06-21-16 CC Agenda Packet (entire) ratty of AGENDA
oW Regular Meeting of the
valley City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
June 21, 2016
6:30 pm
1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Certificate of Recognition - Twin Cities Honor Flight Participant Gaylen Johnson
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 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 June 7, 2016 3-8
B. Approval of City Check Register
1. City 9
2. Housing and Redevelopment 10
C. Licenses:
1. Approve 2016-2017 Liquor Licenses 11
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission Minutes - May 23, 2016 12-24
2. Environmental Commission - March 28, 2016 25-26
3. Human Services Fund - March 14, 2016 27
4. Open Space and Recreation Commission - January 25, 2016 28-29
5. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - March 17, 2016 30-37
E. Appointment of Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the Primary Election 38-40
on August 9, 2016 16-42
F. Approve Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessing Services 41-54
G. Authorization to Sign PUD Permit - North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3 55-59
(Mortenson)
H. Receipt of May 2016 Financial Reports 60-68
I. Approve Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park 69-70
J. Board/Commission Reappointments 71
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #604 - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 149 - 1000 72-89
Boone Avenue North - Fired Up, Inc., Applicant
B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #605 - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 150 - 710 90-108
Pennsylvania Avenue South - Morrie's Heritage Car Connection, Applicant
C. Public Hearing - MS4 General Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, 109-111
2015 Annual Report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 16-43
D. Public Hearing - Ordinance #606 - Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map 112-131
and Official Zoning Map - 9050 Golden Valley Road - City of Golden Valley, Applicant
16-44
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
E. Public Hearing - Ordinance #602 - Amending Section 11.22 Moderate Density 132-177
Residential Zoning District - Item postponed from June 7 City Council meeting
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Second Consideration - Ordinance #603 - Amending Sections 12.20: Minimum 178-181
Subdivision Design Standards and 12.50: Minor Subdivision and Consolidations
Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width
B. Approve Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Task Force Appointments 182
C. Authorization to Sign Police Officers (LELS Local 27) Agreement 183
D. Announcements of Meetings
1. Future Draft Agendas: City Council July 5, 2016, Council/Manager July 12, 184-186
2016 and City Council July 19, 2016
E. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
City 0 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
grold- GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
all June 7, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pro Tem Fonnest called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
1A. Pledge of Allegiance
1 B. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Pro Tem Larry Fonnest, Council Members Joanie Clausen and Andy Snope.
Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Garry and City Clerk Luedke.
Absent: Mayor Shep Harris and Council Member Steve Schmidgall
1 C. Presentation - Dr. Carlton Jenkins, Robbinsdale School District Superintendent
Dr. Jenkins updated Council on the Robbinsdale Area School District and shared the district's
vision, goals, and strategic priorities.
Council thanked Dr. Jenkins for his service to the district.
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve
the agenda of June 7, 2016, as revised: removal of item 4E-Public Hearing Amending Section
11.22 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District and tabled it to the June 21, 2016, City
Council meeting and the motion carried.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve
the consent agenda of June 7, 2016, as revised: removal of 3G-Adopt Resolution accepting
Donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women's Club and the motion carried.
3A1. Approve Minutes of the Council/Manager Meeting of March 8, 2016.
3A2. Approve Minutes of the Council/Manager Meeting of April 12, 2016
3A3. Approve Special Council/Manager Meeting of May 17, 2016
3A4. Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 17, 2016
3131. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
3C1. Approve the renewal of the respective liquor licenses for the applicants listed below for
the license period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017:
Off-Sale: Golden Valley Liquor Barrel, Lunds & Byerly's Wines & Spirits Lakeridge Wine
& Spirits, MGM Liquor Warehouse
Off-Sale/On-Sale and Sunday Sale: Schuller's Tavern
Wine On-Sale (including strong beer) and 3.2 Malt Liquor: D'Amico and Sons,
Davanni's Pizza & Hoagies, New Bohemia Golden Valley, Noodles & Company, The
Early Bird Deli - Mort's Deli
Off-Sale 3.2 Malt liquor: Holiday Inn Express Golden Valley, Super America #4443 and
Super America #4497
On-Sale and Sunday Sale: Benihana, Brookview Golf Course and Community Center,
Chipotle Mexican Grill #774, Doolittle's Woodfire Grill, Golden Valley Country Club,
Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- June 7, 2016
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued
3C1. Approve the renewal of the respective liquor licenses - continued:
On-Sale and Sunday Sale: Good Day Cafe, J.J.'s Clubhouse, Metropolitan Ballroom and
Clubhouse, Envision Catering & Hospitality (formerly Prom Catering), Sushi X, and
Teresa's Mexican Restaurant
3C2. Receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
3C3. Authorize Issuance of General Business License for Renaissance Firework for
Fireworks sales.
3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows:
1. Planning Commission - May 9, 2016
2. Board of Zoning Appeals - April 26, 2016
3. Human Rights Commission - March 31, 2016
3E1. Award a contract for the 2016 Asphalt Overlay Project to the lowest responsible bidder,
Midwest Asphalt Corporation for the Base Bid in the amount of$423,965.00.
3E2. Award a contract for the 1-394 Inflow and Infiltration Phase 1 Project to the lowest
responsible bidder, Visu-Sewer, Inc. in the amount of $450,231.65.
3E3. Award a contract to Traffic Marking Service, Inc. in the amount of$24,307.75 for the
2016 Pavement Marking Project, City Project No. 16-12.
3E4. Award a contract to Visu-Sewer, Inc. in the amount of $44,136.00 for the Zealand
Avenue Emergency Sanitary Sewer Repair Project.
3E5. Authorize purchase of the 2016 Douglas Drive project fire hydrants from Dakota Supply
Group, Inc. Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in the amount of$41,985.00.
3F. Approve the extension of hours for the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street
Dance to midnight on Saturday, June 18, 2016, at the Chester Bird American Legion,
200 North Lilac Drive.
3 ,
Women's Club feF the SurnrneF GenGert Series-.
3H. Adopt Resolution 16-35, Modifying 2016 General Wages and Salary for full-time
Battalion Chief Position.
31. Receive and file the April 2016 Financial Reports.
3J. Adopt Resolution 16-36, Approving an Administrative Amendment to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for the TIF District within Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road
Redevelopment Project Area - Liberty Crossing Project.
3K. Approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff.
31L. Reset Council/Manager meeting from Wednesday, August 10 to Monday, August 8,
2016.
3M. Adopt Resolution 16-37, Supporting Application for Technical Assistance to Support
Mixed Income Housing Policy Development.
3N. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Al53288SR between the City and Hennepin
County and Amendment No. 1 to Third Party Agreement between the City and
Accessible Space, Inc., extending the term of the agreements to December 31, 2016.
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
3G. Accept Donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women's Club
Council thanked the Golden Valley Federated Women's Club for their donation.
Motion made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt
Resolution 16-34, accepting Donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women's Club for the
Summer Concert Series upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Snope
and Fonnest, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- June 7, 2016
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4A. Public Hearing - Providing Host Approval for Issuance of Revenue Obligations by
City of Minnetonka 16-38
Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Ms. Martha Ingram, of Kennedy Graven, answered questions from Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Fonnest opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Pro Tem
Fonnest closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt
Resolution 16-38, Consenting and Approving Issuance, Sale and Delivery by the City of
Minnetonka of its Revenue Obligations; Approving and Authorizing Execution of Cooperative
Agreement with City of Minnetonka upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of:
Clausen, Fonnest, and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
4B. Public Hearing - North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3 - 700 Meadow
Lane North - North Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Fonnest opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Pro Tem
Fonnest closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ken Sorensen, Senior Vice President with Mortenson, stated Mortenson is growing and
building the proposed parking ramp is in anticipation of building a fourth office building in the
future.
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt
Ordinance #599, approval of PUD Plan, North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3, North
Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen,
Fonnest, and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
4C. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 148 - 1000 Boone Avenue North
- Ashley Ballet Arts Academy LLC, Applicant
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Fonnest opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Lindblom, 1293 Yukon Court, asked if the ballet studio would be conducting outside
performances because he is concerned about the noise.
Mayor Pro Tem Fonnest closed the public hearing.
Ms. Ashley Burkland, Applicant, stated she is excited to bring her business to Golden Valley
because it offers a larger space for her students. She answered questions from Council and
stated that the academy would not be conducting outside events.
Mr. Kyle Gikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, answered questions from
Council.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- June 7, 2016
4C. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 148 - continued
There was Council discussion regarding the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the
Ashley Ballet Arts Academy.
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt
Ordinance #600, Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 148, 1000 Boone Avenue North,
Ashley Ballet Arts Academy LLC, Applicant upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor
of: Clausen, Fonnest, and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
4D. Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Remove Temporary Events from
Section 11.04
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Fonnest opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Pro Tem
Fonnest closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt
Ordinance #601, Amending Section 11.04: Temporary Uses and Events upon a vote being
taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest and Snope and the following voted
against: none and the motion carried.
4E. Public Hearing - Amending Section 11.22 Moderate Density Residential Zoning
District
Item was tabled until the June 21, 2016, City Council meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6A. Authorize Issuance, Awarding Sale, and Prescribing the Form and Details and
Providing Payment for:
1. $1,290,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A
2. $800,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series
2016B
3. $5,630,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016C
Finance Director Virnig introduced the item and Mr. Doug Green, representative of Springsted
Inc., who reviewed the bids and also answered questions from Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt
Resolution 16-39, Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form
and Details and Providing for the Payment of$1,290,000 General Obligation Improvement
Bonds, Series 2016A upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Fonnest, Clausen,
and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt
Resolution 16-40, Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form
and Details and Providing for the Payment of$800,000 General Obligation Equipment
Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2016B upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor
of: Fonnest, Clausen and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- June 7, 2016
6A. Authorize Issuance, Awarding Sale - continued
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt
Resolution 16-41, Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form
and Details and Providing for the Payment of$5,630,000 General Obligation Street
Reconstruction Plan Bonds, Series 2016C upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor
of: Fonnest, Clausen and Snope and the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6113. First Consideration - Amending Sections 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design
Standards and 12.50: Minor Subdivision and Consolidations Regarding Frontage,
Access, and Lot Width
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt first
consideration Ordinance #603, amending Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting),
Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor
of: Fonnest, Snope and Clausen the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6C. Announcements of Meetings
The Views of the Valley Photo contest deadline is June 10, 2016, at 4:30 pm.
