces that are easily accessible to both buildings. While these spaces are located on the property at 6681 Country Club Drive, the spaces have been used by both property owners since the PUD was created. The applicant has provided a letter from Attorney Tory Jackson at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP stating that the easement rights recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County are perpetual and remain in full force and effect between the property owners. The easement allows shared access to this parking area. The City Attorney has confirmed that the access easements on the property records are still in effect, but the provisions regarding maintenance, insurance, and compliance have terminated. The City Attorney has drafted a template of the agreement that the two property owners are currently negotiating. The City Attorney will review the negotiated agreement. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that this agreement be enacted before a building permit on this PUD site is issued. A memorandum from the Engineering Division addressing traffic management, sanitary sewer services, water services, stormwater management, tree preservation, and landscaping is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that an adequate water supply is provided and that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses emergency vehicle access is attached. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their February 23, 2015, informal public hearing and recommended conditional approval. City Code establishes standards for PUDs, which are laid out in the staff report to the Planning Commission. In addition, City Code establishes findings that must be made by the City when creating a PUD. These findings are included in the City Council's recommended action. In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation, The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Staff recommends approval of the Final Plan for Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment No. 4, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EAPC architects and submitted with the application on February 6, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to the Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to the Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. A shared parking agreement shall be confirmed or enacted upon or before a building permit is issued. 5. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. A final design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated February 23, 2015 (3 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated February 23, 2015 (5 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department dated December 1, 2014 (1 page) • Memo from the Engineering Division dated December 1, 2014 (4 pages) • Letter from Tory Jackson to Duane Spiegle dated December 8, 2014 (1 page) • Site Plans dated February 6, 2015 (24 pages) • Ordinance#546 (2 pages) Recommendation Motion to adopt Ordinance #546, Approval of Final PUD Plan, Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment#4, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Applicant. 63 Subject Property: 67041 Country Club ®rive 6931 6909 6839 6623 6809 6745 550 545 Z 6681 a 6701 • > • 6500 540 I r 3 540 537 m C�r --- 512 510 ` + I 525 530 v 1 1 o tJo:�5 = 6930 682(6890 lr""' stake�`s�J 55— > �( f� gtate tiwy NO p�son hletrio�ial Nwy ��" - v f 6498 m 6657 v' �^ 6677 6495 6697 n 6494 450 6800 6820 6810 6489 .` 6837 440 6481 / 6490 6931 6929 6830 'V \�J 6484 �" 435 n 6475 430 t Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 A regular meeting of the Planning Cornry lission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, ruary 23, 2015. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those pre t were Planning Commissi ners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, an aldhauser. Also pres nt was Planning Manager Jason 7irnmerman, Associate Planner nt Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative istant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes February 9, 2015, Regular Planni , mmission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the thirds ragr h on page ur and asked that discussion regarding access to the we , the Swe' ney Lake Woo roposal be clarified. Baker referred to th ifth paragraph on ge five and asked tha a word "not" be removed from t fourth sentence. MOVED y Segelbaum, seconded by Ce a and motion carried unanimously to approve the F ruary 9, 2015, minutes with the a ve noted changes. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Struthers Parkinson's Center— 6701 Country Club Drive — PU-39, Amendment#4 Applicant: Park Nicollet Address: 6701 Country Club Drive Purpose: To allow a building addition approximately 2,700 square feet in size and the construction of an outdoor memory care walk/garden. Goellner stated that the Applicant is seeking approval to amend their existing PUD in order to expand the Struthers Parkinson's Center. She explained that the project consists of renovating 5,535 square feet to expand their rehabilitation program services, building a 2,680 square feet addition to create a gathering space and expand their education and training capabilities, and creating an indoor/outdoor movement therapy garden with enhanced landscaping and artwork. Goellner referred to the parking requirements and explained that 160 spaces are required. Currently, there are 182 spaces on the property and the proposed plans show 163 spaces. She added that no proof of parking is required and that an agreement for maintenance, insurance and shared parking is suggested as a condition of approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 2 Goellner stated that Staff is recommending approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff reports. Segelbaum asked about changes between the Preliminary Plan and the Final Plan. Goellner said there was a slight change in the square footage of the proposed addition. Baker asked if the shared parking agreement was discussed during the Preliminary Plan review. Goellner said yes. She stated that the access easement is perpetual but the maintenance and the shared parking agreements have expired and need to be re- established. Rose Wichmann, Manager of the Struthers Parkinson's Center, said she feels that they have met all of the requirements and noted that the shared parking and maintenance agreement is under way. Kluchka asked Wichmann about the timing of their construction. Wichmann said they want to start construction as soon as the frost comes out of the ground. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said this is a good plan that meets the City's requirements and is favorable to the City and the surrounding area. Segelbaum agreed. Goellner added that the Applicant has added a design plan per the Planning Commissions' request. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment No. 4, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 3 Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EAPC and Larson Engineering, Inc. submitted with the application dated February 6, 2015, 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 December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. A reciprocal cross easement agreement shall be signed by property owners within PUD. No. 39 and reviewed by the City Attorney at the time of Final PUD approval. The agreement shall be recorded with Hennepin County upon Final PUD approval. 5. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. A final design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 3. Informal Public Hearing —Zon'ng and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments — Moratorium Study of Subdivisi ns and Planned Unit Developments with Single Family Residential Com onents —ZO00-96 App nt: City of Golden Valle Purpose: consider adding/i imending language in th t oning Code and Sub ision Code re arding Subdivision uirements. Zimmerman reminded the Co fission f the six-m, h moratorium placed on subdivisions and PVDs with a sin fa ily resi : ntial component. He stated that the City Council directed Staff to study the fo ; 'creasing the minimum lot area requirement, improving standards for preserving gre ace, minimizing irregular shaped lots, preserving neighborhood character, d m ' g the use of small residential PUDs. He added that the City Council is co derin impl enting a Construction Management Agreement that will address c plaints a ising as rt of the construction process such as noise, runoff, emergen access, etc. eparate fro the subdivision study. Zimmerman stated t there are several i sues that were di ssed as part of the study for which no acti is recommended inclu ing: building height, h ing styles, quality of construction, - use spacing, and street/tr ffic impacts. Some of the ues recommended for further s dy in the future include: enh nced tree preservation regu ions with landscap• g requirements, stormwater dra nage and flooding, neighborho character prese tion and sustainability. Z', merman discussed the proposed chan es to the Subdivision Code. He explained that e minimum lot area requirement would h ve two tiers — 10,000 or 15,000 based on the cil y of valle X Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: February 23, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Final PUD Plan for Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment#4—6701 & 6681 Country Club Drive—Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Applicant Background Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, owner of Struthers Parkinson's Center at 6701 Country Club Drive, is requesting an amendment to PUD No. 39. The properties in PUD No. 39 are zoned "Institutional (1-3)" and guided for long-term office use on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area for the PUD is 4.8 acres. The PUD is bounded by Country Club Drive to the north and trunk highway 55 to the south. PUD No. 39 was established in 1983 to build an outpatient surgical center at 6701 Country Club Drive (current site of Struthers Parkinson's Center). A year later, the PUD was amended to permit business and professional office uses in the medical clinic at 6681 Country Club Drive (current site of Gurstel Chargo law office). A second amendment was approved in 2000 to allow an 8,550 square foot building addition to the south side of Struthers Parkinson's Center. Since some parking spaces were removed for the addition, the City approved the plan with the condition that the City Manager may require the construction of the "proof of parking" area in the future. A third amendment was applied for but withdrawn by the applicant. Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD amendment would allow the Applicant, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital,to expand the Struthers Parkinson's Center. The proposed building addition would increase the footprint by 2,680 square feet from 15,320 square feet to 18,000 square feet. The building expansion would require a reduction in the size of the parking area and in the number of parking spaces. A portion of the building, totaling 5,535 square feet, would be remodeled as part of this project. The additions and renovations would relocate and expand rehabilitation program services, create a gathering space, expand education and training capabilities, and create an indoor/outdoor movement therapy garden with enhanced landscaping and artwork. 4 .; IKA 'JI Aw . X `�'e_4 PUD 39 - Site Map Enhanced Walkways The Applicant intends to build a walkway across the property that connects clients to two sitting and activity areas on the north and south sides of the property. The walkway would cross the parking lot to connect to the movement therapy garden walkway adjacent to the eastern side of the building. The walkway would expand exercise and wellness programming space while providing nature-based space that can be inspirational for clients. To incorporate the walkway into the site, several parking spaces on the east side of the building and one space on the north side would be removed. Landscaping &Tree Preservation The City Code allows the applicant to remove up to 17.7 significant trees from the site. The site plan shows the removal of 9 trees, of which 3 are significant. The walkway would be constructed in an attempt to avoid significant trees because the trees are an important component to the walkway. Several deciduous trees, shrubs, and perennials would be planted. As stated in the memorandum from the Engineering staff, the City Forester will review the Tree Preservation and Landscape plans in more detail during the permitting process. The applicant must submit financial security that will be held by the City for two growing seasons. Summary of Parking Calculations Parking Spaces 6701 Country Club Dr. 6681 Country Club Dr. PUD No. 39 (Struthers) (Gurstel Chargo) Existing 99 83 182 Required 72 88 160 Proposed 80 83 163 Shortage/Overage +8 -5 +3 Parking Analysis Under the Zoning Code, offices and clinics have different minimum parking requirements.The requirements are based on the gross floor area of the building. The parking requirements are calculated as follows: 6701 Country Club Drive: Medical clinic: 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area Proposed gross floor area: 13,340 square feet 13,340/200 = 66.7 =67 parking spaces Adult Day Care: 1 space per 5 persons 25 persons/5 = 5 parking spaces 65 + 5 = 72 parking spaces required Since a portion of Struthers Parkinson's Center would be an adult day care, the parking regulations are different for that portion of the building, which occupies 4,991 square feet. For every 5 persons cared for, 1 parking space is required. Since 25 persons are cared for, 5 parking spaces are required. With the 67 spaces required for the clinic,there are a total of 72 parking spaces required for Struthers Parkinson's Center. 6681 Country Club Drive: Office: 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area Proposed gross floor area: 21,960 square feet 21,960/250= 87.84 =88 parking spaces Combining both properties, 160 parking spaces are required for the entire PUD site. The applicant proposes that 163 spaces be provided. Since the applicant exceeds the minimum parking requirement, the "proof of parking" area is no longer a necessity. If a future change in the use of the buildings increases the minimum parking requirement beyond the amount of parking provided, the owners are expected to amend the PUD to reflect those changes in use and parking. Shared Parking Between the two buildings, there are 35 parking spaces that are easily accessible to both buildings. While these spaces are located on the property at 6681 Country Club Drive, the spaces have been used by both property owners since the PUD was created. A "Reciprocal Easement Agreement" was required to be executed as a condition of approval of PUD No. 39 in 1983. It was enacted on April 20, 1983 for a term of 30 years. It was automatically terminated on April 20, 2013. The City Attorney has confirmed that the access easements on the property records are still in effect but the provisions regarding maintenance, insurance, and compliance have terminated. The City Attorney has drafted a template of the agreement that the two property owners are currently negotiating. The City Attorney will review the negotiated agreement. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that this agreement be enacted before or upon final PUD approval. Engineering 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 and that traffic issues are resolved. A memorandum from the Engineering Division that addresses traffic management, sanitary sewer and water services, stormwater management, and tree preservation and landscaping is attached. Fire Safety The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that an adequate water supply is provided and that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses emergency vehicle access is attached. The memorandum also states that the clearance height of the drive canopies need to be identified and appropriate signage must be installed. Building Materials The new addition will consist primarily of brick and glass. The accent brick will match the existing facade material. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot. The City has previously determined that this PUD meets the standards established in the City Code; Staff believes that this application to amend the PUD is also consistent with these standards: • Achieves a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. • Encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. • Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities, and other public facilities. • Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. • Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation)of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Final Plan for Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment No. 4, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EAPC and Larson Engineering, Inc. submitted with the application dated February 6, 2015, 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 December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. A reciprocal cross easement agreement shall be signed by property owners within PUD. No. 39 and reviewed by the City Attorney at the time of Final PUD approval. The agreement shall be recorded with Hennepin County upon Final PUD approval. 5. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. A final design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from the Fire Department dated December 1, 2014 (1 page) Memo from the Engineering Division dated December 1, 2014 (4 pages) Site Plans (24 pages) ' a V Fire Department 763-593-8079 /763-593-8098 (fax) Date: December 1, 2014 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: Preliminary PUD #39, Amendment 4, 6681/6701 Country Club Drive —Struthers Parkinson's Center The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the preliminary PUD plans submitted on November 7, 2014 for 6681/6701 Country Club Drive—Struthers Parkinson's Center. This PUD Amendment proposes an expansion of the parking lot for 6681 Country Club Drive and adding walking paths and gardens on the 6701 Country Club Drive site. Overall the proposal for additional parking for the 6681 Country Club building appears to be designed with adequate drive lane width and turning radius to allow for proper movement of a large fire truck on the east side of the building. Please note: the drive canopy on the west side of this building needs to be identified as to the clearance height and have appropriate signage installed. The 6701 Country Club site has no proposed drive access changes. The current drive lane width, turning radius and 360 degree access around the building is adequate for proper movement of a large fire truck. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, icrelly@goldenvalleymn.gov city 0 go1denIV,1K1IrMEMORANDUM vailey Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: December 1, 2014 To: son Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist -� Subject: Struthers Parkinson's Center- PUD 39, Amendment 4 Preliminary PUD Review Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation and expansion of the Park Nicollet Struthers Parkinson's Center located at 6701 Country Club Drive.This memorandum discusses the issues identified during the Engineering review that must be addressed prior to final PUD plan submittal. The comments contained within this review are based on the plans submitted to the City on November 7, 2014. Site Plan PUD number 39 consists of two properties: 1)the Struthers Parkinson's Center on the west side of the PUD, and 2) an office building on the east side. Each property has its own parking facilities and there is also a shared parking area located near the boundary between the properties. There is a "proof of parking" area identified on the eastern parcel, immediately south of the existing parking lot on the east side of the office building, if there is demand for additional parking within the PUD. The plans for Amendment 4 pertain only to the Struthers Parkinson's Center property and do not include construction of the proof of parking area at this time. The proposed plans include an interior renovation, construction of an addition on the east side of the building, and construction of a therapy garden with walkways and landscaping improvements throughout the site. Plans include the removal of 16 parking spaces on the east side of the building in order to accommodate the building addition and construction of the therapy garden. The plans include a base bid and alternate bids to allow for phasing of the exterior site improvements over time. For the purposes of this review, all work shown in the plans (base bid plus alternates 1-3) is being treated as one project, and therefore the entire plan set is discussed in this review. G:\Developments-Private\Struthers Parkinsons Center\2014 PUD Amend ment\Prelim ina ry PUD review struthers_120114,docx If portions of the proposed site improvements are constructed at a later date, separate permits will be required before each phase of construction can begin. The future phases will be subject to the rules and requirements of the City and all other review agencies at the time of construction. A demolition permit, stormwater management permit, tree preservation permit, utility permits, and other permits deemed necessary by the City must be obtained before any demolition or site work can begin. This PUD is adjacent to State Highway 55 and therefore, the plans are subject to the review of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Utilities(Water and Sanitary ewer) There are no changes proposed to the existing water and sanitary sewer services for this property. However, the water and fire protection systems serving this development are subject to the review of the Golden Valley Fire Chief. The City has an Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Ordinance to help reduce the amount of clear water entering into the sanitary sewer system. This PUD is subject to the City's 1/1 Ordinance. City records show that 6701 Country Club Drive (Struthers Parkinson's Center) is not compliant with the ordinance. Therefore, an inspection of the sewer service must be completed by the City to determine its condition. The owner must perform any repairs deemed necessary and obtain a Certificate of Inflow and Infiltration Compliance, or enter into an 1/1 Deposit Agreement with the City for the repairs, prior to final PUD approval. A Certificate of Compliance must be obtained prior to occupancy of the building. Stormwater Manaeement This proposed PUD amendment is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed and is therefore subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). The BCWMC will review the plans for compliance with its water quality policies. Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water for nutrients (phosphorus) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA). In order to address the impairment, the BCWMC and MPCA completed a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study for the lake, which was approved in 2011. Review by the City and BCMWC will include an evaluation for compliance with the TMDL Study. According to the City's records, the Struthers Parkinson Center was expanded in 2000. The total disturbed area of the project was just below the BCWMC threshold for requiring water quality improvements. The development in 2000 was approved with the condition that, when the Struthers Parkinson Center further develops, or if the proof of parking area on the eastern parcel is constructed, water quality improvements for the entire site must be constructed. The plans submitted by the developer include the construction of an underground filtration/infiltration system to capture and treat stormwater runoff from the site. Upon its initial GMevelopments-Private\Struthers Parkinsons Center\2014 PUD Amendment\Prelim!nary PUD review struthers_120114.docx review, staff had concerns that portions of the site were not being routed through the treatment system. Some of the areas without treatment include the roof and the bid alternates (future construction phases) on the north side of the property. Since its initial review, staff has had additional discussion with the developer regarding the stormwater design and the developer has assured staff that revisions are being made that will address these concerns. The changes will be reflected in the final PUD plans. All existing and proposed storm sewer and stormwater treatment facilities that are part of this development will be owned and maintained by the property owner. The owner will be required to enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City to ensure the proper long-term maintenance and operation of the facilities. In addition to the review of the BCWMC, this PUD is also subject to the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. The City must approve the stormwater management plan prior to submittal to the BCWMC. A City stormwater management permit must be obtained before building permits are issued and before any site work can begin. The stormwater management permit must include a plan meeting City standards, including all temporary and permanent erosion control best management practices. This PUD is also subject to the MPCA's Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of this permit and the corresponding Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted to the City, prior to issuance of any permits to begin work on site. Tree Preservation/ Landscape Plan This PUD amendment is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and Minimum Landscape Standards, A Tree Preservation Plan and a Landscape Plan were included in the plan submittal.The City Forester will review the plans in more detail to determine if a tree preservation permit is required and if additional information is needed, before submittal of final PUD plans. In addition,the owner must submit to the City an estimate of the cost to furnish and install the landscape plant materials shown in the plans. This cost estimate will be used to determine the financial security which is held as a guarantee that the landscaping will survive the two-year warranty period. Summary and Recommendations Engineering staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD plans for the Struthers Parkinson Center renovation and expansion subject to the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows: 1. A demolition permit, stormwater management permit, tree preservation permit, utility permits, and other permits deemed necessary by the City must be obtained before any demolition or site work can begin. GADevelopments-Private\Struthers Parkinsons Center\2014 PUD Amendment\Preliminary PUD review_struthers_120114.docx 2. The sanitary sewer service must be compliant with the City's 1/1 Ordinance prior to occupancy of the building, as discussed in this review. 3. The stormwater plans will be revised as discussed in this review. 4. The owner will be required to enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City to ensure the proper long-term maintenance and operation of the stormwater treatment facilities. S. The owner must obtain a City Stormwater Management Permit prior to construction. 6. The City Forester will review the Tree Preservation and Landscape Plans in more detail to determine if additional information is required prior to submittal of final PUD Plans, 7. The Developer must submit an estimate of the cost to furnish and install the landscape plant materials shown in the plans, as discussed in this review. 8. Plans are subject to the review of the BCWMC, MnDOT, and MPCA, as discussed in this review. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other review agencies. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician GADevelopments-Private\Struthers Parkinsons Center\2014 PUD Amendment\Preliminary PUD review_struthers__120114.docx FaegreBD.com FMGRE BAKER USA•UK,CHINA CMIELS Tory L.Jackson Faegre Baker Daniels LLP +1612 766 7560 2200 Wells Fargo Center.90 South Seventh Street tory.jackson@FaegreBD.com Minneapolis.Minnesota 55402-3901 Phone+1612 766 7000 Fax+1612 7661600 December 8, 2014 Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55406 Attn: Duane Spiegle Re: Struthers Parkinson Center—Status of Reciprocal Easement Declaration Dear Duane: I understand that the City of Golden Valley has asked for clarification regarding the status of that certain Reciprocal Easement Declaration(the "Declaration")between Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital (as successor-in-interest to A.M.I. Ambulatory Centers, Inc.) and Gurstel Chargo, P.A. (as successor-in-interest to Country Club Surgical Associates Limited Partnership), dated April 20, 1983 and recorded May 26, 1983 in the Office of the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County as Document No. 4795752, and in the Office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County as Document No. 1515530. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Declaration, the easement rights granted therein are perpetual and remain in full force and effect between the respective property owners,notwithstandingthat certain other provisions of the Declaration have expired. Let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Tory Jackson US.55337517.02 SIrE DESI(�N C --- -- - -._-___ - -- _ Buildable Area Tables&Chairs Gathering Space •Stone Retaining Wall •Special Paving 1 `{ Aggregate ADA Surface c i o b Ramp ? Flowering Ornamental Trees i f Overstory Native Trees Garden Storage t � Raised Garden Planters Planter with Screen ; Benches { R. -F Pergola Structure _ Stone Retaining Wall Elevated Crosswalk i Patio w/Special Paving Seasonal Planter Pots 1 north�► FEB 0 6 2015 4 y� Outdoor Patio Water Feature r Trr. EAPC TELE 761.256.3116 FAx 761323.7963 116 W Mein As.Sure A.8Is n m*N)5660, Dad FaNt NO I Fop ND 16be•dtND Wi1m ND t ND WW hYY B-i6 W Biw M-AW 1.1 t Oi 02 www.eapc.net RN W/ � Aux i , PREFN MTL COPING INTEGRAL s FACE BRR7C NEW TORY I I I " ANDdff Al.SUN CONTRDL 7TYt �� i i AL CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM AL� EL 1 STOREFRONT SYSTEM I --- I I ji�,L lac EIOSiNG NEW ADCMN CUBIT s SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION PARK NICOLLET +/6'-11-W STRUTHERS PARKINSON'S CENTER PROJECT DESCRUMON EXPANSION& RENOVATION i PREI'M M7L OWING , AM2 RN W/NTEC RAI. scRmR FACE BRICK I a,u'-s sie CITY GOLDEN VALLEY STOP MAS G 1 I I I ACCENT BRICK STATE MINNESOTA BAND TO MATCH IX , AL CURTAIN WALL ISSUE DATES SYSTEM BEYONO I 0.0.14��- _ I NEW E76SONC z NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION MDR IN-r-r H—Do OBIGNOEBOPI@lToE6CRW111o0 OA1E PM TWO: 20144100 DRAWN BY: RGH QQB 3 EE s 2 CHECKED BY: RK COFfROMa...,.N,.�ar.r.. RN W/6R7EGRAL SCREEN PREF9t YTL I I � I AtN7pff AL SUN I SPANDREL«A55 I ( I I - K a+*n.r.a—..,Ai4 kw,c e. G G G G G G TOP MAS ORAWRJGTTTIE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS a,oD'-o• g ACE BRICKDom AL CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM u FTsavE y1NppW - EKISONG NEW �AL FRAMED CLEAR�� SLOPED BRICK SRL ADDITION E%ISTNC A401 ADD 71oN $ MED SLaPm�aac 561 �3 �1 FACT rv=r3 m mruknnu HUNT Electric Corporation 2300 Territorial Road Saint Paul,MN 55114 (651)646-2911 fax(651)643-6575 -0.D b. .0 t.0 b.o b.o b.o 1.0 b.o+b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.o b.0 b.o t.0 b.o 10.0 10.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.o t.0 b.o b.o b.o b.0 t.0 t.0 b.0 t. b.0 Z..V„1.o b.0 t.0 b.0 t.o b.0 b.0 b.0 b.o b.o I b.o .o .o b.o '0.. t.0 t.0 b.D t.o L-No lana x Y i Odw 10.0 16.0 b.0 b.0 b.o 10.0 b.o b.6 b.o b.o b.l - *v b.o b.01 b.o b.o b.o b.o b.o b.0 to b.o b.0 b.0 b.o b.0 b.o x t A 11e 3x4'75 m zm COUNTRY CLUB DRNE z A 234 32525 m zm U .D t.D .D t.0 b. b.0 t.D t.0 b.0 t.0 t.0 b.0 t.D t.0 3 A 62AM 27.,25 m teo PARK NICOLLET b. : .�b`o _ b.o b.e .e .o .e .e t.6 b.6 "° 4 0 =35 2584 35 0 STRUTHERS t.o t. t.0 t.0 .0 .0,y.¢ .0 iL.0 0 .0 b.0 �t36S .�8- C_t.9-�1.0 b.0 E.0 �. b0 .ov .o b.o b.o b.-' ��»-_ 5 A 225.054 62MO157= m 0 PARKINSON'S CENTER � _ a b. 5„ t_o 1 .1 b.1 .0 _.o b. t's0oro-- Dj-t:9-b.o_t�o U.o .lab. .0 5. .e-t.o._b .o• ' .. s e as.os 5x.258 z o 1 �_ 7 A 21552 W-201 120 90 y 11 ) .l..b. b.1 b.1 1 b-o -oa. -: e A w.75 ns m 90 10.0 3InI .o b.0 b.1 b�(1 1 D. .1 .1 b.o b. :C to•b .b.>I b.0 b.P �.o b.o b.l b ob.3 t. .3 .s Sp,%t.r 0. t.z .1 b.l b.l ®4® ® _ _ s A 5475 1325 m teo "° > EXPANSION& 1` �/I�y.• • a /� 18 C 22625 . 715 35 0 t.0 be 0.0 t.l t.l t.3 .5 t.6 .6 I.6i- Lx3_;S'21- - 9 --j 41.r yl 1.3 -9 2 t.l d.1 I �✓ 7 C 21175 99 &5 a RENOVATION 0 b. 600 b.l Is -1 I.0 .1 T 1.7 .4 t.9 t.2 t.1 •�, m C 231.25 121 35 0 pq . b. t.� t.0 t.1 .z 'I,o_Z. 1.7 11.5 z .3 6 1 . i. i s '.4° .3 .o b. b. I 4 .7 _ I L1 t. t.2 z1 e m 25275 3s 0 I {: 23 EX1 545.75 155.75 2D 1100 b.o td b.o b.1 .P �1_>-a-� 1.2�2.9 n .o I1.1 t.9 1.0 1.1 1.o b.9 t.e t.7 b.s b.9 1.0 1.1 1.11 fm t .6 is_II 5.7 .4 ,25v �-✓ 1 27 IX7 54.5 2195 m 16D b.0 1- .3 t1T SC.I 1.0 i1.6 t�� .5 .5 .s .fi b.� 1.0 1.3 l.r 1.9 1.6 1.0 b.6 L.x tx L.x L., t" A^ 1{ x x Z., la t9 28 IX1 514.5 3D325 m 0 - t�f b.0 5 1.1 .1 .f 1 104-I. 1.0" c .2 t_3 t. t.8 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.3- 1.2 t.711.1-3 0 ° 29 A2 2775 13375 m 0 1 1 1 I a ` x 30 A2 2775 1241 20 0 - b.0 b. .1 b.1 b.3 .s R-o 1.fi Y.d I t b. •L. b.l .b.,. .1 b.1 to _ sl b.s 1.3 1.1 1 1.9 � 1.6 1.1 31 F 2575 13D25 a zro 1 -�- t.0 t_a 1.1 t.1 .3 gi i.l l.b 1.6 F.2�_ b.l .e�b 041 t.2 Kb V.0..b!O'by t.1 .6I b.9 1.6,1.5 l.e w-'1.. t.x 4 tx b . E.x 1.x Lx L1 Lx 32 Ext 330 13025 7 270 9 b.0 b.0 0 b.l .2 .s 1.0 I.# 1.8- j b.l b. 0b. b.l .5'1.0 7.�p 1.4 -rd 1a t.x t t3 to L+_ L. I.T7 33 ar 38225 13075 7 225 I ---- (r (✓u.. ---1-- - -- T 10 t.9 b.0 5.1 2 .6^t.9 1.$ 1.4Iv A 6I 1.1 4�-_ 1.S � 34 EX2 3D1.75 131 7 z7 II $• �., A = 1.x tx _b_i x ]a L. ix La I ]., 35 ar 40525 loom 7 0 b.0 b.a b.o b o I_b.,_t.I�I b.e r '� .51 1.2-1.5-, 5 3.9 i `Y.3 t. n �� tx t,_t _'L v. v. s.j' t w m 404.75 mss 7 0 b.o b.1 b.0 t.�1 ��.• b0.1 ) , �r a �1IMMIIDOR^=1p•fsO.,�o(/w"pt3°I12510011 OI1P�,'�4. �� _L _ L o II 7 0 0 z 01.3 57is . 37 Ela 404.25 24275 a 31 E%2 3095 147 7 1 0 1.5 - -]x 1.. ] _z -bb3 BU/LD/NG NO. 6687 39 Du 3095 16475 7 180 .2 --b. t., '�'T' 7I2.7 3. ib�� SS L t. t.x \.a t>. ti.a .§, 1.. 1.. ]a-i=. La i 40 Ela 3®5 18275 7 teo I I -- - -+-- I 41 ar 310 213 7 im b.o to t.0 b. fi�-b-9 b. -b lt.' BUILD/NG NO. 6701 1 0l 1.9 1.914-z F7[ - L t -l.x t, t, %',I th U, L ].. L- II II I I COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE LT I -L 1-- I� I 42 Ela 309.75 2315 7 leo b.o b.a 5.o b1 i. LI 611.0 Za7k 3.0 1. .7 _�.x t.x tx t.xi 114, a. Lx v. ti ., .. vx 43 ar w 3 75 2494 7 leo b.o b.q�.''f••b.l '�. b.7 1. 1.� 1.s-1 D. PN STRUTHERS 31 l.o 'zo Ir. l0 J' [ L `ut, t. 1.x-e.�- -- -tx v. ].. .. . tx a ar 25425 18325 7 90 - ' - PARKINSON CENTER I �j - ( 45 Ext 257 1835 7 90 b.o t.01 b. D. ,-M.7 1.� 1.3 1.2 .1 o I.s 1.I .7 3. 3.s_� S.z 1./ ti-"t.x t.> tx t.x t- t.. 1. ]s_53 _. __I is � � I 4e ar 2BL983 25278/ 7 270 b.o t.ci tll>XI: •�3 1. 011.2 1.i T!, 0 '1. 1.1 W.z to t t+ t.x t.x tx tx t t, t. t1 L i Q Ext 297.113 m30:N IT 27 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PMN, �i SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED b.0 t.01 8.1 b. b.> 1.0 1.� 1.9 .2 3 1.0 1.0 x3. 1.4- 1.3 ••.�('.:. : tx - AND TFWt I ,�.�, I __ xx93 BY►E OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION b.o b.01(�'y b. .7 1.3 .3 1. .e ,z5 b. t.o 9 1.9 1.1 .8 LiT 1.0 1.9 I.z 1.1 v• gam, AM A DULY REGISTERED I L1�.J _�__ _ 1 _m ( PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS b.0 b.o 1 b1 }J.7 1.3 .0 1.1�_ .1 b. b.o b. s 4'• 11.6 19--'-. 3. 3.z 1. I.srl-,0 t.9 CX7 tabs Gb7Hr tint Avg L1•[ M'vI w,yw, MnAr onMpnn OF TtaE STATE NNE TA. _r._- I t%:j ) NEWPARIONGLOT mumWAx• r. 0.79 4.0 OD NA NA b.0 b.ol 10 b.1 3 -L�1 .4 1.4_ .1�_ b.o b.' 2 I 1.4 t.z a .s i 84 1un5.0m R om 305 09 NA N.A. MOIk FCtpn04 DANIEL PAUL BIGGAR Qu b.0 b.01)0 1 - �.9 .1 b.9 I t. :0 �T bD b. b.] t.l°t.Cx t.l t :9 il.o fTl. 1. 1.8 � 1.o b.3 i FJN P4M9 0•R•w Fe 218 30.6 0.7 2180 30625 HORz FCdW"8In•Rtpandlg Rna LICENSE NO. 25752 DATE 2-2-15 a t.0 t.ol b: 81 - 'b.6 - .3 _1 b.1 b.1 .o b.o t.0 .o b1 b .z - 2 Ib.9 T.o 111 1.11.1 1.o D..,0b .3 ERa PSNnL1 NuaN,cR FO 111 2.9M. 0.1 423 3067 Holz FC tq,RtlRlnprIhp. am b.0 b.ol bio b.l 2 511.9 b.4 3 .z .1 b. t.l 1 b ' I.1 b.9 0.9 b. b.7 b. 44;D b.z ,l ) C .� /�, Nmn P40ip Nu,ir,ee Fe 121 29 0.3 425 9.67 NlxFct9aslnmMpR6uganNO. REVISION ATE .. � N.6 Pul6p_1 ault•Nx Fo 251 29 03 Am am NMx PCtWk%M Mpn9mab.0 t.0 b.t 2 .2 11.3 t.3 t. 0.6 .81 b.9 .5 b. t.2 t.l o �Y- l( � eaMP.1& 10-1 r re o84 116 102 420 JUDD jK0dzFCdWdeWwM P-N�1 ain j- J b.0 t.0 $193 2 gJj5 t.3 .5 .4 t.3 v s t.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 7 2 1.6 1.9 I1.5 1.3 t.9 t. t.4 . .1 t.i S.0P.06-1IIYaNn•[• Fe 0.66 16 0.2 420 1325 HoltFet�ade in.w/h pnlup vp I "1'-- & 09 l Y WtP my IMi,W¢e Fe 024 123 10.1 1 9.40 M00 NOOx FC9gmdm In eAp•ib9Rnn b.o b.o I b'<Ob.l _ 6.3_s t.7 b.e b.9 b.9 b.e b.9 t.9 b.5 b.7 b.fi b - bs 1.0 S 1 1 b1 ,(�1 11JN✓ I ! ��}J Wu[P•1v0_t IORnon• Fc 096 33 0.1 9M 3925 Hw¢FCt9+6eNwapOdpRnw t.o t.ulb'o U 1+.7 I.0 L3 L6 L6 i� 1.2 1.7 la 1.3 Is 11 .6 bz t. , 1 t.0 b.o b.olbio .1 .6 It.l FIs 1.; l.q e - t.9 1.2 1.2 .4 _$510. 1 101 b. .v b.o _ 11 I I I - URrin.b Sd•x19e b.0 t.0I .i:' - 46�s-+1.�44T.d-'e:� - `1 .s .3 b1 b1 1 6.1 b.l �t1 1 �1 b o bio.L.s•10.5"� -0.o I I I I SyrMNR 017 Lent A-rfSINGUE•It Tool Lamp Lum-r LLF UmrkOm b.0 b.0 t)1 .0 b:0, t.l t 1f.'6'D.0 10.0 10.0 b.0 10.0 b.0 b.0 7 A SINGLE NA 0900 NRI•Ik RNpehenlLllNSLs1W-E4-0ar LEDTyps IR RpeeaOd Wplem[9a I sr.rea t.0 t.01I b�O b.0 .i .i D. 0.l .0 t.0 .1, 'b. � tq,yp�t.43.0 b.0 t.0 t.0 t.0 t.0 t.0 b. t.0 t.0 t.0 W 2 A2 BACK-BACK NA 0900 L-k RMq.A-DRV-T3m6E4-W ED7ypm ftb20Rpdq 26125 b.0 b.0 t.1) .D b. b:0 6.0 t.D b.0 b.o �.I 'bg� b.0 b.D %.0 b.0 '0.0.o b.0 Vo b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.00 t.0 6.0 b.o 1 e SINGLE wA 0.900 Uunanl RNpxMe•LORvsLt.ew-e 4b.rLED ryp N'Ianxlye 2dtpde _,.�• G _� 5 C SNORE NA 0900 LUWERE303-@TYPEV t.o t.0 Ib.o t.0 b.ot.o b.o b.o 1.o t.o b.o b.o b.o b.o b.o 10.0 b.o b.o b.o b.0 b.o b.o b.o b.0 -� 3 IXl BNGLE NA 0900 12RI•A /jL I_• -I� ROD-LdNSL4-0o1-E'Win NmSPdo rla�ooaam>Ia xRve b.D b.�1�.0.�•�.0 t.=b.o . L.0 b.0 b.o t.0 t.0 t.0 t.0 b.0 b.0 t.0 b.o t.0 t.0 t.0 10.0 t.0 t.0 18 Ela SINGLE SM 09'93 EXISTING2FTWALLSCONCEIMTH 2s9N8W(1MP3 e6ax.RNMR®er,urt 1.KRYx: W110NR7x>N wIx 11E 0w•am uxo6RRru4xw R•r„e b.o b.o o a. .off b.o b.0 b.o b.o E.o b.o b.o b.o b.v b.o b.o b.o b.0 b.o b.o b.0 b.o 1 F SINGLE NA 0900 wwutKXTCR2A 6TN14eac1°",wc°�,Re° o q.w4 N M9saIIN®n MUNE p0163]M� UNeEII R 0.9.T �R.4fMU� 4111'OnRR b.0 b.0 t.0 t.0 t.0 b.0 b_o b.0 t.0 b.0 b.0 15.0 b.o t.0 10.0 b.0 b.0 b.D t.0 b.0 10.0 t.0 t.0 b.0-b.0 b.0 15.0 b.0 t.0 t.0 b.o b.0 b.0 b.0 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN JOBi SITE UGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN4) DAT: 2-2-2BH SCAM r-W-W DATE 2-2-20,5 DESIGN: Sj0 CHECKED: DPBBH SCALE: AS NOTED SHEET: A4 BOUNDARY &TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR: NOW-IXCLUSI"W ACCESS EASEMENT FOR ail yam' - PARK N I C O LLET 7W BENEFIT OF LOT 2 PER DOG NO 4795752 L 10�• _ -'_ (ACROSS PAYID DRIVE LANES) BOXHUARM 70P Nur OF HIDRANT IMEVATM-930.18 RrT ---NOW-EXCUMW ACG EASEMENT FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Q£ / ( //+ego 199 ��' �¢ '7 ' ME BENEFIT OF LOT 1 PER DOC NO 4795752 / + en-Srso SB9197-45� COUNTRK \\ I '.CL i (ACROSS PAWD DRIVE LANES) (Per Hennepin County Property Information Web Site) a �; �}° ��� �+ j, UB oP\ All ��\ 7 Lot 1,Block 1,WEST METRO P.U.D.NO.39,Hennepin County,Minnesota. t /�\ I yL-1562 i� a� R/VE Parcel No.32-118-21-42-0068 °4 ATE IS3o PLA — d=4576'L�7SE43 _ d•A=9'L-15 RAi�i / J\> S&9'07'45 E'. ! X34519 \ ; — / Z6 •� ' e /'—�_fit — — -- 1— �� '• �.J 1 /° / +ter =-e zzz NOTES: I's1 H r 2 — .,(•_• > / a a \ \ 4 ��--� —�" \ \ 'K'•-+Diz''i 1. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Hennepin County Coordinate Grid(NAD —0:9 83-96 / / / / •I ~\ `fin' ��- C"7` 'W I \ \ � � ���-- ` \ (• �_ •.� '" .\.r.. ` '�_ aiX1 i 2. The told area of the property described hereon is 102.046 are feet or 23427 acres. IW FDOr ORAINACE k I \ \ \ l / /� +" '' pop y am+ a xK.3z° ..r �•. ;.--, u7aFTrE4amuENTPER 1 \ \ \\ e \ t :. (' �(•�'� 'e£ST M!7R0 N0. ° \ -Yy e - _ \ \ l° m'• \' 3. No title work was provided in thepreparation of this curve to verify the existence of an jvE'PU"D' �. 7 �?� e\ \ \ i ,.;. P Y fY Y \ + \ ('o� �i \ \ \ \ \ ° I.; ' easements or encumbrances to the property.Drainage and utility easements shown hereon were .♦\/x"m� A.