Some Council Members may attend the 1St Annual Golden Valley Pride Festival on June 12,
2016, from noon to 4 pm at Brookview Park.
Some Council Members may attend the Installation of Pastor Kurt Weber on June 12, 2016, at
1:30 pm at Golden Valley Lutheran Church at 5501 Glenwood Avenue.
A Concert in the Park featuring the Minnesota State Band will be held on June 13, 2016, at 7 pm
at Brookview Park.
Some Council Members may attend the Brookview Community Replacement Open House on
June 14, 2016, from 5:30 to 7 pm at the Brookview Community Center.
The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on June 14, 2016, at 6:30 pm.
The Public Safety Open House will be held on June 15, 2016, from 6 to 8 pm at the Golden
Valley Police and Fire Stations.
The Golden Valley Fire Relief Street Dance will be held on June 18, 2016, from 5 pm to midnight
at the Chester Bird American Legion.
Some Council Members may attend the Market in the Valley on June 19, 2016, from 9 am to 1
pm in the City Hall Campus Parking Lot.
A Concert in the Park featuring the Banjo Boys Variety Band will be held on June 20, 2016, at 7
pm at Brookview Park.
A Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Tour will be held on June 21, 2016,
starting at 12:45 pm at City Hall.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -6- June 7, 2016
6C. Announcements of Meetings
A Special City Council Executive Session will be held on June 21, 2016, at 5:45 pm.
The next City Council meeting will be held on June 21, 2016, at 6:30 pm.
The Boards and Commission Recognition Dinner will be held on June 22, 2016, at 6:30 pm at
Brookview Community Center.
6D. Mayor Pro Tem and Council Communication
Council Member Snope stated at the June14 Council/Manager meeting one of the topics to be
discussed is the winter parking restrictions and if residents had concerns regarding this issue
that they should contact Council.
Council Member Clausen stated that at the Pride Festival on Sunday that there will also be a
church service starting at 10:30 am. She said she is looking forward to the event.
7. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope and the
motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 pm.
Larry Fonnest, Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city of
olden MEMORANDUM
alley Administrative Services Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
• Document sent via email
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
city of
golden MEMORANDUM
alley Administrative Services Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
• Document sent via email
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
city of .;
go lden ; vN
MEMORANDUM
Administrative valley st ative Services Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Approve 2016-2017 Liquor License Renewals
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
The following establishments have applied for renewal of their liquor license for the 2016-2017
license term. The applicants have met City Code and State requirements for the renewal of their
licenses.
On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale
*Red Lobster#157
Off-Sale 3.2
Theodore Wirth Chalet
Wine On-Sale (including strong beer)
Smashburger#1024
Ramada Golden Valley (formerly Super 8)
*Contingent upon successful back ground investigation
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the renewal of the respective liquor licenses for the applicants listed above
for the license period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
May 23, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka,
Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman,
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
May 9, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the discussion regarding the size of the parking stalls for the
North Wirth Associates PUD Amendment proposal and questioned if the City is allowing
parking stalls to be 18 feet in length throughout the site, or only in the parking ramp.
Zimmerman stated that the applicant's plans show the shorter parking stalls only in the
ramp.
Waldhauser referred to the last paragraph on page four regarding her question about
adding a green roof. She clarified that the applicant's response was that they could
possibly add a green roof, however a large part of their business is installing solar panels
so they have a preference for solar panels.
Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page 11 and asked that the words "but
that is not the case for the whole City" be struck from the last sentence.
Kluchka referred to ninth paragraph on page four and clarified that his comments
regarding Cor-Ten steel applied to the style of the proposal and not necessarily just the
planters.
Segelbaum referred to the discussion on page five regarding the use of the words "must"
and "shall." He noted that there was nothing added in the conditions of approval and
asked if those changes will be addressed in the staff report that goes to the City Council
Zimmerman said yes.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
approve the May 9, 2016, minutes with the above noted corrections.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 1000 Boone Avenue
North — Fired Up, Inc. — CU-149
Applicant: Fired Up, Inc.
Address: 1000 Boone Avenue North
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 2
Purpose: To allow for accessory retail sales incidental to a permitted use
(ceramics studio) in the Industrial zoning district.
Zimmerman referred to the site plan and discussed the applicant's request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow retail services incidental to a permitted use (ceramics
studio) in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. He stated that the
property is a 124,000 square foot multi-tenant building with a mix of office and warehouse
uses. The building has eight existing tenants and 60,000+ square feet of vacant space
with 456 on-site parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing to lease
7,221 square feet of space for a member's only ceramics studio. He stated that the
applicant is currently operating in Minneapolis and their hours will be Monday to Friday
from 3 pm to 6 pm with extended hours on Wednesdays from 11 am to 6 pm. They will
also be open on Saturdays 1 pm to 6 pm and on Sundays from noon to 2 pm. He added
that 3 to 15 people visit the site on a typical day and that the reason they need a
Conditional Use Permit is because they are proposing to have 600 square feet of shelf
space in order to display and sell work done by the members. They also hold a silent
auction once a year in December.
Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that the proposed use calls
for 18 parking spaces. He noted that the proposed ceramic studio's lease includes 10
parking spaces and with the off-peak and weekend use, along with the abundance of
parking spaces on site, any potential parking impacts would be limited. Johnson asked if
the retail space was taken into consideration when reviewing the parking requirements.
Zimmerman said no because the retail space in this case is so small it would not have
made a difference in the amount of parking required.
Johnson asked if the hours of the retail space are the same as the studio space.
Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum asked if the hours of operation are limited by the City.
Zimmerman said no, but a condition regarding the hours could be added in the future if
problems arise.
Blum asked if a Conditional Use Permit runs with the tenant or with the property owner.
Zimmerman stated that a Conditional Use Permit runs with the land so another similar
use with the same amount of retail space could go into the space in the future.
Segelbaum referred to the language in the Zoning Code regarding allowing 10% of the
gross floor area to be used for retail space and asked if that is the recently amended new
language or if that is the old language. Zimmerman said the new language was used in
the calculation. Kluchka questioned why 10% of the gross floor area is used and not 10%
of the actual space. Segelbaum noted that a tenant could monopolize the entire 10% if
they were the first tenant in the building with a retail use. Zimmerman said it is possible
that one tenant could use the entire 10% but the point is that the City wouldn't be having
to pick and choose which tenant could use the retail space. Waldhauser said from the
stand point of the property owner it gives them the most flexibility in allowing tenants
some retail space. Zimmerman agreed and said ultimately the City just wants to limit the
amount because that tends to limit the amount of traffic.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 3
Beth Robinson, Owner, Fired Up Inc., said she started her business 19 years ago. She
explained that the retail space is not the basis of her business, it is just a member's
benefit.
Baker asked Robinson where in Minneapolis she was located and why she decided to
move. Robinson said they were located in Northeast Minneapolis and that the building is
being renovated and the rents are going up. Baker asked where the proceeds of the retail
sales go. Robinson said she gets 40% and the members get 60%.
Blum asked Robinson how many employees she has. Robinson said she has two part-
time employees.
Waldhauser asked Robinson if the public sales are announced or advertised. Robinson
explained that the retail sales will only occur during their limited office hours, but they do
announce their annual silent auction and a percentage of the proceeds from the auction
go to a non-profit organization.
Segelbaum asked Robinson if she is looking for new members. Robinson said she only
has space for one more member, but they do offer various classes.
Baker referred to the kilns the applicant will be using and asked about ventilation in the
space. Kyle Gikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, said Robinson has
been working with their property manager and the City regarding building code issues and
making sure the space will meet the building code requirements.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kluchka questioned whether or not they should include the condition limiting the amount
of retail space to 600 square feet. If the property owner is managing who gets the retail
space he questions why the Conditional Use Permit needs to state that one tenant gets
600 square feet especially if the business needs to be more flexible than that. Segelbaum
questioned how else the amount of retail space in a building would be managed.
Zimmerman stated that staff relies on the plans and proposals submitted to help
determine that the retail use is an incidental accessory use to the permitted use. Kluchka
asked if all of the regulations are listed in the Zoning Code why there needs to be a
condition capping the square feet at 600. Zimmerman said it has been the practice with
Conditional Use Permits to be specific to make sure that accessory retail space doesn't
creep over time. Baker asked if the Conditional Use Permit would have to be amended if
this tenant wanted to expand their amount of retail space. Zimmerman said yes.
Baker asked about the total amount of potential retail space in this building. Zimmerman
said the entire building is 124,000 square feet so there could be up to 12,400 square feet
of accessory retail space.
Segelbaum said he doesn't see a reason to limit the amount of square footage of retail
space in this case, but if that is how the City calculates the amount of accessory retail
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 4
space he is ok with the condition allowing 600 square feet as a practical matter. Kluchka
said it seems like an odd way to calculate the square footage of retail space.
Baker said it would put staff in a bind and take a lot of work to figure out the square
footage for accessory retail space if they had to calculate it for every proposal. Kluchka
suggested relying on building permit information and plans for that information.
Baker questioned why tenants are the applicants on these types of requests. Zimmerman
explained that the tenants are the ones doing the proposed use so it is helpful to have
them be the applicant. Baker stated that it might be easier to make the property owner,
rather than the tenant, do the space calculations.
Segelbaum said he is in favor of keeping the condition regarding limiting the amount of
accessory retail space to 600 square feet. Zimmerman stated that he asked the applicant
to estimate high on the amount of retail space they will need so he thinks 600 square feet
will probably be more than enough for this applicant.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Finding
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Fired Up Studios is an existing
business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on
their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of
demand there will be for their operations.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A ceramics studio is consistent with
the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on
the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on
the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the
neighborhood extremely unlikely.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal
and largely concentrated in the evenings and weekends. Staff does not expect any
negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking
available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently
underutilized.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications,
staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 5
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi-tenant industrial
property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses.
Conditions-
1.
onditions:1. The total amount of accessory retail space shall be limited to 600 square feet.
2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City
Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require
modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation
in order to adequately address parking concerns.
3. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine
fire inspection after occupying the space.
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 710 Pennsylvania Avenue
South — Morrie's Heritage Car Connection — CU-150
Applicant: Morrie's Heritage Car Connection
Address: 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Purpose: To allow for automobile rentals in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property which includes both 710 and 750
Pennsylvania Avenue South. He explained the applicant's request to allow for automobile
rentals in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district. The applicant is proposing to store
approximately 30 classic cars in the building that would be available for rental between 8
am and 5 pm, 7 days a week. The applicant anticipates up to 10 customers per day with 1
to 3 employees on-site to assist with rental operations. The applicant is also proposing to
use a portion of the building for a casual car club for classic car enthusiasts which will
require a building code analysis and a Certificate of Occupancy prior to any public
assembly use.
Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements for this use and stated that based on the
size of the building, the automobile rental use requires 5 parking spaces and the applicant
is allocating 22 parking spaces. He referred to the applicant's parking plan and discussed
the number of parking spaces located in various areas on the site. He added that there
will be no dealership inventory parking allowed on the property.
Waldhauser asked if there has been any discussion about how many people would gather
in the car club area. Zimmerman said the number of people allowed would be addressed
in the building code analysis and the Certificate of Occupancy.
Blum asked if the rental cars are exclusively stored inside the building. Zimmerman said
yes, the cars will be securely stored indoors.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 6
Waldhauser asked what triggered the submittal of the Conditional Use Permit application
because it seems that a number of proposed uses are already occurring. Zimmerman
said that staff has been working with the applicant for a while about the process and
recently the applicant came to the City and said they were ready to apply. He added that
he thinks that the car club has had a "soft opening" but they would now like to go forward
and make it more publicly known.
Kluchka asked if there are any opportunities to add landscaping conditions. Zimmerman
explained that the conditions are targeted to the impacts generated by the use. The
applicant has indicated that they intend to paint the building and do some clean-up. He
added that the Planning Commission could ask that some landscaping be done especially
in the areas where cars have been stored.
Waldhauser asked if there will be food and beverage service in the car club area.
Zimmerman said they won't be allowed to prepare food on-site.
Baker asked what the business is at 750 Pennsylvania Ave. Lynn Robson, CFO Morrie's
Automotive Group, said they don't own that building, but it is a company called Midwest
Maintenance.
Kluchka asked about landscaping plans particularly in the front area where cars have
been parked. Robson said they would be willing replace the grass in that area.
Segelbaum asked if they have plans to fix up the property to make it look nicer. Robson
said this is first time she has heard that fixing up the property is an expectation. She
agreed that the grass looks unsightly and needs to be taken care of, but they haven't
hired a landscape architect to see if there is any possibility to do any landscaping in front
of the building.
Baker asked where the rental cars would be maintained. Robson said maintenance would
occur at their dealership locations.
Waldhauser asked when they started using this building in this way as a rental service or
a car club. Robson said they started leasing the building in October of 2014 and they've
been storing vehicles there, but they have been trying to figure out the viability and if
there really is a market for this proposed use. Segelbaum asked if they've been operating
the car rental use at this location. Robson said they have been operating the rental
service from their Subaru store in Minnetonka.
Waldhauser asked if they've had any events and if so, what the turnout was for them.
Josh Karsten, Morrie's Automotive Group, said they've had a couple of small events with
5 or 10 people but the number of people they are allowed to have in the space will be
determined with the building code analysis and permit process.
Blum asked about the sidewalk shown on the northeast portion of the property. Karsten
explained that it is more of an emergency exit walkway than a sidewalk.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 7
Johnson asked the applicants if they have any comments about the grass areas being
used for dealership inventory parking in violation of the Zoning Code. Robson said they
have met with City staff and they are getting better at policing the parking of their
inventory and they know they are not allowed to park inventory there. Segelbaum asked if
there is reason to think that inventory parking will still occur. Robson stated that since it
will be a condition of approval for the Conditional Use Permit they will talk to their
employees and they will comply. Johnson suggested landscaping be installed that would
discourage or prohibit parking in the grass/landscaped areas. Robson said that is a
possibility.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she agrees with the suggestion
that there be additional landscaping and a parking plan. She said she is concerned about
more coming her way with so much going on with the Laurel Ponds project and added
that she would like the parking spaces to be clearly signed.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Segelbaum asked if there are continuing concerns with the parking. Zimmerman said he
hasn't heard any complaints lately about inventory storage. He stated that staff did meet
with a number of dealerships and will be working on amending the outdoor storage
section of the City Code.
Waldhauser questioned if transports should be unloaded at all on this property and
suggested they be delivered to Morrie's instead. Segelbaum noted that the applicant
needs to have 5 parking spaces and they are proposing to have 22 spaces so he
questions if it is an issue to park inventory in the extra spaces. Robson stated that they
have stopped unloading vehicles at this location. Zimmerman explained that the City's
position is that inventory parking should occur on the dealer's own property, not on other
properties. Segelbaum said he would like to add a condition about unloading cars on this
property. Waldhauser suggested it be added to condition #4. Baker agreed.
Kluchka suggested condition #2 be amended to read as follows: "parking spaces shall
be designated "and signed" as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016."
Segelbaum questioned if only the car club spaces should be signed. Kluchka said he
would like the parking spaces organized in some way to help address the storage
issues. He changed his suggestion for condition #2 to read "parking spaces shall be
designated "and signed as needed" as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016."
Baker questioned why employee parking would need to be signed if they tell the
employees where to park. Segelbaum said he would be in favor of some signage
indicating where customers should park for the classic car rental business. Kluchka
changed his suggestion for condition #2 to read "parking spaces shall be designated as
shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016, with signage to indicate use."
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 8
Kluchka suggested a condition be added requiring landscaping improvements to
prevent parking in designated grass areas.
Baker stated that condition #4 should be amended to address the unloading of
inventory. Kluchka suggested condition #4 be changed to "no dealership inventory
vehicles shall be unloaded or stored on-site."
Robson reiterated that they don't own the property at 750 Pennsylvania and clarified
that they won't be able to put any signs on that property.
Kluchka reviewed the proposed changes as follows: condition #2 is modified to state
"Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016,
with signage to indicate use." Condition #4 should state "No dealership inventory
vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site." And a condition should be added
stating "Landscaping improvements will be added to help prevent parking in designated
grass areas."
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following
findings and conditions:
Findings-
1.
indings:1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Morrie's has identified a demand for
classic car rentals and believes there is a viable market for their operation.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An automobile rental business is
consistent with the Mixed Use designation of this property on the General Land Use
Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on
the surrounding property values. The area is generally occupied by light industrial or
manufacturing uses with car dealerships to the east.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal
and staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas.
Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is
anticipated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Staff does not anticipate a negative change in the visual quality of
the property. The applicant has indicated that the building will be painted and
additional signage installed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 9
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a non-residential area with
adequate parking to serve the use.
Conditions:
1. No assembly use shall be permitted until the Inspections Division approves and
issues a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16,
2016, with signage to indicate use.
3. All vehicles must be parked on paved surfaces and no vehicles may be located in
the accessible parking discharge areas. Accessible parking discharge areas shall
be signed as required by code.
4. No dealership inventory vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site.
5. Landscaping improvements will be added to help prevent parking in designated
grass areas.
6. Due to the change in occupancy, the applicant shall submit for review a code
analysis from a registered architect.
7. The building shall be completely protected with a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
8. The fire alarm system in the building shall meet NFPA 72 and UL Certifications.
9. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine
fire inspection after occupying the space.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
11. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation.
4. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment—
9050 Golden Valley Road — CPAM-59
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 9050 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
High Density Residential to — Commercial-Office.
5. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 9050 Golden Valley Road —
Z022-05
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 9050 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To rezone the property from High Density Residential (R-4) to
Business and Professional Offices.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 10
The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 5 and 6 were combined.
Zimmerman explained the City's proposal to redesignate and rezone the property located at
9050 Golden Valley Road from High Density Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional
Offices. He discussed the history of the property and stated that prior to August 2015, the
property was zoned Commercial and occupied by a fast food restaurant. The City rezoned
the property to High Density Residential and the property owner was told he may continue
with non-conforming commercial uses or switch to residential.
Zimmerman explained that the property owner intended to sell the property for use as a
credit union however, previously undiscovered language in the existing Conditional Use
Permit limits any non-conforming use to "Fast Food Restaurant (with drive thru) only." This
language limits the options and the property would have contested the rezoning done in
2015 if this had been known at the time. He stated that there is no legal way to remove the
existing Conditional Use Permit or amend the language to allow for other non-conforming
uses since the property is now zoned High Density Residential. Redesignating the property
to Commercial-Office and rezoning it to Business and Professional Offices would allow for a
limited range of commercial uses while avoiding the higher impact uses that concerned the
City Council. Redesignating and rezoning the property would also be consistent with the
vision of a new Mixed Use zoning district to be created and implemented in this area as part
of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Waldhauser asked if the property is redesignated and rezoned to Business and Professional
Offices if a retail use could be proposed. Zimmerman stated that limited retail services
would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.
Kluchka asked about the uses across the street at 9100 and 9010 Golden Valley Road.
Zimmerman stated that one of the properties is Chip and Putt which is open seasonally, and
the other is a small vacant office building.
Baker questioned if this proposal is a creative solution because there is no other way to
eliminate the existing Conditional Use Permit. Zimmerman stated that if the existing
Conditional Use Permit is rescinded the only option left to the property owner is High
Density Residential. Baker said his concern is that the City wants this area to be a vibrant
residential/mixed use area and a credit union isn't a particularly attractive use to get the City
where it wants to go. Zimmerman stated that several other uses could occur if the property
is zoned Business and Professional Offices even though a credit union is what is being
discussed. He said he agreed with Baker about a new mixed use zoning district for the area,
but said there are no good solutions until that is created.
Baker questioned what the consequence would be in leaving the property zoned High
Density Residential even though it may not be fair to the owner. Zimmerman stated that the
property could be used by another fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. Waldhauser
questioned if the City would rather have that use. Baker said with the new residential uses
in the area a creative fast food use might be good.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 11
Segelbaum asked if a credit union with a drive-thru would need a Conditional Use Permit if
the property is zoned Business and Professional Offices. Zimmerman said yes.
Waldhauser asked if the property is 100 feet wide as required in the Business and
Professional Offices zoning district. Zimmerman said yes.
Blum asked about the height of the buildings to the east and west of this property.
Zimmerman stated that the building to the west is a two-story residential building with 1-
story garages and the building to the east will be an approximate 5-story, senior living
building.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Blum said it seems like the Planning Commission has received some guidance from the City
Council to make this area walkable. He said he does not see a one or two story building
getting them there, or achieving that goal with this proposed use.
Kluchka said when he looks at the size of this property he thinks it is a great place for a high
density residential use and a more pedestrian friendly area. He noted that there are some
existing commercial uses in the area and some other commercial uses that could be in
transition.