+ W- I °q �. I, C�� � \ \ s �s6 may - taken from the plat of WEST METRO P.UD.NO.39. 4. Existing utilities,services and underground structures shown hereon were located either physically, / •\I �i m\ \ , \\ from existing records made available to us,by resident ers locking a by locations provided by ' >,;. Gopher State One Call, r'rocket No.143022237.However,lackin excavatxxl,the exact location of \ '4\ I '/' o„yxr $I \ \ ro-oxr underground factures cannot be ocaratdy,completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or 1 ' t + owauxc swarar Fuw� e W \ '� I -air-- / ( / \ \ +, more detailed information is required,the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Other utilities and services may be present and verification and location of all utiliUes and services should \`� /i ,y —au_� i I I I r r--i ,L�-Y w=•n be obtained from the owners of the respective utilities prior to any design,planning or excavation. & / Y �y( 1 1 1 I( >i h d. \.iy IF \ } � 5. The property described hereon Is subject to a Reciprocal Easement Declaration,recorded as 0, / /�''•a� 1°1, 1 >✓' < - �^ 's / ao74>a Document No.4795752 contains easements as referenced by exhibit attached to said documentL The \ I J I /,' + wN.avc PAH/ location of said easements,which are not mathematically defined,have been noted an the survey. Iles /z/ 6. BENCHMARK: Top nut of the hydrant located at the intersection of Country Club Drive and - ,.� m - �j �I� I �\ Jersey Avenue North.Elevation=924.39 fest(NAND 88). / � •'� '_• ;.-��.'i-.:'AVC 1 � — �- ,L. I I �/ + J / \ I / C I:. go* �`` ( ( p' \ —a — °�' /+ fo \\\ LEGEND or in 3 �, < a NBUILDING NO. 6681 — 1 1 x coSl / // i r ' mesio'/i I \\ ® SANITARY MANHOLE O MANHOLE At, CATCH BASIN nl 1 I 1 I I ss + —•4 I 7- ®as® + WATER MANHOLE BUILDING NO. 6701 eW 1 9 —+ 4 �° I B I / °. ( \\\ \\\ A AUTO SPRINKLERSSN I > COt/NTRY CLUB DRIVE g ; ( \_ !/ 1I� \) 0 GATE VALVE S I\ —\ —n ••( I I / 1 N ¢ HYDRANT I' / / E I r \ i e + / / ® ALR CONDITIONER P3 1-vr 1 r w �n?t y / ( e I / //\ ® ELECTRIC MANHOLE _ M ELECTRIC BOX ( d y� `d i am-9x.J I j IR /i i / 1 ® ELECTRIC METER Z5I r \ / / i /� \ El HANDHOLE —a LIGHT ? I I I �' — ( 4 :: — ` 1 ; •/ v'' I tx UTILITY POLE 0 30 60 90 IA GAS MNE ICER cox \ "�r _ ... r / i/ ' ( ' I I r SIGN \ \ J / � I IID` I SCALE IN FEET BOLLARD j / ` Lk HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE is W HANDICAPPED PA RKING SIGN FENCE DE SET IRON MONUMENT MARKED / ® WALL WIN LICENSE NUMBER 44123 —s SANITARY SEWER NAkw FOUND NAIL _M— ORM EWER AIN ' R/aS /� / / // �'"�— /o>rE 1 �' \ \ I E— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \ / I \ I UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE /z/ / — \ / , I \m•� / I —Fo UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC —a— UNDERGROUND GAS I_ p,Qi b a° / �+ , 1 SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING CONTOUR LINE . I \ i I I S° �`r - -- -- %I v'o`"a I A — - -- "• r naso' __, 21--i DR- TREE ✓ ', G J BITUMINOUS SURFACE I I ` • — S�.A� `' Jam/ / i °°1 I / rt' r�/// //�—1 I \\ \\ 1�— g, CONCRETE SURFACE ioop- CERTIFICATION: I_ `i-t/D FOOT DRaNIACEU7BJTYFA�SEMENt' // / // / \ I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am -PER,HEST ME7R9-P.U.D.NO 39 — a ! a duly Licensed Lord Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date of survey. October 10,2014. / _ _ HWA Date of signature: October 29,2014.4>s'/�,� Brent R Peters /i = — \ J 1 (r / \ \// ,y _ Minnesota License No.44123 FIELD BOOK PAGE FIELDWORK REVISIONS SURVEY FOR: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2870 45 CHIEF: 1229 Tyler Street NE,Suite 100 I.S. N0. DATE DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY A N D DRAWN BY: 1 11-3-14 PARKING REVISIONS .� Minneapolis, (612)466-3300 5413 DRAWING NAME: kgf PARK NICOLLET 6701 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE FAX:(612)466-3383 36028-TOPO.dwa TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55427 WWW.EfTlsuRvEY.coM E —— ____„ CHECKED Egan,field&Nowak. Inc. COPYRIGHT® 2m4 R.EGAIL FIFIn A NOWAK INc trr.T EAPC it - � lee 7012se.3116 FAx>•➢t.zza.Teea T I116w Main AW Su=e0.BW=tk NU5W1 1a: 7FFF wm nmND I pn 7 I alemekND i 8."wo m xD 11°w yr 14( I eelgw euro Ab ARO o — —�-•=��'�D,-`° q I c I - - i l www.eapcnet ci COUNTRY CLUB DRNE ' I:• 1 I i; � Larson I ' — DSD _ i _ t __. Engineering,Inc. m -- = "' - ♦ DUD.e »__�� l : ' - g .�C' -f 3524 Be-or Road - - a (" �'-�--•.--..-m.-„-. ° o �•-'"'Y Vlmie Beef Lake,AAN 55110 �> l Lti]"'L o ° - '"�'k-"•�- O Et'SO 651.481.9120 M 651.481.9201 r.FIFQ�{� www.larsonengr.com � i � f .— J 83– "�''uti' Com•_' © ©2011Is>am Eegineerig,°,0.A7,W4,eewvel /l/�, ' I ■9 I be'reby casfy Mgtus p1wk spe w,a or fq dwas pfepa d by 111e...ft 11,y dr d t• m,pe .I n as mael am a Bury knnaea �m z., 'li• —� KEY PLAN P �a1E.D�ee u�wsalawadsesrela NOT TO SCALE ofk0neeseta 91.,1- E. PrP Greg 0.Buda,P.E.jj rN D.W.020215 Reg.No.: 23703 I -- o PARKING REQUIREMENTS CUENT 6701 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE: EXISTING PARKING STALLS 99 GR �_ PARK NICOLLET�B�Pe /I SPACE PER 20D SF=GROUP 1-9 OCCUPANCY? 513390200) r PARKINSON S PAR�O sEDNG ov60 OVERAGE STALLS= CENTER PROPOSED 6061 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE EXISTING PARKING STALLS-83 C I ' -� - REWIRED PARKING STALLS 88 PROJECT, EIESIMMM GROUP B OCCUPANCY= 7-- �, si ( .j _I I' o-�rD i-1-(T-_----_-- is1I --�i-s_.c�s�9i': 'I wmnoox.vs.+°We;x+�cm ' ;\ III _�-�Ur_j.�__1,[.�J '7��y/1i'I' I 3 i {'”' _-=--r-*.F1-__�•�i_--_ (1 SPACE PER 250 S F=(IX2 1:9250) EXPANSION&„ PROPOSED PARKING STALLS=63 RENOVATION ✓ PARKING SHORTAGE=5 BUILDI t . _ PUD PROPERTIES TOTAL: IE PARKINGSTALLS=1&2 - RFQUIRED PARKING ARKIN STALLS -7-P; EUiLDWO NO. 6701 PROPOSED PARKING STALLS 163 COUNRY CLUB DRE T- -�-=-L- -�- � an GOLDEN VALLEY • I �\ -- I --I_ I T T i I srWE MINNESOTA L–}-- O x— LL- SS7IEDATE3 0 eco � .��.I, �—— a o'r•r "�_ � �• �-� cnt•callleNre mnaDDls :, I—— I ♦ _ I + 1 � �•�” 111Po( DESCRP(KIN GATE i- i r-1 l 1 -I � , ,� � � �• �- � PRO.ECT NO. 12146144 I _V•D,i°/ _ �. - DRAWN BY; PSM CHECKED BY. GABIKRR o ) � ° / �• / awe A'bac.,ru..w v1 _ wv,v,vvDvre.,v..eu. eve r r s.v DRAWINGTITLE SITE PLAN NORTH 0is 30 � C 0 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVEI MIT E A P C ' RrM_9?20 �T �e Of 7012M.3116 FAX 7011223-79113 116 W MSN Aw.Sulo A.Msmw*NO 58501 , — _ geed PoS NO Few WeY .k MO B-Wwilso &—A NO I I NwMdivr"''` _ :Ii- ► ill_ ' i i aw.h�NN eu•sAt.ARG � RIM=9324 STNV.=52T.34 <• o www.eapc.net i W .eapc.net PARKING SPACES Larson Engineering,Inc. 3524 Labors Road wnneBaal Lake,.55110 I ® IG G'es © www.larsonengr.com gr.651A81.9201 www.larsonen room g' I t ©2014 5 I NORTH Luson ti�ynemvg,Inn Aerylm nxerved. I I Nan: aI KEY PLAN l onW�d duly ermydereC I I Engineer undartM laws afthe state NOT TO SCALE of M7nnesa e. SPA:;£ 2 3 +++* .'.I I a .P GregA Bu P.E. Drtr.07OZIS Rag.N.: 23793 SYMBOL LEGEND --�— —4 /,�: Ipr� REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF OUSTING �� i +++*+ ._ _- - I I �' BRUMINousPAVEMENiSECTON PARK NICOLLET ++++ t. .j REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF OUSTING STRUTHERS + +*+ w — —j CONCRETE PAVEMEhrrsecnoN PARKINSON'S j+ + J 1 ++ +++ I• __i I CENTER J _ I I GRASS REMOVAL LIMITS 111 O +*+ —;— I SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR RESTORATION +'**; *+`: e / Y'/T/T%. BUILDING NO. 6681 PRWECTOESIOMMON ++++ iiii/ KEY NOTES EXPANSION& �� rt—— 1.1•" `' ++ a :1 : 1111 .1 i I RENOVATION — } I + :::::: '� r—�i O1 SAWCUT,REMOVE,AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION. BUILDING NO. 6701 ++ '' —I__ tl I O SAWCUT,REMOVE,AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION. _4— j COUNTRY CLUB DRl i/E +* I t N" ....... ——I— el I I 3O SAWCUT,REMOVE,AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. —a ++ ..`.i — I —I i ® REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING SIGN FOR OVMIER. ++ :--.E{..1:::. ` I` 5O REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL CRY GOLDEN VALLEY + REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BRICK PAVERS. + .."..'. O7 PLSTATE MINNESOTA J� + ..... —I— i REMOVEAND DISPOSE OF EXISTING ANTER BOX REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING RIP RAP FOR REUSE PROTECT EXISTING DECK DURING,DEMOLRION AND CONSTRUCTION. 641E DATES X 10 PROTECT EXISTING RAMP DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. y 1 i REMOVE EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE al +-t 1© REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING DRY WELL CASTING AND CONCRETE ADJUSTMENT m \ f I C ) o � RINGS.FILL EXISTING DRY WELL WfTH SAND AND ABANDON IN PLACE BACKFg1 UPPER -- —�— � Zr WITH TOPSOIL SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR RESTORATION. 13 FIBER OPTIC SHALL BE RELOCATED BY UTILITY OWNER(BY OWNER) REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREE 10 *+ DEMOLITION NOTES arclXgalBRs omg/mt5 a 2 SPACES + ++++++ ® r I. Verity all existing util ly locetina ow8K D1 00N DATE /Ic 2.Itis the responsibilityfromisofthe ugly performer eooNNeteri necessary uhesfily connections and 7 relocations from existing u5fly locatiorlc tool Dosis ameniges and buid'ngs.These cennections PRIDECT NO, 12146144 .� :'- inducts,but are not llmltetl to.water.saniary away cable N,telephone,gee,electric,site fighting. etc. 1 3.Prior to beginning wok contact Gopher State Onecall(65145"002)to locate uldiges throughout the DRAM BY: PSM —— ti' -.'.':.'.".'.::'.':. area under wnstructon.The Comrachm shag retain the seMces oft private utility locator to locate the CFIECI�D BY: eAB/razR 2 00 pmats utilities. I4.Sawcut along edges of pavements,sidowalla k and curbs to remain. a„R I I L r l I I I I .. 11.PA, (, A .L L 1 I❑ � S.All construction shag be performed N accordance wh smote and local standard spedfice0ons for, ca� construction. �"', ..r'd°A.'.►.°' .a.e.+n.Maw,,r. '.-..+..i .... ... ..... 6.Clearing grubbing operations shag comply the requirements of MnDOT 2101. + Merin end m o ration with route + + + + + + + + + 8 DRAWMIGTNLE 16 SPACES I L ----.—.—.— �_ __. t )' ++ *�(� )yr t4 EX.DRY V.nL ��*+ *+ >� ® f r i DEMOLITION PLAN RfM=931.4 �+ + +�� � +� 1 INV.—P22.6(N) -.« �� a BASE BID �✓.=575.6 = �+� J (C—. ) ' _ ) , , / NORTH 7L77-----J 4C1 .0 10 20 0 WE E A P C v 1 — �.. TBE 70123!.3116 rAz 701.239.7967 1•` -.._ —i ` 116 W Main Ave.State A.Bismarck NO 56501 1 i ceardm)I nacre I I1laenh Vr ahemrfiffirdwB—A raw,a,vr ats,al bum A e. YrMre Ig4 www.eapc.net ,ae i N Larson COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE c iL of - ;r_•_ Engineering,Inc. IF c �.–.�}• – 3524 Labore Bit Bear Road N55110 1 I 1..�.�._• 851.461.9120 651.481.9201 M I 1:6 s www.lamonengr.com ..� NORTH ©2m4 Larson Engineeft Inc Ai rVft,eeen'ed. 1 1 hereto cie6N Bret tlis plame moors or report prepared by me meneernydrM supervision and that l am a edY fuxrreed CAS GAS \. '•:\ KEY PLAN PmAvesiond E.9i"eerundar Melarm of1he state — acts _.!ALTERNATE NO. 1=GAS —�; Gr — — — — — — — — — — — \ NOT TO SCALE dMimes , Gtr^,As GAS--cAs � P.E. Date:020215 R No.: 23M Gas cAs J GA �_c s cA GA> SYMBOL LEGEND eg ^ 3 TYP.OF 8 S�_ _ _ I ' 1 I 1.. ~• � G REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CLIENT H❑ 1, �1 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION ''```''' I PARK NICOLLET jt I L \( 7 � ✓ � �)•' /•�. ... ' + I REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING• . :• + CONCRETE STRUTHERS ' ' ' . PARKINSON' S .. � � • •e + 3 CENTER . * ••• . I , GRASS REMOVAL LIMBS j`.•.•.`.•:::.•. ..... .,` •'•'• SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR RESTORATION �® `� ''.'': ':.. .`,`.`,`, +. . .'+ � .. i PROJECT DESCRUnM + +yyJ f' �' '+ `•`' ' '' ''3J3 ` I KEY NOTES EXPANSION '�� 'r'• •'�'• :I , SAWCUT REMO AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS RENOVATION '. .``•'••• 4 I O PAVEMENT SECTION. �`C �• I – O .. ... ....... ..........:.'.' 4, 4. rrz.zTe s--I 2 SAWCUT REMOVE,AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB �: .. . •. • .•'•'•'••.•g.•.♦a I O AND Cil177fR. s'V;��: ... �!' `.bE",�:i�z Irr.TEAPC Q3 TM 7M.M.3116 RX M1.2Z&"S3 1I6WMmInAw.SufteASImnsmkND6M1 Gnedraftle) FwPNO CL VNI"ND handle) N—IhVr I WmmmkND B."m 8—Ah. J wwweapc.net 4+ > Larson Engineering,Inc. ------ 3524 Labore Road Mile.Lake,MN 55110 Ce 651.481.9120 M 651.481.92011 www.larsor�angr.com L 1 @2014 1—Engbeeft In-AN Wes—ad NORTH lbereby—Illlhatthisplai%apollosti—or repon,mas prepared by VervislonordlimAl. dulyficonsed KEY PLAN Professional Enginesrumdow the hews of she state D E C K or MInneacts. NOT TO SCALE Greg Suorml,P.E. SYMBOL LEGEND D.W:.AO2 07 15 Reg.No-, 23793 I M- -A cl__ CUM asses T REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION PARK NICOLLET 2 SPACES REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STRUTHERS C ONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION PARKINSON'S CENTER GRASS REMOVAL LIMITS SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR RESTORATION KEY NOTES EXPANSION& E RENOVATION 'k EIAWCUT.R MOVE,AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMr SECTICIL 0� :NT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SAWCUT,REMOVE,AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAVEMENTSECTION. ALTERNATE NO.2 . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 . . . . . . . . . SAWCUT.REMOVE-AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB - AND GUTTER- SALVAGE AND RELOCATE EXISTING SHED AT A LOCAnON MY GOLDENVAUEY .6" DETERMINED BY OYYNER. 71 PARKING SPACES STATE MINNESOTA (D REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREE A. 3 . .. ...... ......... . .*............................... . , I ME DAIM . .. .. ... .. .. . . . ... ..... .. .. . . .. .. ..... ....... .. . .. .. . . 6 SPA CES : ..... .. .. . . ........... . .. ... .... ... . .. ..... .... .. . . ....... .... . .... ... .. ..... .. ... : . ... ...... .......... DEMOLITION NOTES �+�+W.t* + .. . ... ...... ... 1. Vedy all enristinq utility locations. ... .. .. . . ... .... . . .. ...... ............. . ... . . ...... .. . ...... .. . . .. . + 2,11 Is the responsibility ofthe Contractor to perform or coordinate all necessary utflly demillions and relocations ftm existing utility locations .. ...... .... ..... .... . .. . . .... . .... .... . .. ...... . . ..... to all onsile affmanities and buildings,These cDnnecbm include,but a C"COMMENTS; ozom .............. . ++ not bnftd to,water,sanitary sevour.cable tv.telephone,gn.electric, Itar MPM DESCRIFTIDN DAIE .... ......... .... .... . . ........ ... .......... ..... .... ... .. ......... .............. ..... . ...... .. . 3.Prim to beginning worK contact Gopher Side Dowd(651-4scoom)to + + ....... --iti throughoutthe—unrler—.—COntradDf shall retain"ftservioes ofa private utOky locatorto locate the private ......... taillits PROJECT NO, 12146144 +*+'++ .... ......... .... . ..... ++ + DRAWN 13Y. Psm 5 TYP.OF 2 4.Sawcut along edges ofparvenwils,sklgwaflcs�and curbs to remain, CHECKED BY' GABMR 5.Ali construction sheR be perbm*d In accordance,With state and kxxd standard spedk&Wns for COPYPJGKr'. 6.Clearingandg bbing operations shall corrjAy with&a requirements of MnDOT210I.m -ss -7 DRAWING ME DEMOLITION PLAN ALTERNATE NO.2 NORTH 7L7-L----j C1.2 0 5 10 m COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE — rEAPC WV-90".0 cwwrrn �y V 9090 a O 1 `1��-J J'�t/-w+�� .H ® •� -i ii.- ! -'' o o THE 701.736.9116 W 701.2x9.7967 Y 1 _ ! �r 116 w Mem Ave.SubA Mamas NO SW Jr LEJ 1 I ) s!( I _ ✓ I `..� SIGNS ❑ �:I I" I I . ied Pob NO IFBeirwnereoAYnARG Ibm ND ® Y9IMN0 WeNO bMNVfO 8e6W m 0 5 ENV.=924.3 �'/- /,I\. �. '� t j 4 ki www.eapc.net r 1 I� I I PAA I'• 111 r ; o ! Larson PARKING SPACES -- - a I Engineering,Inc. _'1'. '/ I I i I ! t c - +" ---` 3524 LaDore Road White Bear Lake,MN 55110 s n.T'E © WWW-1 1.9120(Q 651.481.9201 4 i ( vJ www.wrs9ne.ANrig I NORTH ©20u1e°°eEnyneafi9,iic A9d91��ea �—p7wged by nw ru da "dr d I hereby..*V tmie wee,apecifiusunc tv -P -ddWianadiMieensed �✓ __ �( KEY PLAN Pei Engin—mde.>ne l.es a,t.t9te NOT TO SCALE m Mine t. 2 G.9A.Bushel P.E.C$ --y- �� DaW 020215 RD N°: 23793 SYMBOL LEGEND ° Z / I� // --�- -4-: �1•' !�A�I-^ — NEW 3'BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CUENT OVER GAGGREGATE BASE 6EDETA +- - PARK NICOLLET� NEW BONDED AGGREGATE PAVING STRUTHERS 1 0 -- s j LJLLL s I — sOVERi A EGATE�E PARKINSON'S PLAN CENTER NEW 4"CONCRETE I OVER G AGGREGATE BASE 4 I. n 5 -- --'-+ PROPOSED ADDITION I!� SEE DETAIL 2/C5 MAIN FLOOR=835.10(ARCH 100') 7� .y i p•�7�/ 'TTj77. BUILDING IJD. 6687 WHERE APPLICABLE,DIMENSIONS ARE FROM PRDJECTDESCRIPTIDN 3 �;�/ BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB OR BACK OF EXPANSION& —— ——�— ' ' CURB To END of STALL LINE. RENOVATION 05 I I .�' BUILDING NO. 6707 COUNTRY CLUB DRl1/c COY GOLDEN VALLEY SUTE MINNESOTA STRUCTURAL 57 A 00P w ° T -- I SEE RCHJSTRUCTURAL LSSUE DATES X a p I C5 -I- ! D E C K i GIYC01903NS 00067015 �\ 2 SPACES ' ' Te _ ;.� ®� 111WC DESCRFM DATE i PROJECiHO 12146144 C3$ DRAWN BY: PSM C5 ma CHECKED W. GABM COPYRGHfim,...s n.wr p ux a wr r rt C() `� eAwro r eve evs rr.m.r 1 _� K Yaee�1 ry writ N6 Irie,p r I —— >,�.'a�:�," �nv 3` y��; .. �3g.�•'�', I� � o°.t �� wiro.eMa • yA' a� y i'..*kin� �`�s LFA" PE (7�°}. '*t xt3�:. �.'£: .� to�' I"-: `t,/.�• ` . I I I I I DRAWIN(iTITLE -I 6 SPACES I @ EX.DRY DELL ® 03 TWVy PAVING PLAN BASE BID I •o �' ,-y> / � .� �"') = � NORTH 0 10 20 40 tr—r—.T E A P C o" Ti - II t• _t°s °r _� TaE 701.2W2116 FAx 701.228.7M 116W Mab Aw.Sulb A Bismarck ND 58501 i, CA - � RIM=929.0 I' i INV=918.0 < � Ko eeearo Rp.JAVr U 6-4 MN I euaeo.Ae.AM1 Iia 4 I www.eapcnet 1 Larson COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - ' r I • o , `. a ;__ Engineering,Inc. ..--i 3524 Labore Road e a. - -�"•''.�~ `r.� Whle Bear Lek..MN 55110 C J C 651A 1.9120 551.481.9201 www.larsonengrgr.com NMTH ©2014 Laron EA*—de a IAF M rlybveeerved I hereby..*eea 1.plan,.pedfi ef—ar repW vess prepared by me or under my cked \�. KEY PLAN �rlhe 1 Gas AS As ALTERNATE N0.1_GAs-- — — — — — — } — — — — \ NOT TO SCALE a WnneQco�1a n GA"—tet-- ac.' .�l i+ l —��\ lY.f� 6(- Greg /(— � —® ` GregA ,RE +�a GAS GAS__GAS—t GAS G GAS Dab:020215 ReO No.: 23799 GAS 'Gas ` - SYMBOL LEGEND z.. WENT PAVEMENT OVER 8•AGGREGATESASE �J — C SEE DETAL11CS PARK NICOLLET V . J" } I! STRUTHERS C.I.P.WALL W STONE VENEER 2 NEW BONDED AGGREGATE PAVING SEE LANDSCAPE C5 / �, 1 \;.� OVER B•AGGREGATE BASE PARKINSON'S �/`*1 I SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN CENTER . ICS 4`�� • .� 1 NEW4°CONCRETE OVER ELAN CAPE �FNCH, ` t��.ISJ SEE DETAIL 2= BASE PROJECT DEscRlRnar 5 � SPERGOL STRUC E SEE LAN E � BBAACKKOFCCUURBBT�KOFCURBORBAC OF EXPANSION& 5 scAr CURB TO END of STALL LINE O RENOVATION � RIM=9324 o �r✓fJ i (JlN'✓=924.3 \I/' — — — /I\— —�� — — C5 3 2 I® /T C5 STEEL EDGER,T1'P.J Iy SEELANDSCAPE ,J�vti CJ I CRY GOLDEN VALLEY — — TASf STATE MINNESOTA HM � m o 15 PARKING SPACESo r ISSUE DATES IrTTP. STRIPE EXISTING PAVEMENT AT 9'STALL WIDTH,T1'P. 1 PAR G SPACE I I Irv. Ji # . J \ t c8,•ca.eBs 0206M C7 \ I KQW DESCRWIDN DATE L PROJECTNO: 12146144 � ��`` — I r � DRAWN BY: PSM—'` , f' — — — CHECKED BY: GABIXRR 1 SPACE i �\ I C c : L 7 e � QDRAMNGTITLE 7 T/7 — PAVING PLAN 'z-�z Z ALTERNATE NO.1 NORTH rL7 C2.1 0 5 10 20 SYMBOL LEGEND NEW 3'BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT Air. E A P C OVER 8"AGGREGATE BASE rc SEE DETAIL VC5 caa.rm - nra NEW BONDED AGGREGATE PAVING EBASE SELANDSCAPE _. .. SEE LANDSCAPEPLA m NEW 4°CONCRETE OVER Er AGGREGATE BASE ME 701.256.3116 FAX 701.223.7663 SEE DETAIL 2/CS ry1" 116 W Main AvR SUVA A,Bldnvdc DID 58507 iaTR WHERE APPLICABLE,DIMENSIONS ARE FROM I BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB OR BACK OF GradFft ND F4,FM 6ND CURE TO END OF STALL UNE l ,' •6" .m.<.� .^I y/ibnND I bs dm I Yi�NaddrvT li4'•j i - i tLNq t I www.eapc.net Larson Engineering,Inc. I --+ r I _� E ' t• C�sc•- .~-•-. �.�~ I 3Wh 24�BeW LBk6�,dMN 55110 �j _r�• C¢ G © 651.481.9120 M 651.481.9201 x wwwlarsonenvoom Z y NORTH ©zmltannaN.aerpHeaaervea. I hereby Certify OWI ft pian.sped—. Irepartems (� supervision a�tl�I=a duly kensed i KEY PLAN Professional Enyine a mdfie loris oreu state tj, ° NOT TO SCALE of Mmeseta D E C K , jt/ 1 — I ® Daae:0201215 R.9.Ne.: 23793 CUENT PARK NICOLLET STRUTHERS PARKINSON'S SPACES L— � ' CENTER PRaEcroESCRiPnoN EXPANSION& i CONTINUE SIDEWALK(NO RAMP) RENOVATION SEE GRADING PLAN I C5 RAISED CROSS WALK ,L SEE GRADING PLAN ALTERNATE NO.2 cn 14 `�j� —' —I— - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J � CITY GOLDEN VALLEY ArI I STATE MINNESOTA IrTYP. 3 ' — — 10 P RKING SPA S I I L I SM DATES � 16 SPACES -- LL ) y ✓✓E -�� r � � �� Rll:4=931.4 1 \`\ .� I �� • I IINV= N F COYCommem ozumz • Ie ,a ` INV 915.b ` .- � � wort I 08=ra1oN ol,E PROJECTND: 12146144 2 ' l C5 � ) 4 ' L DRAWN BY: PSM I A-f BENCH,TYP.'� ° 10'TYP, SEELANDSCAPE APE C.LP.WALL 1M10 STONE VENEER SEE LANDSCAPE '� J I •u ew.s+ab..,m.o+sa ra as r.r ww JI �-��( �---�r✓ ��..\�� _ �.— — — — — — — — PAVING PLAN ALTERNATE NO.2 NORTH C262 0 5 10 20 -`•9�@ -<s"\ROOK CONSTRUCTION RANO. COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 92sGRADING NOTES LEGEND cs / 1. Tree protection conslatirg of snowlence or safetyli are icetailed atthe -----950----- EXISTING CONTOURS trr.TE A P C drip One shall be in place prior to beginning any grading ordemotition 950 PROPOSED CONTOURS-MAJOR INTERVAL 0 oe work at the site. covaav 999 PROPOSED CONTOURS-MINOR INTERVAL cue 2. AN elevatlons with an for fu i asterisk ----------- GRADE BREAK LME .. °-W �1g� - - - ° o oBo '"n•----ca __\ __ half field ventied If elevations GRADE SLOPE vary significantly,notify the Engineer further Instructions. SET FENCE / / o0 0 0'0" ).H `� ✓ �, -t 3. Grades shown in paved mass represerd firdsh eteva8on. F s 1 1 s 00 1, i �� / / `s, o° c'a° ''`i /�l 1l i ,� _ 4. Refer to Landscape plan for restoration requirements. o°o RIP-RAP/ROCK CONST.ENTRANCE °°'�°,�° - `/ '' t• lee 701.288.3114 FM 701223.7983 93� o0 o°o°q l Z.i_71s L o o c' I r ti \ (��'0�'' S 5. AO sonsWdion shat he Performed n aaoMance with slate and local INLET PROTECTION 1 _ Yo atandardaperJfirationsforcoristruetim. - {i ` _ _ i J - 116W Male Ave,SLOB A.Bismarck NO 58507 / // //1�r7c s °c 9Jz\•v 1T _ J f1 : a.aa�aallo r.®allo M..ntxo Ir_--, CONCRETE WASHOUT STATION ; ••^^•• t+ mWall,y,"Me �-Alva. NwAavr5 R/M=932,4 .- __ - /((''1NV 924.3 i/• /.{�� •'�` - i T SPOT ABBREVIATIONS I =b - f ( I 950.00 TC TC-TOP OF CURB i I t i 1 www.eapc.net 949.50 p. ////rII,/�oFIi;iati////////���/�,h/II'.,/��, -`III�I --\-\- sI 3` __",-`'I�_�/1.✓Lr l '//'��I',�yX933- f/--- - �\` \-`\\ ` i II.E1 s,l�i,.\,�,J T y3� --;III( ;/ .. /_ (•)- MIE B-SITUMUNOUS � C-CONCRETE G EO-EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 1 Larson SPA, TW-TOPOFWALL m es. BW-BOTTOM OFWALL(FIG) Engineering, Inc. M.E-MATCH EXISTING ELEV. 3524 Labore Road EXISTING TO BE VERIFIED White Bear Leke,MN 55110+e0 651.481.9120f651.481.92D1 03,90 TC* .Am >-- / 9340 G.• 93235 TCGL• NORTH ©2W41-Enaineeske]-Ali t Ihereby u.*that this plan,specifications or / repatwasprepared bymeoruMxmydnect a / yj e' / avpendedorh and that I am a duly licensed '1 �✓ I j\.,'f/ 1--`" - - \ �� ` -,.\.� v� / / KEY PLAN Profesaan.l Engnaer anderHu laa,a aFt,a state 93280 T6.. .L-, / f NOT TO SCALE dliffireets. / Ss✓ -W-- s �i SPACE S 934.70 TC• `93285C ( 93230G�Ii � -G/�LGe.J�� Greg A Buchal,P.E 934.40 GL• �. / --f- o J �1 :i Date:020215 Reg.No_ 23793 EROSION CONTROL NOTES 935D gE- tom'" PARK NiCOLLET --ti- ./,b` 1. Owner and Contractor shag obtain MPCA-NPOES penmE permit.Contractor shall be responsible for all fees perishing to this per The STRUTHERS 935.10 C• ` 933. 933.00 /\ SWPPP shall be kept onsite at of times. 934`- Ir� 2 tnsrall temporary erosion Control measures(inlet protection,aK fence,and rock construction entrances)prior to beginning any PARKINSON'S e.�atianardenogganworkatthesea. CENTER 3. Erosion contra measures shown an the erosion control plan are tore absolute e ndnoThe contractor shat install temporary temporary ea Jr s f t.J TC - I dgces,sediment flaps or basins,additional siltation fencing,and/or disk the soil parallel to the contours as deemed necessary to further 3? 5 II 934.00 TC. I -- - PROPOSED ADDITION / \ Ii T50 , control erosion.AO changes shag be recorded in the SWPPP. MAIN FLOOR=935.10(ARCH 100') IIIPROJE'CT DE'SC'RIPTION ; �/ 4. Ag construction site entrances shell be surfaced with crushed rock across the entire width of the entrance mord from the entrance to a i 130C � ,...... / Poad sa Into the construction nae. EXPANSION& I II t L1 a ` "' S. The toe of the sit fence shag be trenched in a minknum of 6'.The trench baddug shall be compacted with a vibratory plate compact". RENOVATION BUILDING NO. 6701 934. C �! - S. es ablishe an all do shat ie conducted Ina fore anmannerto mhmlze potential for site erosion.3edme d controleared ces must be COUNTRY CLUB OR/'✓E I I I j estabgst ed o all down gradient perimeters before any up gradient d lend disturbing activities begin 7. AN exposed soil areas neat be alabit¢ed a soon as possible to Omit sod erosion but in no case later than 14 days after the construction As' o e -I adivgy in that portion ofthe sea las temporarily or permanency ceased Temporary stockpiles without significant sig,day or organic /=�)a' - \ _ components(e.9,dean aggregate stockpiles,demolition concrete stockpiles,sand stockpiles)and the coma uded base components of roads,pad"late and smiler surfaces are exempt from this requirement. ORY GOLDEN VALLEY S. The normal waited perimeter of any temporary"permanent drainage ditch or swab that drains water from any portion ofthe \-937 - -.' r construction site,or diverts water around the site,=at be stabilized within 200 tined feet from the properly edge,"from the point of I -i-I- l` dischargeIntocharge any surface water.Stabilization of the last 200 flneei fret must be compWW wflNn 24 hours afar concecting to a STATE MINNESOTA 934.30 C i --IIg� Z I surface water.Stabibstion of the remaining portions of my temporary"pemaneat ditches or swales must be compkte within 14 i ^ - L days after connecting m a shabce,water and construction n that part=of the ditch has temporarily or permanently ceased _ M.E C _y .40 C f - i 9. Pipe outlets mud be provided wets energy dissipation within 24 to hos or connection surface water. MMDATES i 10. AN riprap stag be Installed with a filter material orsoil separation fabricand comply with the Minnesota DepaMant afTransportation ° f -st Standard Specifications. 11. All storm sewx catch bases not needed for site dralnage during construction shall be covered to prevent mnoff Som entering the storm - sewer system Catrin basins necessary for a&drainage during consnction shag be provided with inlet protection. ---4-- -933-�� ,\ _ `t 0 12 In areas where concentralad flows orxae (such as swain and areas n front of storm catch basins and Intakes)the erosion control i I // z facilities shad be ballad by stab'faation structure to protect than facilities from the concentrated flows. -�'-- I -) 13. Inspect the construction sea once every seven days during active construction and within 24 tours after a rainfall event greaterthan 0.5 inches in 24 hours.All inspections shall be recorded In the SWPPP. DECK 14. Ag BMPs mostbe repaied,replanxQ or suppbm pled whm they become nonfunctional"the sediment reaches 1/3 of Me height of the BMP.Than repairs must be made within 24 hours of discovery,or as soon as field condebns allow access.AO repairs shag be rn the SWPPP. (�0r� LZ-- -.- I 1 M. recorded) /. '°.t„/�; 931.50C ' / ) 1'. 15. If sediment escapes the construction site,off Ae s=mmulaflom of sednasm must be removed in a manner and at a frequency sufficient t7frCOM EMIS X15 to ndntrnlze off-site impacts. 2 SPACES' � / WIK DESCRIPTION DATE 931.50 31.00 TC TC1 16. All soh backed onto pavement shelf be removed daily. 8 / / / / / // 17. All intnagon areas mud be Inspected to ensure tat no sediment from ongoing construction activity is reaching the nfillation area and TC / /// • lase areas are protected from conpaction due to construction equipment driving across the infiltration area PRD.�Cf NO, 12146144 M.E. 93150 GL* 931.B• 931.00 cc - /u / DRAWN Sr PSM / 1S Temporary soli ve stockpiles must hasK fence"other effective sediment controls,and cannot be placed in surface waters,including CL 93105 TC / uN / // stommvater conveyances such as curb and Water systems,or con lues and ditches unless there is a bypass in place forthe sterevater. CHECKED BY' GABI M �932-7 930.55 GL 19. Collected sediment,asphalt and concrete mffi 9aET PROTECnotL /, _- / sWa nils.floating debris,Paper,Piratic,fabric,construction and demolition debris and other COPYRIGHT: wastes most be disposed of property and must comply with MPG disposal requirements. •rte a.a r�w.r nr.r a m..s.ra w.r 9312D TC J -929- �0 mw.e er ux r rw,m w ! / 9 B i / r+s.er colla.w r.w:v a eve.eAre au sea r 93120 / { 930.711(iL- ---927- 6 / 20. OO,gasoline,paind and my hazardous substances must be properly stored,Including secondary containment,to prevent spills,leaks or !+err•++a„r�•^M+ see \ ) 9t�1=.-Og®TC �B•T F �Yp,_, - a / / f other dsdherge.ReWktea eocesc to stooge areas must be providM fo prevent vandefism Stooge and tlfspaal of hezardouswask __-/ i i_y25� mast be N compihrrcewith MPG regulations 930. GL .429 / 5 ###"' / / DRAWMGiRLE 930.70 TC EO' / j/ X925 // �f 9 /9,y1 /gy0! I. 21. External washingUtacks and other construction vehicles must be rated to a defined area of the site.Runoff=sibs contained and rfi'•5RACES - r' '/ 2 -\ 830.2v,L f / r, / / waste properly disposed of No engine degreasing is allowed onsite. :1 1 / DRY / /-�/ / _ z2 Ag liquid and soca wastes generated by concrete washout operations must be contained in a look-proof containment facility or GRADING AND } / / _ �i.��• f f / i ermeable Ener.Aw ted W kher that does rot allowwashoutO liquids to mW round wafer is considered an abb mD compacted r q e Anne EROSION CONTROL PLAN Ikhec The liquid and sold wastes mast not contact the grouts,and there must not be runotfromthe concrete washout operations or areas.Liquid and sofid wastes must be disposed of properly and in compliance with MPG regulations.A sign must be installed BASE BID \ 3J / /�✓ // / / / 10 adjacent to each washout tedlity to inform concrete equipment operators to utilize eta proper facifilim /w 1 -J/ / / f/ / / c 23.Uponcompletion otthe project and stabilization of ell graded areas,ad tenp°aryemsim control facilites(siftfences,hay bales,da) �� f _ / / / shall be removed from the site. -93z-.-if/✓�v�' //�/�_`/ / --/ / /f / / // NORTH �l / i// / / / / 0, / / / / / 24. Contactorshag subme Notice ofTmninationfor MPCA-NPDESpennitwehn 30 days after Final Stabg¢artim O J 0 10 2D 40 ArIT E A P C Ge C --- ii•;. � i `- o�z o r- 4 'm 70125a3'1111 61k 701323.790.4 116 W Main Ave.Sala A.ekmrek NO 69501 RIM=929-0c 1®c ' - -I e Fab NO F.FNO alanankNO lNV=918.0 \ a f I• I I m.—No 1 unarm .1--- i S a."um au.-A1.ARa 4e 1 I www.eapc.net se- + I N �� COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE J + " :, Larson ati ' �h / / g�ro� / 4 • o ._ w _. Engineering,Inc. tIIis 11,o o r e ....... _.-- 3524 Labors Road All"Bear Lake.MN 55110 vv I 651.481.9120 M651.481.9201 www.farsonengrcorn ©2014 Wsan Engin-ft InaAN Vft reamed. NORTH /-- r`1 \ n �.�\ Ihw.bycenfly prepar Sicg a rpe�w9odsor _ f `_ report wasprepared by some or under my Erect ` GAS 9 AO J= 1_-� g �1 KEY PLAN wpensim anal r I ion a dub licensed Prread/o)na)l En nee anderfielaNar/the elate -ALTERNATE- N0.1=_�;4;� -��--� •�—s � — — — `� -`" NOT TO SCALE rMinm7•J�G�-/lLy.l�� Gr.9A' FBunw,P.E i - \ ) �� 7 ' —=SGA G' Dar:M02-15 Re No: 23793 t1 - 3� l r / i�� �,�-- —�� - �� 33� --� .s .. cA GA a26' z � LEGEND 9. /ti ]� �= __ \ ii CLIENT H / ✓� s Q __ .9357 --\ �\ ©( , �� �� 950_-_-- EXISTING CONTOURS I X 1 F\J7 �$ 950 PROPOSED CONTOURS-MAK)R INTERVAL �jy�/ ' ` ,\ 'J ,` \� \ % 949 PROPOSED CONTOURS-MINOR NTERVAL PARK NICOLLET - Dj> i Tiz�, <�' Y``. �` >i36 \ \\`/ ' I .� SILT FENCE.TYP- .I TS -_-________ GRADE BREAK LINE STRUTHERS 4� .�. ) ~z �> ' ` zox GRADE SLOPE PARKINSON'S t 4 C • \. \..~ ti ` 937 M I936.2oTw \�� SILT FENCE CENTER rJ a �2DTW :'�:::.. 93284C 3 93T.W BW I. 1 vvovv RIP—I ROCK C.——E / s� 1 ' j — 1f sQ 935 •�.1/' -- — _.� BtB µ933.,3D _- J 932.43C 1 9) ( PROTECT. d��_ HANDTREIf4CH D `�+ in ,' INLET PROTECTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION —, 1- --I \PROTEcr ?�y �2 sX r"'-� CONCRETE WASHOUT EXPANSION& y � f---J RENOVATION i + R1M=932!4 �_ _ �-® �a . , 933.06 c 93z.3o c93212 c p � I I I I AJ11 S INV.=92 3 �.�%' `_ r✓ ` \ esD.aorc r�co�Po�FcuRBONs O� 193820 TN t 932 40 C 93205 C 19 \ -c.-W �'. 949.50 GL GL-GUTTER LINE I \ T— •.9 �I1 v' `"7 933.10B '931. TC �.��0 / \��YI B-BITUMUNOUS UE UE UE UE '.I= �1'i. f 831. GL L �� C-CONCRETE EO-EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 'AZA 1 93250TC• 93205 q✓ 831.70 TC \ TW-TOP OF WALL I .9, ^ ({J y, �.`�,.5 BW-BOTTOM OF TINGELE CITY GOLDEN VALLEY f .r_ 93200 GL• 931.55 GL nJ 931.20 GL• � ME.-MATCH EXI6TING ELEV. 01�ry INLET PROTECTION,TYP. ` I I F'fll 1EXI6T01GTO BE VERIFIED STATE MINNESOTA A r� sPA s 9�°�n J g3 ' GRADING NOTES MEDATM 1. Tree protection consisting of snow fence or story fence Installed atthe I 1rL. �` / 9 931.75 CML drip fine shall be in place priato beginning wry grad'ng a demolition gJ N 9.33— '��, `�. \ work rthe sRe. O� �> -/- �f �� �� \ �;� L j �C I 2 �9 esignificantly,levations,with an astedEnsk rineerltorefuMer insiructi ins i M.E B n I M.E B Oj 7rlot6Y 9 93250° f 931.60• I 3. Grades shown In pawed areas represent finish elevation N O 4. Refer to Landscape plan for restoration requirements. 1, \ 3�- ' ��: •9 s 933 M:E \ I —� ' i S. All construction shall be performed in accordance with star and local standaNapedfivafions for construction. tiJ+ 'Q `' `933. arccaMielr6 029=5 �• `j' f `�\ "� s \,, 4 \ ?�` ,� ,. .. 11N6C DESCRPIpN ORE EROSION CONTROL NOTES y 1 g PROJECT NO 12146144 - { g� 0nj SEE SHEET W.O.� .�.L — — — — — — — —�— I � rs' J DRAWN BY. PSM GASM CHECKED BY' 1 SPACE N >I �\ r g�� ] `` I �J l/ ( COPYROM 3.10 "FF F//77-/T �9 g35 �r� \ 4 o DRAWHIGTRLE s3 I ,` �� _I GRADING AND _ 351 �s , � 7 (� ` 933 Z_ 1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN ALTERNATE NO.1 NORTH C3.1 —�— — Ash +�' 0 6 10 20 GRADING NOTES EROSION CONTROL NOTES LEGEND 1. Tree protection consisting of snow fence or wkly fence installed at the SEE SHEET C3.0. -----950----- EXISTING CONTOURS ArITEAPC drip line shall be In place prior to beginnkg any gradmg or demolition 950 PROPOSED CONTOURS-MAJOR INTERVAL work at the site. - 949 PROPOSED CONTOURS-MINOR INTERVAL �"^'a•t aw C) 20% GRADE BREAK LINE _ 2 All elevations with an asterisk shall r Held verified.If Newibns vary .significenty,notiy the Engineer for fuller instructions. E- GRADE SLOPE r •--n o 0 o SILT FENCEI ��-�"•"� 3. Grades shown in paved areas represent finish elevation. 14 _ -t s; •t t C 4. Refer to Landscapean 000000c RIP-RAP I ROCK CONST.ENTRANCE W for restoration requhemems. 701258.3116 w 70,.229.7965 S. All construction shall be performed in acoordance with state and tical I T INLET PROTECTIa•1 118WMeh Ave.SUIb A,BlanardcNO 58501 standard specifications construction, lx--ell G I J I pp (neWIP.eea)I FeWW I9berd<!ID `_-_, CONCRETE WASHOUT STATION � T I a-�•» ( a."�. �i`'+1 send.ND Meet ND N.'"VT sel &rsAiee ARD SPOT ABBREVIATIONS: a 950.00 TO TC-TOP OF CURB I • 1 949.50GL (I I _ 1 www.eapcnet GL-GUTTER LINE IIrS., t B-BITUMUNOUS C �'{e C-CON RETE I J EO-EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ( ((( I I:• C .� V" Larson TW.TOP OF WALL 'I' (:'; l.: '•' Sy � v It BW-BOTTOM OF WALL(FIG) 4r,, r� I , r_, i.�,___. Engineering,Inc. -_ I 3 �- I M.E.-MATCH EXISTING ELEV. 3524 i 933 (y-EXISTING TO BE VERIFIED �� f G a1 r While Bear � .��. �.---"�•��vG�•"` Whie Bear Lake,MN 55110 651.481.9120(f)651.48,.92111 �•, `j j / ``` � Jn ' `=�• I C •(�6� � --� ©Owoneng Z�4,1 ©5714arwn Enalneagare,Alla Mreserved. 3 / --j,�- �� ^� / w Iherebycer 0m0thisdan.4+aaficaeonsor reportwaeprepaed bymea undermydred 932.6 h ti(�o KEY PLAN `rofe Professional and unndamellaensed a-ofthe smee aJ' 'y NOTTOSCALE of Minnesota. f 3.J.Z 9e,� DECK G;� P.E. _ { (r( - Dant:020213 Reg.No.: 23793 t1 of1l /f=)- It0� I �� I -�� CUMz 9 j 9� / �I .9 I tih�' 'ws• 9 Q' ' G� / / PARK NICOLLET STRUTHERS -2- - 0�T' ���1� PARKINSON'S CENTER 9' � ^� 9'�` / \ 0,�3 2 SPACES . 933.fix 05 �� 9. 933.7x I 933.4x 1 I+� 3�` a /Q�� 9� ,i I ki j it��:sorcrc I �(✓� PMECTDESIMMON W1.00 I EXPANSION& F I / oocre �1�� RENOVATION I I �- - rn � t� g' 932. i / j�' e31 zo rc K�h931.00TC I / I ,,_ 9 9 e3o.Ta crB 930.50 uB / ?) _ _ y - 930.95 TO y CRY GOLDEN VALLEY j' � _- --_--_ - - _ - t 930.45 GL ry. - I I I I / �+ %' i ( ' ,nEcre / � � _929- - STATE MINNESOTA j ' to t- j 1- ALTERNATE NO.2� - _ _ � � - -927- _� MAUEDATES .9. I __ --- _ __ -- 3030SC - _ ' 830.80 T �>' 2 p I �5 h a v> ti1• a� 93ozo L ao - o �9 / -925 � J E - '- � 32- o� 930.90 9 - - 5'SPACE I f °, j 4 1\ �.'i I �- �`•� 931.40 930 r JJ I '�✓ y� i y _ '.�•-.�'• `l j� f 'sem / '-` �� \ `NJ RIM-9 1.4 rnY001AME+19 a+ m1s �, 933. C �-L'. -� n?`L � -� C \ I 931.48 1/ ✓.- � g30 � �� � !'�J / ._i �I`y. / / / umK LIFwapnDN B4TE +. 983.70 933. C �- PROJECT NO: 12148144 DRAWN BY: PSM 935.4gTW - '� ,+ 933 BERM °o(` ` l / J _• / / O�' J / _ �- / / / �- � / / CHECKED W. GAB/IQtR -932- ®,..�.....�..,.� ov 30- _J DwanNGTM.E GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN / Ig32i / / /� oti�� / // - - / / / / / ALTERNATE NO.2 9� / / a,� / _ - / / NORTH / J /" 0 5 10 20 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 7 PVC FOUNTAIN EAPCAWATER DRAIN, COORD.WIUWOSCAPE I eowrm &o M1 TU 701288.3116 cut 7011MM7987 116WMa!aAve,Suf A.SNmarck ND5B501 - ^1 Gea Fwtoro I�aalO m�db 'Ie I, ','' VAYmM We= ta Vr a e'PVC ROOF LEAD I' way rsd auwmAerAR6 rtww ` ! � I COORD.W/MECH. INV=930.1WW0'(ARCH 95� i I — 1 www.eapc.net @]] Larson (1)4122 PVC REDUCER is • {�s F-t'r Engineering,Inc. DRAW BA81N-1 I i! - c -..---1:i 35241abore Road ! PoM�33.10 t - — �:-, ._.�.� C�.� White Bear lake,MN 55110 f 0' GC 8 © 651.481.9120 M 651.481.9201 \ I 4 01(rINE.4')=930.10 I! t'' -.'.-_ www.kvsonangrcom �(NW6�a5 -I,Gam_ ,STM @2014 Larson 60swewan➢.ew.All dams rearved hereby hatthis specifications;or `\ ° Irepadv dared by mmee orunder my direct n °] �`� ; I KEY PLAN EntnetIematidy ti—.fl _ g I NOT TO SCALE P eervnaere a leas ofthe smte a MtreasoS � Greg A. .P.E Z +\ X } ° I Date:020215 Reg.No, 23793 LEGEND ! cuENr + D I ° +, O STORM MANHOLE —CW— CABLE UNDERGROUND LINE r.� OE ELECTRIC OVERHEADLWE PARK NICOLLET O CATCH BASIN UE ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND LINE STRUTHERS T E JJ PARKINSON'S C�) Liu DECK u b ° V Q CURB INLET FO FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND LINE e ;� ! �>� ���!lIJJJ1 p FLARED END —0 G NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUNDUNE CENTER SANITARYSEWER PIPE r / O SANRARY MANHOLE STORM SEWER PIPE —T T— TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND LINE 4 '^ HYDRANT —1-1-1— WATERMAIN PIPE DR-931. S PRQIECTDESCRIPTION 1i RIM-931. •� .' ►4 GATE VALVE 8 BOX DRAIMILE PIPE W" -15 ® WATER SHUTOFF EXPANSION 8a 0 LICHT POLE RENOVATION I ` 1 2 SPA CES 8 PVC,13 LF a 1.15% UTILITY NOTES 1. a is the responsibility ofthe contractor to perform orcoordmate all necessary ubldy connections and relocations from eldsgng Why locations to the proposed building,as well as to a0 mists amenities. �., These connections include but are not limned to water,sanitary sewer,cable TV,telephone,gas, FIB electric,site fighting.etc. CITY GOLDEN VALLEY LD VERIFY OOSTNG ROOF COLLECTION PVC UNDERDRAIN PROVIDE NEW WATERTIGHT CONNECTION TO 14FILTRATION SYSTEM \I +�y CC 2 All service connections anal be performed in accordance with state and tical standard LJ specificat ons for construction.UbTdy connections(sanflary sewm sewer,wateain,and storm sewer) STATE MINNESOTA ti Pj015 may require a permit fromthe City. 3. The contractor shall verty the elevations at proposed connections to existing utilmes prior to any CLEANOUT-1 G)I CC demoblion or escavafion e PoM .93 ISSUE DATES P!V(N e SOUTH INFILTRATION AND STORAGE SYSTEM Ep927.75 4. The contractor shag nofify an appropriate engineering departments d utitty,companies 72 hours (2)-70 LF,38'HDPE PIPES INV(W�821.50 CC prior to construction AO necessary precautions shag be made to avoid damage to asisting unites. WV�21.50 Sloan sewer requires testing in accordance wth Minnesota plumbing code 4715.2820 where __ __________ bcated vddhhn 10 first ofm"nes orthe butd!ng. CLEANOUT-3 (6 I G HDPE storm sewer piping and titlings must meet materials Installationis Installationstandards per /f R W=930.40' I t1lr Minnesota plumbing code 4715.0420.50(4)and 4715.0540.0 including ASTM D3212 joint pressure -2 I INV(W,SE)=924.20(15'OUTLET) 1�` teat and ASTM C2321 installation practices.The City requires RCP pipe wthm the public right-M-ev. Ito mw)=w L__________ 7. Maintain a minimum of 7 W of cover ova all waterines end sanitarysewer Iiaa IncSll water $ —————,4———— A — J Ones 18'above saniary sewers,where the sanitary sewer crosses over the water fine,install sewer 1S PERF.HDPE WITH FABRIC WRAP,72 LF 1S SOLID HDPE,4 LF O.OD% C6 INV=92420 I piping of materiae equal to watermain standards for 9 Set on both sides and memalo 78'of aparatbn. 