Waldhauser stated that when they've talked to credit unions in the past, access, visibility,
and signage were important to them and that this property has none of those. Zimmerman
stated that there is a credit union who is interested in the site and they say it meets their
needs. If that doesn't work out a fast food restaurant is the property owner's fallback use. He
added that the property owner has been marketing the property for residential uses and that
there hasn't been any interest at the listed price.
Waldhauser said she got the impression from the staff reports that some of the
misinformation that the property owner and the City discovered should have been figured
out sooner. Zimmerman said it has been an interesting process because the language in
the existing Conditional Use Permit limits the uses allowed on the property. Waldhauser
asked if the existing property owner purchased the property after it was rezoned to High
Density Residential. Zimmerman said he believes the property owner inherited the property
so he didn't buy it with wrong information.
Johnson asked how many units would be allowed on this property with the High Density
Residential (R-4) zoning classification. Zimmerman said the R-4 zoning would allow 12 or
more units per acre. Johnson stated that there are approximately 1,500 units currently being
created in Golden Valley so one thing the City needs to think about if the property is kept
high density residential, is if it would lighten the demand and just stagnate.
Baker said he wishes there was another route to get mixed use in this area where there will
be a lot of residential properties but with nothing to walk to like a book store, coffee shop, or
small grocery store. He said if the City wants areas like the West End development they
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 12
need to start doing it now. Zimmerman stated that part of the issue may be that the market
needs to catch up because there aren't enough people in the area yet to have a successful
coffee shop, etc. but there may be more demand in the future.
Segelbaum asked if the property were zoned Commercial if a credit union would be a
permitted use. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked why the proposed zoning is Business and
Professional Offices if the property owner has an offer from a credit union. Waldhauser said
there are some commercial uses nearby but it might not be so bad to have one office
building in the area.
Segelbaum said just because the property hasn't been developed into R-4 yet, doesn't
mean that it won't be in the future. He said it seems appropriate to make this a walkable
area and he is not sure this proposal gets the City where it wants to be. He added that it
seems like "spot zoning."
Johnson questioned if a credit union would be allowed if the property was zoned Mixed Use.
Zimmerman said it would depend on how the language was written and what the vision is
for the area. Johnson asked if the current 1-394 Zoning Code language would need to be
completely re-invented. Zimmerman said the 1-394 language was tailored to the 1-394
corridor, so it couldn't be used in this area now, but it could maybe be scaled down and
improved for use in this area.
Baker said he is opposed to this proposal because it feels like "spot zoning." He said if the
property ends up being a fast food use for a couple of years during the Comprehensive
Planning update process that feels more flexible to him than a credit union. Kluchka agreed
and said he would like there to be some more patience and time with this property. He said
pushing the current proposal because of perceived mistakes isn't a way to plan and he
would rather see a restaurant type of use on this property and he would also like to see the
properties to the west redeveloped into residential properties. Segelbaum agreed.
Waldhauser agreed and said she is sympathetic to the property owner but she thinks the
current zoning is appropriate.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
denial of the proposal to change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
High Density Residential to Commercial-Office and to recommend denial of the proposal
to rezone the property from High Density Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional
Offices.
--Short Recess--
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Zimmerman discussed the variance requests on the upcoming Board of Zoning Appeals
agenda and stated that there will be a presentation of the new Brookview Community
Center at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 13
7. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
Council Member Schmidgall said the Hello apartments, the Cornerstone Creek
apartments and the Laurel Ponds project are well underway. He said he is excited about
the proposed new Brookview Community Center and gave an update on the Douglas
Drive reconstruction project.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 pm.
John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting, Minutes
March 28, 2016
Commissioners Present: Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Larry
Johnson and Jim Stremel
Council Member Present: Larry Fonnest
Staff Present: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist and Claire Huisman, Administrative
Assistant
Absent: Commissioner Debra Yahle
Call to Order
Lynn Gitelis called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
Approval of Regular and Joint Commission Meeting Minutes
MOVED by Stremel, SECONDED by Hill, and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the January 25, 2016 regular meeting and the February 29, 2016 joint
commission meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Update
Chair Gitelis reiterated that the EC's focus on the Comprehensive Plan will be the new
Resilience Plan Element along with the Water Resources chapter.
GreenStep Cities
MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Galonska and the motion carried unanimously to
approve as presented the Resolution authorizing the City of Golden Valley to participate in
the MN GreenSteps Cities Program. The first best practice the Commission will work on is
Resilience and Climate Adaptation, followed by Water, Energy, and/or possibly others as
may be directed by Council.
MPCA Grant for Resilience Planning in Comprehensive Plan
MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Stremel and the motion carried unanimously to support
the City in applying for the MPCA Resilience Planning Grant. The maximum grant amount
is $15,000 with a matching funds requirement of 25%. The grant funds would allow a third
party to help lead and facilitate City staff through the Resilience Planning process.
MN GreenCorps Program
MOVED by Johnson, SECONDED by Stremel and the motion carried unanimously to
support the City in its participation in the 2016-2017 GreenCorps Program and to authorize
staff to draft a letter of support to be signed by Chair Gitelis and presented to the Council.
This program would provide a GreenCorps member to help City staff and the
Environmental Commission with Resilience Planning, GreenSteps Cities actions, Home
Energy squad promotion, B3 Benchmarking efforts and community outreach for natural
resource initiatives.
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
March 28, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Environmental Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
MOVED by Anderson, SECONDED by Galonska and the motion carried unanimously to
approve the EC Annual Report and Work Plan as amended. Changes included:
under "Accomplishments," adding Participation in Bottineau Station Area Planning
Committee;
under "Recommendations for 2016 Work Plan Priorities," making the Comprehensive Plan
Update as #1 and the GreenSteps Cities Program as #2; adding additional verbiage to the
GreenSteps Cities item "c" to include "water & energy", adding Blue Line LRT Review and
Comment on FEIS as #3; making Natural Resources Plan Implementation #4.
2016 Environmental State of the City
MOVED by Stremel, SECONDED by Hill and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the 2016 Environmental State of the City Report.
Program/Project Updates
Eric Eckman presented Energy Updates on the Cities consumption data using the MN B3
Benchmarking program. The report looked at the last ten years of electricity consumption
of city buildings; CO2 emissions of city buildings and traffic signal electricity consumption.
He also provided a short summary on the 2015 Recycling Program. The complete
program/project update is on file.
Council member Fonnest conveyed his enthusiasm in Golden Valley's involvement in the
GreenSteps Cities and commended the EC members for their time and efforts in this
program. He stated he would talk with the Council on getting items of interest to the
Environmental Commission in a timely manner for their involvement and recommendation.
Adjourn
MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Stremel, and the motion carried to adjourn the
meeting at 8:12 pm.
Claire Huisman
Administrative Assistant
Golden Valley Human Services Fund (GVHSF) Meeting
Minutes
March 14, 2016
Present: Aaron Black, Hilmer Erickson, Alan Ingber, Scott Carlesworth-Seiler, Peggy
Watkins, Elissa Heilicher, Andrew Wold, Toots Vodovoz, Sarah Meyerring, and Brian
Erickson, Staff Liaison.
Not Attending: Denise La Mere Anderson, Kathryn Frommer, and Andrea MacArthur.
Call to Order: Wold called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
Agenda Changes or Additions: None
February 8 Minutes: Vodovoz moved and Charlesworth-Seiler seconded the motion to
approve the minutes from February 8. The motion passed unanimously.
Run the Valley:
Runner Update: Erickson reported that there are 70 registered for the 5K Run, 52
registered for the 10K Run, and 20 registered for the 5K Walk. This is slightly lower than
last year at this time.
Sponsor Update: Discussion on contacting businesses that have not committed and
confirming those who have.
Volunteers: Erickson passed out the volunteer sheet. Members added themselves and
others who will volunteer, but not noted on the volunteer sheet.
Marketing/Publicity: Information has been sent to the SunPost, Channel 12, Golden Valley
City newsletter and the Park and Recreation brochure.
Calendar Review:
April 16 - Run the Valley.
July 15 - Golf and Lawn Bowling Classic
Other Business:
Future Event: Some discussion on a disc golf Tournament.
Adjournment: Heilicher moved to adjourn the meeting, Erickson seconded the motion. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Wold, GVHSF Chair Brian Erickson, Staff Liaison
GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2016
Present: Commissioners: Roger Bergman, Andy Bukowski, John Cornelius, Kelly
Kuebelbeck, Gillian Rosenquist, Anne Saffert, Dawn Speltz, and Dan
Steinberg. Director of Parks and Recreation,
Rick Birno; Jeanne Fackler, Recreation Supervisor; Council Member,
Joanie Clausen; and Administrative Assistant, Sheila Van Sloun. Glenn
Waguespack, HGA Architects and Engineers.
Absent: Bob Mattison.
1. Call to Order
Rosenquist called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
2. Approval of Minutes — November 23, 2015
MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Speltz to approve the
November 23, 2015 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Senior Program Update
Fackler gave an update of the current and upcoming happenings with the
Golden Valley Seniors, including: classes, trips, seminars, special interest
groups, athletic groups, and cooperative programs.
She announced the retirement of Jan Garfield, her part-time assistant. Jan will
retire the end of February after 15 years of service with Golden Valley.
4. Community Center Update
Waguespack gave an overview on the process. He said they are using the
visioning from the task force as design guiding principles.
Rosenquist mentioned the need for safe, well-flowing connections from the
community center to Brookview Park. Speltz noted there should be a viewing
area for parents from the lobby into the indoor play area.
Birno said the next public open house is on Tuesday, February 23 at 6 pm at
Brookview Community Center.
5. Glenview Terrace/Wildwood Park Tennis Court Discussion and
Recommendations
Birno said the tennis court report has been finalized. Due to the conditions, the
recommendations are to remove the courts at Glenview Terrace and reconstruct
the courts at Wildwood to six pickle ball only courts. Commissioners agreed with
the recommendations and advised staff to have discussion with the City Council.
6. Metro Blue Line Extension Update
Rosenquist said the last meeting focused goal setting. She said there will be a
public hearing held on February 2 and municipal consent vote on February 16.
Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation Commission
January 25, 2016
Page 2
7. Sochacki Park recommendations for LRT proiect
The Commissioners reviewed the most recent Sochacki Park JPA proposal for
the LRT project and supported the document with the following changes and
comments:
• Define "4f' in the JPA document.
• Clearly identify that a natural buffer will be installed along the rail corridor the
length of the park as determined by a vegetation plan approved by the JPA
operations staff.
• Clearly define all aspects of trail connection at Golden Valley Road.
• Commissioners agree a sound wall down the length of the rail corridor is not
appropriate.
• Commissioners reviewed and agree with the proposed construction
easements in the Golden Valley area of Sochacki Park.
• Commissioners do not want the BPO to improve/construct park access
improvements at
Adell-Culver-June Avenues in Golden Valley. They believe these discussions
and potential improvements should be planned for the park through the JPA
CIP.
• Commissioners would like it noted that a public access from west to east
over/under the railroad tracks within the park would be a nice amenity and is
hopeful staff and BPO will continue to explore options. That being said, the
Commissioner understand staff and BPO have discussed this and at this point
in the process have not found a good solution to accomplish this goal.
• Commissioners support the proposed working document with the changes
listed above and thanks all staff members from all partnering agencies for the
thorough work to protect and enhance Sochacki Park.
8. Staff Updates
a. Lakeview Park Open House — February 29, 6-7 pm
b. Golden Oaks Park Open House — March 28, 6-7 pm
c. Comprehensive Plan Training — February 29, 7 pm
d. Schaper Park Challenge Course — Birno said the City was not awarded the
Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant to help fund the challenge course. He
said Three Rivers really likes the concept and plans to look at other grants
and options for funding.
e. Birno said Three Rivers plans to rebuild and reconstruct the portion of the
regional trail through Schaper Park.
Due to time, the Commissioners recommended tabling the remaining items to
the next OSRC meeting:
a. Deer Removal Update
b. Discover SLP Partnership
c. Winter Disc Golf/Fat Tire Bikes at Brookivew
9. Adiournment
MOTION: Moved by Steinberg and seconded by Bergman to adjourn at 9:20
pm. Motion carried unanimously.
ATTEST: Bob Mattison, Chair
Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant
�t
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting
March 17,2016
Plymouth City Hall, 8:30 a.m.
Commissioners and Staff Present:
Crystal Commissioner Guy Mueller, Vice Chair Plymouth Alternate Commissioner David
Tobelmann
Golden Valley Commissioner Stacy Hoschka,Treasurer Robbinsdale Not represented
Medicine Lake Not represented St. Louis Park Alternate Commissioner Patrick
Noon
Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch Administrator Laura Jester
Minnetonka Alternate Commissioner Patty Acomb Attorney Troy Gilchrist,Kennedy&Graven
New Hope Alternate Commissioner Pat Crough Engineer Karen Chandler,Barr Engineering
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Members/Other Attendees Present:
Derek Asche,TAC, City of Plymouth Liz Stout,TAC,City of Minneapolis
Erick Francis,TAC,City of St. Louis Park Bob Paschke and Chris Long,TAC,City of New Hope
Jeff Oliver and Tom Hoffman,TAC,City of Peggy Knapp,Freshwater Society
Golden Valley
Richard McCoy,TAC,City of Robbinsdale Paul Hudalla,City of Minneapolis
Bojan Misic and Brady Busselman, Southwest LRT Project
Tom Dietrich,TAC,City of Minnetonka Office and Consultant Sambatek(respectively)
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
On Thursday,March 17,2016, at 8:36 a.m. in the Medicine Lake Room at Plymouth City Hall,3400 Plymouth
Boulevard,Vice Chair Mueller(in Chair de Lambert's absence)called to order the meeting of the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission(BCWMC)and asked for roll call to be taken [Cities of New Hope,
Medicine Lake, and Robbinsdale absent from roll call].
2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments from citizens.
1
BCWMC March 17, 2016, Meeting Minutes
3. AGENDA'''
Administrator Jester asked to add the liability coverage waiver form to the agenda before 5A.
There was consensus to proceed with the revised agenda.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Tobelmann moved to approve the consent agenda.Commissioner Welch
seconded the motion. Upon a vote the motion carried 6-0 [Cities of New Hope, Medicine Lake, and Robbinsdale
absent from vote].
A. [The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda:the February 18,2016,Commission Meeting
Minutes,the March 2016 Financial Report,the payment of invoices,s etting a Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting for May 5, approval of Reimbursement Request from City of New Hope for Development of Northwood
Lake Improvement Project Feasibility Study (NL-1), approval of Three Rivers Park District Regional Trail
Improvement Project in New Hope and Crystal,and receipt of the Final Feasibility Study for Plymouth Creek
Restoration Project(2017CR-P)].
The general and construction account balances reported in the March 2016 are as follows:
Checking Account Balance $813,323.60
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $813,323.60
TOTAL CASH&INVESTMENTS ON-HAND (3/9/16) $3,201,822.29
CIP Projects Levied—Budget Remaining ($4,593,577.00)
Closed Projects Remaining Balance ($1,391,754.71)
2012-2014 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $6,668.33
2015 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $1,499.07
Anticipated Closed Project Balance ($1,383,587.31)
5. BUSINESS
5a.Limited Liability Waiver Form(added agenda item)
Administrator Jester reminded the Commission about this annual action to not waive monetary limits on
municipal tort liability.
MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Noon moved that the Commission not waive monetary limits on
municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04. Seconded by Commissioner Welch.
Upon a vote the motion carried 6—0. [Cities of New Hope,Medicine Lake, and Robbinsdale absent from
vote].
2
BCWMC March 17, 2016, Meeting Minutes
A. Receive Presentation on Metro Watershed Partners Clean Water Minnesota Media Campaign
Administrator Jester reported that the BCWMC Education Committee asked for a brief presentation on the
Metro Watershed Partner's Clean Water Minnesota Media Campaign since the Commission provides$3,500
in funding towards this campaign every year. She introduced Peggy Knapp with the Freshwater Society and a
member of the Metro Watershed Partner's Steering Committee. Ms. Knapp gave a presentation on the
Watershed Partner's new,focused communications plan which has consistent messages and strategies that
member organizations(such as the BCWMC)can use in outreach work.The new plan has three components
(implemented over three years) including developing a communications calendar with seasonal messages,
promotion of fall leaf clean ups,and development of an adopt-a-drain program. Member organizations can
use the messages and online traffic will be measured by the Watershed Partners,giving organizations real
metrics to report. The Commission thanked Ms. Knapp for the information. Administrator Jester noted the
Commission would be discussing education and outreach programs later in the agenda.
[Alternate Commissioner Pat Crough arrives.]
B. Receive Overview and Update on Southwest LRT Project
Administrator Jester introduced Bojan Misic with the Southwest LRT Project Office and Brady Busselman
with Met Council's consultant, Sambatek. Mr.Misic gave a presentation on Southwest LRT Project in
general,and provided,more specifically, information on the light rail alignment and the Bryn Mawr and
Bassett Creek stations within the Bassett Creek Watershed and stormwater management features in these
areas.He reported that the alignment is still considered"proposed"because the Environmental Impact
Statement has not yet been approved. He reported that the Project Office,Minneapolis city staff and
BCWMC Administrator and Engineers had been coordinating for several months on stormwater management
and a possible connection to the Bassett Creek Tunnel. He stressed that cooperation would continue between
the Project Office,the Commission,an d the City throughout the design and construction of the Project. He
noted that draft permit applications would be sent to watershed organizations and local governments at the
end of March and final applications at the end of April.He reported since there are no parking lots and only
"drop off areas"at the two stations in the watershed,the Project is considered"linear"throughout the Bassett
Creek Watershed.
Commissioner Welch noted that the Southwest LRT Project is a significant public works undertaking and he
appreciated the Met Council working with local entities throughout the project's development.
C. Consider Request from City of Minneapolis to Allow Southwest LRT Project to Make a New
Connection to Bassett Creek Tunnel
Commission Engineer Chandler reported that at this time,the Commission is being asked to allow a
connection to the Bassett Creek Tunnel and that this is different from a review of the project plans which will
happen in the near future. She noted that a request for a tunnel connection is uncommon(the only other
request was for the building of the Twins Stadium in 2007),that certain conditions must be met in order to
allow a connection,and that allowing a connection takes action by the Commission. She reviewed the memo
in the meeting packet including the modeling that occurred to assess the connection's effects on the tunnel
and that relative changes were modeled rather than absolute numbers. She reported that the modeling
indicates no increase in the flood elevation at the inlet to the tunnel,no increases in expected peak discharges
at the tunnel inlet, and no increase in the pressurization of the tunnel as a result of the proposed tunnel
connection. Commission Engineer Chandler recommended approval of the tunnel connection request with
conditions outlined in the Commission Engineer's memo. She noted that if the design changes as plans are
finalized,the Commission Engineer will work with the Project Office to ensure that conditions are still met.
There was discussion about the contaminated soils and high groundwater in much of the area,preventing
infiltration practices. Commissioner Welch noted that as presented,the resolution in the meeting packet
doesn't include the conditions noted in the Engineer's memo. Commission Legal Counsel,Troy Gilchrist,
3
BCWMC March 17, 2016, Meeting Minutes
suggested the resolution be revised to include the conditions in the Commission Engineer's memo.
Commissioner Welch recommended striking condition#2 requiring that the connection must also be
approved by MnDOT,noting that the Commission does not have jurisdiction in MnDOT's requirements.
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the resolution approving a direct connection to the New
Bassett Creek Tunnel as part of the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project with the addition of conditions 1,3
and 4 as outlined in the Commission Engineer's memo. Seconded by Alternate Commissioner Noon. Upon a
vote,the motion carried 7-0. [Cities of Medicine Lake and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]
D. Consider Items Related to City of Golden Valley 2016 Pavement Management Program
a. Consider Approval of Variance Request from City of Golden Valley
Commission Engineer Chandler reviewed the City of Golden Valley's request for a variance from the
BCWMC water quality standards(MIDS)for its 2016 Pavement Management Program(PMP). She
indicated the PMP is primarily in the Medicine Lake direct subwatershed, includes grading 2.82 acres and
results in a decrease of 0.17 acres of impervious surface. She reviewed the requirements for MIDS and
reported that although the City cannot meet MIDS right now,they plan to implement a water quality
treatment project in 2018,providing offsite treatment and mitigating the effects of this project at that time.
Commission Engineer Chandler noted that the Commission rarely gets requests for variances and the last
two requests were similar in that they were really"temporary"variance requests because a planned future
project ultimately allowed the project to meet water quality standards. She recommended approval of the
resolution to grant the variance.