1:8-1 3 RN--M20 ° S Where 714 of cwer is not prwided over sanitary sewer and water lines,baSl2'rigid poystims alryco eIBIIS N0I)SIM J'3 INV.4.50 ® Insniafion(MWDOT3750)with a!vAde, resistance r pietist5 endncompressive esow i ofat ATE SPA CES `— —i CS SUMP-m so insulat o m Wh a depth Is�than 9,usse�i over a send cosh on between pipe and NARK I T M. 61 6�r 9. See Project Specifications;Sr bedding requirements. pRO�Eer M. 12146�1�4y4� 7� �t EX. DRY WELL °s1 ) v J DRAWN BY. PSM R1N1=931.4 CHECKED BY* GABIMR r✓f , INV.= ) , INV915.6 l r C5 / ®w...e..r r.w... (REM VERIFY MY WELL CONNECTIONS MID DEPTHS) ebJ�4 OrMv ��;Sw�1 wtl Mr ,IN.-Io H DRAWINGTI11LE UTILITY PLAN BASE BID NORTH C4.0 0 5 10 20 trr.T E A P C l �a TELE 70+.261s11e nit 701323.79e3 116 W Main Ave.Suits A.Sismi ck ND WWI RIAs=929.0 G = INV=918.0 < i o. ® `,�nFaft"1l) 1Fagc Nl 1Mm,*M amN MN I B-Alas i$c T e www.eapc.net j i COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE c ' Larson Engineering,Inc. 3524 Labore Road While Bear lake.MN 55110 651.481.9120 M 651.481.9201 �{...;.-e: _. �. wwwAarsonengccom NORTH ©2M4I—E.0-1ng,In.At dgha rtmrvM or rr�weeprepsed byH orund��xrm irr direct supervision and 1hatI—a Ay licensed GAS GAS \. KEY PLAN Prdesai—iErgh—underthel—.Rhos,ata T AS NOT NO. 1_GAS — — — — — — — — — — — — ti NOT TO SCALE erMmasota _ GA^ / rel �\ •`� GAS GAS GGAS MRERED END GregABu�ial P.E - 1- 7� m � �-- AS ---lips Z�As INv�z9 F �— LEGEND Dasa Dz6z,5 Rag No: 23783 1 ' ( GP GAS GAS GAS --\}� '� H ? W ���'✓ T® 'J CN CABLE UNDERGROUND LINE ENT Hl OE ELECTRIC OVERHEAD LINE PARK PROTECT EXISTING TREE. I FO FIBER OPTIELECTRIC UNDERGROUND UNDDERGROUND L 1E STRU HIERSLET - 938 HAND TRENCH AND PROTECT ROOTS. —GG— NATURAL GAS UNDRGROUNDLINE PARKINSON'S `J 111 ) 'u•� ¢ y —> >— SANRARYSEWERPWE 6•SIXMPVC.03 LF@0.71% } I » STORM SEWER PIPE CENTER ✓`-� �N) �"''a-+ is —T T— TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND LINE 1—I-1— WATF_RMAIN PIPE DRAINTILE PIPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8'PVC 45'ELBOW ) `2� I O STORM MANHOLE _ EXPANSION& t I NORTH INFILTRATION AND STORAGE SYSTEM I CATCH BASIN �/- .• (,)-16 tF,96'INVE90PE R f O RENOVATION RIM=932.4 °\ °1(�927.oD I �"�W p CURB INLET I S IN ��I�' B INV929.70 \ J ��I,. 1 O FLARED END lrsouDHDPE,3LF�D.aax I I 6"PRF.PVC WITH FABRIC WRAP.15 LF SANITARY MANHOLE v /(,`•' ( INV=829.70 a 0.00% I UE UE UE UE E UE ���� HYDRANT I VALVEx —TF 11�r GATE I( RELOCATE OOSTIF1Ca LIGHT POLE WATER SHUTOFF CITY GOLDEN VALLEY v ( — TE NG OPTIC INV--=A5 LIGHT 13` LIGHT POLE R S<Itge M,,a I STATE MINNESOTA _ I 15 PA RKING SPA CES 1 UTILITY NOTES ISSUE DATES 1. a is the responsibity ofthe conhactorto perbm or rxxnrdaste al necessary,filly 1 PAR lIU(li C I connections and relocations 6om edstbg utility locations b the proposed buadsg,as r �f � unci b as ell wells amandtiea amnedlar These s klcbde but are col katal towater, SPACE l�,P ' sanitary sewer,cable lY,tebphoa,gas.ebctrie,she lighting.etc U A u � 2 All Service corrections shall be pel7orceE in accordance with state and local standard specifications for construction.U611ty connections(sanaary sewer,watermain,and storm sewer)may require a permit from the City. `^ ¢ 'x# 3. Tha-.,,hall vet the elevations at connections eproposed connections to existing Wiia prior b any demolition oxcavation. I / s 4. The contractor shall noTify all appropriate engineering tlepamnents and utility companies 72 hours prim to construction.All necessary precautions shat be made to avoid damage to existing ubTses. CI,YCOI6FNiS 0216:1015 \ \\ I 5. Storm sewer requires testing In acoordance with Minnesota plumbing code 4715.2820 iwhere located within 10 feet of waterlines or the building. IMW 0890011ION DAZE CI r � ••\`� � S. HDPE stone sewer piping and fi6Mgs must meet materials and Installation standards 1 ! I t per Minnesota plumbing code 4715.0420.00(4)and 4715.050.0 including ASTM PROJECT NO. 12146144 1\ 0 ___��YAAA11 • -� D3212 joint pressure tat and ASTM C2321 Installation practices.The City requires • RCP pipe within the pubic rightoFway. DRAWN BY: PSM X' I 7. Maintain a minimum of 7 of corertiers and over all water ant sanitary sewer livres. CHECKED BY: GAB/ISR Instal war line 16'above atery nsewers,where the saniary sewer crosses over SPACE \ I i the water lie,instal soarer piping of materials equal to watemukn standards for 9 feet COPYRK*IT: on both Was and maintain 16'of separation rea. ase„a.c ossa.m°'�raa,.aPCea ro`a°`e.masa ti � �� G= \ • i — �i I & (a ay ttinene Inuit on(MWDOT 3780)wIth a themes resistancestt laat suns a gla strengthenbe psi. Kmc pstlover e /7-7wS'=pshnIanpidkulefim whaI saa9,use4' DRAWING TITLE r/ j// g. See Project Specifications for beddingrequirements.I��� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 v — — - - — J ) UTILITY PLAN ' i — ALTERNATE N0.1 NORTH C4.1 0 6 10 20 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2380. WEAR COURSE-SPWEA34DB WITH 30%MAXIMUM RAP trr.TE A P C BASE COURSE-SPNWB330B WITH NO RESTRICTIONS MITERED DRAIN GRATE HARD SURFACE/ FOR INFORMATION SEE WEB SITE NEW 3'BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PUBLIC ROAD S( AT W W W.MITER-111 N.COM PLACED IN 2 LIFTS (707)820-0808 ®® 4f I TRE 701256.3116 w 701.223.7963 8'BASE AGGREGATE 1,,etm`" PIPE FLOW 118 W MWn Aw,SuBeA BWrwck NO 58501 •MATERIALS SHALL BE CRUSHED 1.2 WASHED ROCK LIMESTONE CONFORMING TO THE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ..eara!Mtla ,@WM) ay &W REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2211 , 8 M W COUPLING/MUM wuwen xo I M ok1No I Uo Vf FOR A CLASS 5 GRADATION a_w N ei,,°,,,,,,,,� ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE www.eapcnet APPROVED SUBGRADE SOIL / 5 / NOTTOSCALE MITERED END GRATE DETAIL BITUMINOUS 4�°� o Larson CONSTRUCTION DETAIL oNOTrO oma` NOTTOSCALE Engineering,Inc. 3524 Labors Road NOTTOSCALE p 0 White Bear Lake,MN 55110 FRy 'y� 651.481.9120 M 651.481.9201 WWW' W W. H1 Iamonengr.CO ©2714I—Ergir-ins,h.AN d*ft--& Ih_woer8Qrlyd#.P" epedfimbons or ..qq� duly Scarmel ( rep.terae prepared by—..d.my tired undaft leas of E `, K elate Pr Mknecoffi T 7 r?O 3 Z'SO.C.°TH BAR D EACH WAY Grey 11 ,P.E •CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHALL COMPLY 1MTH DoW.020215 R.U.No.: 23793 THE REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2301 MIX DESIGN:3Y32 OR 3Y22 FOR MECHANICALLY �91r •EROSION CONTROL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 1A PLACED CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS OF MNDCT 2573. CLIENT NEW 4'PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETEw WIREMESH REINFORCEMENT PARK NICOLLET ACCESSIBLE RAMP DETAIL (OPTS) STRUTHERS ` " 4 (PER ADA STANDARDS) �'"GF"SR'C (� PARKINSON'S 4.1 Nor7oscALE CENTER S'BASE AGGREGATE METAL,WOOD POST,OR STAKE. { {—I {- —{ I 3 ! •MATERIALS SHALL BE CRUSHED g MAX SPACING,2'INTO GROUND. _ LIMESTONE CONFORMING TO THE FABRICANCHORAGE 1 REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2211 TRENCH.BACKFILL WITH PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A CLASS 5 GRADATION. TAMPED NATURAL SOIL i II�IIi�t 11-1J!���l I EXPANSION& I I-111 1 . i-11 11�1-11 li 1 1 , N t— PROVIDE 3 CLIPS TO FASTEN TRASH GUARD 70 RES. RENOVATION O RVNO— 11—I r HOT DIP GALVANIZE AFTER FABRICATION. APPROVED SUBGRADE SOIL ill-1=1 IIHI SII FLARED END CONCRETE a ity II ISI— 1� 1= NATURAL SECTION DETAIL SOIL I r1 I I�11�I 9 2 CONSTRUCTION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CITY GOLDEN VALLEY NOTE CONFIGURATION,UPON CONFIGURAT ,ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MESH WITH HOG RINGS,STEEL POSTS WIT)(WIRES,OR WOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES. STATEMINNESOTA SILT FENCE B INSTALLATION DETAIL RIP RAP SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DIMS NOT TO SCALE REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2511. ISSUE y 51)(10'MW.) •CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SHALL COMPLY 4 WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2531. 1 EVEN FILTER • RIC EROSION CONTROL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE A A N O OOOOO 8' t8' NOTE TP GUTTER REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2573. ��``�� SEE LANDSCAPE PLANOUTWARD AS APPLICABLE FOR RESTORATION S' SEE GRADING PLAN FILTER AREA 6.5 Fla L SLOPE NEW BITUMINOUS OVERFLOW AREA 0.6 Fri s/,-PER Fr. PAVEMENT MAXIMUM OVERFLOW RATE( 7•HEAD) 8A0 CFS �— MAXIMUM OVERFLOW RATE( I3•HEAD) 4A0 CFS O O CRYCOW6(iS OMOr101S •a BASKET WEIGHT(EbiPIY) BASKET WEIGHT(FULL-At7ROXJ 70 L115 O O O •�a _ 0_ OO O 19118( OESCItA1X1N M7E 12 MN/DOT CLASS 10 PROJECT NO. 12146144 —I NEW BASE AGGREGATE _ 4 RI'- • MATERIALS SHALL BE CRUSHED 4 DRAWN BY: PSM RAP €o LIMESTONE CONFORMINGTOTHE 11-1 L I I I I I�t I—I—III I I CHECK BY: GAEM REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT 2211 a__—_J PLAN FOR A CLASS 5 GRADATION. COPYRIDHT: I—I _I i a'r s.eamr,as ra ra,e.wor soeeos pe000 MNA)OT CLASS IRI ••ease• oese eooeo, e0000 RIP-RAP e.c awrl.e wA nwa,°�KWb APPROVED SUBGRADE SOIL ooeeeoo 0000a eaeoe eooe• omae..n eaeoo ooeo seooe eaeeo oeeeo eeee seoe eeaee .v u;�.�^ B618 CONCRETE - DRAWIN�� sOEwEw g CURB&GUTTER DETAIL FRONT WEW �REUSEABLE 7 SD(19MWJ r WOVEN FlLTER NOT TO SCALE 400 MICRON FABRIC FILTER BAG/" EACH BASKET SECTION A-A DETAILS NOTE INFRASAFE INLET 5DOX MIRAFl FABRIC OR EQUAL PROTECTION DEVICE (OR EQUAL) RIP-RAP AT OUTLETS NOTTOSCALE to NOTTOSCALE C5 NEW BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT APPROVED . . . trr.T E A P C AGGREGATE BASE � 11-11-11x11=1111, 117- MANHOLE STEPS SHALL if,=,1 TIP:]I I I E -i =1 1��El i I APPROVED 5 PLACED SO THAT I Hi 1 1=-91 M i FEI -111z:11! - i BACKFILL OFFSET HOLE IN TOP PEPTH sEE VARIES, SLAB IS FACING 8 SEPARATION- IST-1 IEl I I-Ed 111 EI I E I:.� F I F��l I I Iax 701253.31116 FAx 701223.7993 DOWNSTREAM FABRIC MIN 17I MLI 116 W Mein AV06 Buss A.Bbnmmk No 5=1 Q.Wftim ftpm -.*No PLAN Is GRADE I'SELOW 10•TRANSITION. vall"Ilko I~m I N..IhVr Ill-Ab.Ntfi o'o'. gogogog-gogogogogoo.0000 0 0 . . . . . 0000000 o'oo. 'ogo.' I 0000oo 0 0 0. 0 g090,0 0 0 000 000 0000 00000 00 00000000 00000 000 00000 00000000000* .0 000 000000000000000 Goo 0 0 0 0000000000 00 00000 0 00 00 0 0 -go Go '-o-o -2501 www.eapcn Go o 000 .0 0000000000000 0 0 0 000 0;000.00000 gggggggggggogggg 0 o 00000 0 0 0 000 0000000000 000000000 0 0 o 00000 000 go* CLEANOUT.NEENAH R PE C GRATE kLt . .0.000O....Ooo. 0.0 �g�om*20o2g2g�og�g� 0000000000 Goo 0 0 0000000 00 'ogo' . .0 ...:292,0 '-'-*O'oo 000 0 0 0 0 0000gogo.0go. 0 000000goo 0 o . Go oog , 00 0000000000g WITH LOCKING BOLT Go 0000000. ogogogogoo ggg000 000.0goo ggogggogo.�o-.o-.0�o�o�ogo�o�o:og00000,00000:,.go,:.,O.,.0.6gogo.uouou .,.,90gouoo�oo�.000uo.uogoo�og0ouGuoouoogoo�cO�ogogo�.0voogoovowG 0- 0000gog000 0 0 0 0 . g g g - 24* gogogog0000g0000.00gogogogogogo.00goo 0.0 00000000:�000;og�og,.:ggg-000gggo.gg-gog0000g0000g0000g000000000gog0000gogo MINIMUM OFZ MAXIMUM OF 5 00.00.00* 0000 oC%:g900%o '-000. 0.90: 0 0 00000000 lo0.00.00 'gogogg:ggggggggg 00 909-gog-909 CONCRETE ADJUSTMENT RINGS WITH FULL Larson 000.00.0000000000000g00 0 00 -'Ogggggg%o� . o Goo 9-90,00'.0.00000000 'ogogogo00og.g.0-.g-0goo9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 092ggggg-00.0. BED OF MORTAR BETWEEN EACH AND Goo 30oogoo.0000.000.00.0000 09090909 000000000oo 0 0 0 0 .09:9-t-ONNg IS'SOLID HOPE :-9-g-9-9 . o o IC= 0000,.O..O.-O.O.,O.-*.-.,.Oogo.o.-O..00.00,.-000-. 0 0 0 o 000000 Engineering,Inc. �0�000000000 00000000 00 0 A4"COLLAR ON THE OUTSIDE NO SHIMS LM Goo - 0 0 0 00g0000000 0 0 0 0 0 00 (IN 000 :-2090.'-:-o-o-.- �0�0 G00000000gogogo 000gggg:gggggggggg00000000000000000000..�o;ogogogogo Goo 0 000000000000000coo -ET) oogogogogo:o:ogogogogo 0 0 0 2 000000000000000 OF ANY MATERIAL ALLOWED. 3524 Labors Road 00000000:o:ogogogo: 0 oc000000000g0000. 00 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 000000000000000 INV--924.60 '-'0'0*u.9 u. u 0 0 UPRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB. While SearLake,MN 66110 '060 651AS1.912D 0)651.481.9201 logogo�ogogo�ogo 00 -o;o;o;o ;o;o 0000 0 000 0 0000 '0g0090O.-.0000-0 ' 000.00 00000 .0.0 SEAL WITH 2 BEADS OF RAM-NEK www.Wmnengr.com 0-0, 0 aoa,2,- �o 00000000 'o'o'o o 00 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 20-0-0- - - - 00000000 ON G o o o o o o 0 '0 0 0 11 0 9goo . Go 0 0 0 0 000 'ogogogoo 0 G goo -- 4- o-000- Mog o o 00 o ------- 0___ Go 00000 §���0000000002o?o?o �oo- �74 2 Goo 0 . . . oyoyoyoyoyoyo?o? 202 .0. o_oS.2 Go o;;o;;o;;C1B*'i;o&000 Go 00, . 0 75•°opo 0000000 0 0 0 o 0 00 000 0000000000000 _ '0. 0 0 0 Goo 00 00 popopopop 0 000000000 000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 00 G0000 00 00 000 0 0 0000 00 0000 0 0°0°0°0°0°o a ALL JOINTS IN MANHOLETO HAVE Go GO0000000 000000000 0 INRUBBERrl**d 0000000 0 00 . �o � 000G o 000000000000000 . 000 0000go Go 0 oaa pmpamd by= -d- rear o 0000000 00 0 0 0 0 00000 o0oo 0000 0000 0 o,ogo gogogog g-g-.0 o 09090, 00 0 0000900 '00'o 0 0090. 9-'.-9-*o* 000000 000 - COARSE FILTER MANHOLE STEPS.COPOLYMER POLYPROPYLENE 0 ogo o o ogogogo go, '0'0'0'000 '0'0'0'010go AGGREGATE S'MN. PLASTIC,WITH 19-GRADE 60 STEEL 00000 Moo 0 '090, o'oo' (3-TO 1j*CRUSHED) ftdli�Wcnal Enginm-ft the Ill-of to StWo I ol z o 00,00'.09090., -9090�09090g ogo.0000000.0 000000000 o.l0000000lo Go o :o0.0.000 ogogo�000.0000000000:0000go�ogo�o REINFORCEMENT OR EQUAL,Is-D.C. o 000 o c 000000000 o Go Go c 9-Z-gg.g.:og9-o9-o.g Goo 00000 of MhlasutL 000000Doo G o Go o'gogog o�ogogogogo�Gg '.o'.o�o�o.'oo'o�o�l.00lol.o�.go�oloo oc000000gogo Goo o o o 00000 Goo o VARL42LE M, ooloo o o oogo�'. 36-PERFORATED PE PIPE(2) ologogo,.ogo.lo.louoo.mo.�owoo�ogoo�og0000°.w.uo°ogog ogo.log.gogol PRECAST CONCRETE SECTION Gg A BL.FK P.E. o Go :5 G�o2o2o2o52 o2 G ogou000�ogogowoogogogog00000.og0000 ogog000gogo.oG gggogoggg-o o Date:02.0216 Reg.No.: 23793 ;o;o;o;-;-;o.;oo;�-;�oo.uogogou. goQoQo'ououooGoGoGQ0000000uo u u u u u v o o Goo ooD000000000000000000000000 G 0000000000000 0000000000000.0000,.o.ogog,.:,.:.,g,.. Go o o o goo, WATERTIGHT CONNECTION Goo 00000 og000000000000000 G G00000000.o. (BOOT.TYPICAL) 0000 o.o.ogogogogogogo�oogo. oggggg-'ggg CIJEff ogggo'.g.'ggggg�g g6g00000000000000000,000000000.o. Go 00000000000000000 o'o 000�o 000000000000000000 00000000.o.u. 000.000 o-gogogogo NON-WOVEN SOL SEPARATION 016�6 2o 0000000go, o 0000 Go o.-..go,.og-o 0 o gogo.-.o G'.00'go'gggg000. 00000 �o. . . FABRIC(WRAP COARSE FILTER I o o o o o 0 o;o,000000. - , 0000 G0000lo1c ogogogogo�o;o;o;o6ozG6o o o o o 00000 o o . . . 0000g'. AGGREGATE,MIRAF]17ON OR PARK NICOLLET Go o o 0000000 o c 0 og 9 9 o'o.' '. *O0000;o. ;o o; o o o '.69og-., 0000 Go �o�.ogl :-.ggg-.g-.g-.ggo'goo-. o 0000go o ogo o.logoo.0000000.o gogogo G o G o�o% ooc,c o APPROVED EQUAL) STRUTHERS 0000.00 Goo o o ;o D 'og' o G o 0000g.o Go - u'.00�o�o�o8g 'ogo'0o'.ogog. •PRECAST HOLESICATCH BASINS oloo o w.og0000 log� G o Go o 0'.o. 0 o . o o o 0000. o SHALL CONFORM TO THE PARKINSON'S ..00 o. 9 9 gogog 0000 o Goo o goo o'.00l000 ogogoo go .1 0 o --921.50 EPA D uogo o 000 Go o o o goo INV I "o o o.00 0000000 o -oog o.oG o go o ogo . go. o Goo ogogogogog000. D Goo o Go ogogog.g�g o 000g 9'9'o-go.'o9ogo9. o oogo'.og. o o o o 0;0;o;o;ooyo-ooo. REQUIR ENTSOrMNDOT2506. CENTER Goo 0 o go o o o 000 o000000000 o I Goo gogogo o 000 o o o 00 o000000 o o 00000 o u 0 .1 w0000 o Goo o oog000 Goo, o o'o ogogoo..0'.0 o 0000 Go Go o.. 0 Go o 'o o '.o. 0 '.ogogoogo�,ogoog000000000 o o o o o 0 o 00 o o o AG o o o o 0 0 0 o o -o o D o Go o oacoo ..0000 Go.00 o G o o o o 0000 'o9o' o gogogo�o�o go o o 0. 0 oog.g..000000000.&g6go .10 0000�ogoggo ogoo o o o 'Goo Go. Go o Go o gog000 o Goo o G o o 10. . o 00 0. SOT.OFAGG�-921.00 ml- o2oo� �'�o'0000 Go o 000000 o.o.o 'G o'� �o ogogo� og. oogoo o o5go o 9 2 goioo o Go. 000,-.o o i-N 1 i= 1 910 1 I=;l I 1=I I I= 1--:i I��I1-1 ii I I .I!=�I - -�T5 - !I r,EILV4MI -11-1 w lE I� 1LE=TEjI1=-1lI=- I LEIIIE-111EIII 11-910TIr--�11E.E.1 B FEW! I HER 11 1 1 IE91 11 11 PMECTEIESORPMN Ii -ulk =�-]wiff I E�1 1 1 r---A 16 1 ta I rn .12m mill-A21 I al �1 I F-=1 F.Eil I 3'MINUS WASHED STONE BEDDING NOTE CAP ALL STORAGE PIPE ENDS -�-EllIN EER TO VERIFY THAT EXJSTWG IN-SITU CLEAN EXPANSION&SECTION A-A SAND(APPROVED HSG A)IS EXPOSED AT THE BASE Or RENOVATION THE INFILTRATION TRENCH PRIOR TO BACIKFILUNG. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION CATCH BASIN CLEANOUT SOUTH SYSTEM DETAIL MANHOLE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CRY GOLDEN VALLEY NEWCONCRIETE STATE MINNESOTA PAVEMENT ISSUE BATES APPROVED AGGREGATE BASE 17 DOME(BEEHIVE)GRATE BY NYLOPLAST OR EQUAL APPROVED HE�wffl I 1!=-�!l I IE wi !C-11 I i=91 11% -91 OVE APPROVED SOIL SEPARAT SACKFILL ION r_-I 1 1=1 i 1-i (DEPTH VARIES, Fir I I Ell I F1 r I=I I SEE GRADING PLAN) I I 1=1 I F=E1 FABRIC MIN 17 '11 NMI Jill 111111 Ill. I "'I", i i �=All n-I T Mi " IN r--I 1 1=4 11 1 gr=101-14-1A 0'.-o-o'.-o'ogo"' -ogogogo ogogogogogogo�ogo ogo;ogo�5o;G o o 00000 o'o Goo Go 000000000000c0000000000 0000000000 o; 00000000 00000 'Goo 'ogog-g- 000000 00000 opopo.? G o o Go go. -g000000 0000000000 Go o o 0 oo�0000 00000000 G 00000 00000000 000000g000 00000 oogo�oogogogo ogogo 000000000H o. o PVC 12"DRAIN BASIN BY og00000. Go. '0g0gGg0 A---0000go Ggogogo oog.g �-2g.gogggoggg:^o o o Goo Go NYLOPLAST OR APPROVED G000.00000.o 24' 5 00000000 000000000. gogogogoloogogog000.o.ogo I EQUAL o O.Goo.00 G00000000000gogoololoo�lol.c�oggogo 000 o o o Go o 000gog0000000000 c000000000000 G o CITYCOMMENTS o o o o 0000000000000000 0000000. 0 G Go g000gogogogogoo.00go-o-o' 00000 c000000000000 o o o o.o.000 Go o -.1 Go 00000000. o o o . . o o o o o o . 000000gogogogogo o�o (INLET) 0000000 go ogo 0000 0000000 o o VARK DESCRJPTIDN 7. Goo 00000g-9-9-9-gog-g-g I 0 Goo Goo 0000000 Go w Go g:0000000.000000000000000gogo:o.000.ogoo.00000 popop opopo 00000g Go 000.o... o� o o.o o 00000*000000000.o.o.000.o. o o o o INV=M.45 > 'o6o;o6o&o'o.o 000000 0000000000 oogo 0 . 0 o PROJECT ND: 12146144 00000 00000000 Goo c00000000000 000co 0000000000 :-9o.o-9-9o.'-.00 S'PERF.PVC- ogg00000000000000 o o o 000000000 L-- Go 0000000000000 Go -o;o;o 0 O000OoGoo O000000 o 0000000000 ;G; 0000000000ggog0000000. go Goo o DRAWN Or pm WITH FABRIC WRAP o o oog-g0000g-g-gog 0 o 0 2� 000000000000000 o o o o o 0000:ogoz0000gogo:G COARSE FILTER 5 o o o Goo o Goo o INV=929.70 000000000000000 o.00000. I '.'o- o o o oo'o AGGREGATE go o o o G000000 00000000 � '.'o'.. o Goo o goo,00000000000 o . 0000000coo 3r PERFORATED PE PIPE CHECKED Br GABM o o o o o 0 9*0"gog'."�'gog o o o o o o G go 00000 (INLET) Qogogogoo o 00000000000000 o Go o o 0 00000 0000000.00000go,.o.00.�0000goouo o;o;o;o (r TO It CRUSHED) ODPYPJGHT- GO Goo o Go. o�00000000000000000 000 0000000000000000.0000 gogo'o'o1o1o'o'o1 0000000000 0000000000 o1ol.o I INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS Go-go goo oo.00000v0000.,000000G00000000000voo�. G�ogogogo�o 9�o��'o 0000000000000000000000000000 0000g000000000 Goo NON-WOVEN SOIL RJECCOMMENDATioN. o �ococ000000000 o 000c000000000000 o o o o M.. 0000000000000 o o DRAIN BASIN go 000000000 o o�c000000000.00000000000000 O.Go..00000000.-... SEPARATION FABRIC 00 o Q . . o o 0000 000000000000 o o o o 0 0 Go 000000000. '000000000000000- WRAP COARSE FILTER Go Go 00000.00u o o . o o o G000 OOOGOO ogog-gogo o o 0 . Goo o Go. 000000 AGGREGATE,MIRAFI 17ON DETAIL G0000 00000000 o 0 o Goo 0 Go o 00000 g.0--'-o'o'o�. /-4'\ 0000000 00000 o 0 0 0 '.0 0 0 0 0 000go Go 0 000000 0 0 0 'ogogogo ORAPPROVIED EQUAL) DRAWING 0 0 000 000000 G o 0 000000 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 000000000o 0 0 . .0 . 0 0 0000000 0 0 NOT TO SCALE 0 0 0 o o o 0 0101 0000000 000 00..00 o 0 0 0000 000 00000o 01, 000 0000 OG go 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo'o 0 0 060 oGG00o 0 0 0 0000 00 0�0�0'0, 0 0 0 'O�o 0 00 0.0000000000 0 0 2g2 G ogo ogogo 0 o g 0, 000 0 Goo 0 00000 o 0 0 INV--M7,DD 000 0 00000000 �oo o o 0 0 0 o 0 Go. 000oo 'o' 0000 0 0 000 ogogogog Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 . -g- 000 ;00000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Goo 000 0 00 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 00000000 00 'o 000 g goo 0'0 0'0 0 0 0 0000 000 0 00000 (0000 0 0 00000 0 -0 0 000,00 0 00 0000 0 0 0 0 000 0 010 ' '090 0 00000 0000 00 0 0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000 0 Goo 0 0 00 .0. 0 c00000..0 10 STORMWATER 00 0000 G 0� �0�0 0 0 0 0�0 0 0 0.0 0 00 OF AGG.=926.50 �0' 0, n 0 o(O.0 �0'0 055 0 0 0 0020 0 0 0 .0.00.00 BOT. DETAILS �oao�o 0� 0 0 0 202 XGG. 0 oo� Go 00 " 1 1 hi- 11 IriM, I 1;A11 L--I I=;I I 1;=!I"�I 1=1 I 1;=J I 1=zi I I w"I I F 11=1191N= NI --11=11 IIHIE 11 rIE 1=11 I I I lEi I �i 11 a I-I niRi EI I IE1 I M.1 1 r-1 I I= 'll .. :;7- = ' 'ITH-T"- NOTF-,CAP ALL STORAGE PIPE ENDS ENGINEER TO VERIFY THAT EXISTING IN-SITU CLEAN SECTION B-B SAND(APPROVED HSG A)IS EXPOSED AT THE BASE OF THE INFILTRATION LU TRATION TRENCH PRIOR TO BACKFINGL UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION C6 Kir)PTW /Al T 1N-QV-4ZT9=fkA nPTAII PAVEMENT STRIPING -In addition to the requirements of MnDOT 2582,the following shall apply: PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL E.Do not remove wet subsoil,unless R is subsequently processed to obtain optimum moisture content PAINT A.The pipe bedding shall consist of clean pit-run sand or fine gravel,free from deleterious matter and rocks over 1 Inch in diameter. F. When excavations extend below fooling and slab bearing elevations,oversize the excavation horizontally 1 foot for every foot of AIR EAP C excavation depth below the indicated bearing elevation. A.Pavement striping paint shag be a last set lead free chlorinated polyolefin(Diamond Voegeo,acrylic(Sherwin Williams)or EARTHWORK -In addition to the requirements of MnDOT specification sections 2105,2111,and 2112•the following shall appy: G.When excavating through roots,perform work by hand and cut roots with sharp axe. approved equal marking paint that meets or exceeds all current Local.State and Federal codes and guidelines. ® ® indicated EXECUTION H.Benching Slopes:Horizontally bench existing slopes greater than 1:410 key fig fu material to slope for n bearing. B.The pavement colors shall be yellow for marking curbs,and white for parking stalls,handicap insignia unless differently on the plans•and for all no parking access aisle areas. PREPARATION I. Stability:Replace damaged ordispleced subsoil to same requirements as for specified fill. C.The pavement striping paint shag meet the following physical property requirements: FINISH GRADING TELE 701258.3116 ax 701.223.7963 A.Protect stnpctures, utilities, sidewalks, pavements, and other facilities from damage caused by settlement, lateral movement. Chlorinated undermining,washout,and other hazards created by earthwork operations. 116 w MelnAve,SwbA B4nrardk NO SIMM A.Verify subgrade has been eadouretl and compacted. Type Polyolefin Acrylic Finish: Ret Flet B.Prepare subgrade for eamhwork operations,including removal of vegetation,topsoil,debris,obstructions,and deleterious materials. from ground surface. B.Remove renis,roots,branches,stones,n excess of 12 iridin in size.Remove soil contarntnaled with petroleum products. axil Feriaro I r ata® I amw rxs Solvent MEDMeptane loloenelzylene/acetone eliaw ea�"w,oeeiaruta rx.wrxvr Solids by weight 69%,min. 70%,min C.Where topsoil is to be placed,scarify surface to depth of 3 inches. Solids by volume 46%,min. 51%,min- Dry C.Protect and maintain erosion and sedimentation contorts. _ Dry film thickness per coal 7 mils,min 7 mlis,min D.In areas where vehkies or equipment have compacted soli•scarify surface to depth of 3 inches. www.eapcnet Wet film thickness per coat 16 mita,min 15 mils,min D.Provide protective insulatug materials to protect subgrades and foundation soils against freezing Temperatures or frost Dry times at 70'FASTM D711 10 minutes 10 minutes E.Place topsoil In areas where seeding and sodding are Indicated. VOC.ASTM D3960 450 gm max 430 g/I max. DEWATERING Coverage-standard V One 300 ft/gal. 320 ft/gal. F.Place topsoil where required to level finish grade. Larson A.Prevent surface water and ground water from entering excavations,from ponding on prepared subgrades,and from flooding project site D.Unless indicated differenty on the plans,the pavement stripes shag be 4'wide and all traffic markings will be the size and and surrounding area. G.Place topsoil to the following compacted thicknesses: Engineering,Inc. shape ofthe standards used within the Slate of Minnesota for traffic markings. 1.Areas where seed Is installed:4 inches. 3524 Labors Road B.Protect subgrades from softening,undermining.washout,and damage by rain orwater accumulation. Lake,MN 55110 E.Handicap parking stalk and access aisles shall be a riinknum of V wide. 1. Reroute surface water runoff away from excavated areas.Do not allow water to accumulate in excavations.Do not use excavated L Areas where sod k Installed:4 inches. While Bear m trenches as temporary drainage ditches. www.krsonengr.com 851,81.9201 F. AN striping shall receive two coats of paint. 2.Install dewatering system as required to keep subgrades dry and convey ground water away from excavations.Maintain until H.Place topsoil during dry weather. von Engin sonengr.com 11. dewatering Is no longer required.Refer to Project geotechnical report and addenda for Information related to ground water ©2or4takaakG atthis laice.Atricaionor elevations. I. Fine grade topsoil to eilminale uneven areas and low spots.Maintain profiles and contour ofsubgrade. 5 report s prepeattidl calms under inonsec TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL.In addition to the requirements of MnDOT 2573,the following shag appy: 3.Dewatering systems to include measures to prevent sediment transport in accordance with MPCA regulations. rept was p epaed M nae a under rr9 deed J.Lightly compact placed topsoil. supervision and tial I ereun a drily licensed Professional Engineer rexder tlxe lawaofthe stele STORAGE OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS of Mrmeseta. 321,EROSION CONTROL FABRIC TOLERANCES ( _ n A� A.North American Green DS750. A.Stodpduntil required satisfactory excavated materials urequired for backfill or Ill. Place,grade and shape stockpiles for proper drainage. p General:Unifomdy grade areas within Rants of grading under this section,huD iuding adjacent transition areas. Smooth finished .u.J� Material Data Requirements: Provide erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with MPCA guidelines. ate w 2'x,15•P.E.P Top net Lightweight accelerated photodegradable polypropylene,1.64 IbsJ 1.000 square feet surface within specified tolerances,compact with with uniformlevel or slopes between points where elevations are iodinated,or, between Dais 020215 Reg.N1.: 23793 Bottom net Lightweight pholodegradable polypropylene.1.64 lbsJ 1,000 square feet B.Locate and retain soil materials away from edge of excavations.Do not store within drip One of trees indicated to remain. Such points and existing grades. Matrix: 100%Straw at OS IbsJ square yard CDispose materials as herein specified. B.Grading Outside Building Lines:Grade areas adjacent to bidding fines to drain away from structures and to prevent pondng. Finish CUENT . spose of excess soil material and w Thread: Degradable surfaces free from Irregular surface changes and as follows: BACKFILLING 1. Lawn or Unpaved Areas:Finish areas to receive topsoil to within not more than 0.10-foot above or beim required subgrade PARK NICOLLET B.Approved equal elevations. C.The Installation of line erosion control fabric shag be in strict compliance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. A.General:Place sod material in layers to required subgra le elevations and refer to Geotednical Report for acceptable bac kkMI materials. 2.Walks:Shape surface of areas under walks to fine•grade,and cross-section,with finish surface not more than 0.10-fool above STRUTHERS or below required subgrade elevation. PARKINSON'S PLACEMENTAND COMPACTION 3. Pavements:Shape surface or areas under pavement to One,grade,and cross-section,with finish surface not more than CENTER D.Prepare the soil before Installing the blankets,Including the application of fertilizer and seed. 0.5-inch above or below required subgrade elevation.Subgrade shag be graded to drain to dra'vrtge locations. E. Staple the fabric onto the slopes as recommended by the manufacturer. A.Ground Surface Preparation: Remove vegetation,debris,unsatisfactory sod materials,obstructions,and deleterious materials from C.Compaction:After grading,compact subgrade surfaces to the depth and inducted ground surface prior to placement of folk. each area classification. percentage of maximum or relative densly for F.Installation techniques shag be in accordance with the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Handbook and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Best Management Practices. B.Inspection: Prior to placement of fit,excavations shag be inspected by the Geotechnical Testing Agency to verify that all unsufable FIELDQUALITY CONTROL materials have been properly removed. where granular soils are present at the bottom of the excavation•the native soils within 18 EXPANSION&STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM -In addition to the requirements of MnDOT 2503 for storm sewers,the following shag appy: DBof the exposed grade shag be compacted with a large vibratory roger to not less than 98%stardard proctor density(ASTM RENOVATION A.Quality assurance testing k the fPSponsbiTily of the Contractor. The Contractor shag employ the services of an Independent1. When existing ground surface has a densly less than that specified under'Compaction'for particular area classification,break up Geotechnical Testing Ager to provide the final test Information. The Contractor may use their own personnel to provide tests of ground surface,pulverize,moisture-condition to optimum moisture contenL and compact to required depth and percentage of the materials during the placement and compaction operations;however,an independent testing firm must take the final tests.The STORM SEWER PIPE maxdmum density. testing firth shag test the materials as construction work is perfonrmned. A.AII pipe shall be new and unused. C.Place backfill and fill materials in layers not more than 12 inches in loose depth for material compacted by heavy compaction B.Allow testing agency to inspect and test subgrades and each fill or backfill layer.Proceed with subsequent earthwork only after test B.Polyvinyl chloride(PVC)Pipe,ASTM D2241 Schedule 40 or Schedule 80. equipment,and not more than 6 Inches len loose depth for material compacted by hand-operated tampers. results for previously completed Work comply with requirements. C.High density polyethylene(HDPE)pipe;AASHTO M294,AASHTO MP7. D.Before compaction,moisten or aerate each layer as necessary to provide optimum moisture content Compact each layer to required C.Testing agency will test compaction of sols in place per ASTM D1556,ASTM D2167,ASTM D292Z and ASTM D2937,as percentage of maximum dry densly or relative dry densly for each area classification.Do not place backfill or flit material on surfaces applicable.Perform tests at the following kxcations and frequencies: CfiY GOLDEN VALLEY PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS that are muddy,frozen,or contain frost or ice. Descripfitin Minimum% Minimum Testr.Unl ArealLiR STATE MINNESOTA A.Precast concrete manhole risers,base sections,and tops:ASTM C478. E.Place backfill and M materials evenly adjacent to structures,piping,or conduit to required elevations.Prevent wedging action of backdAl Standard Proctor against structures or displacement of piping or conduit by carrying material uniformly around structure, piping,or conduit to B.Boot connections ASTM 0923. 9 approximately same elevation in each fat. FN under paved and concrete areas 100%(top 3) 1/250 sq.yds. flow 3) ISSUE DATES C.Reinforced Plastic Steps MnDOT STD Plate 418DI. F.Control sod and fill compaction,providing minimum percentage of density specified for each area classification indicated beim. 0 sod Class 5 material under slabs/pavement 100%(top 3) 1/100 sq.yds. densly tests indicate inadequate compaction correct substandard areas or Offs as directed by Geotechnical Testing Agency. 95%(below 3) PVC DRAINAGE STRUCTURES G.Percentage of Maximum Density Requirements: Compact soil to not less than the folowing percentages of maximum density,in Below foundations 97% 1/250 sq.yds. accordance with ASTM D098: Natural subgrade 90% 11250 sq.yds. A.PVC drain basins and the pipe connection stubs as shown on the drawings shall be manufactured from PVC pipe 1. Under structures,slabs,and steps,compact top 12 inches of subgrade and each layer of baddOl or fig material at 100 percent Landscape fig areas 90% 1/250 sq.yds. stock utilizing a thermo-molding process meeting the mechanical property requirements for fabricated fittings per maximum density in the upper 3 feet and 95 percent maximum density below 3 feet ASTM D3034 and ASTM F1336.The jolattightness at the pipe system connections shag conform to ASTM 3232. L Under lawn or unpaved areas,compact fop 6 Inches of subgrade and each layer of backfill or fig material at 90 percent mmsdmum D.Freltl Densly Test Report shall Beady identify the following information for each test density. 1.Horizontal and vertical location of test B.Grates shall be Nybplest 12°Dome(Beehive)or approved equal. 3.Under pavements and sidewalks,compact top 6 inches of subgrade and each layer of baddi0 or fill material at 100 percent L Material type being tested maximdensity n the upper 3 feet and 95 percent maximum density below 3 feet 3.Proctor test method. G Install per manufacturer's recommendation. 4. m Below foundations•compact top 12 inches of subgrade and each layer of backfill or fill material at 97 percent maximum densly. 0.Maximum proctor density. GASKETS H.Moisture Contmt Where subgrade or layer of soil material must be moisture conditioned before compaction,uniformly appy water to S.SpecdW densly. ' ,.Gaskets and pipe ends for rubbergasketjoints:ASTM 0443. surface of subgrade or layer of sol material.Appy water n minimum quantity as necessary to prevent free water from appearing on 6.Optimum moisture density. OIYDOIa66S 05099015 surface during or subsequent to compaction operations.(This material Is not acceptable for briding fi19. 7.Field test method. B.Elastomeric seats(gaskets)for joining plastic pipe:ASTM D3212. 1. Remove and replace,or scarify and air dry,soil material that Is too wet to permit compaction to specified density. S.Actual moisture content DESCRIPTION DATE L Stockpile or spread sod material that has been removed because it Is too wet to pemhl compaction.Assist drying by scariying, 9• Actual dry densly. harrowing,or pulvedAV until moisture content k reduced to a satisfactory value. 10.Passffad indication. C Rubber gaskets forjoints between manhole sections.ASTM 0443. ROUGH GRADING E.When the Geotechnicel Testing Agency reports that subgrades,fill,or betdkfiils have not achieved degree specified,compactiospecified,d, PROJECT NO: 12146144_ D.Gaskets for PVC sewerfttings ASTM F1336. scarify and moisten or aerate,or remove and replace sol to depth required;necompact and retest until specified compaction Is obtained. DRAWN BY; PSM A.Remove topsoil from areas to be further excavated,re-landscaped•or re-graded,without mbdng with foreign materials. Consult Geotechnical Testing Agency for additional or supplemental recommendations. E.Rubber gaskets for structure to pipe connections:ASTM 0923. 1. Where new sod,seed•or other vegetative matter are shown within construction limits defined on drawings,remove exisfing fig sod CHECKED BY. GASH material to depth required for topsoil and replace with new Import topsoil material. F. After all grading,baddiling and planting Is completed within the infiltration basins,these areas shall be flood tested by the contractor COPYRIGHT; CASTINGS-PRECAST CONCRETE SECTIONS to verify that the required volume of Infiltration water for the simulated 1 inch rain fail event draws down within 48 hours.If the good ..mss. rtrt,e q are v tm,mm t B.Do not remove ippsul when weL testing indicates that g requires more than 48 hours for the water to draw down,corrections to One infiltration basin will be required to .,wt a,.0 r t.�a a arc arc w tan r A.Precast cor rate manhole covers,grates,and bores:Cast iron,ASTM A48,Class 35B. bring the draw down time to less than 48 hours.These corrections will be made at no additional cost to the Owner. C.If required,make sol corrections as follows: B.Uniform quality,free of blowholes,shrinkage,distortion,and other defects 1. For building and structure foundations,including Isolated column footings,excavate full depth to remove fig material and expose DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS AND WASTE MATERIALS natural granular alluvlom or glacial i6. x TfRE C.The product numbers areas manufactured by Neenah Foundry Company and are shown on the Plans. Standard a. Ifexmavation extends below required footing bearing elevation,oversize laterally beyond the outside edges of the foundations castings differing in non-essential details may be acceptable if approved by the Engineer. at a ratio of 1:1 lateral oversize. A. Remove surplus satisfactory soil and waste material,Including unsatisfactory sod•bash,and debris,and legally dispose of it off b. Obtain approval of the Geotechnical Testing Agency before proceeding with rnmpaction and fill work. Owner's property. ADJUSTING RINGS C. Surface compact exposed natural sol surface. d.Re-Mwith compacted structural it SPECIFICATIONS A.Precast concrete adjusting ringr,MnDOT STD Plate 4010H. L For floor slabs that occur in areas of existing exterior pavement,assume that existing fig material is adequately compacted for new slabs. Strip existing pavement and underlying sol material to a depth required for new slab on grade and sand base;obtain FLARED END SECTIONS approval of the Geotechnical Testing Agency before proceeding with surface compaction of resultant surface. 3. For floor slabs that occur In existing non-pavement areas,remove existing fill soils and prepare similar to specified above for A.Flared end material shall match joining pipe material. budding foundations. 4.For non-pervious pavement surfaces,suticut the existing soil to allow for the new pavement,granular base,and a uniform B.High density polyethylene(HDPE);ASTM D3350-213320[,Hancor HI-Q or equal. thickness sand subbase as directed by the Geotechnical Testing Agency. C.All flared end sections shall have galvanized steel trash guards,unless noted otherwise. D.Remove subsoil from areas to be further excavated,re-landscaped,or re-graded. � TREE PRESERVATION NOTES Y 4 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE a t. See LandsoapingPlan Imteerepiacementandrestorotion. AIR EAPC R _ vlz9220 TREES REMOVED ALTERNATE N0.1 —E4S-4S —�— �� RNATE 1 DECIDUOUS —r ° - ALTERNATEALTERNATE NNOO.1 2 °��C� ® ® — i ® ALTERNATE N0.2 1 DECIDUOUS 1e5 7013583118 M701323.780.7 ALTERNATE NO.2 1 OAK I . / TOTAL 11 dad Fab ND Fargo ND 118WMa1n Ave.3WSA.Msut ndc NO 58501 a 1 1J 1 �J CI r p SIGN, WIMNO shot NO NmrYAVr BYtmdtND 0 ;I; Bng1N I&resAYrAPO RIM=9324 ALT.NO.1 REMOVAL I 1 I1 rQwv=924.3 ,(DECIDUOUS,TYP.OF 6) www.eapc.net 0 4 ALT.NO.1 REMOVAL Larson (SPRUCE,TYP.OF 2) Engineering,Inc. I , Milie Bear Lake,MN 55110 651.481.9120(t)551.481.9201 yI ✓ ���a�������������� ��������`�������� vwvw.larsonengr.nom ( ©�D/4lanan FiBnaai9.Nr.Mdgltrnnmved. I hereby=*that Ihis rapatwecprepeed aypir�eau direct W—W.and OW l m eduNi.—d 1 I � Profeuimat EngineeruMa9he l—f the sh to i —U—— f SPArE ' `•��\ \. \ `\ I i 4 Greg A. ,RE. \�\ � —— — '� y Date:020215 Reg No.: 23793 �Trm — ////// WENT PARK NICOLLET �rT I -- I i,;:, STRUTHERS 1 �iL PARKINSON'S CENTER ( , °a '� 1'' I PMWTDESCPJPTM ( ® ► —- -- - 1 'l e7,�/ ,,,T� BUILDING N0. 6681 EXPANSION 8r y / /' RENOVATION -—�- -1—a; BUILD1Nr, N0. 6701 4_ I! COUNTRY CLUB DRI' CITY GOLDEN VALLEY STATE MINNESOTA aC Ar ISSUE DATES 1 1 i K I Z !•\ �4 � � � I ——jl— j --I J T LECK --- pI700NGM3 OE080D,5 ALTERNATE NO.2 v I _L ! (-Ctw5c 9Eswvmn ADaE _ 2 SPACES _ _ L_ 14 1 .J / I L J✓ arsa ►ra ECT12146144 \ DRAWN BY. PSM CHEgD D BY: GABXRR COFYMHr. I'/,i.• l i rt-- P,1 ! I i I I I S I I I I � I 1 ® .,erae+e�.a�..aa L-1—1— II PARY.ING PACS —1-1—� II I 1 I .�+r s.nw mweaawc r.wr 1 I I I I 1 I DRAWING TTi1.E 1 { 16 SPACES ALT.NO. REMOVAL a 1 _ I 1 I I i (DECIDUOUS) C e� EX LRY BELL ® `• TREE PRESERVATION 1 I RIM=931.4 BASE BID REMOVAL INV.=9226(N) 4 ° PLAN 1 XV.