Mr. Oliver noted that new information regarding DNR grant funds means the future water quality
treatment project may not be implemented until 2019,rather than 2018. There were questions from
Commissioners about why the offsite treatment cannot be met now. Mr. Oliver explained the situation
and the constraints. He reported that city staff talked to residents about installing rain gardens,but they
did not want to lose trees in order to install gardens. He noted that tree loss would be the result of several
different practices along these streets.He noted that the future project requires the purchase of up to four
homes that are consistently damaged by flooding. He noted that since property acquisition is so
expensive,the City must partially rely on DNR grants in order to complete the project.
There was further discussion about how future PMPs are also likely to need offsite treatment and about
the poor soils in the area of the current PMP and future water quality project. Commissioner Welch noted
that variances are sometimes needed and that it seems compromises have been developed in this case. He
also noted that there should not be an implication that the BCWMC's standard(which is flexible)is not
non-productive or somehow hampers a project proposer's ability to contribute to public welfare.
There was discussion about the language in the resolution. A modification was made such that the last
provision reads: The City shall provide offsite treatment to meet the MIDS performance goals for the
Project by the end of 2018 or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible.
MOTION: Commissioner Hoschka moved to approve the resolution,as amended,granting a variance
from the water quality treatment requirements for the 2016 Golden Valley Pavement Management
Program. Seconded by Alternate Commissioner Tobelmann. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. [Cities
of Medicine Lake and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]
b. Consider Approval of Project
Commission Engineer Chandler recommended approval of the project with conditions included in the
engineer's memo, and a revision to condition#1 to add"or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible"to
4
BCWMC March 17, 2016, Meeting Minutes
the end of the first sentence.There was discussion about the wetland buffers that might be required in the
project area. Commission Engineer Chandler noted that cities are required to update their local controls
within two years of Watershed Plan adoption(by September 2017)and that it would be a responsibility of
the city to enforce buffer standards. Administrator Jester indicated she would remind cities about the
local water management plan revision timeline.
MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Crough moved to approve the City of Golden Valley's 2016
Pavement Management Program with the Commission Engineer's conditions and the additional language
from the previous resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Hoschka. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0.
[Cities of Medicine Lake and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]
E. Consider Approval of Technical Advisory Committee Recommendations for 5-year Capital
Improvement Program
Administrator Jester reviewed the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee for the 2018—
2022 Capital Improvement Program(CII'). She noted a few changes from the last 5-year CIP(2017—2021)
including updating the finances for the 2016 and 2017 projects because of recent grants for the Northwood
Lake Improvement Project and better estimates for the Plymouth Creek Restoration Project;moving project
BC-3 that is in the vicinity of the Blue Line LRT to start in 2019 rather than 2018 to better coincide with
construction of the LRT; adding BCP-2 dredging of Bassett Creek Park Pond to 2018; and adding a project in
Westwood Nature Center in 2019(which would require a Plan amendment to add to the CIP).She noted that
the estimated tax levy amount, although higher than previous years,remains relatively stable over the years,
reflecting current BCWMC financial policies.
There was discussion about two possible restoration projects on direct tributaries to Medicine Lake. Mr.
Asche noted these could be included in the CIP in 2023. Commission Welch noted that the Commission
should consider a policy whereby CIP projects would not be used for permit compliance. There was
consensus that the TAC and Administrative Services Committee should discuss and make a recommendation
to the Commission.
MOTION: Alternate Commission Tobelmann moved approval of the 2018—2022 Capital Improvement
Program as presented. Seconded by Alternate Commission Noon. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. [Cities
of Medicine Lake and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]
F. Discuss BCWMC Education and Outreach Priorities for 2016
Alternate Commissioner Tobelmann reviewed the Education Committee's ideas for areas of focus in 2016
and asked if there were other ideas from Commissioners. There was discussion from Commissioners and staff
on the following possible topics: cooperating with Three Rivers Park District to install educational signage
and/or creek crossings signs along the new Bassett Creek Trail and at the Northwood Lake kiosk;utilizing
messages crafted and supplied by Clean Water MN media campaign; continuing with various chloride
education pieces including possible informational signage at point-of-sale locations;posting the Commercial
Property Guidebook on website.
There was further discussion about education on chloride use. Administrator Jester reported that she is
participating on a Technical Advisory Panel for a study of chloride use on permeable pavements(along with
TAC member Richard McCoy). She also reported that she has been meeting with MPCA staff and other
watersheds on how to improve chloride education and the MPCA's database of certified applicators. Further,
she noted that legislation(at least in the Minnesota House of Representatives) is being considered for a
limited liability law similar to that in New Hampshire.
Administrator Jester also discussed the list of upcoming community events included in the packet. She noted
the Commission is already committed to the Plymouth Expo and there are other events that would be good to
participate in including the Bassett Creek Clean Up in Minneapolis and puk Duk Daze in New Hope on
5
BCWMC March 17, 2016, Meeting Minutes
Northwood Lake. Mr.Paschke noted that missing from the list was New Hope's"City Day"on June 0'.
Administrator Jester said she would send an email to Commissioners asJ ing for volunteers for various events.
Administrator Jester also discussed the 2016 BCWMC tour,which will likely be held in late May or early
June. Tour stop ideas she suggested included biotic index monitoring, Schaper Pond,Main Stem project in
Golden Valley, Briarwood/Dawnview project in Golden Valley, and the Plymouth Creek restoration project
site, especially the disc golf area. Commissioner Hoschka suggested a visit to a city public works site to learn
about city management of chloride use.
[Alternate Commissioner Acomb departs the meeting.]
G. Receive Final Report for Briarwood/Dawnview Water Quality Pond(BC-7)
Tom Hoffman with the City of Golden Valley reported that the Briarwood/Dawnview Water Quality Pond
Project was completed last fall. He reviewed the final report on the Project including project outcomes,
budget,and lessons learned. He noted that although the feasibility study estimated annual pollutant removals
of 35 pounds of total phosphorus and 21 tons of total suspended solids,modeling of the constructed project
estimates that 40 pounds of total phosphorus and 23 tons of total suspended solids will be removed annually.
There was discussion about ongoing vegetation management and other maintenance needs. Commissioner
Welch said he found final project reports to be very valuable. Administrator Jester reminded Commissioners
that each CIP project has its own webpage with all pertinent documents, including final reports,when
completed.
H. Consider Approval of Final Reimbursement Request from City of GFolden Valley for
Briarwood/Dawnview Water Quality Pond(BC-7)
Administrator Jester noted this reimbursement request combined reimbursements for both the feasibility study
development with the design and construction of the project even though those activities happened under two
separate agreements. She reported that she had reviewed all of the documentation and recommended approval
of the request.
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved approval of the reimbursement to the City of Golden Valley for the
requested amount of$230,401.91. Seconded by Alternate Commissionet Tobelmann. Upon a vote the motion
carried 6-0. [Cities of Medicine Lake,Minnetonka, and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]
1. Designate Official News Publications of Bassett Creek Watershed Njanagement Commission
Administrator Jester reported that Amy Herbert had compiled information regarding the cost of printing a
typical BCWMC official notice in various news outlets. Administrator Jester noted that she and Ms.Herbert
recommended keeping Finance and Commerce as the Commission's officially designated publication as it
covers all of Hennepin County. She noted that a further recommendation is to continue the practice of also
printing notices in the Sun Post and Sun Sailor as they cover eight of the nine member cities; and ending the
practice of publishing in the Lakeshore Weekly News,thereby saving printing costs. She noted another
recommendation that would make notices more accessible to Minneapolis residents is to work with
neighborhood associations in getting BCWMC notices into their newsletters or into their online calendars.
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to designate Finance and Commerce as the BCWMC official
publication and for staff to work with the City of Minneapolis to determine appropriate news outlets that
cover all areas of the Commission within Minneapolis. Seconded by Alternate Commissioner Crough.Upon
a vote the motion carried 6-0. [Cities of Medicine Lake,Minnetonka, and Robbinsdale absent from vote.]
J. Receive Update on New BCWMC Website
Administrator Jester reported that the website launch announcement was sent to all partnering organizations
6
BCWMC March 17, 2016, Meeting Minutes
and agencies of the Commission and that she had received a few favorable responses in return. There was
discussion about whether or not to keep Commissioner home addresses on the website. It was noted it's not a
requirement. There was consensus to remove all home addresses of Commissioners from the website.
Administrator Jester encouraged Commissioners and TAC members to report any errors or glitches with the
new website.
K. Receive Responses from MPCA on Commission's Comments on Chloride Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Study
Administrator Jester reported that the MPCA had formally responded to BCWMC comments on the Chloride
TMDL submitted last August and that the TMDL was approved by MPCA and is awaiting U.S.EPA
approval.
L. Receive Update on 2017 Main Stem Erosion Repair Project(2017CR-M)
Administrator Jester reported that the draft feasibility report was recently sent to her and Minneapolis city
staff for review and that a meeting is scheduled among herself,city staff, and the Commission Engineer to
review and discuss. Commissioner Welch indicated he would like to review the current draft of the report.
Administrator Jester indicated she would send a draft to Minneapolis Commissioners and could take
comments ahead of the meeting if they did not wish to attend the meeting. She reported the report would be
revised according to comments and would then be presented at the April Commission meeting.
Commissioner Welch reminded the Administrator to review Dave Stack's comments on the project.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Administrator:
i. Biennial Budget Request(BBR)Submittal to MN Board of Water and Soil Resources
Administrator Jester noted that aside from her written report in the meeting packet,she and the
Commission Engineer would be submitting the BCWMC 2018 and 2019 CIP projects to the BWSR for
the biennial budget request and that she had encouraged cities to do the same.
She also noted that the Commission Engineer would be giving a presentation on the XP-SWMM Phase I1
Project at AMLAC's annual meeting in early May,at their request.
She also noted the BCWMC Budget Committee would be meeting March 3151 at 3:30 p.m. in the Parkers
Lake Room of Plymouth City Hall.
B. Chair: No comments
C. Commissioners: Commissioner Welch asked if the Commission Engineer or Administrator was involved
with the major construction project planned for Hwy. 169 that will extend into the southern portion of the
watershed. Staff indicated they would contact MnDOT to learn more about the project.