=915.6 l j 1 1 ALT.N0.2 REMOVAL (DECIDU(OAS-- W r', — a NORTH Irril EAPC - -------------- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - --I � FUTURE; 1 1 iA 00TABLES 8 CHAIRS,REFtR TO SITE FURNISHING SPEC. 1 , 1 t / IBE 701.258.3116 FAx 701223.7883 116 W Main Ave.Suite A•BWnamk ND 58501 1 j 1 %%V=W Nft0ND I k rND I No�dmVT 1 ! �� I L ,•; e.r•Ma eumnAMABG 22'HGT.CJP.WALL _ www.eaPcnet 1 CONCRETE PAVING ! 1 t BONDED AGGREGATE RAVING,REFER TO SPEC. I 1 1 1 1 ADA COMPUANTRAMP i T BENCH ON CONCRETE PAD, 1 1 �= TYP.REFER TO SITE i ! i FURNISHING SPEC ; I 1� ADA RAW FUTURE , ;.. ; ;-------------i-------1.9m 1 � 1 1 K i I 1 CLIENT PARK NICOLLET STRUTHERS jl PARKINSON'S CENTER 11 i _ S Rt s I 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 I 1 1 1 EXPANSION$ RENOVATION 1 , � � 1 �" r�� ► I 1 I 1 1 i GARDEN STORAGE CABINET 1 I 1 I PLANTER WITH SCREEN i i RAISED GARDEN PLANTER ° i 1 I I IT J CITY GOLDEN VALLEY 1 ; I BENCH,TYP STATE MINNESOTA ARBOR STRUCTURE 1 1 -2AU5.1 1 1 ISSUE DATES 22'HGT.C.IP.WALL ; I REMOVE PARKING I ` 5 FILL WITH CONCRETE CURB, I 1 1 L.____——__ • �, SIDEWALKTO PATIO 1 ELEVATED PEDESTRUW a,f � „ 1 1 PA P.UD.APP(1CATON 02W"5 CROSSWALK 1 PA P.UD.APPuCAiwB msrmis 1 • • ':r. 1 I 1 PA P.IID.APPI.ICA7gN 1 1 CONCRETE PAVING,TYP. • 1 —_J 1 MW DEXrJMON WE L -- - - -- - - -- - - - - — -- - - -- — i --a— ---= 1 _ _ L_—�.----_—_— —J BENCH ON STONE FOUNFAIN-4A5.0 PROPERTY LINE�— PLANTERS,SEE SITE PROJECT NO: 211144100 CONCRETE PAD,TYP. PRIVACY FENCE-6U.0 FURNISHING SPEC DRAWN BY: LS CHECKED BY: JM coPYlaGHr: MMA.s>++.a mwrr r r r<r.r aw m+.Ar r tiv.r asr 4 awe.4n..r r AMs rr.r r py.y r e,re.ure w rm r DRAWING TTTLE LANDSCAPE PLAN Ti L1 .0 �,,1LANDSCAPE LAYOUT PLAN o B' �s• 37 � i ay S' .� SAI •'• r �} r �h 1 y t I x ���'` X0.0000 '., �• :� �a _ -- � ��^ - .vzS _ . .. oil NNE m - - III � E ■■ i 1■■■■IIS■■ - �- f ■ -�. , ■■■■'IIA 000��a000a000lpdooaaa�4 _ = `�! � ■ , ars .• .. .....:•:•• rl ,� ...«� � � � � � r ' ��r.�000F�000•,000, •.a ,� '' .. . ■■ilii■ � ■ I ILM�II � NOTES PLANTING LEGEND tr-r.TEAPC SITE REMOVAL NOTES KEY�awsarANICAL NAME COMMONNAME ROOT SIZE SPECIFICATIONS CONT. 1. EXISTING SITE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY OTHERS.ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS MAYVARY.FIELD VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION' ACER X FREEMANII'JEFFERSRED' MAPLE,AUTUMN BLAZE B&B T CAL TRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES 9-7' 2 ALL REMOVAL ITEMS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK B&B T CAL TRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES 5-7' SPECIFIED OTHERWISE THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER PER CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS HACKBERRY B&B 3'CAL TRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES V-T ME 7012se.311e FAX 701=&7983 LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCIES.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING 116 W Mai Ave Su to 0.BimwckNO 58501 ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL ALL FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE BETULA NIGRA BIRCH,RIVER B&B 2.5"CAL.OR CLUMP 1Z-14'HIT.,TRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES 5-T G�%ftN imW W ffi�ND WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. BETULA PAPYRIFERA'RENCI' BIRCH,RENAISSANCE REFLECTION B&B 3"CAL.OR CLUMP 74'-16'HT,TRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES 6 T �ND Wf ND ft."Vr B."MN I ev>w.neeuw I CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE ALL VEGETATION NOT TO BE REMOVED BY POPULUS TREMULOIDES ASPEN,QUAKING B&B 2.5"CAL. iZ-14'HT,TRUNK FREE OF BRANCHES 5 T CONSTRUCTION.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEEDING OR www.eapcnet SODDING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION. AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA-AUTUMN BRILL NCE' SERVICEBERRY,AUTUMN BRILLIANCE B&B 1Z HGT. MULTNSTEM,12-14'HT.,SEVEN OR MORE BRANCHES CORNUS ALTERNNFOL IA DOGWOOD,PAGODA B&B 12.Ir CAL.OR CLUMP MULTISTEM PLANTING NOTES MALUS'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE,SPRING SNOW B&B 20"CAL.OR CLUMP SINGLE-STEM 1. STAID=PROPOSED TREE LOCATIONS PER PLAN FOR RENEW AND APPROVAL BY MALUS RED BARRON' CRAB APPLE,RED BARRON B&B 1.5"CAL. MATCHING COLUMNAR FORM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTOINSTALL PYRUSUSSURIENSS'BAILFROST PEAR,MOUNTAINFROST B&B 2.1r CAL. SINGLE STEM 2 INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL ONCE FINAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN SYRINGA RETICULATA LILAC,JAPANESE B&B 2'CAL.OR CLUMP 5.10'HHT. COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA AMELANCHRERLAMARCKII JUNEBERRY 3 INSTALL PLANT MATERIALS PER PLANTING DETAILS,AND SPEC.SECTION 32 MW- EXTERIOR PLANTS. AMELANCHBERALNIFOLIAREGENT SERVICEBERRY,REGENT CONT. 15 PLANT50.C. 4. SUBSTITUTION REQUESTS FOR PLANT MATERIAL TYPE&SIZE SHALL BE SUBMITTED ARONIA MELANCOCARPA ELATA CHOKESERRY,BLACK CONT. #5 PLANT 4'O.C. TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO BIDDING.ALL SUBSTITUTIONS AFTER BIDDING MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND PRUNUS VIRGINIANA CHOKECHERRY ARE SUBJECTTO CONTRACT ADJUSTMENTS. CORNUS ALBA'AUREK DOGWOOD,PRAIRIE FIRE CONT. #5 PLANT 4'O.C. 5. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN CORYLUS AMERICANA HAZELNUT,AMERICAN CONT. #5 PLANT V O.C. FIELD.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF PLANTS. CEANOTHUS AMERICANUS NEW JERSEYTEA 6. 3/76'THICKSTEEL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS,PERENNIALS AND RISES ALPINUM'GREEN MOUND' CURRANT,ALPINE CLIENT ANNUALS WHERE PLAITING BED MEETS SOD UNLESS OTFERWISE NOTED. HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS'ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA'ANNABELLE' CONT. 95 PLANT C O.C. PARK NICOLLET 7. INSTALL T DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RINGS AT CONIFEROUS& VIBUIRNUM OPULUS VAR AMERICANUM CRANBERRY,AMERICAN STRUTH ERS DECIDUOUS TREES WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNC. SYRINGA MEYERI'PAUBIN LILAC,DWARF KOREAN CONT. #5 PLANT V O.C.OR AS INDICATED ON PLAN PARKINSON'S & INSTALL TDEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RINGS ATSHRUB PLANTING AREASCENTER WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH SHRUB STEMS. VACGNIUM CORYMBOSUM'PATRIOT HIIIBUSH 8Ll1EBEfRRY 9. INSTALL T DEEP FINELY SHREDDED MULCH OR 1'DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS.REMOVE ALL MULCH FROM STEMS OF ROSA ARKANSANA ROSE,PRAIRIE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PERENNIALS-PLANT STEMS SHOULD NOT BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH MULCH. ASARUM CANADENSES WILD GINGER 10. SPRING PLANT MATERLk INSTALLATION S FROM THE APRIL 15 TO JUNE 15. ALLIUM CER NUUM ALUUM,WILD OMON EXPANSION& 11. FALL CONIFEROUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 21 TO SEPTEMBER 30. PEROVSKIAATRPUCIFOU A RUSSIAN SAGE CONT. #1 PLANT 2.5 O.C.(GROWS 4TH X 36-M RENOVATION 12 FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. PULMONARUI'RASPBERRY SPLASH PULMONARIA RASPBERRY SPLASH' CONT. A PLANT 2.0'O.C.(GROWS 12-H X 24"W) SALVIA X SUPFRBA SALVIA,1 A34ACHT CONT. 91 PLANT 1.5 O.C.(GROWS 24"H X 16-M IRRIGATION NOTES ADLANTUMPEDATUM FERN,NORTHERN MAIDENHAIR I. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLANI-'.r k t AND SPECIFICATION AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK SUBMIT LAYOUT PLAN AND CAAMAGROSTIS X ACUTffLORA GRASS,FEATHER REED VAX FOERSTER CONT. #1 PLANT 2.5 OC. CITY GOLDEN VALLEY SPECIFICATIONS FORAPPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHTTECT PRIORTO ORDER SCHVACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM GRASS,LITTLE BLUE STEM CONT. 91 PLANT 2.5 OC. ANDfORCONSTRUCTION.ITSFWIBETHE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITYTO STATE MINNESOTA ENSURE THAT SODDm1SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, SORGHASTRUM NUTANS'SIOUX BLUE GRASS,INDIAN'SIDUX BLUE CONT. #1 PLANT 2.5 OC. INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY(DUSTING)IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIRM EUPHORBIA PULCHERRIMA POINSETTIA ISSUE DATES COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOP DRAWINGS.NEW SYSTEM TO TIE-INTO EXISTING SYSTEM,ALL CONNECTIONS ARE TO MILT LOCAL CHRYSANTHEMUM MUM CODES. TUUPA GRDGII MIP I CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF ALL AREAS RECEIVING DRIP PAGATKN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY MULCH. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH ANIRRIGA71ONSCHEDULE INTERIOR TROPICAL PLANTS APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANTED MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. REQUIRED 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURETHAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE TYPE& KEY QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME EXPOSED ROOT I LIGHT SPECIFICATIONS PA P UD.APPIIGTgN Buwmts ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE QUANTITY HEIGHT CONT. (FOOT LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TOBEGINNING OFWORK IT SHALL BETHE CANDLES) PA PAIAAPPt1CA7pN 11980D14 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROPER SURFACE AND WM DEMMON N DATE TREE FORM SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN PLANTING AREAS. 25 a1 t TA FICUS BINNENDIJI IPAMSTEL KING FICUS TREE S'-10'HT. CONT. � SINGLE STEM,FULL HEALTHY CROWN PROJECT NO �) ) 00 TURF NOTES DRAWN BY: LS 1. SOD AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. TB PTYCHOSPERMA ELEGANS PALM,ALEXANDER 10'-1T HT. CONT. TRIPLE TRUNK CHECKED BY: JM COPYRI 2 WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES,FINISHED ORATE OF SODISEED SHALL BE TC ARAUCARIA HETEROPHYLLA PINE,NORFOLK ISLAND T4 HT. CONT. FULL HEALTHY FORM .,�,. HED 1'BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL,SLAB,CURB,ETC. 3. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED TO STRELITZEA NICOLA] BIRD OF PARADISE 6'-8'HT. CONT. FULL HEALTHY FORM ewe.+ cna rase we+r rr• JOINTS.ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN&A OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES,SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY. TE CWAMAEDOREA SEIFRIZII PALM,BAMBOO 5 HT. CONT. FULL HEALTHY FORM DRAWINGTITLE 4. UREFER TO SPEC.SECTION 32 VA TURF AND GRASSES. " SHRUB& 506Vi k LANDSCAPE NOTES& GRASS FORM a � PLANTING SCHEDULE SA KALANCHOE BLOSSFELDIANA KALANCHOE 12" CONT. INSTALL 12"O.C.(seasonal rotation plant) SB FICUS ELASTICA'DECORA BURGUNDY' RUBBER PLANT 24" CONT, INSTALL 16"O.C. Sc ZAMIOCULCAS ZAMIIFOLIA ZANZIBAR GEM 18-24' CONT. I JINSTALL12-O.C. L3.0 —rr—.t E A P C ,aF 701258.3116 FA%701.=.7983 116W Man Ave.Suite A.Bimw*NO 66501 G F PA I Frye ND 6mirtlND Yl100bn ND ~ND N—i"r BmY�Ee! &—Abel ARG www.eapc.net CLIENT PARK NICOLLET STRUTHERS PARKINSON'S CENTER PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPANSION& RENOVATION NOTE: REFER TO EXTERIOR PLANTING SPECIFICATION PREPARE SOL FOR NOTE: THE ENTIRE BED INSTALL 2'LAYER OF MULCH,DO NOT PLACE IN CITY GOLDEN VALLEY CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TREES IN A CONTACT W/SHRUB STEM PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT WARRANTY APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE STATE MINNESOTA 3'COMPACTED ORGANIC PERIOD.WRAP TREE TRUNKS ONLY UPON MULCH.TO BE PLACED 60 DAYS APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. tr EDGE CONDITION VARIES AFTER TREE PLANTING UPONSEE SPEC.SECTION RELATED MIN. SEE PLAN ISSUE DATES CUTTING OF 5'DIA SOD RING. TO EXT.PLANTING ' EDGER,REFER TO PLAN AND SPECWICA11ON MULCH TO BE W/ LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS FINISHED GRADE..DO DO NOT PLANT TREES W/ROOT FLARE VISIBLE AT TOP `:_::; r=== :<; PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT OF ROOT BALL. IF ROOT FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE, r : EXCAVATE PLANT BED MINA'DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL HGT. WITH TREE TRUNK REMOVE SOIL IN A LEVEL MANNER FROM ROOT SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANTING BED WITH SPADE BALL UNTIL FIRST MAIN ORDER ROOT t%'DIA. OR LARGER)EMERGES FROM THE TRUNK UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE SET MAIN ORDER ROOT 1'HIGHER THAN ADJ. EDGE CONDITION GRADE.DO NOT COVER TOP VARIES,SEE PLAN OF ROOT BALL WITH SOIL. PA P.UDIW.APP=7eulvms SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL PA P.un.APPurwnaN Ilmsm COMPACT PLANTING SOIL TO 85 MULCH RING WITH TOOLED 2 ""'"` °moi ON ATE D PERCENT OF MAX.DRY UNIT WT VERT.EDGE TO BE CUT TO 3'BELOW L3.1 SCALE 314'=1'-0' D"'� ACCORDING TO ASTM D 698 FINISHED GRADE NOTE: PROJECT NO. 20144100 t damelu 7. uA PREPARE SOIL FOR REFER TO EXTERIOR PLANTING SPECIFICATION DRAWN BY: LS —)I THE ENTRE BED INSTALL 1'LAYER of SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OR r cHECI®BY: JM LAYER OF FINELY SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH.DO NOT COPYRIGHT: PLACE IN CONTACT WITH PLANT REMOVE BURLAP,TWINE. S' REFER EDGE CONDITION VARIES w..re r r+rY r e..c ewer r ROPE AND WIRE FROM \ \ I I I SCARIFY SIDES OF TREE PIT MIN. TO PLAN EDGER REFER TO PLAN AND SPECIFICA TON ~ TOP HALF OF ROOT BALL — WITH SPADE BY HAND TO UNDISTURBED OT AL DE I —I I I.,�I I F �—�I BIND WITH PREPARED SOIL m DRAWING TIRE LANDSCAPE PLANTING DIG PLANTING PIT4e FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE TO 6' TAMP SOIL AROUND ESS URE SO BALL BASE g LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS DETAILS DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL ? PLANTING SOL PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNDISTURBED THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANTING BED WITH SPADE OR COMPACTED SOIL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 1 TREE PLANTING DETAIL 3 PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL L3.1 L3.1 SCALE V?=f4' PLANTING DETAIL-TREE.DWG L3.1 SCALE 314'=1'-0' ORDINANCE NO. 546, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Final Plan of Development Struthers Parkinson's Center P.U.D. No. 39, Amendment #4 Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, and Section 11.55, by approving the Final Plan of Development for Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) 39, Amendment #4 thereby allowing the applicant to construct a building addition approximately 2,700 square feet in size and an outdoor memory care walk/garden at the Struthers Parkinson's Center located at 6701 Country Club Drive. This PUD is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EAPC architects and submitted with the application on February 6, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to the Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to the Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. A shared parking agreement shall be confirmed or enacted upon or before a building permit is issued. 5. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. A final design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 6(Q): 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 Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, West Metro P.U.D. No. 39 Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sec. 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of March, 2015. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk City golc cn M E MORAN valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 1763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing-Zoning Code and Subdivision Code Text Amendments for Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments with Single Family Residential Components Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The following recommendations for Zoning and Subdivision Code amendments were developed through the Subdivision Study process in consultation with residents and members of the Planning Commission and City Council: Minimum Lot Area • Subdivision Code (Minimum Subdivision Design Standards) - create a minimum lot area requirement for new subdivisions in large lot neighborhoods; Irregular Lot Shape- Lot Width • Subdivision Code (Minimum Subdivision Design Standards) - add a subdivision design standard for newly created R-1 lots to require that the minimum lot width dimension be met at the minimum front yard setback line and that the lot width be maintained to a point 70 feet back from the front property line; Irregular Lot Shape- Lot Line Definitions • Zoning Code (Definitions) - add definitions for Front, Rear, and Side Lot Lines; House-to-Lot Relationship - Rear Yard Setback • Zoning Code (R-1 Zoning District) - change to a minimum 25-foot rear yard setback; Tree Preservation • Subdivision Code (Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations) - add requirement for submittal of an existing tree survey with a minor subdivision or consolidation application, which must be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applicant; Planned Unit Development • Zoning Code (Planned Unit Development) - add a minimum lot size requirement for residential PUDs. The following additional changes are proposed by staff in order to further clarify and make consistent language within the Zoning and Subdivision Codes in light of the proposed amendments from the Subdivision Study: • Zoning Code (Definitions) - remove existing definition of Lot Lines; modify definition of Lot Depth to be consistent with definition in Subdivision Code; remove existing definition of Street Line; modify definition of Front Yard; • Zoning Code (R-1 Zoning District) - remove language regarding front setbacks on corner lots (now covered in Lot Line definitions); • Zoning Code (R-2 Zoning District) - change to a minimum 25-foot rear yard setback; modify description of Corner Lot Setbacks; • Subdivision Code (Definitions) - modify existing definition of Lot Width (remove references to old zoning districts). To address the community's concerns about the loss of too many trees with the development of new subdivisions, the Subdivision Study also recommends amendments to the Tree Preservation requirements. Based on discussions with the City Forester regarding the recommended tree preservation improvements, staff has also identified the need for establishing site landscaping standards within the City Code. Staff would like to integrate the recommended amendments to the Tree Preservation requirements with the creation of site landscaping standards. These recommended amendments would be addressed as a follow-up to the Subdivision Study. Attached are each of the detailed recommendations (2-5 pages for each primary recommendation topic) for the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code amendments, including background information. Two maps are attached as supporting information for the Minimum Lot Area Requirement recommendation. Also attached is a Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations table that summarizes the Subdivision Study's recommendations for each of the concerns addressed during the study, including concerns that are not recommended for further study or recommended for further study outside of the Subdivision Study. At the February 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the changes to minimum lot area on a vote of 5-2. The other amendments were recommended for approval unanimously (7-0). The Commission also discussed the use of mean vs. median when analyzing the size of lots within 250 feet of the subject property for subdivision. Although the study consultants recommended using the mean, they acknowledged that using the median generally does a better job of accounting for outliers that may affect the results. In order to test this, the consultants ran both mean and median calculations for 10 properties. In 9 out of 10 cases, the calculation of lot area using the mean was higher than that using the median. For 3 of the 10 cases, using the mean triggered the higher minimum lot area threshold of 15,000 square feet while using the median did not. If approved by the Council, the Zoning Text Amendments would take effect upon publication. The Subdivision Text Amendments would require a second consideration and so would be revisited at the April 7, 2015, City Council meeting and take effect upon publication thereafter. The six-month moratorium on subdivisions expires on March 25, 2015. While the zoning changes would be adopted prior to this date, the subdivision changes would not be finalized until April, leaving a short window of time during which the old subdivision requirements would be in place and applicants would be free to apply for subdivisions. Staff recommends extending the moratorium by 30 days to cover this gap. Attachments • Memo to the Planning Commission dated February 23, 2015 (2 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated February 23, 2015 (11 pages) • Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations (7 pages) • Recommendations (25 pages) • Defining Neighborhood Impact Areas Map (1 page) • Case Study Analysis Map (1 page) • Draft Zoning and Subdivision Code amendments with underlined-overstruck language (12 pages) • Ordinance#547, Amending Chapter 11: Land Use Regulation (Zoning), Regarding Modifications from the 2014-2015 Subdivision Study (2 pages) • Ordinance #548, Amending Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting), Regarding Modifications from the 2014-2015 Subdivision Study (2 pages) Recommended Action 1. Motion to adopt Ordinance #547 Amending Chapter 11: Land Use Regulation (Zoning), Regarding Modifications from the 2014-2015 Subdivision Study. 2. Motion to adopt upon first consideration Ordinance #548 Amending Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting), Regarding Modifications from the 2014-2015 Subdivision Study. vancy Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: February 23, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments— Moratorium Study of Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments with Single Family Residential Components Summary Staff will present the Subdivision Study's recommendations for amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as recommendations for subdivision concerns that should be considered for further study. The following recommendations for Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments were developed through the Subdivision Study process in consultation with residents and members of the Planning Commission and City Council: Minimum Lot Area • Subdivision Ordinance (Minimum Subdivision Design Standards)—create a minimum lot area requirement for new subdivisions in large lot neighborhoods; Irregular Lot Shape—Lot Width • Subdivision Ordinance (Minimum Subdivision Design Standards)—add a subdivision design standard for newly created R-1 lots to require that the minimum lot width dimension be met at the minimum front yard setback line and that the lot width be maintained to a point 70 feet back from the front property line; Irregular Lot Shape—Lot Line Definitions • Zoning Ordinance (Definitions) —add definitions for Front, Rear, and Side Lot Lines; House-to-Lot Relationship—Rear Yard Setback • Zoning Ordinance (R-1 Zoning District)—change to a minimum 25-foot rear yard setback; Tree Preservation • Subdivision Ordinance (Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations)—add requirement for submittal of an existing tree survey with a minor subdivision or consolidation application, which must be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applicant; Planned Unit Development • Zoning Ordinance (Planned Unit Development)—add a minimum lot size requirement for residential PUDs. The following additional changes are proposed by Staff in order to further clarify and make consistent language within the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances in light of the proposed amendments from the Subdivision Study: • Zoning Ordinance (Definitions)—remove existing definition of Lot Lines; modify definition of Lot Depth to be consistent with definition in Subdivision Ordinance; remove existing definition of Street Line; modify definition of Front Yard; • Zoning Ordinance (R-1 Zoning District)—remove language regarding front setbacks on corner lots (now covered in Lot Line definitions); • Zoning Ordinance (R-2 Zoning District)—change to a minimum 25-foot rear yard setback; modify description of Corner Lot Setbacks; • Subdivision Ordinance (Definitions)—modify existing definition of Lot Width (remove references to old zoning districts). To address the community's concerns about the loss of too many trees with the development of new subdivisions, the Subdivision Study also recommends amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Based on discussions with the City Forester regarding the recommended tree preservation improvements, Staff has also identified the need for establishing site landscaping standards within the City's ordinances. Staff would like to integrate the recommended amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance with the creation of site landscaping standards. These recommended amendments would be addressed as a follow-up study to the Subdivision Study. Attached are each of the detailed recommendations (2-5 pages for each primary recommendation topic) for the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments, including background information. Two maps are attached as supporting information for the Minimum Lot Area Requirement recommendation. Also attached is a Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations table that summarizes the Subdivision Study's recommendations for each of the concerns addressed during the study, including concerns that are not recommended for further study or recommended for further study outside of the Subdivision Study. Attachments Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations (7 pages) Recommendations (24 pages) Defining Neighborhood Impact Areas Map (1 page) Case Study Analysis Map (1 page) Draft Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments with underlined-overstruck language (12 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 3 Conditions: The plans prepared by EAPC and rson Engineering, Inc. submitted with the lication dated February 6, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The ommendations and require ents outlined in the memo from the Fire Departm to Jason Zimmerman, lanning Manager, dated De ber 1, 2014, shall become art of this approv 3. The recommends i s and require ents outlined irr memo from the Engineering Division ason Zim erman, P ing Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part his a pro 4. A reciprocal cross easement a - nt shall be signed by property owners within PUD. No. 39 and reviewed b e i ttorney at the time of Final PUD approval. The agreement shall be.....- 'orded ith He in County upon Final PUD approval. 5. The Applicant shall Imit a lighti g plan that s the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighti I ode (Section 1 .73). 6. All signage st meet the require ents of the City's Sign e (Section 4.20). 7. This ap val is subject to all othe state, federal, and local or i ces, re ions, or laws with authority ver this development. 8, final design plan shall be review d by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments — Moratorium Study of Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments with Single Family Residential Components —ZO00-96 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider adding/amending language in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code regarding Subdivision requirements. Zimmerman reminded the Commission of the six-month moratorium placed on subdivisions and PUDs with a single family residential component. He stated that the City Council directed Staff to study the following: increasing the minimum lot area requirement, improving standards for preserving green space, minimizing irregular shaped lots, preserving neighborhood character, and limiting the use of small residential PUDs. He added that the City Council is considering implementing a Construction Management Agreement that will address complaints arising as part of the construction process such as noise, runoff, emergency access, etc. separate from the subdivision study. Zimmerman stated that there are several issues that were discussed as part of the study for which no action is recommended including: building height, housing styles, quality of construction, house spacing, and street/traffic impacts. Some of the issues recommended for further study in the future include: enhanced tree preservation regulations with landscaping requirements, stormwater drainage and flooding, neighborhood character preservation and sustainability. Zimmerman discussed the proposed changes to the Subdivision Code. He explained that the minimum lot area requirement would have two tiers — 10,000 or 15,000 based on the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 4 average size of the lots surrounding the subject property. The threshold for the larger minimum lot area requirement would be an average of 18,000 for all R-1 properties within 250 feet of the subject property and would apply to all R-1 lots created through subdivision after 2014. Lots less than 4,000 square feet would be excluded from the calculation. Zimmerman explained that these proposed changes would be made in the Subdivision section of City Code to prevent the creation of numerous non-conforming lots. Another change proposed in the Subdivision Code would be to require the minimum lot width to remain the same between 35 feet and 70 feet from the front lot line. This would better preserve a sufficient area within a lot at the likely location of the building pad and would limit narrowing in the front portion of a lot where a house would likely be built. Also, the submission of an existing tree survey will be required when applying for a Minor Subdivision. This will help in better understanding the site conditions when reviewing subdivision applications. He added that a final tree preservation plan would remain as an administrative review as part of the stormwater management plan. Other changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance will happen separately in the future. Zimmerman referred to the proposed changes in the Zoning Code. He explained that new definitions are being proposed for front, side and rear lot lines in order to help clarify setbacks for irregular shaped lots. Also, in order to reduce confusion regarding measuring lot depth, the rear yard setback would change from 20% of the lot depth to 25 feet. This will also provide consistency with other setbacks which are specific numbers and not percentages. He added that these Zoning Code changes may create some non- conformities with respect to existing structures. Zimmerman referred to the proposed changes for the PUD section of the Zoning Code. He explained that residential PUDs must have a minimum area of two acres unless they can demonstrate unusual physical features of the property, are directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way which has been developed previously as a PUD and will function as an extension to an existing PUD, or is located in a transitional area between different land use categories. Kluchka asked about the process for making the proposed changes. Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation will go to the City Council for consideration. He added that the changes in the Zoning Code require one hearing at City Council, and that the changes in the Subdivision Code require two hearings. Segelbaum asked if the second hearing means that there are two hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Zimmerman said no, the two hearings for the Subdivision Code are just at the City Council. Segelbaum asked about significant changes since the last time they reviewed the proposed new language. Zimmerman said the rear lot line language is new. Waldhauser said she thought the shorter side of a corner lot would be the only front. Zimmerman said that City Code currently states that corner lots have two fronts and that the lot line opposite the narrower front is the rear. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 5 Kluchka asked if there is an impact to the lot width definition if there are two fronts. Zimmerman said the lot would have to meet the width requirement on both fronts. Baker asked if the change to the rear lot line is the only one that will result in non- conforming properties. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked why that can't be avoided. Zimmerman stated that the Subdivision Code applies to all of the zoning districts and the new lot line change is for R-1 only. Kluchka asked why the proposed changes aren't being made in all of the zoning districts in order to avoid non-conformance. Zimmerman said he would research the advantages of moving the requirements to the Subdivision Code. Waldhauser asked about the exclusion of parcels under 4,000 square feet when considering the minimum lot area. She questioned why the proposed language doesn't exclude any parcel under 10,000 square feet. Zimmerman stated that there are existing lots that are less than 10,000 square feet in size with homes on them. Baker asked how many lots there are that are less than 4,000 square feet. Zimmerman said there are a few, most are left over right-of-way or remnants that would just bring down the average. Baker noted that someone could acquire a 4,000 square foot lot, add it to their existing lot and then subdivide. Zimmerman agreed. Cera asked if there is anything built on any of the 4,000 square foot lots. Zimmerman said he didn't believe so. Blum asked if by using the formula to determine which lots have to meet the new minimum lot size requirements it is possible that it could become non-conforming over time, or if the lot sizes around that parcel change and become smaller or larger if it would then become non-conforming. Zimmerman said that would be unlikely because as there are more small lots the average comes down so the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet. Kluchka asked if the new tree preservation requirements would only affect people proposing a subdivision or if it would apply to everyone. Zimmerman said the current language being proposed would only apply to new subdivision proposals. He reiterated that the tree preservation requirements will be discussed more in the future. Kluchka referred to the owners of property that may be affected by these proposed changes and asked how they have been notified. Zimmerman stated that there has been a lot of publicity in the SunPost newspaper and in the City's newsletter, a post card was sent to every owner of a single family property, the consultants have sent emails to everyone who signed up to receive information, and information has been on the City's Facebook page. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Mae Held, 5001 Colonial Drive, said her property is three acres in size. She said she came to one of the listening meetings to find out that no one cares about the landowner. She said it is not her responsibility as a homeowner to provide green space for her neighbors and she is going to be impacted by the proposed changes because she will be restricted by the same ordinances as someone with a '/4 acre lot. She said the City is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 6 saying maintain your property, pay your taxes, and we'll decide what you can do with it. She said they are taxed on a fully divisible property and if they can only remove 20% of their trees that would mean 2/3 of their property is unbuildable. She said she thinks she needs it reflected in her taxes if her lot is unbuildable and if her property is not developable that reduces the value. She said she really hopes the City cares about the landowner and not just people who want her green space but don't pay her taxes or maintain her property. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said there has been a subdivision near him that was divided in a way he was not aware of. He referred to the statements made about not being able to dictate the quality of housing, but affordable housing near his house concerns him. He said another thing that concerns him is what could happen with the leftover MnDOT properties from the Highway 100 project. He questioned if new homeowners would be required to put in new trees. He added that he is concerned about the roofs of the new homes near him being on top of the sound wall. Peter Ralph, 1421 Rhode Island Avenue North, said he re-built his house about six years ago with the intent of meeting the requirements for a future subdivision. He referred to the proposed new requirement regarding the size of lots that are within 250 feet and asked if that measurement would be from the edge of a lot, or the center of a lot. He referred to the proposed language requiring that lots be 80 feet in width for a distance of 70 feet and asked if there will be an option for variances because he thinks he would be off by about three inches. He said he wants to know what he needs to do to pursue a subdivision and said there should be provisions for unique circumstances. Steve Shapiro, 219 Meadow Lane North, said he sent letters to the City talking about subdivisions as being a corn field concept and not something that should be an independent kind of activity that takes place in a built up urban environment like Golden Valley. He said all these projects that they've been talking about, on whatever scale, are really developments and the neighbors and the City should want to know who is going to build them, what they are going to look like, how are they going to stage construction, etc. He said the subdivision at Glenwood and Meadow Lane where they took one house and made it into four is a development. He said 200 Meadow Lane is a much smaller site and they are going to stuff three houses on there and they have no idea what it is going to look like, how it is going to be staged, or the quality of construction. He referred to Ms. Held's comments regarding her three acre lot and said even under the most generous reallocation of land site you're talking about 9 or 10 houses, and that is certainly a development and people in the neighborhood would certainly want to know who is going to build it and how it is going to look. He said he urges the City to consider, after it determines the requirements of the Subdivision ordinance, that it is made incidental to construction, and in order to carry out a project they would need curb cuts, subdivision, grading permits, to be considered one of the aspects of development, not just the raw land notion that you are going to carve up a site into however many parcels and pray that it gets done right because the City would be putting too much trust in the people that are splitting up the land because they aren't the ones that are developing it. He referred to the proposal on 200 Meadow Lane and said he contacted the City about the "tree trust" around the perimeter of the property that was promised. Under the current subdivision Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 7 requirements the City can't require anything like that. So even though the applicant said they would do a perimeter easement to protect the trees for the neighbors, the City can't require it, so it won't be done. He said he urges the City to consider subdivisions not as a pure raw activity, but as an incidental to a much more intensive review of developments in the City. Paul Meland, 309 Meander, said he has seen a lot of change. He said he purchased his home because he knew it would be a good place to raise his kids. He said the sales packet when he bought his house showed that there is another lot as part of his. He doesn't have plans to subdivide his property, but the 10 homes being constructed in the neighborhood are going to have a huge impact. He said putting restrictions on lot size is going to impact him financially. He said the change has already happened and he is in favor of preserving character, but he is not in favor of his investment being impacted. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he supports what Mr. Meland said. He stated that if a property is under 30,000 square feet in size in a neighborhood with larger lots, under this new proposal it won't be able to be subdivided. He said that, along with the issue of fairness and takings, needs to be taken into consideration. He said another thing that needs to be considered in regard to the average lot size issue is whether the City uses a mean or a median to figure the average lot size. He recommended using the median instead of the mean because it throws out the high ones and the low ones and won't skew the average. He added that the buildable portion of properties should also be considered because some of the larger platted lots have a wetland or something that impacts the buildable area. Matt Pavek, 510 Cloverleaf Drive, said he has attended every meeting on this topic. He said he works a lot with land owners and it is interesting that three people in this public hearing have talked about how these proposed changes will impact them economically because they won't be able to subdivide their lot when they could before. He stated that the rules requiring 10,000 square feet with 80 feet of width have been in place for 35 years and that is something people have planned their entire lives around. He said that lots sell from $150,000 to $350,000. So, if someone can't subdivide a lot that they thought could, they could lose a life changing amount of money because their home will go down in value. He said this needs to be weighed against the concerns of trying to blend in with the neighborhood and it hasn't really been discussed in all of the meetings he's attended. He said the concerns are valid, but they can't possibly trump a person's retirement account, college fund or nest egg. He added that it might not legally be considered a taking, but it would feel like a taking so maybe the City and its residents should pay these people who can no longer subdivide their property. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane North, said he is a proponent of larger lot sizes in particular areas. He said it doesn't make it right that lot sizes have been the same since the 1980s and what has been recommended is a move in the right direction and the right thing. He said maybe the people who think they can subdivide need to come forward and see what can be done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 8 Leroy Hagel, 200 Cutacross Road, said he has written many letters to the City Council and he is anti-subdivision in Tralee. He said standing before an impressive tribunal ready to pounce on their prey is intimidating, but the stakes are high so he wants to state his view. He said he received a letter from the property owner across the street when they subdivided their property and he wishes to avoid hard feelings, but there are just different goals and divergent views of the situation at hand. He said he is a dissenter who is open to ridicule in a very public way as opposed to a developer, speculator, or promoter. When they want something it is a rosy picture subject to accolades. He said he is opposed to any subdivision of any lots in Tralee because Tralee is a heritage, is different, it stands out, and is a tax generator. He said in the future, the discerning buyer will raze the old house on their property to build high end houses matching the real estates' character and value netting tax revenue to rival the tax take from subdividing now if the City would just wait longer. He said the City will have saved what is left of Tralee, a unique heritage worth saving with less hassle over new lots, etc. He said the City can expect plenty of disgruntled owners to deal with when subdividing, and he would expect more expense to the City also. He referred to the siting of two new houses across the street from him and said they appear to be the result of some clever, ingenious surveying similar to fitting a puzzle piece in a puzzle game; they sit forward and do not line up with existing houses next door. He said he had family come to visit and the first words out of their mouths were what's with the houses on the road and what did he think about them. He said he was taken aback by their comments and said trouble is inherent in subdividing. He invited the City to do it right and judge for themselves their first impression. He said he remains hopeful that subdivisions will be halted in Tralee. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said she would like to preserve the larger lots in her neighborhood where the average lot size is about 30,000 square feet. She said she knows this is a politically charged topic with people for and against. She said she hasn't heard a lot about the Comprehensive Plan and the vision for Golden Valley and said her discussions, decisions, and beliefs come from the Comprehensive Plan. She said if the sustainability discussion is being postponed this might be putting the cart before the horse. She said she loves her neighborhood and it is unique to any other area in Golden Valley. She stated that the property next door to her is removing 20 oak trees, but there has been no mention of removing any buckthorn. She questioned why that isn't being addressed. She reiterated that they have a unique neighborhood and that the concept of having different neighborhoods is okay. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, said there are two sides and it's a very difficult decision to listen to all the arguments in terms of the impacts to the people who have larger lots and the impact to the surrounding neighbors and why they moved there. He said it is not urban planning here and what he wants to see Golden Valley really be like. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the questions about tree preservation and taxable property and asked if that issue has been discussed. Zimmerman said he has spoken with the County Assessor regarding Ms. Held's property. He explained that the taxes assessed are not just based on the property's ability to be subdivided, there are other issues as well, such Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 9 as size, terrain, wooded areas, etc. but there aren't any additional taxes levied because it may be subdivided. He said there are assessments based on whether the property can be subdivided, but those are always deferred until a subdivision actually takes place. Zimmerman referred to Ms. Held's question about this proposal limiting the number of trees that could be removed or make her land undevelopable. He said the answer is no, 20% of the trees can be removed. If more trees than that are removed there is a mitigation process and it doesn't mean that the land can't be subdivided. Cera said Ms. Held's property is beautiful and he doesn't see any issues with it being able to be subdivided. Blum asked if the nature of the ability to subdivide a particular lot changes if the deferred assessment would also change to reflect that. Zimmerman said yes, it would. Deferred assessments would be payable if the property is subdivided. Kluckha referred to the questions regarding quality construction and asked how that can be controlled. Zimmerman said it comes down to the Building Code. He said the City doesn't dictate the style of houses, or what price they are sold at. The City controls safety and code compliance. Kluchka referred to the questions of state-owned remnant lots counting in the square footage when figuring lot area. Zimmerman said they would not count because they are not zoned R-1 Single Family residential, they are considered right-of-way. Kluchka asked if property owners will have to plant trees with the new subdivision requirements. Zimmerman said they won't have to, and that the requirements are considering trees that are removed. If there are new landscaping requirements approved in the future that will likely be discussed. Kluchka asked how the 250 radius around a proposed subdivision is drawn. Zimmerman said it would be drawn from the edge of the subject property and would follow the perimeter of the lot. Cera asked if the subject property itself counts in the average lot size determination. Zimmerman said no, the 250 foot radius would be considering the context of the lots around it. Cera stated that counting the subject parcel would raise the average. Kluchka asked what a homeowner will need to do to follow these proposed rules. Zimmerman said the average homeowner won't know the average lot size within 250 feet of their property, but it will be fairly simple for staff to provide that information. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to review the front yard setback changes. Zimmerman explained that the current Subdivision Code requires lots to be 80 feet wide at the front yard setback line. The proposed new language states that the width of the lot has to remain 80 feet wide for a distance of 70 feet back from the front setback line. Kluchka asked what kinds of variances are available. Zimmerman said variances aren't allowed from the Subdivision Code, but applicants may be able to round up to the next whole foot as stated in the Zoning Code. Segelbaum said he thinks there is some confusion Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 10 regarding variances being allowed or not in subdivision proposals. He asked for some clarification regarding variances when this item goes to the City Council. Kluchka asked about the differences between median, mean, and average. Zimmerman said he couldn't recall why the consultants recommended using the mean to figure the minimum lot size. He said he would follow up with them and get some clarification. Baker said he would like to see illustrated examples analyzed using mean and median. Kluchka asked if non-buildable land, or wetland areas are being excluded in the calculations. Zimmerman stated that everything on a lot would count toward the lot area and that wetland delineation would need to be done in some cases. Baker asked if this is really an issue and if there are large areas of unbuildable property. Waldhauser said there have been cases where parts of lots were unbuildable. Kluchka said that could be a cause for a variance. Cera noted that a wetland is a positive amenity for a property. Baker stated that in terms of calculating using mean or average, if the goal is to preserve similar sized lots, they need to consider how those types of lots affect that. Kluchka questioned if new subdivision rules should be considered for people who already own subdividable lots, or if those lots should be grandfathered. Waldhauser asked about people who bought lots before the 1980s when the requirement was for larger sized lots and noted that those properties weren't grandfathered. Kluchka referred to the question about buckthorn. Zimmerman said that could be addressed in the larger tree preservation/landscaping discussions. Segelbaum asked how the proposed new language meets what is stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Baker said that is a rhetorical question because the City is in the midst of a subdivision study and the issues have to be addressed now. Waldhauser added that this study, and some of the recommendations that have been made are in response to the Comprehensive Plan already in place. Baker said they've engaged the community as a result of this study and hopefully, people will be engaged in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Kluchka asked if the Commission should look at the results of median vs. mean. Johnson said they need discuss the pros and cons and not just look at the results of the two. Johnson said the median accommodates outliers better. Cera said that median seems to be a better reflection because one large lot could change the average. Johnson said that is not true, and it depends on what they want to accomplish. Kluchka questioned if the issue needs to be better researched. Zimmerman noted that 90% of the lots estimated to be subdividable are under 50,000 square feet. Segelbaum stated that the consultants gave a reason why they went with mean and not median. He said if the average lot size is 18,000 square feet, then the new lots have to be 15,000 square feet in size, so there is a balance. He said he thinks they would get the same result in many instances using median or mean. Baker said his preference would be to recommend that both options are brought to the City Council with some analysis and background information. Cera questioned what would be a better reflection of a neighborhood, the mean or median. Waldhauser said if the City is trying to preserve the look or feel of a neighborhood she Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 11 thinks the median would reflect that better. Segelbaum said if they use median instead of mean it could potentially allow many more subdivisions. Kluchka said the intent is not clear, but it sounds like using median is the more appropriate approach. Kluchka asked the Commissioners what they think about the proposed lot size changes. Baker said he thinks the City Council has chosen to undertake this study for a reason and if it was solely to make a few people happy they wouldn't have done it. He said he thinks the consultant's recommendation is a good one. Segelbaum agreed. He added that a few non-conforming properties may be created, but it is a nice compromise. Blum said it seems that there is a legitimate interest in housing diversity in Golden Valley which they've heard from a lot of people, and these changes will serve that interest. He referred to one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan which is to protect and respect traditional neighborhoods and this change reflects that goal, part of which is making sure properties don't get subdivided down to the smallest lots possible. Cera said there is a law of unintended consequences. He said he thinks in a year or two there will be a different group of people with different problems such as "McMansions" and lots being overbuilt. He said they also need to address the zoning and building issues such as where a house can built, the coverage, the impervious surface, the building pad, etc. because people could potentially build a 12,000 square foot home. He said they are not necessarily addressing the right thing. Baker said this is not a perfect solution, but it is a good one. He said he doesn't think they are going to see 12,000 square foot homes because if someone has the money to build at 12,000 square foot home they are not going to build it a dense residential neighborhood, they are going to build it in Wayzata or Minnetonka, so he is not compelled by that argument. Kluchka said he agrees that the proposed recommendations are an interesting compromise, however he has concerns in three areas. The first is how homeowners were notified, the second is that this is potentially a financial taking. He said he feels strongly that 140 property owners need to be clearly notified that their property's sale value could be reduced. He said the City hasn't been clear and forthcoming with the effect this will have. He said his last concern is, as much as he wants his neighborhood to stay the same, or as much as he wants Golden Valley and traditional neighborhoods to stay the same, staying the same costs everybody more money because asphalt, labor and pipes cost more, as they will see with the sewer crisis. He added that unless they find the right places for density, the costs are going to keep coming to the City and everybody will have to pay more to the City if density isn't allowed to happen. Cera asked if they are going to vote on the recommendations individually or as a group. Kluchka said he would like to separate the recommendations. Baker said they should be careful about throwing around the number of 140 homeowners being affected by this because they won't all be impacted. Kluchka said 50% of them will be adversely impacted according to the study. He reiterated that they haven't been forthright in their communicating. Baker referred to the implications made about the tax base and said as long as the City is continuing to do things like what's being done along Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 12 Pennsylvania Avenue, the City is not going to have to grapple with the kind of issues that have been raised because things are being done in other parts of the City to raise the tax base. Blum agreed that there needs to be density and growth in the right places, but he doesn't think these proposed changes will have negative impacts because the changes are narrowly tailored to subdivisions. He added that he doesn't think the City needs to notify people that the value of their land may change over time as the law changes. There are inherent risks in real estate and the City doesn't need to guarantee a return on any investments people make. Johnson said his concern is the tree survey requirement because there is a way around it. It could force people to make decisions about their trees before they choose subdivide their property. He added that it doesn't seem to be in sync with the other proposed requirements. MOVED by Cera to recommend using the median when determining the average lot size. Kluchka said he was looking for a recommendation to approve that, but wanted to discuss the issue of minimum lot size. MOVED by Segelbaum, and seconded by Baker to recommend the suggested change to the definition of minimum lot size, as it is recommended which is based on the average lot size of properties within 250 feet. Cera proposed that the median be used when figuring the average. He stated that he did some math using 6 lots and 7 lots and there could be a big difference between using the average and using the median especially when there is one big lot in the equation. Kluchka asked if anyone would like to second the motion to add median as a recommended metric. Segelbaum said he would prefer it be studied further, Kluchka agreed it should be reviewed further. There was no second. Kluchka said the motion on the table is to recommend that the minimum lot area definition as proposed, be recommended to the Council. The motion carried 5 to 2. Cera and Kluchka voted no. Kluchka referred to the recommendations regarding tree preservation and the idea that there needs to be an existing tree survey created at the time subdivision. He referred to the issue brought up that trees could be cut down before a survey was created in order to get around the requirements. Segelbaum said he thinks it is an investment to cut trees down and speculative of the applicant when they don't know if their subdivision will be approved or not, so he doesn't think is very likely to happen. He added there will be a benefit in having a tree survey when reviewing subdivision proposals. Baker reiterated that there will be more work done in the future regarding tree preservation. Blum added that the tree survey requirement will have a direct relationship towards greater transparency. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of requiring the submittal of an existing tree survey when applying Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 13 for a subdivision. Kluchka added that the Commission strongly supports further study of the tree preservation standards and landscape standards in subsequent ordinance revisions. Kluchka referred to the proposed recommendations regarding PUDs. He said the issue is whether a minimum lot size of 2 acres for residential PUDs should be created. Segelbaum said he's worried that all flexibility is being taken away. Waldhauser said there are three exceptions to allow smaller PUDs listed in the recommended language. Baker questioned if PUDs have been misused in the past. Blum said the City needs to make sure the PUD process isn't being used to circumvent the requirements and he thinks the language is legitimate and has been fairly crafted. Kluchka stated that the City has more control when the PUD process is used and he likes the idea of having input in residential PUD proposals. Waldhauser questioned who makes the decision that a proposal can be considered as a PUD. Zimmerman suggested that language be added stating that the City Manager or his/her designee are allowed to determine when a proposal can be considered as a PUD. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed language regarding PUD standards and guidelines with clarification about how the Applicant demonstrates the need for a PUD. Kluchka suggested the remaining items including lot width, lot line definitions, rear yard setback and the other miscellaneous changes be considered in one motion. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the rest of the proposed language changes as specified in the staff report. Waldhauser added that she was in favor of only having one front lot line on corner lots. She said she thought the consultants gave them the option of choosing one front over the other that would fit best within the context of the neighborhood and then the other front yard would be considered a side. ort Recess- 4. eports on Meetings of the ousing and Redevelopment Authority, City Co cil, Board of Zoning A peals and other Meetings 5. Other Bus ss %' • Land Use Plannin r Iden�Valley Road/Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area Zimmerman refed to two va nt Comme I properties located in the Golden Valley Road/High w 5 West Rede elopment Area. ated that there has been recent interest ' auto uses at those roperties so the City C it would like the Planning Co ission to consider oth r possible land uses for this area. Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations Subdivision Study ConcernDescription Su• • •n Study Findings - • • • Tree Preservation Some neighborhood The Tree Preservation Ordinance is part of the City Code but not the Zoning or Subdivision Amendment to the Minor residents feel that the Ordinances.A tree preservation plan,including tree inventory,is required to be submitted Subdivisions and current tree preservation or incorporated with a grading, drainage and erosion control plan,which is required for a Consolidations Ordinance.See ordinance doesn't result in Subdivision application but not a Minor Subdivision/Consolidation application. Per the proposed amendment the desired level of tree Tree Preservation Ordinance,an individual lot tree preservation plan is required for regarding the addition of an preservation. building permit applicants,however,tree preservation plans for single-family homes are existing tree survey not required to be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect.Tree requirement. preservation plans are reviewed by Engineering and the City Forester.Note that while residents may not believe it,developers do want to keep trees.Study considered lowering In addition,recommend a follow the maximum %of trees that can be removed before tree replacement is required and/or up study that integrates the amending the dimensional definitions of Significant Tree,Specimen Tree,and Significant recommended amendments to Woodland to include smaller trees. It was also explored whether a different tree standard the Tree Preservation Ordinance could be applied near Theodore Wirth Park and whether the Tree Preservation Ordinance with the City's desire to should be moved into the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. establish site landscaping standards in the City's ordinances.See proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Minimum Lot Area New lots being created, Lot area(density)is currently regulated through the Zoning Code.Minimum lot size in the Amendment to the Subdivision while meeting the zoning R-1 District is 10,000 square feet.Overall in the City,the average lot size for properties in Ordinance.See proposed code,are smaller in size the R-1 Zoning District is about 15,000 square feet.The average lot size in Tralee is about ordinance amendment than existing lots. 27,000,while North Tyrol has an average lot size of 20,000 and South Tyrol an average lot regarding minimum lot area for size of 18,000.The map of lot sizes shows that there are additional neighborhoods that new subdivisions in large lot also have larger lots. Changes to the Zoning Code to address minimum lot sizes need to be neighborhoods. broader than just the neighborhoods that have recently experienced subdivisions.Study considered creating a higher minimum lot size for part or all of the City.Explored whether changes should occur in either the Zoning or Subdivison Code. 2/13/2015 1 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns, Findings,and Recommendations Subdivision • Concern Description Subdivision Study Findings Recommendation Irregular shaped Existing definitions and Concern was explored as part of Planning Commission study in 2014 but no zoning Amendments to the lots standards for lot width may amendments were adopted by the City Council. Planning Commission recommendations Subdivision and Zoning be insufficient for from that study regarding requiring a minimum dimension to be maintained for a certain Ordinances.See proposed controlling the creation of portion of the lot were evaluated. Lack of definitions for front,rear,and side lot lines ordinance amendments irregular shaped lots. make the application of setback requirements challenging.In particular,the regarding lot width definition determination of whether a line is a rear or side can make a difference as to how much and standard,and addition of separation required between homes. Recommend adding a definition for each. definitions for front,rear,and side lot lines. House to Lot Sizes of rear yards and Concern was explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes.2008 R-1 ordinance Amendment to the Zoning Relationship placement of houses on changes included increased side setback requirements based on the height of the home,a Ordinance.See proposed new subdivided lots can be new requirement for the articulation of a wall longer than 32 feet for any new house, ordinance amendment substantially different from reduction in maximum building height from 30 to 28 feet for a pitched roof and 25 feet regarding rear yard setback. those of existing adjacent for a flat roof,and changes to the building height definition and standards. lots. Rear yard setback minimum is calculated as 20%of lot depth.Since there is not a fixed New homes,while meeting standard for lot depth,the resulting rear yard setback minimums vary by lot and can the zoning code maximum, result in small rear yard setbacks. Evaluate the establishment of a fixed minimum for rear may have a larger building yard setback. coverage than existing adjacent lots. A review of existing building coverage in the City found that it is generally tied to lot size. The City's current maximum is 30%for lots 10,000 square feet or greater. Excluding the newest lots where the data is not available,the average building coverage in Tralee is around 11%with both North and South Tyrol around 15%.Precedents from other communities found some communities that did not regulate it.Of those that did,the maximum allowed ranged from 20 to 35%.Further study of building coverage not recommended. Evaluated whether floor area ratio(FAR)could be an approach to address the house to lot relationship. Determined that the variety of lot sizes and shapes would make the development of a FAR very challenging. Not recommended for further study. 2/13/2015 2 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations Subdivision Concern Description Subdivision Study Findings Recommendation Use of PUD for Small residential PUDs may Review other cities standards and make recommendation about how large of a project is Amendment to the Zoning large lot avoid some zoning needed to use the PUD tool for residential subdivisions.Evaluate the establishment of a Ordinance.See proposed subdivision restrictions that would minimum size for residential PUDs.Consider exceptions under certain circumstances. ordinance amendment otherwise regulate the regarding addition of minimum development of the lot. lot size requirement. Stormwater New subdivisions create An increase in the overall amount of impervious surface is a reality with additional Recommend further discussion Management additional building pads development.Stormwater management is regulated by Section 4.31 of the City Code.A and study involving Planning, whose elevations may not Stormwater Permit is required for any activity defined as a land disturbance,which Engineering,and Building be regulated by 2008 includes the construction of homes.Currently,a preliminary grading plan is prepared as Inspections. amendments to R-1 zoning part of the subdivision application and is considered as part of the public review process. district,especially since Final plans are prepared at the time of application for the Stormwater Permit and the subdivisions typically review is handled administratively.Stormwater Permit applications are reviewed by involve major site grading. Engineering and the appropriate watershed management organization. Additional impervious Concern also addressed by impervious surface limitation,which was explored in study surface and modifications preceding 2008 code changes.A 50%maximum impervious surface coverage was added to existing drainage to the R-1 Zoning District.The Zoning Code was also revised to reduce amount of the front patterns increases yard that could be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement,or pavers from 50% neighborhood risk of down to 40%. flooding. Building pad elevations were also addressed with 2008 amendments to the R-1 zoning district.This included a revision to the building height definition that requires the average grade of replacement homes to be within one foot of the previous structure.Given that the 2008 amendment primarily deals with tear downs and replacements of individual single family homes,there still may be an issue with new subdivisions-particularly when entire sites are regraded to make new building pads. However,maintaining a similar grade to the previous structure may be challenging when multiple new building pads need to be established and there is additional Stormwater to manage. Any additional review of Stormwater regulations should involve Engineering and Building Inspections as well.May be beneficial to have additional discussion about initial site grading as part of new subdivisions-particularly as it relates to building pad elevation. No new strategies recommended. If additional study warranted,recommend that it be completed outside of subdivision study and involve Engineering and Building Inspections. 2/13/2015 3 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations Subdivision Study Concern Description Subdivision Study Findings Recommendation Cookie-cutter Houses in new subdivisions Difficult to address in Zoning or Subdivision given the variety of housing styles in Golden Not recommended for further appearance/ can be too similar in Valley Neighborhoods.Most appropriate approach may be the use of residential design study. If additional regulations Style too character to each other. guidelines or a neighborhood conservation district to address.This would involve desired by residents,next step different/ extensive involvement of residents and likely take many months to complete. after Subdivision Study would Maintaining be exploration of residential housing variety design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation district. Quality of Types of building materials The Zoning Code does not currently address the type of exterior building material used in Not recommended for further construction selected do not fit with the City.The City does prohibit in Chapter 4 of the City Code the use of materials that will study.If additional regulations surrounding neighborhood. rapidly disintegrate or look unsightly,such as unfinished sheet metal or unfinished desired by residents,next step exposed concreate.There are examples of cities requiring certain types of exterior after Subdivision Study would building materials,such as masonry,brick,stone,stucco,wood,cement-based siding, be exploration of residential and/or glass. design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation Establishment of standards for exterior building materials,which could potentially be district. addressed in Zoning Code or part of residential design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation district. Building Height Contemporary house styles Concern explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes. Height maximum Not recommended for further can be significantly taller lowered from 30 feet to 28 feet for pitched roof and 25 feet for a flat roof. Definitions for study. and perceived as grade and height were changed, incompatible with the scale of existing house styles. 2/13/2015 4 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns, Findings,and Recommendations Subdivision Study Concern Description Subdivision Study Findings Recommendation House Spacing Houses in new subdivisions Concern was explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes.Spacing between Not recommended for further placed too close to existing, houses was primarily addressed by increasing the side yard setbacks and linking the side study. adjacent homes. yard setbacks to the height of the structure.The Project Team did explore whether a minimum building separation requirement could be a potential strategy.However, precedent research did not yield examples of building separation requirements being used for standard single-family residential properties. Precedents found where a minimum building separation was required generally occurred in three situations: 1) between principal and accessory structures on a lot;2)between buildings on properties zoned for multi-family;and 3)in PUDs.Development of a minimum building separation requirement is therefore not recommended.If further study desired,case studies on sample lots should performed as placement of homes on adjacent lots will significantly impact the application of such as requirement. Silt Runoff Inappropriate construction Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants Recommend adoption and practices allowing silt understand existing rules.Additional code changes not proposed at this time. implementation of Construction runoff to occur. Management Agreement. Inconvenience of Construction is causing Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants Recommend adoption and construction inconveniences for understand existing rules.Additional code changes not proposed at this time. implementation of Construction surrounding Management Agreement. neighborhoods. Emergency and Access is diminished for Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants Recommend adoption and maintenance Emergency and understand existing rules.Additional code changes not proposed at this time, implementation of Construction vehicle access maintenance vehicles. Management Agreement. Noise Construction is generating Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants Recommend adoption and noise. understand existing rules.Additional code changes not proposed at this time. implementation of Construction Management Agreement. 2/13/2015 5 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns, Findings, and Recommendations Subdivision Study ConcernDescription Su • • •n Study Findings - • • • Public Safety locations of new driveways Driveway locations are evaluated by Engineering based on adopted engineering Not recommended for further decrease safety in standards. If thresholds reached then mitigation measures are required. Evaluation based study. neighborhood. on industry standards.Additional changes would need to involve Engineering. Increased traffic Additional homes increase Traffic impacts from potential development reviewed by Engineering as part of every Not recommended for further traffic on local application.Mitigation required when standard traffic thresholds reached.Evaluation study. neighborhood streets, based on industry standards. In general,impact of a few additional single family homes unlikely to trigger additional measures.Changes would likely be outside of zoning and subdivision ordinances and would need to involve Engineering. Neighborhood New lots and houses differ Not defined in any City plans,policies or regulations.City's diversity of housing styles Further explore neighborhood Character from existing lots and could make defining neighborhood character in terms of zoning standards challenging. character as part of upcoming Preservation houses in scale and style Community input indicated that each neighborhood has its own character.Many features Comprehensive Planning which changes the beyond house style-such as topography,access to parks and trails,trees,and open Process.If additional regulations neighborhood's existing space. Recommend that first step would be to incorporate neighborhood character desired by residents,next step character. preservation definitions and goals into the Comprehensive Plan.A second step could be would be exploration of the creation of residential design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation district.This residential design guidelines or a would involve extensive involvement of residents and likely take many months to neighborhood conservation complete. district. 2/13/2015 6 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns, Findings,and Recommendations Subdivision Study Concern Description Subdivision Study Findings Recommendation Neighborhood Neighborhood covenants The establishment of neighborhood covenants has been suggested as an option.The Not recommended for further Covenants possible approach to Subdivision Code has a definition of restrictive covenants that states it is a contract study. enable residents to control between private parties.While a possible strategy,covenants would have to be new development. developed and agreed to by a group of property owners. Each property owner would then be responsible for recording the covenant against their property.Those who did not want to participate would not have to establish a covenant against their property.Covenants have a limitation of 30 years so protection of a neighborhood in perpetuity is not guaranteed.Once established,the covenants would need to be enforced through the legal system.This is generally done by surrounding property owners.The City has on a few,limited occasions been a third party to a covenant. If this were to occur then the City would need to participate in the development of the covenant and its enforcement. Covenants are not recommended as a strategy the City should further explore. Wildlife Impacted Amount and variety of Wildlife habitat and movement is being impacted by subdivisions.These impacts are Not recommended for further wildlife diminishing. similar to what occurred when any of the City's neighborhoods were developed.No new study. regulations are proposed to address this issue specifically.Addressing open space and tree preservation should help to address this concern. Boundary Change Current regulations apply Could consider modifications to subdivision regulations but recommend it be addressed Recommend Planning Staff Regulations same public hearing and separately after the subdivision study. Explore creating the ability for boundary changes review how boundary changes process standards to all lot to occur administratively. should be handled and make a modifications from recommendation to the PC and boundary changes to major CC. subdivisions. Sustainability No zoning or subdivision Likely broader than just this study and should involve multiple commissions.May be most Recommend further exploration related problems appropriate to reconsider as part of upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Education of sustainabiltiy should occur as identified. will be needed about what City can regulate and what it can not. part of upcoming Comprehensive Planning process. 2/13/2015 7 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Im Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Minimum Lot Area Subdivision Concern Too small/Too dense/Loss of open space Ordinance Impacted Subdivision Section 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards, Subdivision 5. Lots Recommendation Create a new minimum lot area requirement for new subdivisions Specific Ordinance Amendments Delete the existing subsection A of Section 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards, Subdivision 5. Lots: A. Minimum Requirements. All lots shall meet the minimum area and dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located.The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. Replace it with the following: A. Minimum Requirements. 1. All lots shall meet the minimum area requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must be at least 15,000 square feet if the average of the R-1 single-family lots within 250 feet of the subject parcel that are greater than 4,000 square feet, excluding the subject parcel, have an average lot area of 18,000 square feet or greater. 2. All lots shall meet the minimum dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must meet the minimum lot width at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that lot width to a point 70 feet back from the front property line. 3. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. Background Information The Subdivision Study Team has explored a number of approaches to address the desire for new lots to be larger and more similar in size to existing surrounding lots. One characteristic influencing the recommended approach is the number and distribution of larger lots throughout the City. As larger lots are not confined to specific geographic neighborhoods, it is recommended that a new minimum lot area, if required, be applied throughout the City.This 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study MIN Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Minimum Lot Area wim approach would also apply to situations where two or more lots are combined and then subdivided.The Subdivision Study Team is recommending a new minimum lot area, if required, be located in the Subdivision Ordinance rather than the Zoning Ordinance in an effort to reduce the creation of non-conforming lots. City Staff has continued to evaluate the number of lots that have the potential to be subdivided in the City. Recent analysis has included an examination of floodplain designation and properties that have previously been platted with underlying lots (and therefore are eligible to be built on without needing another subdivision approval). This additional analysis has reduced the estimate of subdividable lots to 139.The table below provides a breakdown as to the size of the lots. Lot Area of the Estimated 139 Parcels Possible to Be Subdivided FootageSquare Number20,000 to 25,000 34 24% 25,000 to 30,000 34 24% 30,000 to 35,000 20 14% 35,000 to 40,000 15 11% 40,000 to 50,000 21 15% 50,000 to 60,000 6 4% 60,000 to 80,000 5 4% More than 80,000 4 3% The first step in determining a new minimum lot area requirement was defining what area around a subject parcel would constitute a lot's surrounding context or neighborhood. A review of the precedents (available at the end of this memo)found the number ranged from 200 to 500 feet.The Subdivision Study Team is recommending in Golden Valley that the surrounding context or neighborhood be defined as 250 feet. This recommendation is based on the current minimum lot size (10,000 square feet) and width (80 feet) which result in a typical lot being 125 feet deep.The 250 foot requirement therefore generally includes the two lots adjacent to the subject parcel on all sides.To show the extent of the different distance requirements, the attached map shows two of the five case studies completed looking at how many lots would be included if the surrounding context or neighborhood boundary was 250 feet, 350 feet, or 500 feet.The analysis found that the size of the boundary did not have a consistent impact on the average lot area for the surrounding context or neighborhood. In some cases,the inclusion of additional properties from a larger boundary lowered the average lot area while in other cases it raised it. 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study MIN Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Minimum Lot Area With the 250 foot boundary established, the Subdivision Study Team then focused on determining what an appropriate minimum lot area requirement would be.The Subdivision Study Team heard from many people during the community input process that new lots should be required to be a minimum of the average of the surrounding lots.To evaluate the impact of such a regulation the Subdivision Study Team examined 10 subdividable parcels located throughout the City.The analysis is summarized in the table below and the case studies are shown in the attached map. Analysis of Neighborhood Characteristics of Potential Subdividable Lots subdivisionNumber of lots after Summary of Parcels within 250 feet PropertySubject 10,000 15,000 20,000 Case .• Median DeviationStudy Size of Lots Lot Size Lot Size Lot Size Lot Size CS 124,747 23 9,432 67,460 25,963 21,615 14,878 2 1 1 CS 2 21,257 35 8,893 15,109 11,370 11,146 1,444 2 1 1 CS 3 52,225 24 12,410 58,198 21,824 17,535 11,218 5 3 2 CS 4 49,998 32 11,823 39,200 19,116 16,698 6,725 4 3 2 CS 5 43,444 31 12,462 43,427 18,899 17,259 7,026 4 1 2 2 CS 6 21,447 39 7,860 25,929 11,707 10,373 4,116 2 1 1 CS 7 30,031 24 12,502 20,377 15,090 14,422 2,145 3 2 1 CS 8 46,300 22 13,208 52,178 28,054 29,632 7,761 4 3 2 CS 9 30,473 22 10,225 35,296 19,880 19,102 7,511 3 2 1 CS 10 36,228 20 4,940 75,416 23,492 21,113 16,947 3 2 1 In reviewing the analysis, the Subdivision Study Team determined that the use of the surrounding lots' average as the minimum lot size for any new subdivisions would render most subdivisions impossible.This would be the case whether the lot was in larger lot neighborhoods or in neighborhoods with more modest size lots. In an effort to balance the desire for larger lots from some neighborhood residents with the ability of property owners to subdivide their lots, the Subdivision Study Team recommends the City consider an alternative approach. Rather than using a strict average lot size, this approach would raise the minimum lot area requirement to 15,000 square feet when a lot is in a neighborhood where average lot sizes are greater than 18,000 square feet. 15,000 square feet is recommended for a number of reasons. It is the average lot size across the City and represents a 50% increase in the minimum lot area requirement.The Subdivision Study Team also recognizes that only 50%of the estimated Subdividable lots are greater than 30,000 square feet in size. Raising the minimum lot area greater than 15,000 further reduces the potential number of lots that can be subdivided even in half. 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a US Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Minimum Lot Area In addition to determining the new minimum lot area requirement, an average lot size of the surrounding neighborhood that would trigger the new requirement needs to be identified.The Subdivision Study Team explored a range of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. Given that 15,000 is the city-wide average lot size, it did not seem like the appropriate trigger for requiring larger lots. However, 20,000 square feet seemed too large given the case studies conducted. Many average lot sizes were just under at 19,000 square feet.The Subdivision Study Team ultimate identified 18,000 square feet as that is the lowest of the neighborhood average lots sizes for Tyrol and Tralee, which are the two neighborhoods most concerned about this issue. It is recommended that in calculating the average lot size for a neighborhood only lots that are greater than 4,000 square feet be included. A minimum is recommended so that very small, undeveloped lots do not skew the overall neighborhood average.An analysis of the City's small R-1 lots found that all but a few are publicly owned by the City, Hennepin County, MnDOT, or Metro Transit.The smallest lot that has a residential structure on it is just over 4,200 square feet in size.Thus,Staff recommends that 4,000 be the minimum threshold in calculating the average neighborhood lot size. In considering a revision to the minimum lot area requirement it is important to recognize that the lot area is only one of the factors that will be used in determining whether a lot can be subdivided. New lots also need to meet minimum lot width requirements, provide access to a public street, and have sufficient buildable area on the lot. Precedents CalculationLots Used in . City Precedent Lot Size Regulations Average Lot Area Comments Minneapolis Lot area shall not be less than theSingle-family and two-family Subdivision Ordinance, greater of(1)the minimum zoning lots,including the subject Residential development requirements set forth by the zoning lot, located in whole or part design(Section 598.240) zoning ordinance or(2)the average within 350 feet or the average of of the single-family and two-family the single-family and two-family zoning lots,including the subject zoning lots,including the subject zoning lot,located in whole or part zoning lot,located in whole or in within three hundred fifty(350) part within the same zoning feet or the average of the single- district within 350 feet,whichever family and two-family zoning lots, is greater. including the subject zoning lot, located in whole or in part within the same zoning district within three hundred fifty(350)feet, whichever is greater,where such average lot area exceeds the minimum zoning requirement by fifty(50)percent or more. 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study ODIN Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a i!!!11 Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Minimum Lot Area CalculationLots Used in . City Precedent Lot Size Regulations Average Lot Area Comments Edina Minimum Lot Area—9,000 square [Note:this definition is located in Zoning Ordinance, R-1 feet;provided,however,if the lot Subdivision Ordinance] District is in a neighborhood, as defined in Neighborhood means all lots in chapter 32,which has lots with a the Single Dwelling Unit District,as Similar regulations for median lot area greater than 9,000 established by chapter 36,which Minimum Lot Width and square feet,then the minimum lot are wholly or partially within 500 Minimum Lot Depth. area shall be not less than the feet of the perimeter of the median lot area of the lots in such proposed plat or subdivision, Section 32.73 of Subdivision neighborhood. except:(1)Lots used for publicly Ordinance identifies owned parks, playgrounds, requirements for submittal athletic facilities and golf courses; of a complete list of all lots (2) Lots used for conditional uses, which are within the as established by chapter 36;or neighborhood of the (3)Lots separated from the property proposed to be proposed plat or subdivision by platted or subdivided, the right-of-way of either T.H. 100 including lot areas, lot or T.H.62. If the neighborhood widths, lot depths,and the includes only a part of a lot,then means and medians of each the whole of that lot shall be dimensional measure. included in the neighborhood.As to streets on the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision,the 500 feet shall be measured from the common line of the street and the proposed plat or subdivision. Bloomington Lot width for single and two-family Existing lots wholly or partially Zoning Ordinance, residential lots approved by the within 500 feet of the perimeter of Exceptions and Additions to City after August 31,2006 must the proposed subdivision. Setback and Lot Width meet or exceed 80 percent of the Requirements(Section median lot width of existing lots 19.42) wholly or partially within 500 feet of the perimeter of the proposed Although this regulation is subdivision. for lot width,the approach is relevant to Golden Valley's lot area issue. Unlike the other comparable regulations that focus on meeting the average,this regulation is to meet or exceed 80%of the median. Duluth Minimum Lot Area per Family Developed 1-family lots on the Zoning Ordinance, R-1 (One-Family)-The smaller of 4,000 block face. District square feet or average of developed 1-family lots on the Similar regulations for block face Minimum Lot Frontage and Minimum Depth of Front Yard(Structure Setback). 5 Golden Valley Subdivision Study [ilia to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Minimum Lot Area to CalculationLots Used in . City Precedent Lot Size Regulations Average Lot Area Comments Rochester Lot Area and Frontage-The zoning All parcels lying in whole or in part Zoning Ordinance,Design administrator may permit as a Type within 200 feet of the boundary of Modifications(Chapter 60) 1 Design Modification:(1)The the subject site.Only parcels development of a single family within the same district. Although this regulation detached dwellings on lots smaller permits new lots with lot than those required by the areas smaller than required ordinance in an R-1,R-1x,or R-2 by the zoning district,the Zoning District if consistent in lot approach is relevant to area and frontage with adjacent Golden Valley's lot area developed parcels. issue. Wayzata The lot size that results from a Surrounding neighborhood not Subdivision Ordinance, subdivision or lot combination shall defined. Procedures for Filing and not be dissimilar from adjacent lots Review, Preliminary Plat, or lots found in the surrounding Planning Commission Criteria neighborhood or commercial area. (Section 805.14.E) In addition to the lot size criteria,the Planning Commission Criteria also include criteria regarding adverse impacts on community character/scale/pattern, lot design reflective of the surrounding lots and neighborhood character,and depreciation of values of neighboring properties.Also criteria regarding architectural appearance, scale,mass,construction materials,proportion and scale of roof line,and functional plan of a building must be similar to the characteristics and quality of existing development.Also a reference to architectural guidelines and criteria (Design Standards),which are in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9). 6 Golden Valley Subdivision Study am E" Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a NJ Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Minimum Lot Area CalculationLots Used in . City Precedent Lot Size Regulations Average Lot Area Comments Shoreview The Residential Estate(RE) District The term"neighborhood"is Zoning Ordinance, is established to protect and intended to consist of several lots Residential Estate District enhance the character of single- with similar development and (RE) dwelling neighborhoods where lot aesthetic character. areas are substantially larger than This approach targets required in the R1,Detached specific lots with a new Residential District and to protect zoning district and requires mature trees and other significant rezoning. natural features that would otherwise be lost if more intensive Each of the alternative subdivision were to occur.The minimum lot areas has minimum lot area is determined by different minimum lot widths the City Council at the time of and maximum lot coverages. rezoning but is limited to the following alternatives:20,000 square feet;40,000 square feet; 60,000 square feet;or 80,000 square feet.For example, lots rezoned to a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet show up as RE(20)on the Zoning Map. 7 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Lot Width Subdivision Concern Irregular Shaped Lots—Lot Width Ordinance(s) Impacted Subdivision Section 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards, Subdivision 5. Lots Recommendation Add a subdivision design standard for newly created R-1 lots to require that the minimum lot width dimension be met at the minimum front yard setback line and that lot width be maintained to a point 70 feet back from the front property line.The intent of this recommendation is to prevent the creation of irregularities in lot shape in the portion of the lot where a house will most likely be constructed. Specific Ordinance Amendments Delete the existing subsection A of Section 12.20:Minimum Subdivision Design Standards, Subdivision 5. Lots: A. Minimum Requirements. All lots shall meet the minimum area and dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. Replace it with the following: A. Minimum Requirements. 1. All lots shall meet the minimum area requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must be at least 15,000 square feet if the average of the R-1 single-family lots within 250 feet of the subject parcel that are greater than 4,000 square feet, excluding the subject parcel, have an average lot area of 18,000 square feet or greater. 2. All lots shall meet the minimum dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must meet the minimum lot width at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that lot width to a point 70 feet back from the front property line. 3. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. Background Information In 2014, City Staff worked with the Planning Commission on the irregular lot shapes issue and lot width definitions. Staff provided a brief survey of lot width definitions in surrounding communities, including St. Louis Park, New Hope, Hopkins, Plymouth, Edina, and Minnetonka. Most cities studied require that 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a 0311 Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Lot Width ma the minimum lot width dimension be met at the front yard setback line.St. Louis Park's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the minimum lot width dimension be maintained for 1/3 of the lot depth,which is the exception. Based on this study,the Planning Commission suggested that the City Council consider amending the lot width definition/standard to require that new lots meet the minimum lot width dimension at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that width continuously to a point 70 feet into the lot.The intent was to ensure that the minimum lot width is maintained for the front portion of the building envelope.Since new houses are typically constructed up to the minimum front yard setback, PC members felt that it was most important for lots to have sufficient width maintained for the front portion of the building envelope where a house would be placed,adjacent to neighboring houses,and visible from the street. Minimum Lot Width Standards from Surrounding Communities(Staff Survey from May 2014) City Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance St. Louis Park Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning at front yard setback maintained for 1/3 of the lot depth New Hope Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning but cul- at front yard setback de-sacs have minimum lot width of 40 feet Hopkins Maximum distance between side Lot width from zoning lot lines within the front yard Plymouth Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning at front yard setback Edina Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning at a depth of 50 feet from the front lot line Minnetonka Lot width from subdivision Width of 110 feet at front yard setback,80 feet at right-of-way (or 65 feet at cul-de-sac) The Subdivision Study's review of lot width standards for irregular shaped lots has found additional examples of minimum lot width standards being applied to a portion of the lot's depth. In general,these examples fall into two lot width approaches for irregular shaped lots:average lot width (versus a single point measurement),and minimum lot width maintained for a portion of the building envelope where a house will be located.The Planning Commission's original suggestion that new lots meet the minimum lot width dimension at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that width continuously to a point 70 feet into the lot essentially represents maintaining the minimum lot width for 35 feet,or the front half of the depth of a typical building envelope for a 125-foot deep lot.The depth of the building envelope is calculated by subtracting the front and rear yard setbacks: 125' (lot depth)—35' (front yard setback)—25'(rear yard setback)=65'.Therefore,the front half of the 65' building envelope depth would be 32'.Similar to the Planning Commission's suggestion,the Subdivision Study's recommendation is to maintain the minimum lot width from the minimum building setback line to the midpoint of the building envelope.The following are some examples of lot width ordinances for irregular shaped lots: 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Lot Width 13, Bainbridge Township,OH B. Irregular Lots. Lot width is the distance from one side lot line to the opposite side lot line at the front building line.See Figure 7.1.206C,Measurement of Lot Width;Irregular Lots.Generally,the front building line is the front setback line. However, an alternative front building line may be established on the plat of a subdivision that is more distant than the front setback line from the front lot line. Lot width must be maintained to a depth that is sufficient to accommodate a reasonable building in the context of adjacent and nearby lots. Medina,WA B. The lot width is determined by calculating the average horizontal distance between the side lot lines where the building envelope is located. If a lot has an irregular shape(Le.: less than two side property lines)or is a corner lot, lot width is determined by calculating the average horizontal distance between the longer dimensional lot lines where the building envelope is located. Hanover, MN 0. Irregular Shaped Lots. On lots determined to be irregular in shape (e.g.,triangular),the developer shall demonstrate to the City an ability to properly place principal buildings and accessory structures upon the site which are compatible in size and character to the surrounding area. Portland,OR 33.930.100 Measuring Lot Widths and Depths A.Single-Dwelling zones. In the single-dwelling zones, lot width is measured by placing a rectangle along the minimum front building setback line.Where the setback line is curved,the rectangle is placed on the line between the intersection points of the setback line with the side lot lines.See Figure 930- 20.The rectangle must have a minimum width equal to the minimum lot width specified for the zone in Chapters 33.610 and 33.611.The rectangle must have a minimum depth of 40 feet,or extend to the rear property line,whichever is less.The rectangle must fit entirely within the lot.See Figure 930-20. B.All other zones. In all other zones, lot widths and depths are measured from the midpoints of opposite lot lines.See Figure 930-15. Borough of River Edge,NJ Lot width. (1)The minimum lot width shall be measured either at the required front yard setback line or at the front lot line as required for the zoning district in which it is situated. For irregularly shaped lots whose sides are not parallel,where the lot width is measured at the required front yard setback line,the street frontage shall not be less than 80%of the minimum lot width required;provided that the lot width measured at the front yard setback line shall be no less than the minimum lot width specified in the Zoning Schedule for the zoning district in which said lot is situated. 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Wha Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Lot Width fell (2) In the case of irregularly shaped lots whose sides are not parallel,where the lot width is measured at the front lot line,the width of the lot measured at the required front yard setback shall not be less than 90%of the required lot width measured at the front lot line. Staten Island, NYC Minimum Lot Width(ZR 23-32 and ZR 107-42) The Zoning Resolution mandates a minimum zoning lot width for each residential district(e.g.,40 feet in an R2 district, 30 feet in an R4A district). Where streets follow a grid pattern it is easy to determine the width of a zoning lot. On Staten Island,where there is no regular pattern to the street network, most streets follow the natural topography of the island or have been defined by private road development. In many instances,zoning lots are irregular or uniquely shaped. In these circumstances,the prior zoning regulations allowed a property owner to calculate the mean lot width,an averaging,to determine the lot width.The Task Force identified several instances where property owners have used this averaging to subdivide zoning lots to build more houses than is normally anticipated.The new regulations require that any new building meet all three of the following minimum lot width requirements. A zoning lot has to: 1. Meet the existing minimum mean lot width (averaging) requirement; 2. Meet the minimum lot width requirement at the street line, and 3. A residence can be located only on a portion of the zoning lot where the minimum lot width requirement is met. In addition, on a corner lot,the minimum lot width requirement has to be met on both of the streets that the lot fronts on. On an L-shaped lot,the minimum lot width requirement can be met at only one of the two street lines; however,a building can be located only on that portion of the zoning lot where the minimum lot width is met. Centennial,CO C. Irregular Lots. Lot width is the distance from one side lot line to the opposite side lot line at the front building line.See Figure 12-3-203C, Measurement of Lot Width,Irregular Lots. Generally,the front building line is the front setback line. However, an alternative front building line may be established on the plat of a subdivision that is more distant than the front setback line from the front lot line. Lot width must be maintained to a depth that is sufficient to accommodate a reasonable building in the context of adjacent and nearby lots. San Diego,CA For irregularly shaped lots,such as pie shaped lots,the lot width is determined by calculating the average lot width for the first 50 feet of lot depth. 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study MFrA Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a MO HNSubdivision Ordinance Amendment for Lot Width Waltham, MA The minimum lot frontage shall be maintained on all lots as a minimum lot width to a point equivalent to the rear facade of the principal building or 50%of the depth of the lot,whichever is greater. Tampa,FL (a) Measurements of lot width and yards. (1)Lot width. The width of a lot shall be measured at the rear of the required front yard and shall be maintained for a depth required to meet fifty(50) percent of the required minimum lot area. 5 Golden Valley Subdivision Study ' Recommendation to the Planning Commission for hi Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Lot Line Definitions Subdivision Concern Irregular lot shapes—lack of lot line definitions Ordinance(s) Impacted Zoning Section 11.03: Definitions Recommendation Create definitions for front, rear, and side lot lines Specific Ordinance Amendments Add the following definitions to Section 11.03:Definitions: • Lot line,front:The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. In the case of a corner lot, any lot line along an existing or dedicated street shall be considered the front. • Lot line, rear:The rear lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is, or is approximately, parallel to the front lot line. In the case of a corner lot, the rear lot line shall be the line opposite the front lot line with the narrower street frontage. In the case of the front lot lines being equal in length, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall determine the front lot line. In the case of a triangular shaped lot, the rear lot line shall be a line ten (10) feet in length within the lot at the maximum distance from the front lot line. There shall only be one rear lot line. • Lot line, side:The side lot line shall be any boundary of a lot which is not a front or a rear lot line. Background Information The City Code currently does not define the front, rear, or side lot lines.This has been and can be problematic, particularly for triangular or irregular shaped lots. Assigning the type of lot line is important for the establishment of setbacks. Whether a line is a rear or side can make a difference in how much separation a new house will have from an existing one. An examination of other cities found that most do define the front, rear, and side lots lines.The definitions are fairly similar as can be seen below in the precedent section.These precedents, in conjunction with language in the existing City Code, were used to create the recommended definitions above. 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Lot Line Definitions Precedents Front Lot Line Apple Valley: The boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street. In the case of a corner bare lot it shall be that street line designated by the owner and filed with the Zoning Officer which shall hereafter be the front lot line. In the case of a corner lot with an existing building located thereon,the lot line facing the front side of the structure shall hereafter be the front lot line. Bloomington: That boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. The owner of a corner lot may select either street lot line as the front lot line. Brooklyn Park: A lot line abutting the right of way of a public street or property or easement line of a private street. On a corner lot,the shortest of the sides abutting the public street shall be the front. If the dimensions of a corner lot are within 10%of being equal,the front lot line shall be that street designated by the owner. Once it has been established,with the address assigned and the principal entrance determined,the front shall not be reversed. Burnsville: That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street,and in the case of a corner lot,the lot line with the shortest dimension on a public street,except that a corner lot in a nonresidential area shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. Columbia Heights: That boundary of a lot that abuts a public street. In the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal,the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed with the city. Edina: means the boundary of a lot having frontage on a street. The owner of a corner lot may select either frontage as the front lot line. Lakeville:The lot line separating a lot from the street right of way along the lot frontage. Minneapolis:A boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated public street, but not an alley. On a corner lot,the front lot line shall be the lot line that is in line with the predominant platting orientation of the block. Minnetonka: a lot line abutting a dedicated public right-of-way. Osseo: The boundary of a lot abutting a street. On a corner lot,the shortest street lot line will be the FRONT LOT LINE. St. Louis Park: means that boundary of a lot which abuts a street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal,the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed in the office of the division of inspections. If a parcel has multiple sides on more than two street frontages,the front lot line shall be determined by the zoning administrator. 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study M' Recommendation to the Planning Commission for Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Lot Line Definitions Rear Lot Line Apple Valley: The boundary of a lot which is opposite the front lot line. If the rear line is less than 10 feet in length,or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to,and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Bloomington: That boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is or is approximately parallel to the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Brooklyn Park: The boundary of a lot that is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length,or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot,connecting the side lot lines and parallel to the front lot line. Burnsville:That boundary of a lot which is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet (10') in length,or if the lot forms a point at the rear,therear lot line shall be a line ten feet (10') in length within the lot, parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Columbia Heights:That boundary of a lot that is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length,or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to,and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Edina: Lot line, rear, means the boundary of a lot which is most distant from,and approximately parallel with,the front lot line. Lakeville: The lot line opposite and most distant from the lot frontage which connects the side lot lines. Minneapolis: The lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line. In the case of triangular or otherwise irregularly shaped lots, a line ten (10) feet in length entirely within the lot, parallel to and at a maximum distance from the front lot line. Minnetonka: the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line. In the case of corner lots, the rear lot line shall be determined by the director of planning based upon characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. Osseo: The boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is,or is most nearly, parallel to the front lot line. St. Louis Park:means a lot line not intersecting a front lot line that is most distant from and most closely parallel to the front lot line. For a lot bounded by only three lot lines,the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Side Lot Line Apple Valley.Bloomington, Burnsville,Columbia Heights Edina Minneapolis and Osseo: Any boundary of a lot which is not at a front lot line or a rear lot line. 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study aim Recommendation to the Planning Commission for Mn Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Lot Line Definitions Lakeville: Lot lines extending away from the lot frontage, which connects the front and rear lot lines. Minnetonka: any lot line other than a front or rear lot line. St. Louis Park: Lot line,side, means a lot line which intersects with a front lot line. 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study iWIM Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a W US Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Rear Yard Setback Subdivision Concern House too big for the lot Ordinance(s) Impacted Zoning Section 11.21(R-1) Recommendation Establish new R-1 minimum rear yard setback Specific Ordinance Amendments 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 25 feet twenty ^^FG^A}(29%) „f the lot 4"t4- Background Information The City Code currently requires the rear yard setback to be 20%of the lot depth.This requirement means that the amount of setback between houses varies depending on the depth of the lot. While it seems the rear yard setback requirement has not been a significant issue, the establishment of a set rear yard setback number would provide residents a specific, consistent number that they can be sure will be required. If the rear yard setback requirement were to be revised, it is recommended that 25 feet be considered. 25 feet is based on what would be required if 20%were to be applied to the minimum lot area allowed by the zoning code. A 10,000 square foot lot with 80 feet of lot width would have a 125 foot depth and be required to have a 25 foot rear yard setback. As you consider a change to the rear yard setback, please note that it is likely that some structures on existing properties will become nonconforming. Structures determined to be non- conforming would then be required to request a variance to make any expansions.The amount of impact is unknown as this information is not captured in a database and can only be analyzed on a lot by lot basis. Precedents Many communities have more than one single-family residential district. For this review the single-family district closest to 10,000 square feet from the community was included. Minimum Lot Rear Yard City District Area Setback Apple Valley R-3 11,000 30' Blaine R-1 10,000 30' Bloomington R-1 11,000 30' Burnsville R-1 10,000 30' Eagan R-1s/R-1 8,000/12,000 15' 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study � Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a ulM Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Rear Yard Setback Edina R-1 9,000 25' Hopkins 110113/114C 8,000/12,000 30/35 Lakeville RS-3 11,000 30' Minnetonka R-1 22,000 40' Plymouth RSF-3/RSF-2 7,000/12,500 25'/25' St. Louis Park R-1 9,500 25' Wayzata R-3A 9,000 20' 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study ViRIUU Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a W La "0 nSubdivision Ordinance Amendment for Tree Preservation Subdivision Concern Too many trees removed as part of new subdivisions Ordinance(s) Impacted Subdivision Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations Recommendation Add a requirement to submit an existing tree survey as part of the Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations application process. Specific Ordinance Amendment as part of Subdivision Study 1) Subdivision Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations,Subdivision 2. Components of Application Application for a minor subdivision or consolidation shall be made on forms furnished by the City. A filing fee set by Council resolution shall accompany the application.The applicant shall also furnish fifteen (15) copies of a sketch showing the following: A. North arrow and scale(no smaller than 1"=100'). B. Overall dimensions of the property and of each internal property division. C. Square footage of the overall property and of each internal property division. D. Location of all public utilities, streets, driveways, and easements,adjacent to or on the property. E, Location and dimensions of any existing buildings, and distances to nearest existing or proposed lot lines on all sides. & Sizes s ecies,and location of alf xis ink si n�frcant freest sr�ectrrien tries.and significant woodlands located within the Droiect lint-4.These significant trees s2gcimen trees.and significant woodlands should be identified in both&a2hic and tabular form.This existing tree survey must be 2E0ared by a cgrtdk tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applisarst �—g.Any other information specific to the particular site and required for the complete evaluation of the application. Such information shall be supplied at the expense of the applicant. Future Potential Amendment to Tree Preservation Ordinance The Subdivision Study also recommends amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance to reduce tree removal and increase tree replacement. Based on discussions with the City Forester regarding the recommended tree preservation improvements,City Staff has also identified the need for establishing site landscaping standards within the City's ordinances. City Staff would like to integrate the recommended amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance with the creation of site landscaping standards, as a follow-up study to the Subdivision Study. The Subdivision Study's recommended amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance include changing the maximum of 25%of trees that can be removed without replacement during subdivision (multi-lot development)to requiring replacement for all trees that are removed as part of initial site development, but retaining the maximum tree removal thresholds at the time of individual/single-lot development. It is also recommended to simplify the allowable tree removal standards and 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Tree Preservation development phase definitions.The specific recommended amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance are as follows: 1) Buildings &Signs Section 4.32:Tree Preservation,Subdivision 2. Definitions L.&i*#e- i Initial Site. Development:The process w +ozaf 414 r<I r' single phase deyelepm +*.44eg;enerallyincludes initial site grading; installation of utilities; construction of public streets;construction and grading of drainageways;filling of any areas;grading of the pad area; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways,storage areas, recreation areas, private streets; and any other activity within the construction area. N.4'wo p Individual Lot Development: 4 Ia+ ,sy _The_process generally includes grading of specific pads; utility hookups;construction of buildings, parking lots,driveways,storage areas, recreation areas, private streets; and any other activity within the construction area. 2) Buildings &Signs Section 4.32:Tree Preservation,Subdivision 4. Allowable Tree Removal A.1 Single-lot development. a. Single-family or two-family residential,twenty percent(20%) b. Commercial or multi-unit residential,thirty percent (30%) A.2 Subdiv tionMmulti-lot development. fty &eve_"d one half la, Two phase development -1,a.Initial site development, 11 specimen tree,significant_trfiF_ and si nlficant woodland renigyal shall be mitigated .4b.Individual lot development. a L____ Single-family or two-family residential,twenty percent (20%) 1)421 Commercial or multi-unit residential,thirty percent(30%) Background Information In order to increase tree preservation as part of the residential subdivision process,the Subdivision Study's recommendation is to improve the process and percentage requirement for tree preservation at the time of initial site development as part of the subdivision approval.To improve the process, it is recommended that the City add a requirement for submittal of an existing tree survey as part of a Minor Subdivision/Consolidation application.Similar to the requirement to provide the location and dimensions of existing buildings,this additional requirement would enable PC/CC/public review of the existing significant trees on a proposed subdivision site and an opportunity for CC/PC/public feedback on tree preservation priorities.The details of a tree preservation plan would still be addressed through 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Tree Preservation an administrative review,since a tree preservation plan is submitted as part of a stormwater management plan at the time of a building permit application. To improve the percentage requirement for tree preservation, it is recommended that the maximum percentage of allowable tree removal at the time of initial site development be reduced from 25%to a requirement that all tree removal caused by initial site development require tree replacement.The 20% percent maximum for allowable tree removal at the time of individual lot development would stay in place.This change would reduce the current 40%allowable tree removal to 20%.To simplify the tree preservation standards, it is also recommended that the definitions for Single-Phase Development and Two-Phase Development be replaced with definitions for Initial Site Development and Individual Lot Development. Based on a review of other cities'definitions of significant trees and other protected trees,the Subdivision Study finds that Golden Valley's definitions are generally equal to or stronger than other cities and no changes Iare recommended in this regard. The following table shows other cities'Tree Preservation Ordinances to help evaluate the recommendations for improving Golden Valley's ordinance: Precedent Tree Preservation Ordinance Standards City Tree Removal Maximum Definition of Significant Trees Golden Valley For single-family or two-family Significant Tree=minimum 6"diameter for residential: hardwood deciduous trees, minimum 12"diameter for softwood deciduous Single-lot development: maximum of trees, minimum height of 12 feet for 20% coniferous/evergreen trees. Multi-lot development: Specimen Tree=30"or greater diameter • Single-phase development— for hardwood deciduous tree,50 feet maximum of 40% or greater in height for coniferous tree. • Multi-phase development- Significant Woodland=contiguous crown maximum of 25%(initial site cover occupying 500 or greater square development) plus maximum feet,comprised primarily of deciduous of 20%per individual lot trees between 4"and 12"in diameter development or coniferous trees between 4 ft. and 12 ft. in height. Minnetonka Maximum of 35%of site's high priority Significant Tree=8"or greater DBH for trees or maximum of 25%of a deciduous trees, 15 feet or greater in woodland preservation area can be height for coniferous trees. removed. High Priority Tree= 15"or greater DBH for deciduous trees, 20 feet or greater in height for coniferous trees. Woodland Preservation Area=a remnant woodland ecosystem that is a minimum of 2 acres in size and generally mapped in the MLCCS. Bloomington Maximum of 50%of the total inches in Significant Tree= minimum 12"diameter diameter(DBH)of significant trees. for hardwood deciduous trees, minimum 8" diameter for coniferous/evergreen trees. 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Tree Preservation Burnsville Maximum of 40%removal of Coniferous trees that are 6 ft.or taller, woodland -applies only to deciduous deciduous trees that are 4" in diameter or trees 4"or greater in diameter at 4%' greater require a tree removal permit. feet above the ground and coniferous trees 6'feet or taller. Plymouth Developments in residential districts Significant tree may not be defined. may remove or disturb up to 50%of the total inches of significant trees. Any removal or disturbance beyond this threshold shall require reforestation or restitution. Woodbury Up to 30%of the diameter inches of Significant Tree=minimum 6"diameter for significant trees on any parcel of land hardwood deciduous trees, minimum being developed may be removed 8"diameter for coniferous/evergreen without replacement requirements. trees, minimum 12"diameter for common trees. Specimen Tree=30"or greater diameter for hardwood deciduous tree. Wayzata All property within the City of Applies to any tree more than 32 inches in Wayzata is located within a tree diameter at breast height(DBH). preservation zone. Within the tree preservation zone, it is unlawful for any person(s)to remove any live, healthy tree or trees totaling more than 32 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH) per acre in any 12 month period without having first obtained a valid Tree Protection/Removal Permit from the City of Wayzata.The removal rate of parcels which are less than one (1) acre or more than one (1) acre is mathematically proportionate, subject, however,to the maximum density of 32 inches diameter(DBH) for each acre. St. Louis Park No land shall be altered which will Any tree,with the exception of Salix result in the removal or destruction of (Willow), Boxelder,Siberian Elm and Black any significant tree unless the Locust, is considered to be significant under destruction is authorized by a permit the landscaping section of the zoning issued by the city.Approval of a ordinance if it is at least 5 caliper inches for permit for the removal of any deciduous trees and 6 caliper inches for significant tree or for land alteration conifers.Aspen, Cottonwood or Silver which results in tree destruction shall Maple are considered significant if they are be subject to and conditioned upon at least 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet the owner or developer replacing the from the ground. 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study f al Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment for Tree Preservation loss or reasonably anticipated loss of all live significant trees. Shorewood Developments shall be designed to Any healthy long-lived hardwood preserve large trees where such deciduous tree measuring 8" DBH or preservation would not affect the greater;any healthy softwood deciduous public health,safety or welfare.The tree measuring 12" DBH or greater;or any City may prohibit removal of all or healthy coniferous tree measuring 8'or part of a stand of trees. more in height. Box-elder,cottonwood,and willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees. Delano Ordinance does not have numerical A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six standards for preserving trees.A tree (6) inches in diameter for deciduous trees, preservation plan must be submitted or a minimum of twelve(12)feet in height to and approved by the City and for coniferous trees.A healthy hardwood implemented in accordance with all tree measuring equal to or greater than subdivisions of five(5)or more lots. thirty(30) inches in diameter and/or a The subdivision tree preservation plan coniferous tree measuring fifty(50)feet or shall follow the preliminary plat/final greater in height.A grouping or cluster of plat review process. Individual lot tree coniferous and/or deciduous trees with preservation plans shall be processed contiguous crown cover,occupying five with the building permit.Tree hundred (500)or more square feet of replacement is required for significant property, which are comprised of trees which were indicated on the deciduous trees between four(4) inches tree preservation plan to be saved but and twelve (12) inches or larger in diameter ultimately were destroyed or or coniferous trees between four(4)feet damaged. and twelve (12)feet or higher in height. Northfield All trees with a DBH of 12 inches or Protected tree= 12"or more in diameter. more shall be retained as a protected tree,to the maximum extent feasible. White Bear No person shall alter any lot Any healthy, living,deciduous tree larger Lake containing significant and or specimen than eight(8) inches in caliper(excepting trees without first obtaining a site Box Elder and Chinese Elm)and any health, alteration permit. living evergreen tree at least six(6)inches in diameter.Any tree of notable historic association or any tree of extra ordinary value because of its age, size or type. 5 Golden Valley Subdivision Study W,MiA Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Development(PUD) Minimum Size Subdivision Concern Use of PUD to bypass subdivision/zoning standards Ordinance(s) Impacted Zoning Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development Recommendation Establish a minimum lot size requirement for eligibility to apply for a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Specific Ordinance Amendments Zoning Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development, Subdivision 3. Standards and Guidelines A. Size. is Each PUD must have a minimum area of two (2) acres excluding areas within a public right-of-way, des!g nated wetland or floodplain overlay district unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one or more of the following: 1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surroundin neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or to o ra hic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. 2, The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be p perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. 3. The orWertv is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or it is located on an arterial street as defined in the comprehensive fir?. Background Information The City's current PUD ordinance does not have a minimum lot size requirement.A brief survey of other metro cities' PUD ordinances found that a number of cities do have PUD minimum lot size requirements, generally ranging from one to two acres, including Crystal, Robbinsdale, Richfield, and Brooklyn Center. The table below summarizes other metro cities' PUD lot size restrictions. City Single Family PUD Restrictions Bloomington No size restrictions for PUDs, though modifications to lot sizes limited Brooklyn Center Minimum of 1 acre with some exceptions Brooklyn Park No size restrictions, though extra scrutiny if less than 3 acres Crystal Minimum of 2 acres with some exceptions Deephaven No size restrictions 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Development(PUD) Minimum Size Eden Prairie No size restrictions Edina ??? Hopkins No size restrictions Maple Grove No size restrictions Minnetonka No size restrictions New Hope No size restrictions Plymouth No size restrictions Richfield Minimum of 1 acre Robbinsdale Minimum of 1.5 acres for residential PUDs St. Louis Park Not allowed in R-1 or R-2 zoning districts Wayzata No size restrictions 2 golde'-n v i o,, T- / 1-1 Defining Neighborhood �j7- i impact Areas V, r 1� x Legend I f.J A _ -- ( �� Subject Parcel E WIA 250 TIE 350 500 ----------- • _ ��/jJj / I-J J , T- J _LFF_ Q A : 51Z 1 Print Date 2/2/2015 Sources: -Hennepin County Surveyors office for Property Lines(2014)&Aerial Photography(2012). -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. City of Golden Valley 0 170 340 680 1 020 1,360 Public Works Department Feet 7800 Golden Valley Road Goldeno/lalley.MN 554274588 It 1'of t I t holden I << Case Study Analysis Minimum Lot Area t p4 V Legend i Subject Parcel • I Parcels within 250 feet i D Parcels Estimated to Be Subdivideable Parcel Outlines • r i , Q 1 ij . - - ; � e O 00 / I jT I ' a r I� l _ , �Q r/ , I I El Q �1a1 I , , , , , ; , ii T1 ,f ll;A Print Date;2/212015 Sources: -Hennepin County Surveyors office for Property Lines(2014)&Aerial Photography(2012). I -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. City of Golden Valley 7blic 800 Golden Val ley Road ,s Deloaftent / 0 400 800_ 1,600 2 400 3.200eel - Golden Valley=554274588 L Zoning Code Definitions - §11.03 63. Lot: For zoning purposes a lot is a parcel of land intended for occupancy by one (1) principal structure and any accessory structures and of at least sufficient size to meet minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other open spaces as are required by this Code. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street and consist of a single lot of record or a parcel of land that has been historically described by metes and bounds. No division or combination of lots shall be permitted that fails to result in all lots conforming to this Code. Where City approval was obtained before the effective date of this amendment (October 3, 1991) of a combination of more than one (1) lot or parcel, the combination shall be considered one (1) lot for purposes of this definition, except that: A. If a principal structure is situated on two (2) or more lots, but is located on and meets all zoning requirements for one (1) or more, but not all, of the lots, the lot or lots not required for the structure may be treated as separate lots if they met all other requirements of the City Code at the time of their creation. B. If a principal structure is situated on two (2) or more lots and additional land is acquired so that the structure may be expanded, all of the lots must be replatted to conform to this Code. C. If a principal structure is situated on two (2) or more lots and additional land is not necessary for a proposed expansion of the structure, replatting will not be required. Source: Ordinance No. 73, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-3-91 64. Lot Frontage: The front of a lot shall be construed to be the portion nearest the street. For the purpose of determining yard requirements on corner lots and through lots, all sides of a lot adjacent to streets shall be considered frontage, and yards shall be provided as indicated under `Yards" in this Section. 675-. Lot Lines,.- The lines beunding a . 65. Lot Line, Front: The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. In the case of a corner lot, any lot line along an existing or dedicated street shall be considered a front lot line. 66. Lot Line, Rear: The rear lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is, or is approximately, parallel to the front lot line. In the case of a corner lot the rear lot line shall be the line opposite the front lot line with the narrower street frontage. In the case of the front lot lines being equal in length, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall determine the front lot line. In the case of a triangular shaped lot, the rear lot line shall be a line ten (10) feet in length within the lot at the maximum distance from the front lot line. There shall only be one (1) rear lot line. Zoning Code Definitions - §11.03 67. Lot Line, Side: The side lot line shall be any boundary of a lot which is not a front or a rear lot line. Lot Measurements: A. Depth: The mean hOFizental distance between the fFent (sti=eet) line and the rear lot "ne. The shortest horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line measured at a ninety (900) degree angle from the street right-of-way. B. Width: The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth, at the minimum front yard setback line. Source: Ordinance No. 523, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7-24-14 C. Area: of a lot shall be computed from the area contained in a horizontal plane defined by the lot lines. Lot of Record: A lot which is part of a subdivision, the plat of which has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota, or a lot described by metes and bounds, the description of which has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot, Corner: A lot located at the intersection of two (2) or more streets. Lot, Interior: A lot other than a corner lot with only one (1) frontage on a street other than an alley. 78-. Lot, Through: A lot other than a corner lot with frontage on more than one (1) street other than an alley. Through lots with frontage on two (2) streets may be referred to as DOUBLE FRONTAGE lots. Lot Coverage: That percentage of a lot which when viewed in its horizontal plane, would be covered by a structure or structures, or any part thereof. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 Zoning Code Definitions - §11.03 445-,-- Street Lune-, A dividing line between a let, tract, eF paFeel ef 'and and a contiguous stFeet. 4-0�. Structure: Anything erected, the use of which requires more or less permanent location on the ground, or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. 407: Structural Alterations: Any change in the supporting members of a building, such as bearing walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders, or any substantial change in the roof or in the exterior walls. 49$: Substantial Improvement: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure a) before the improvement or repair is started, or b) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Substantial improvement is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not include either 1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing State or local health sanitary or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions or 2) any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or State Inventory of Historic Places. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 499-. Sustainable Development: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Source: Ordinance No. 397, 2nd Series Effective Date: 6-6-08 44G Taproom: A facility accessory to a Brewery that is licensed by the City to sell the malt liquors made at the Brewery for consumption on the premises. Source: Ordinance No. 540, 2nd Series Effective Date: 1-30-15 !I!. Tower: A structure whose function is to support and elevate an antenna, water tank, or other fixture as provided in this chapter. In all cases, the height of a tower shall be measured from the ground level regardless of whether the tower is mounted on another structure or building, and said height shall also include any portion of the antenna or other fixture which extends above the highest reach of the tower itself. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Zoning Code Definitions - §11.03 319: Yard, Front: A yard extending between lot lines which intersect a street front lot line, the depth of which is the horizontal distance between the street right- of-way line and a line on the lot which is at all points equal distance from the parallel to the sweet front lot line. 42-G Yard, Rear: An open space, unoccupied except for accessory buildings, on the same lot with a building between the rear lines of the buildings and the rear line of the lot for the full width of the lots. 42-1: Yard, Side: A yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard to the rear lot line. 122. Veterinary Clinic: A place for the care, diagnosis and treatment of sick, ailing or diseased animals which may include kennels for domestic pets, but does not include areas for the boarding of farm animals. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 1-23-. Video Game Arcade: Any premises, building or structure containing more than eight (8) video games for use by the general public, customers, patrons, or employees of such premises, building or structure. *Renumbering Source (76-106): Ordinance No. 311, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-29-04 *Renumbering Source (10-123): Ordinance No. 540, 2nd Series Effective Date: 1-30-15 Single Family (R-1) Residential - § 11.21 *Subdivision 10. Impervious Surface Total impervious surface on any lot or parcel shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot or parcel area. Source: Ordinance No, 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 *Subdivision 11. Principal Structures Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-1 zoning district. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. Source: Ordinance No. 429, 2nd Series Effective Date: 2-19-10 a.—In the ease ef a eeFneF let, the side with the narFewer StFeet fFentage sha" be eensideFed the fFent of the 'et. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. twenty peFeent (20%) ef the let depth. 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for any structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be fifteen (15) feet plus one-half (0.5) foot for each additional one (1) foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over fifteen (15) feet; Single Family (R-1) Residential - § 11.21 b. In the case of lots having a width greater than sixty-five (65) feet and less than one hundred (100) feet, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet. The side setbacks for any structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet plus one-half (0.5) foot for each additional one (1) foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over fifteen (15) feet; c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty-five (65) feet or less, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot width (up to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet) The side setback for any structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side twenty percent (20%) of the lot width plus one-half (0.5) foot for each additional two (2) feet (or portion thereof) of height over fifteen (15) feet. d. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition or replacement through a tear-down, any wall longer than thirty-two (32) feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length, for every thirty-two (32) feet of wall. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To deteFmine the FeaF yard setback, use the lengeF To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest shorter front lot line. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2"d Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than twenty-two (22) feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 Two Family (11-2) Zoning District - § 11.22 Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons B. Group foster family homes Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-2 Residential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. twenty percent (20) ef the let depth. 3. Side Setback. The required side setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To deteFMine the FeaF yard setback, use the longer fFent let line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shertes shorter front lot line. Planned Unit Development (PUD) - § 11.55 B. This Section applies to all Planned Unit Developments existing in the City on the date of its enactment and all subsequently enacted Planned Unit Developments. Subdivision 2. Applicability A. Optional Land Use Control. Planned Unit Development provisions provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility in the uses allowed and other regulating provisions including setbacks, height, parking requirements number of buildings on a lot and similar regulations provided the following requirements are met and the PUD plan complies with the other provisions of this and other Planned Unit Development sections. Approval of a Planned Unit Development and granting of a PUD agreement does not alter the existing zoning district classification of a parcel in any manner; however, once a PUD has been granted and is in effect for a parcel, no building permit shall be issued for that parcel which is not in conformance with the approved PUD Plan, the Building Code, and with all other applicable City Code provisions. B. Uses. Once a Final PUD Plan is approved, the use or uses are limited to those approved by the specific approved PUD ordinance for the site and by the conditions, if any, imposed by the City in the approval process. C. Maintenance Preservation. All features and aspects of the Final PUD Plan and related documents including but not limited to buildings, setbacks, open space, preserved areas, landscaping, wetlands, buffers, grading, drainage, streets and parking, hard cover, signs and similar features shall be used, preserved and maintained as required in said PUD plans and documents. Subdivision 3. Standards and Guidelines A. Size. There is ne lot sze—Each residential PUD must have a minimum area of two (2) acres, excluding areas within.-a public right-of-way, designated wetland, or floodplain overlay district, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee the existence of one (1) or more of the following: 1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories. Subdivision Code — Definitions - § 12.03 20. Restrictive Covenants: Contracts entered into between private parties constituting a restriction on the use of private property within a subdivision for the benefit of the property owners, and providing mutual protection against undesirable aspects of development which would tend to impair values. 21. Setback Line, Building: A line shown on the preliminary plat, within the lot and parallel to the street or lot line, which sets off an area within which no enclosed structure or portion thereof may be erected. Source: Ordinance No. 706 Effective Date: 12-11-87 22. Street: A public right-of-way for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, thruway, road, avenue, boulevard, lane, place or however otherwise designated. Source: Ordinance No. 34, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-12-90 23. Street Width: The shortest distance between the lines delineating the right- of-way of a street. 24. Subdivider: Any person, firm or other legal entity commencing proceedings under this Chapter to effect a subdivision of land hereunder for himself or for another. Source: Ordinance No. 706 Effective Date: 12-11-87 25. Subdivision: The division of a parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels, for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, or, if a new street is involved, any division of a parcel of land. The term includes a change to an existing subdivision and, when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided. 26. Width of Lot: The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth, at the minimum building front yard setback line in , Zoning DiStFiCtS. Source: Ordinance No. 34, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4-12-90 27. Utilities: One (1) or more of the following services provided to the public: sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, telephone, electricity, cable television, and other communication mechanisms. Source: Ordinance No. 706 Effective Date: 12-11-87 Subdivision Code — Minimum Design Standards - § 12.20 required in the area by the Zoning Chapter and to provide for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic. B. Non-Residential Blocks. Blocks intended for commercial, institutional and industrial use must be designated as such. C. Lengths. Block lengths shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet. D. Arrangement. A block shall be so designed as to provide two tiers of lots, unless it adjoins a railroad or limited access highway or other non-residential use(s), where it may have a single tier of lots. Source: Ordinance No. 706 Effective Date: 12-11-87 Subdivision S. Lots A. Miningung RequiFenqents. All lets shall meet the Fflinimung aFea and dime Source: Ordinance No. 377 Effective Date: 7-13-07 A. Minimum Requirements. 1. All lots shall meet the minimum area requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must be at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet if the average of the R-1 single-family lots within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the subject parcel have an average lot area of eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet or greater, excluding from the calculation the subject parcel and lots less than four thousand one (4,001) square feet. 2. All lots shall meet the minimum dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must meet the minimum lot width at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that lot width to a point seventy (7O) feet back from the front lot line. 3. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. B. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall be platted at least twenty (20) feet wider than the required minimum lot width as required by the Zoning Chapter. Subdivision Code — Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations - § 12.50 Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations Subdivision 1. Eligibility for Application In keeping with Minnesota statutes 1989, 462.358 Subdivision la, which allows for the establishment of more than one (1) class of subdivision and more than one (1) set of regulations, certain proposed land subdivisions and consolidations may qualify for application under this section. For such applications, the standards, requirements, and procedures cited herein shall supersede their counterparts in Sections 12.10, 12.11, 12.12, 12.20, 12.30, 12.40 and 12.42 of this ordinance. Each of the following conditions must be met to establish eligibility: A. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded Registered Land Survey (RLS). B. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to the creation of four (4) or fewer lots from one (1) or more original parcels. C. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in new roads or utilities to serve the lots. Subdivision 2. Components of Application Application for a minor subdivision or consolidation shall be made on forms furnished by the City. A filing fee set by Council resolution shall accompany the application. The applicant shall also furnish fifteen (15) copies of a sketch showing the following: A. North arrow and scale (no smaller than 1" = 100'). B. Overall dimensions of the property and of each internal property division. C. Square footage of the overall property and of each internal property division. D. Location of all public utilities, streets, driveways, and easements, adjacent to or on the property. E. Location and dimensions of any existing buildings, and distances to nearest existing or proposed lot lines on all sides. F. Size, species, and location of all existing significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands as defined by City Code, located within the project limits These significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands should be identified in both graphic and tabular form. This existing tree Subdivision Code — Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations - § 12.50 survey must be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applicant. F. G. Any other information specific to the particular site and required for the complete evaluation of the application. Such information shall be supplied at the expense of the applicant. ORDINANCE NO. 547, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Chapter 11: Land Use Regulation (Zoning), Regarding Modifications from the 2014-2015 Subdivision Study The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 11.03 Definition #65 Lot Lines is deleted. New definitions are added to read as follows and renumbered accordingly: 65. Lot Line, Front: The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. In the case of a corner lot, any lot line along an existing or dedicated street shall be considered a front lot line. 66. Lot Line, Rear: The rear lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is, or is approximately, parallel to the front lot line. In the case of a corner lot, the rear lot line shall be the line opposite the front lot line with the narrower street frontage. In the case of the front lot lines being equal in length, the City Manager, or his/her designee, shall determine the front lot line. In the case of a triangular shaped lot, the rear lot line shall be a line ten (10) feet in length within the lot at the maximum distance from the front lot line. There shall only be one (1) rear lot line. 67. Lot Line, Side: The side lot line shall be any boundary of a lot which is not a front or a rear lot line. Section 2. City Code Section 11.03 Definition #66. Lot Measurements (A) Depth: is deleted and replaced as follows: A. Depth: The shortest horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line measured at a ninety (900) degree angle from the street right-of-way. Section 3. City Code Section 11.03 Definition #105. Street Line is deleted. Section 4. City Code Section 11.03 Definition #119. Yard, Front is amended to read as follows: Yard, Front: A yard extending between lot lines which intersect a front lot line, the depth of which is the horizontal distance between the street right-of-way line and a line on the lot which is at all points equal distance from the parallel to the front lot line. Section 5. City Code Section 11.2 1, Subdivision 11 A(1)(a) is deleted. Section 6. City Code Section 11.21, Subdivision 11(A)(2) is amended to read as follows: 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Section 7. City Code Section 11.2 1, Subdivision 11(A)(4) is amended to read as follows: 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter front lot line. Section 8. City Code Section 11.22, Subdivision 10(A)(2) is amended to read as follows: 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Section 9. City Code Section 11.22, Subdivision 10(A)(4) is amended to read as follows: 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter front lot line. Section 10. City Code Section 11.55, Subdivision 3(A) is deleted and replaced with the following: A. Size. Each residential PUD must have a minimum area of two (2) acres, excluding areas within a public right-of-way, designated wetland, or floodplain overlay district, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee the existence of one (1) or more of the following: 1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories. Section 11. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 12. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of March, 2015. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 548, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting), Regarding Modifications from the 2014-2015 Subdivision Study The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 12.03 Definition #26 Width of Lot is amended to read as follows: 26. Width of Lot: The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth, at the minimum front yard setback line. Section 2. City Code Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(A) is deleted and replaced with the following: A. Minimum Requirements. 1. All lots shall meet the minimum area requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must be at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet if the average of the R-1 single-family lots within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the subject parcel have an average lot area of eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet or greater, excluding from the calculation the subject parcel and lots less than four thousand one (4,001) square feet. 2. All lots shall meet the minimum dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must meet the minimum lot width at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that lot width to a point seventy (70) feet back from the front lot line. 3. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. Section 3. City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 2(F) is added as follows and the remaining sections re-lettered accordingly: F. Size, species, and location of all existing significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands, as defined by City Code, located within the project limits. These significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands should be identified in both graphic and tabular form. This existing tree survey must be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applicant. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 12.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 12. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of March, 2015. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk C j* ," , !1 '.4' golden ,, MEMORANDUM V ey, Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 1763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing- Amending Section 11.21, Height and Side Yard Setbacks Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At its March 9, 2015, regular meeting, the Planning Commission discussed possible amendments to the Zoning Code related to side yard setbacks in the R-1 Zoning District, as dictated by the height of the structure. At this time, the Planning Commission has not voted on any amendments, so staff is recommending the topic be tabled to the April 7, 2015, City Council meeting. Recommended Action Motion to continue this public hearing to the April 7, 2015, City Council meeting. cit-11 of golden MEMORANDUM valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 4. D. Resolution - Special Assessments - 2015 Pavement Management Area Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The following resolution needs to be approved for the certification of special assessments for the 2015 Pavement Management area. On February 17, 2015, Council called for the hearing for the Certification of Special Assessments that coincides with the 2015 Pavement Management Area. These special assessments help finance a portion of the costs to reconstruct the streets. The remaining costs are funded by bond sales that are paid back through a city tax levy. The following meetings were held on the 2015 Pavement Management Program: July 16, 2013 Feasibility Study was ordered April 2 & 3, 2014 Open House September 17 & 18, 2014 Open House January 5, 2015 Project Hearing A legal notice was published February 26 and March 5, 2015, On February 26, 2015, all property owners were mailed a hearing notice of the assessment, resolution that will be considered, sample payment schedule and commonly asked questions. Property owners will have until November 13, 2015, to make payment with no interest. After that date the amount will be certified and paid with property taxes at a 5% interest rate. 2015 Pavement Management Program - Includes various improvements for streets in the following locations: Gettysburg Avenue North from Plymouth Avenue North to Olympia Street Flag Avenue North from Cul-de-sac to Olympia Street Olympia Street from Gettysburg Avenue North to Flag Avenue North Winsdale Street from Hillsboro Avenue North to Gettysburg Avenue North Flag Avenue North from Olympia Street to Naper Street Attachments • List of Property Owners Assessed (2 pages) • Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Various Public Improvements in the 2015 Pavement Management Area (2 pages) • Project Area Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Various Public Improvements in the 2015 Pavement Management Area. Pending Special Assessment Roll CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PID ADDRESS DEFERRED LEVIED TOTAL 3011821330110 1313 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330106 1317 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330109 1321 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330105 1325 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330104 1401 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330103 1405 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330102 1409 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330101 1413 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330009 1501 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330008 1505 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330007 1509 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330006 1513 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330005 1517 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330004 1521 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330003 1525 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330002 1529 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320046 1601 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320045 1605 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320044 1609 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320043 1613 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320042 1617 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320041 1621 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320040 1625 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320039 1629 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320038 1633 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320037 1637 FLAG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330124 1300 GETTYSBURG AVE N 9,900.00 9,900.00 3011821330089 1301 GETTYSBURG AVE N 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821330125 1308 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330088 1309 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 13,200.00 3011821330115 1312 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330116 1316 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330087 1317 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330121 1320 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330086 1321 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330122 1324 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330085 1325 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330117 1400 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330084 1401 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 PID ADDRESS DEFERRED LEVIED TOTAL 3011821330118 1404 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330083 1405 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330119 1408 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330082 1409 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330120 1412 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330081 1413 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330010 1500 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330011 1512 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330021 1513 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330012 1514 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330013 1516 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 13,200.00 3011821330020 1517 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330014 1520 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330019 1521 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330015 1526 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 13,200.00 3011821330018 1529 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 13,200.00 3011821330016 1530 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320047 1600 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330100 1412 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330022 1521 HILLSBORO AVE N 39,600.00 39,600.00 3011821330001 9145 OLYMPIA ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821340004 9000 PLYMOUTH AVE N 84,388.50 84,388.50 168,777.00 TOTAL 130,588.50 493,588.50 624,177.00 Resolution 15-22 March 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR STREETS IN THE 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AREA 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public improvements: Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2015 Pavement 10 5% 2016 $493,588.50 Management Area Deferred Assessments $130,588.50 against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as indicated in each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2015, collectible in 2016, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. Resolution 15-22 - Continued March 17, 2015 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made by November 13, 2015, 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. 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. CL IFMU i a Naper St General Mills Res Nature Area r_ to Olympia St r I I Lakeview Park 2 115 P M P I z Q i Q Winsda I U z i � Q ' o I � � o . I I Plymouth Ave N i i i I p I I{ Print Date:8/27/2014 ! Sources: o_ V i 7^* Hennepin County Surveyors Office for 2015 015 P M P Property Lines(2014)&Aerial Photography(2012). -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 0 150 300 600 Feet cit'y o M E Al 0 R A N D U M valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 4. E. Resolution - Special Assessments - 2016 Pavement Management Area Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The following resolution needs to be approved for the certification of special assessments for the 2016 Pavement Management area. On February 17, 2015, Council called for the hearing for the Certification of Special Assessments that coincides with the 2016 Pavement Management Area. These special assessments help finance a portion of the costs to reconstruct the streets. The remaining costs are funded by bond sales that are paid back through a city tax levy. The following meetings were held on the 2016 Pavement Management Program: July 16, 2013 Feasibility Study was ordered April 2 & 3, 2014 Open House September 17 & 18, 2014 Open House January 5, 2015 Project Hearing A legal notice was published February 26 and March 5, 2015. On February 26, 2015, all property owners were mailed a hearing notice of the assessment, resolution that will be considered, sample payment schedule and commonly asked questions. Property owners will have until November 15, 2016, to make payment with no interest. After that date the amount will be certified and paid with property taxes and will have a 5% interest rate. 2016 Pavement Management Program - Includes various improvements for streets in the following locations: Independence Avenue North from Cul-de-sac to Olympia Street Hillsboro Avenue North from Plymouth Avenue North to Winsdale Street Winsdale Street from Mendelssohn Avenue North to Hillsboro Avenue North Attachments • List of Property Owners Assessed (2 pages) • Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Various Public Improvements in the 2016 Pavement Management Area (2 pages) • Project Area Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Various Public Improvements in the 2016 Pavement Management Area. Pending Special Assessment Roll CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PID ADDRESS DEFERRED LEVIED TOTAL 3011821330091 1300 HILLSBORO AVE N 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821330070 1305 HILLSBORO AVE N 3,300.00 6,600.00 9,900.00 3011821330092 1308 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 13,200.00 3011821330069 1309 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330093 1312 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330068 1313 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330094 1316 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330067 1317 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330095 1320 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330066 1321 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330096 1324 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330065 1325 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330097 1328 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330098 1400 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330064 1401 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330063 1405 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330099 1408 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330062 1409 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 13,200.00 3011821330023 1501 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330055 1301 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330072 1304 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330073 1308 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330075 1312 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330054 1313 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330074 1316 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330053 1317 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330076 1324 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330052 1325 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330077 1400 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330051 1401 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330078 1404 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330050 1405 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330079 1408 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330049 1409 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330080 1412 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330024 1500 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330039 1501 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330025 1504 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330038 1505 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 PID ADDRESS DEFERRED LEVIED TOTAL 3011821330026 1508 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330027 1512 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330037 1513 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330127 1516 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330036 1517 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330128 1520 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330035 1521 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330030 1524 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330133 1525 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330033 1529 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330031 1532 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330032 9405 OLYMPIA ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330048 9405 WINSDALE ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821330040 9450 WINSDALE ST 3,300.00 3,300.00 16,500.00 343,200.00 359,700.00 Resolution 15-23 March 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR STREETS IN THE 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AREA 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public improvements: Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2016 Pavement 10 5% 2017 $343,200.00 Management Area Deferred Assessments $16,500.00 against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as indicated in each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2016, collectible in 2017, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. Resolution 15-23 - Continued March 17, 2015 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made by November 15, 2016. 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. 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. Naper St � a z _ rz > a r- 100 Olympia St a i ; I I Lakeview Park 2016 PMP ! St i > Q I � i N ; I � I Plymouth A N I p� y Print Date:8/27/2014 e `7�i.y�/01 `' Sources: 90//7 eyt♦ 2 0 1 6 PMP P Hennepin County Surveyors Office for D{iL /l�11 Property Lines(2014)&Aerial Photography(2012). valley lle� -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. CL e o Iso 300 soo Feec ci ty ofo d ! MEMORANDUM 1. valley Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 4. F. Resolution - Special Assessments - 2017 Pavement Management Area Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The following resolution needs to be approved for the certification of special assessments for the 2017 Pavement Management area. On February 17, 2015, Council called for the hearing for the Certification of Special Assessments that coincides with the 2017 Pavement Management Area. These special assessments help finance a portion of the costs to reconstruct the streets. The remaining costs are funded by bond sales that are paid back through a city tax levy. The following meetings were held on the 2017 Pavement Management Program: July 16, 2013 Feasibility Study was ordered April 2 & 3, 2014 Open House September 17 & 18, 2014 Open House January 5, 2015 Project Hearing A legal notice was published February 26 and March 5, 2015. On February 26, 2015, all property owners were mailed a hearing notice of the assessment, resolution that will be considered, sample payment schedule and commonly asked questions. Property owners will have until November 15, 2017, to make payment with no interest. After that date the amount will be certified and paid with property taxes at a 5% interest rate. 2017 Pavement Management Program - Includes various improvements for streets in the following locations: Independence Avenue North from Olympia Street to Earl Street Hillsboro Ave North from Olympia Street to Naper Street Gettysburg Avenue from Olympia Street to Naper Street Wheeler Boulevard from Cul-de-sac to Earl Street Naper Street from Mendelssohn Avenue North to Flag Avenue North Olympia Street from Mendelssohn Avenue to Gettysburg Avenue North Attachments • List of Property Owners Assessed (2 pages) • Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Various Public Improvements in the 2017 Pavement Management Area (2 pages) • Project Area Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Various Public Improvements in the 2017 Pavement Management Area. Pending Special Assessment Roll CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PID ADDRESS DEFERRED LEVIED TOTAL 3011821320024 9345 EARL ST 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821320035 9385 EARL ST 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821320065 1601 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320048 1604 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320064 1609 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320049 1612 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320063 1613 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320050 1614 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320051 1616 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320062 1617 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320052 1620 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320061 1621 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320053 1624 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320060 1625 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320054 1628 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320059 1629 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320055 1632 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320058 1633 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320056 1636 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320057 1637 GETTYSBURG AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320123 1715 GETTYSBURG CT 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320084 1601 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320067 1604 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320083 1605 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320068 1608 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320082 1609 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320069 1612 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320081 1613 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320070 1616 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320080 1617 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320071 1620 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320079 1621 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320072 1624 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 13,200.00 3011821320078 1625 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320077 1629 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320073 1630 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320076 1633 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320074 1636 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320112 1815 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320025 1817 HILLSBORO AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320085 1600 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320086 1604 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 PID ADDRESS DEFERRED LEVIED TOTAL 3011821320087 1608 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320100 1609 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320088 1612 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320099 1613 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320089 1616 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320098 1617 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320090 1620 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320097 1621 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320091 1624 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320096 1625 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320092 1628 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320095 1629 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320093 1632 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320094 1636 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320012 1701 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320011 1705 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320010 1709 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320009 1713 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320008 1717 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320029 1720 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320007 1721 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320030 1800 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320006 1801 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320031 1804 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320005 1805 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320032 1808 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320004 1809 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320033 1812 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320003 1813 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320034 1816 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320002 1817 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320001 1821 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821330047 1532 MENDELSSOHN AVE N 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320110 1628 MENDELSSOHN AVE N 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821320013 1700 MENDELSSOHN AVE N 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821320139 9100 NAPER ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320138 9110 NAPER ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320137 9120 NAPER ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320136 9130 NAPER ST 3,300.00 3,300.00 3011821320120 9300 NAPER ST 87,286.60 87,286.60 3011821320075 9345 NAPER ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 3011821320066 9200 OLYMPIA ST 6,600.00 6,600.00 TOTAL 6,600.00 615,286.60 621,886.60 Resolution 15-24 March 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR STREETS IN THE 2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AREA 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public improvements: Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2017 Pavement 10 5% 2018 $615,287.00 Management Area Deferred Assessments $6,600.00 against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as indicated in each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2017, collectible in 2018, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. Resolution 15-24 - Continued March 17, 2015 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made by November 15, 2017. 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. 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. -Unimproved- Duluth St �4 Z /4th S j Z ; t i > a a � I z O � I N > i = 0 j Earl St j Q Golden Ridge I a Me a� Nature Area -6 I s ��Ja o I � U E ! 2017 PMP to ! a General Z Nat 3R > _ IC: a Olympia St a I I Lakeview Park ! i z Q Winsdale St Z I z Q Print Date:8/27/2014 e City OJ �.... Sources: golden -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for 1 2017 PMP Property Lines(2014)&Aerial Photography(2012). valley T -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. l�f�/ 0 150 300 600 feet C ty F gol en MEMORANDUM ion Park and Recreation .. �" � t 763-512-2345/763-512-2344(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 6. A. Joint Powers Agreement for the Sochacki Park, Mary Hills and Rice Lake Nature Area Regional Park Development Project Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation Summary The Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the Sochacki Park, Mary Hills and Rice Lake Nature area for the development of a regional park location in Golden valley and Robbinsdale has been approved by the Three Rivers Park District Board of Directors. Three Rivers Park District is requesting approval of the JPA from the City to move forward on the proposed project. Staff supports this request. Attachments • Resolution authorizing the Joint Powers Agreement for Sochacki Park, Mary Hill and Rice Lake Nature Area Regional Park Development Project (1 page) • Joint Powers Agreement between Three Rivers Park District, City of Robbinsdale and City of Golden Valley for the Provision of Park System Services for Sochacki Park (9 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve Resolution authorizing the Joint Powers Agreement with Three Rivers Park District and the City of Robbinsdale. Resolution 15-25 March 17, 2015 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE SOCHACKI PARK, MARY HILL AND RICE LAKE NATURE AREA REGIONAL PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, The Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) is for the Sochacki Park, Mary Hills and Rice Lake Nature area regional park development project; and WHEREAS, The regional park is located in the cities of Golden Valley and Robbinsdale; and WHEREAS, The Three Rivers Park District Board of Directors has approved the JPA; and WHEREAS, The Three Rivers Park District is requesting approval of the JPA from the City in order to move forward with the project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley to authorize the Joint Powers Agreement with the Three Rivers Park District and the City of Robbinsdale. 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: none whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Reference No-1 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT, CITY OF ROBBINSDALE AND CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FOR THE PROVISION OF PARK SYSTEM SERVICES FOR SOCHACKI PARK THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Three Rivers Park District, (hereinafter referred to as"Park District"), the City of Robbinsdale (hereinafter referred to as "Robbinsdale"), and the City of Golden Valley (hereinafter referred to as "Golden Valley"); and sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties." WHEREAS, the Parties to this Agreement are units of government responsible for providing park and trail services; and WHEREAS, Robbinsdale owns parkland known as Sochacki Park and Golden Valley owns parkland known as Mary Hills and Rice Lake Nature Areas, all adjacent to one another and all located in Hennepin County (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parkland"); and WHEREAS,, the Parties wish to cooperatively work together to provide regional park and trail system services such as programming, education, natural resources management and facility development in Golden Valley and Robbinsdale which have no Park District regional parks through a partnership between the Parties. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows: I. Purpose The Parties seek to provide a recreational setting and opportunity for visitors to experience wilderness in the city - a nature-based, parkland-themed on how nature restores balance, with an emphasis on enhancing existing facilities, water quality improvements, environmental education and outdoor recreation programming. 2. Authority The Parties hereto are entering into this agreement pursuant to the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 471.59. Governance Policy Board a. Membership. Golden Valley and Robbinsdale and Three Rivers Park District agree to establish, and appoint the following individuals to, a Governance Policy Boa rd: 1) Park District: Chair and District Commissioner 2) Robbinsdale: Mayor and Council member 3) Golden Valley: Mayor and Council member 437 Policy Board duties. The board agrees to meet a minimum of once per-year and more if needed which will be determined by the board. The board shall have the following duties: 1) Consideration of dispute resolutions. 2) Agrees to appoint Operations Committee members who meet on an as- needed basis to conduct business as appropriate. 3) Create operational bylaws for the Policy Board. 4) Review of budget and/or funding opportunities. 5) Discuss park objectives and priorities, and review of Capital Improvement Plan projects. 6) Take action on any policy items related to the Parkland. 3. Operations Committee a. Membership. Operations Committee members shall be Robbinsdale and Golden Valley City Managers and/or their designees and Park District Superintendent and/or designees. b. Operations Committee duties. The Committee agrees to meet twice annually as needed based on the determination of the majority of the Committee to discuss: 1) Execution of the three-year Capital Improvement Plan projects (Exhibit A). As public needs shift or change, the Operations Committee reserves the right to refocus Parkland vision and capital projects to satisfy demand. 2) Recommend modification of the Joint Powers Agreement, as needed. 3) Other operational discussion items. 4. Dispute resolution a. Resolution Procedure. In the event any Party believes that there has been an incorrect interpretation of a term or condition of this Agreement, the other Party has failed to perform an obligation under this Agreement or there has otherwise been a violation of this Agreement, the respective City Council or Park District Board shall adopt a resolutions stating the specific facts that they believe give rise to the dispute. The resolution shall be immediately transmitted to the Governance Policy Board upon its adoption by the respective City Council or Park District Board. The Governance Policy Board shall consider the resolution as the first order of business at its next regularly scheduled meeting and must submit is resolution of the dispute within forty-five (45) days thereafter by written communication to all Parties. The objecting Party may accept or reject the determination of the Governance Policy Board, or withdraw the dispute. 5. Scope of Agreement a. Parkland Name. The Parkland is currently known separately as Sochacki Park, Mary Hills Nature Area and Rice Lake Nature Area. Golden Valley agrees to re- name its portion of the Parkland, Sochacki Park, in order to provide the greatest benefit to the public. Mary Hills and Rice Lake Nature Areas will retain their naming designations as management units. b. Ownership. Robbinsdale will maintain ownership of the original Sochacki Park parcel. Golden Valley will maintain ownership of its parcels, formerly known as Mary Hills Nature Area and Rice Lake Nature Area. The Park District will not own any lands. c. Programming. The Park District is committed to providing environmental education and recreation programming in the Parkland. Programming partners may include, but are not limited to, municipalities, public schools, private non- profits, and watershed jurisdictions. d. Operations and maintenance. 1) Park District Responsibilities within the Parkland: i. All paved trail maintenance including but not limited to, preventative surface treatment, trail inspection and maintenance, and trail edge vegetation management; ii. Winter trail maintenance including snow removal and surface treatment, as deemed appropriate; and iii. Maintenance of new and refurbished recreational facilities and signage that are developed or redeveloped by the Parties, including seasonal, routine or daily maintenance. 2) Robbinsdale responsibilities within its municipal jurisdiction: i. Trash removal. If new trash receptacles are proposed, prior approval must be given Robbinsdale staff. ii. Maintenance of existing infrastructure until removed, or until replaced or refurbished by the Parties, including but not limited to the existing picnic shelter and boardwalk. iii. City-owned utilities, infrastructure and storm water management. 3) Golden Valley responsibilities within its municipal jurisdiction: i. Trash removal. If new trash receptacles are proposed, prior approval must be given Golden Valley staff. ii. Maintenance of existing infrastructure until removed, or until replaced or refurbished by the Parties, including but not limited to Rice Lake pier. iii. City-owned utilities, infrastructure and storm water management. 4) Vegetative Management. The Parties, at their own discretion and within their jurisdiction, agree that existing vegetative management programs may continue within Parkland in Robbinsdale and in Golden Valley, and that each party may develop additional vegetative management and enhancement programs. The parties agree to update vegetative management programs annually. 5) Wildlife Management. The Parties, at their own discretion and within their jurisdiction, agree that existing wildlife management programs may continue within Parkland in Robbinsdale and in Golden Valley, and that each party may develop additional wildlife management and enhancement programs. The parties agree to update wildlife management programs annually. 6) Design and Construction. The Park District will assume responsibility for coordination of design and construction of new or redesigned facilities, with active participation on design and construction project teams by appropriate staff from all Parties. However, each Party retains the right to lead coordination of design and construction of new or refurbished facilities within their jurisdiction, when agreed upon by all Parties. All design plans shall be submitted to each Party for review and approval, provided however, that approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 6. Law enforcement. The Parties agree that a separate Sochacki Park Law Enforcement Joint Powers Agreement, which addresses each Parties' ordinance enforcement, will be incorporated into this agreement by reference at a future date (separate document). 7. Signage. The Park District will be responsible for providing all signage within the Parkland this includes entrance signs and any signs relating to facilities, water quality, environmental education, and outdoor recreation programming. All signage acknowledging the partnership will be developed and the sign content and location(s) recommended by Operations Committee. S. Indemnity. The Parties agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless each other, their elected officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims, demands, personal injury, costs, judgments or expenses arising from the fault of any Party's actions in design, ownership, development, maintenance or operations of the Parkland within their own jurisdictions. Each party must provide proof of insurance upon request to the others. 9. Funding. The Park District shall lead efforts to obtain the funding required to complete Parkland capital improvements as identified in the three-year Capital Improvement Plan (referenced in Item 3. b. 1.) shown in Exhibit A. The Park District Board of Commissioners reserves the right to determine the amount of Park District capital funding to be provided for Parkland capital projects through its Asset Management Program each year. Additional funding sources for Parkland capital improvements may include all Parties, metropolitan, state, federal and/or private sources. The Parties will continue to work together to explore and secure outside capital and operational funding. No party shall be obligated to provide any funding hereunder. 10. Termination of Agreement. This Joint Powers Agreement may be terminated by any Party hereto by written notice at least one year prior to the date of the desired termination. In the event of such termination, all facilities developed or redeveloped by the Parties pursuant to this Agreement shall remain in use for regional recreation open space purposes as long as at least one party agrees to continue to maintain and operate the facility or facilities upon agreement by the landowner. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective officers. THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota By: John Gunyou, Chair By: Boe R. Carlson, Superintendent/Secretary to the Board Date: , 2015 CITY OF ROBBINSDALE By: Mayor By: City Manager Date: , 2015 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Mayor By: City Manager Date: , 2015 Exhibit A To the .joint Powers Agreement Between Three Rivers Park District, City of Robbinsdale and City of Golden Valley Sochacki Park Capital Improvement Plan 2015 - 2017 Year 1 (2015) 1.1 Design remainder of trail through Parkland 1.2 Begin in-house design of trail connection to Theodore Wirth Regional Park 1.3 Assess small-scale natural resource projects to determine feasibility and timing 1.4 Obtain community input on interactive art concept 1.5 Assess future year Capital needs and adjust Plan accordingly 1.6 Begin development of a long-term vegetation plan Year 2 (2016) 2.1 Design off-leash dog-park, public input desired on location and design. 2.2 Design and preliminary engineering for trail connection to Theodore Wirth Regional Park 2.3 Assess need for Water Quality Plan and/or series of Best Management Practices to improve water quality in Parkland 2.4 Conduct non-paved trail improvements 2.5 Add interactive installations as determined 2.6 Assess future year Capital needs and adjust Plan accordingly. 2.7 Pave remainder of trail through Parkland Year 3 (2017) 3.1 If appropriate, begin Water Quality Plan and/or implement select Best Management Practices 3.2 Construct Theodore Wirth Regional Park trail connection 3.3 Construct off-leash dog-park 3.4 Add interactive installation as determined 3.5 Assess future year Capital needs and adjust Plan accordingly 2018 and Beyond • Continue interactive installation program • Investigate trail connection along 36th Avenue between Sochacki Park and Crystal Lake Regional Trail • Assess water access improvements to Rice Lake (boardwalks, teaching platforms, carry-in boat access) • Provide drinking water (potentially done in conjunction with off-lease dog pa rk) • Provide permanent toilets (need driven by environmental education classes with kids; and dog-park) • Development of a long-term vegetation plan Reference No-2 Sochacki Park Concept January 90.7015 36th A-..Nonh rY .^ t stal Lake ` wr-. s ,( Regional Trail Existing designated (Construction local access \ 2015) ' Futu to trall connection d Improve paved trail �@ �J�. J Existing norther F and entry road(2015) parking lot V -BNSF Rail Corridor and d. Future Bottineau LRT 1 V Existing designated �� local access ` North Memonal E MOspRal Proposed dog off-leash area Existing interior {tacmoR TRA) J parking lot Minneapolis Existing " 'Grand picnic shelter - Rounds 1 Water Quality Plan(2016/17) Regional Train Improve/extend connection rail(2015) paved ti Manage existing prairie areas Existing BMX area Water Quality Plan ,{' (2016J17) I % i))i) �? Existing designated local access r Noble �' ' I � fJ emmentarr d a, I \ Improve/extenunpaved trail(2015) ✓ Existing pier .c.f .. _ overlook -�.� Increase landscape buffer adjacent to Bottineau LRT , so...n cr..ki _..-, y Extend paved tragi to o ,t Bassett Creek Regional Trail/Minneapolis .; Existing designatetl �. - Grand Rounds focal access cold,.v.u.y R..d - ria..4' ,a/.i..tt+w*�rrt-.�h+..rod. odor• C1 v r w to C �',0+�'�'L�\ i� Regi ai Proposed Bottineau LRT `Proposed Bassett _ � '* °rk \ t station location Creek Regional Trail ^� J fi -66 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 citva 1 Miles goiden��' 7 T{�reeRivers Valley City ofRobbinsdak CUT' 0 f "Yo I d e- n M MY MORAN DU .. valley Physical Development Department 763-593-80951763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 6. B. Adding a Month to the Six-Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The six-month moratorium adopted by the Council in September of 2014 is set to expire on March 25, 2015. The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Code would likely not take effect until publication on April 16, 2015. Staff is recommending a 30-day extension of the moratorium, through April 25, 2015, to cover this gap and ensure no applications for subdivision or residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) are submitted until the desired changes have been made. Attachments • Ordinance #549, Adding a Month to the Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #549 adding a Month to the Six-Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components. ORDINANCE NO. 549, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 530, 2ND SERIES Adding a Month to the Six Month Moratorium on Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments that include Single Family Residential Components The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. Ordinance No. 530, 2nd Series is hereby amended in Section 3 thereof by changing the words "six (6) month" to "seven (7) month". Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage. Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of March, 2015. /s/ Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk itv MEMgolden .4 .4 ORANDUM ` valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 17, 2015 Agenda Item 6. C. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Project Summary The Metropolitan Council hosted a Community Workshop on February 26, 2015, at the Church of St. Margaret Mary to receive public input on the benefits and impacts of the two potential LRT station locations. Participation was high with over 150 people attending. Based on this and other information, the Project Office will be approaching the Corridor Management Committee with a recommendation in April or May regarding adding a second Golden Valley station to the project budget. Engineering staff have met with staff from the Three Rivers Park District and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to begin discussions regarding future trails and trail connections in the Golden Valley Road station area. Station Area Summary Materials and comments from the January 29 Open House have been posted on the Hennepin County project web site (www.hennepin.us/bottineau). The project consultants have begun work on the final report. A complete draft should be available for review and comment by the Bottineau PAC on April 13, 2015. A final open house to share the contents of the final report and outline next steps in the station area planning process is being scheduled for mid-May. Attachments • Email regarding METRO Blue Line Extension (2 pages) Recommended Action Receive and file METRO Blue Line Extension Update. February 16, 2015 TO: Golden Valley City Council Golden Valley City Planning Staff Hennepin County Bottineau Light Rail Line Staff Linda Higgins, Hennepin County Commissioner FROM: Concerned Golden Valley Citizen RE: Night Lighting /Dark Sky Considerations As Golden Valley approaches a major road re-construction on Douglas Drive and the construction of the Bottineau Light Rail Line, I ask that the various parties making choices for these initiatives be mindful of appropriate lighting along the routes affected. I am a proponent of the dark sky movement. This excerpt from Wikipedia describes it as: "The dark-sky movement is a campaign to reduce light pollution. The advantages of reducing light pollution include an increased number of stars visible at night, reducing the effects of unnatural lighting on the environment, and cutting down on energy usage. The dark-sky movement encourages the use of full-cutoff fixtures that cast little or no light upward in public areas and generally to encourage communities to adopt lighting regulations. " I grow increasingly concerned about the proliferation of digital signage (such as at the new Holiday Station at Hwy 55 and Boone, on Winnetka Ave. in front of Golden Valley City Hall and on Golden Valley Road in front of Valley Dental) which lights up the night more and more. Recently I had occasion to drive in the northern suburbs of Fridley and Blaine in early evening hours. PLEASE let's not allow electronic billboards and excessive lighting to turn Golden Valley into that type of environment. An excellent source on the topic of dark skies and the benefits of appropriate, focused lighting is the book "The End of Night" by Golden Valley native, Paul Bogard. Mr. Bogard speaks nationally and internationally on the importance of and the rapid loss of dark skies due to human choices. He has been interviewed by numerous radio stations and newspapers around the country including Minnesota Public Radio and the Minneapolis Star Tribune (Jan 23, 2014 "Don't Be Blinded by the Myth of Bright Lights"). An additional source on the topic is the International Dark Sky Association brochure found at their website: http://darksky.org/assets/documents/idabrochure.pdf I ask you to consider this issue of how over illumination of the night sky adversely affects the health and safety of the animal world, including humans. Many of you perhaps own or visit a lake home. I expect that one of the pleasures you enjoy while visiting such a getaway is the beauty of the stars that are visible. The distance we must travel to fully see that beauty grows greater each year. In attending the Bottineau Light Rail Line information session at the Courage Center in January, I heard repeatedly that citizen input is encouraged and will be heeded as much as possible. Coincidentally, I noticed the night that I attended the meeting that the Courage Center has done a good job in their parking lot with adequate focused lighting that does not intrude too far into the surrounding neighborhood or up into the sky. Thank you for considering my input. Kathleen Burke-Scheffler 7410 Knoll St. Golden Valley, MN