D. TAC Members: No comments
E. Committees:
i.Education Committee(see agenda item 5F)
F. Legal Counsel: No comments
G. Engineer: No coments
7
BCWMC March 17, 2016, Meeting Minutes
7. INFORMATION ONLY (Available at http•//Nvww.bassettereekwmo.ori!/document/meetin2-
materials-minu/meeting-materials/bewmc-monthly-meetinf)
A. CIP Project Updates: Now Available Online http://www.bassettereeliwmo.orlz/projects
B. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet
C. WMWA February 2016 Minutes
D. 2016 Urban Waters Forum http•//www.arboretum.umn.edu/2016UrbanWaters.aspx
E. Bassett Creek Clean Up @ Bassett Creek Park,MPLS
https://www.miiiijeapolisparks.orp-/activities events/events/earth day cleanup/#group 1 219258
F. Raingarden Workshops by Metro Blooms
G. 2015 WMWA Annual Report
8. ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Mueller adjourned the meeting at 11:13 a.m.
Signature/Title Date
Signature/Title Date
8
city of
olden MEMORANDUM
VaPAT Administrative Services Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. E. Appointment of Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the Primary Election on
August 9, 2016
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
As required per Minnesota Statute 20413.21, Council needs to approve the appointment of the
Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the upcoming election. The Absentee Ballot Board
judges will have the responsibility of accepting and rejecting absentee ballots based on the
criteria set by the State.
Hennepin County will appoint Absentee Ballot Board judges that will be responsible for
accepting/rejecting all mail in absentee ballots received at the Hennepin County Government
Center.
Attachments
• Resolution approving the appointment of Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the
Primary Election on August 9, 2016 (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution approving appointment of the Election Judges and Absentee Ballot
Board for the Primary Election to be held on August 9, 2016.
Resolution 16-42 June 21, 2016
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION
JUDGES AND ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD FOR THE
PRIMARY ELECTION ON AUGUST 9, 2016
WHEREAS, Minnesota Election Law 204B.21 requires that persons serving as
election judges be appointed by the City Council at least 25 days before the election; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Golden Valley City Council that the
individuals named on Exhibit A, and on file in the office of the City Clerk be appointed as
the City of Golden Valley Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board Judges for the
August 9, Primary Election; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Golden Valley City Council also appoints other
individuals and all members appointed to the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board as
authorized under Minn. Stat. 2048.21, subd. 2 under the direction of the Election Manager
to serve as members of the Absentee Ballot Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any
substitutions or additions as deemed necessary.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and his signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 16-42 -2- June 21, 2016
Exhibit A
2016 Election Judges for the Primary Election
The following individuals are appointed to serve at the Primary Election on August 9, 2016:
Ambroe, Leonard King, Dwayne Absentee Ballot Board
Anderson, Chuck Krenn, Barbara Hietala, Connie
Anderson, Tracy Lueck, Christy Stresemann, Marjorie
Anderson, Susan Lund, Charles Van Hook, Mary
Barret, Roger Magnuson, Pat Watson, Sue
Berg, David Merriman, Steve Weber, Meagan
Bergman, Roger Mills, Cynthia Zerull, Carol
Bergquist, Lois Mitchell, Norman
Bucklin, Alison Moore, Pat
Burke-Scheffle, Kathleen Moore, Tom
Chander L'Enfant, Julia Myers, Kay
Christenson, Sandra Olfe, Janet
Christenson, Thomas Pagenkopf, Jane
Cohen, Gary Palmquist, Lois
Condon, Marilyn Plager, Jan
Cowan, Martin Pugh, Laura
Cummins, Carol Robinson, Beverly
Day, Fran Sanford, Clare
Decker, Kay Scanlon, Thomas
Decker, Daniel Sell, Glennys
Dietz, Arlene Sell, Mike
Dorn, Brian Silver, Sarene
Drysdale, Robert Stresemann, Marjorie
George, Janet Strobel, Nancy
Girard, Pierre Sunderland, Delphine
Goodmanson, Wendy Sunderland, Richard
Hackback, Roger Tenenbaum, Phillip
Haggberg-Miller, Susan Tiffin, Marie
Hasselbusch, Cynthia Tillman, Barb
Henrud, John Tomko, Patricia
Herberg, Suzanne Tvedt, Gordon
Hietala, Connie Van Hook, Mary
Hoffstedt, Diane Vanheel, Barbara
Hoyt, Robert Vodovoz, Helen
Johnson, Maria Waffensmith, Connie
Johnson, Kent Waffensmith, Walter
Jones, Shirley Wells, Jackie
Jorgens, Gwen
Kilner, Marilyn
city Of
goldenv .�.1� MEMORANDUM
valley Administrative Services Department
ent
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. F. Approve Agreement A165524 with Hennepin County for Assessing Services
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The County has been providing assessing services to the City for many years. They have
consistently performed these services in a professional and efficient manner and at a cost that
has been significantly lower than what the City would have paid to operate its own assessing
department. Staff is recommending entering into an agreement A165524 with Hennepin County
to provide assessing services from August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2020.
Attachments
• Agreement A165524 with Hennepin County for Assessing Services (11 pages)
• Hennepin County Assessor's Office: At a Glance (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve signing Agreement A101049 with Hennepin County for Assessing Services
from August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2020.
Contract No. A165524
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a political subdivision of the State
of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and
constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to
provide for the assessment of property; and
WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments
on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate with said CITY by completing
the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall perform the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 property
assessment for the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY in accordance with property
assessment procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the
validity and reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the
CITY. Any such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the
COUNTY in its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so
require. The property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those
assessment services which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein shall be
considered to be approximate only.
2. All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the
COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY
without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the
COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3. The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, secured office space needed
by the COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. The keys thereto shall be
provided to the COUNTY. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to accommodate
reasonably three (3) appraiser and any furniture placed therein. The office space shall
be available for the COUNTY's use at any and all times during typical business hours,
and during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with levels of heat, air
conditioning and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as
necessary, clerical and secretarial support necessary and reasonable for the carrying
out of the work herein, necessary office supplies and equipment, copying machines and
fax machines and their respective supplies, and telephone and internet service to the
COUNTY, all without charge to the COUNTY.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's
offices a person who has the knowledge and skill to be able to answer routine questions
pertaining to homesteads and property assessment matters and to receive, evaluate
and organize homestead applications. The CITY shall store all homestead applications
and homestead data in secure storage meeting the requirements set by the COUNTY.
(2)
It shall also be the responsibility of the CITY to promptly refer any homestead
application which needs investigation to the COUNTY.
6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the
County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded
from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers or
co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent,
representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship
with the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY and any and
all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and
all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of
employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination
against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY,
its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from
any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal,
(3)
agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require
nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the
COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability,
severance pay and retirement benefits.
8. CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors,
employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities
provided by this Agreement. The CITY's liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat.
Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including common law.
9. COUNTY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the COUNTY, its officers, agents,
contractors, employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the
responsibilities provided by this Agreement. The COUNTY's liability shall be governed
by Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including
common law.
(4)
10. The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in an
efficient manner. The sole and exclusive remedy for any breach of this Agreement by
the COUNTY and for COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including but not
limited to liability arising out of, resulting from or in any manner related to contract, tort,
warranty, statute or otherwise, shall be limited to correcting diligently any deficiency in
said services as is reasonably possible under the pertinent circumstances.
11. Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of
this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts
of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes in
laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any
other causes beyond the parties' reasonable control.
12. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2016, and shall terminate
on July 31, 2020. Either party may initiate an extension of this Agreement for a term of
four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend prior to March 1,
2020. If the party who receives said notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the
other party of its desire not to extend prior to, April 15, 2020 this Agreement shall
terminate on July 31, 2020.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from
agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall be
on the same terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1, 2020.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for "just cause" as determined by the Commissioner
of Revenue after hearing for such a determination is held by the Commissioner of Revenue
and which has been attended by representatives of COUNTY and CITY or which said
(5)
representatives had a reasonable opportunity to attend, provided that after such determination,
any party desiring to cancel this Agreement may do so by giving the other party no less
than 120 days' written notice. If the CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above provided,
before the completion of the then current property assessment by the COUNTY, the CITY
agrees to defend and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly
authorized volunteers harmless from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non-
completion of a property tax assessment.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just cause" shall mean the failure of
any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
13.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the
COUNTY the sum of Two Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Dollars ($248,000) for each
assessment, provided that any payment for the current year's assessment may be
increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's
estimated cost of appraising new construction and new parcels for the current year's
assessment. The amount of any increase or decrease shall be specified in the billing
for the current year's assessment.
13.13. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment in
the above manner, said assessment cost of $248,000 may also be increased by the
COUNTY if:
(1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying
out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not
limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new
parcel appraisals, mileage, postage, supplies, labor (including
fringe benefits) and other types of costs, whether similar or
dissimilar; and/or
2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be
included in the costs of assessment work.
(6)
If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this paragraph
13(B), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such increase shall
apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current calendar year. Any
such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new construction and new
parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, if any such
increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new construction and new parcel
appraisals, exceeds seven and one half percent (7.5%) of the amount charged for the
assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the estimated
costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this Agreement
by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation notice must
be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar year and said
cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of said notice by
the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said next calendar year. Supportive records of the
cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times as are mutually agreed
upon by the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY a price-change notice by June 15 shall
not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior to
September 1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said ten (10%) -
all as above set forth - the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the COUNTY receives
notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of receipt by the CITY of
any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such cancellation shall be
effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's receipt of said cancellation notice
and not later than forty-six (46) days after the CITY's receipt of any said price-increase
notice.
(7)
Payment for each assessment shall be made in the following manner:
Any bill from the COUNTY for the current year's assessment which is received by the
CITY before August 18 of the current year shall be due on September 7 of said year,
provided that the City may elect to pay said bill before said date. Any bill received by
the city after August 18 shall be due no later than twenty-one (21) days after the CITY's
receipt thereof.
The COUNTY may bill the CITY after the aforesaid dates and in each such case, the
CITY shall pay such bill within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof.
14. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in writing
and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as follows:
TO CITY: Mayor, City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator
2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: Assistant County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
(8)
Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving
written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed,
postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed
received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received,
whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon
actual delivery.
15. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the CITY under
Paragraphs 7, 8, 12, and 13 hereof and the obligations of the CITY which, by their sense
and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the CITY, shall so survive
the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this Agreement.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
(9)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this day of
, 2016.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Reviewed by County
Attorney's Office: By:
Chair of the County Board
Date: And.-
Assistant/Deputy/County
nd:Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
ATTEST.-
Deputy/Clerk
TTEST:Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Its
And:
Its
City organized under:
Statutory Option A Option B Charter
(10)
Contract No. A165524
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
During the contract term, the County shall:
1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by
law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and
renovation.
3. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically
inspected as deemed necessary per sales ratio analysis.
4. Prepare the initial assessment roll.
5. Print and mail valuation notices.
6. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or
inquiries.
7. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review or Open Book
Meetings, as determined by the City — approximate dates: March through
May 15.
8. Attend Board of Review or conduct Open Book Meeting. Prepare all
necessary review appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 — May 31.
9. Maintain an updated property file — current values, classification data and
characteristic data.
10. Prepare divisions and combinations as required.
11. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. §375.192.
12. Prepare appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases.
13. Provide all computer hardware and software applications necessary to
complete contracted services.
(11)
HHENNEPIN COUNTY
ASSESSORS OFFICE Ju,,V
At a Glance Why Hennepin
- Customer Service
Learn why the Hennepin County Assessor's
Office should be your choice for your `
Accuracy
assessing needs. "
Tools
Our mission is to value and classify Experience ` Expertise
Staff
property, uniformly and accurately. Professional
Customer Service Trust and Transparency
Customer service is an important core value of We are committed to establishing a culture of
Hennepin County and is an integral part of the trust and transparency by enforcing:
Hennepin County Assessor's practical vision . Clear expectations for measurable success
and office values.
• High level of assessment standards and
• We are committed to having professional professional conduct
employees that are equipped with the . Required IT security training
training and skills needed to effectively
educate and serve our stakeholders. • A commitment by staff to the function of
valuing and classifying property for
• We strive for open communication with Hennepin County
stakeholders for an effective partnership.
• We engage and respond to customers with Resources and Tools
care in all situations. • Our staff has access to tools such as
Pictometry, Marshall & Swift, RecordEase,
• We achieve excellence in valuation and GIS and licensed valuation publications.
classification at a reasonable cost.
• We use Open Book resources and options
Assessment Uniformity and including a `regional' Open Book with multiple
Accuracy
locations and times.
• Our data is digitized and secure.
Our informed staff are knowledgeable of
regional and local markets, rather than just • We have direct access to legal counsel.
one city.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Experience & Expertise
Our team consists of 50 plus staff that collectively has hundreds of years of service and experience in the
assessing profession. This does not include additional years of fee appraisal, construction, property
management and other real estate experience. In addition, all of our staff receive professional education and
continuing assessment training. We have 38 team members with assessment designations through the
Minnesota State Board of Assessors, 19 of which are Senior Accredited Minnesota Assessors, the highest
level of accreditation given by the State Board of Assessors.
Our staff:
• Includes experts specializing in homesteads, exemptions, Veteran's Exclusions, Open Space, Green
Acres, Local Board of Appeal and Equalization and tax court appeals
• Is qualified to appraise all property in Hennepin County
• Is specialized in dealing with executive homes, lakeshore and agricultural properties
• Has valuation modeling & statistical analysis experts
• Has direct access to IT/technical experts, legal experts, real estate tax experts, project managers, trainers
and business analysts
Professional Staff
Our team consists of well-networked, well educated staff who have connections and resources with
colleagues not only in the profession of assessing, but also with other county resources such as IT, project
management, training and education. In addition:
• Many of our staff members are active in professional organizations, giving them better access to
education and training resources, networking and a larger influence in guiding related state wide policies.
• You can have confidence and trust in staff that undergo background checks, driver's license validations
and data security training.
• We engage our staff by offering fair compensation, good benefits, opportunities for growth and an inviting
culture.
• We ensure stability and continuity of staff through mentoring and knowledge transfer.
• We do not use sub-contractors for appraisal staff.
city 0f vll�
goldeni -vMEMORANDUM
C � Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. G. Authorization to Sign PUD Permit - North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment#3
(Mortenson)
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
At the June 7, 2016, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the PUD Plan for
North Wirth Parkway PUD No 33, Amendment #3. After the hearing, the Council approved the
Plan. A PUD Permit consistent with the approved plan has been prepared for consideration.
Attachments
• PUD Permit- North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment #3 (4 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the PUD Permit for North Wirth
Parkway PUD No. 33, Amendment#3.
North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33
City Council Approval: April 20, 1982
Amendment #1 City Council Approval: August 6, 2008
Amendment #2 City Council Approval: August 4, 2010
Amendment #3 City Council Approval: June 7 2016
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name: North Wirth Parkway PUD No. 33
Location: 650 and 700 Meadow Lane North and 4000 and 4050 Olson
Memorial Highway
Legal Description: North Wirth Parkway 2nd Addition PUD No. 33, Block 1, Lots 1-4
Applicant: North Wirth Associates, LLP
Address: 700 Meadow Lane North
Golden Valley, MN 55440
Owner: North Wirth Associates, LLP
Address: 700 Meadow Lane North
Golden Valley, MN 55440
Zoning District: Business and Professional Offices
Permitted Uses: The following uses are allowed in the development:
A. Three (3) office building structures comprising a total of 286,739 square feet of office
space.
B. One (1) parking ramp structure up to 3 4 levels accommodating 734 1,096 cars.
Components:
A. Land Use Component:
1. Land uses within P.U.D. #33 shall be limited to those uses indicated on the
approved Site Plan prepared by RSP Architects dated July 8, 2008 and revised
March 11, 2016 . Principal uses shall be two four-story and one
eight-story office buildings and a three-four-level parking ramp.
2. Parking for P.U.D. #33 shall consist of up to 7-30 1,096 parking ramp spaces in a
three four level ramp, 49 44 building basement parking spaces, and 280 272 on-site
Use Permit — P.U.D. #33
Page 2
parking spaces for a total of 1059 1,412 parking spaces as shown on the approved
Site Plan prepared by RSP Architects dated . March
11, 2016
3. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 60
bicycles shall be provided with proof of parking for an additional 17 bicycles
4. Landscaping, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan prepared by Robert A.
Close, dated June 29, 1981 and revised March 1, 1982. The revised landscape
plans prepared by RSP Architects and dated July 8, 2008 (Planting Dion L0001),
and March 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approval.
4. Special precautions shall be taken during and after construction to protect against
erosion, silting, excessive grading, or any other conditions detrimental to the area.
Grading and excavation for footings and other construction needs shall be done in a
manner so as to avoid dirt storage, disturbing of trees, or other activities beyond the
prescribed construction limits. All public utilities must be protected during
construction or removed and replaced.
B. Circulation Component:
1. Interior sidewalks and concrete curb and gutter shall be located where shown on the
approved Site Plan prepared by Armstrong, Torseth, Skold and Rydeen, Inc., dated
January 13, 1982 and revised January 25, 1982, and the site plans prepared by
RSP Architects dated March 11, 2016.
2. Interior concrete curbs shall be constructed within the property lines to separate
driving and parking surfaces from landscaped areas. Interior curbs shall not be less
than six (6) inches in height. Sidewalks and curbs shall be designed to
accommodate the handicapped.
3. Mortenson will provide a sidewalk along the east side of Meadow Lane North from
TH55 to Dahlberg Drive; and a sidewalk along TH55 from Wirth Parkway to Meadow
Lane North. The sidewalk plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and
constructed by July 2009.
4. Pedestrian connections between the southwest and northeast stair towers of the
parking ramp and the office buildings shall be improved
5. The southwest entrance to the site must be modified to the City's satisfaction to
encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances and avoid PM backups on
Meadow Lane.
C. Subdivision Component:
1. The described property shall be platted in accordance with the approved Preliminary
Plat prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated December 1, 1981 and revised
March 1, 1982 and August 4, 2010. The plat name shall include "P.U.D. #33".
Use Permit — P.U.D. #33
Page 3
2. The Final Plan shall be filed within six (6) months after the date of the Council action
giving final approval to the PUD Permit.
D. Services and Facilities Component:
1. Water and sanitary sewer service lines shall be installed, owned and maintained by
the owner or owners.
2. All utilities shall be underground.
3. All mechanicals on roof or ground shall be screened with Inspection Department
approval.
4. The structure and grading shall meet all the requirements of the Golden Valley Fire
Marshal, Engineering Department and Sanitarian.
5. All waste generated by the occupancy shall be stored internally until removed from
the premises.
6. The Developer shall comply with the recommendations found in the memo to Mark
Grimes from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE dated July 31, 2008, and in the memo to
Jason Zimmerman from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE dated May 4, 2016.
7. The Developer shall comply with the recommendations found in the memo to Mark
Grimes from Deputy Fire Marshal, Ed Anderson dated July 24, 2008, and in the
memo to Jason Zimmerman from Fire Chief John Crelly dated May 2, 106.
8. All applicable state, local and federal requirements shall be met including the City's
building, landscaping and fire codes.
9. All signs must meet the requirements of the City's sign ordinance.
10. An approved snow storage/removal plan shall be followed.
E. Construction Order Component:
Development shall be completed in two three phases as follows:
1. Phase 1 construction shall include a first building two stories in height, a second
building six stories in height, a third building four stories in height and a two-level
parking ramp.
2. Phase 2 construction shall include expansion of the first building from two to four
stories, expansion of the second building from six to eight stories, and expansion 0
the parking ramal from two to throe levels, with the third building remaining at the
Phase 1 height of four stories.
Use Permit — P.U.D. #33
Page 4
3. Phase 3 construction shall include demolition of the existing parking ramp and the
construction of a new four level parking ramp
F. Maps and Reports:
1. The architect or engineer in charge of the project, who shall be registered in the
State of Minnesota, shall provide as a minimum monthly written reports for each
phase of the construction process.
2. The architect or engineer in charge of the project, who shall be registered in the
State of Minnesota, shall inspect the site during construction. When the project is
completed, the registered architect or engineer shall certify in writing to the Building
Department of the City of Golden Valley that the project has been constructed in
conformity with all approved plans applicable to the subject PUD.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council
approvals granted on March 2, 1982, August 6, 2008, aR4 August 4, 2010, and June 7,
2016, relative to Planned Unit Development #33.
MORTENSON CONSTRUCTION-
NORTH WIRTH ASSOCIATES, LLP
Witness: By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Witness: By:
Linda R I nnmic
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
Date:
Witness: By:
Therms D Burt,
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
Date:
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
cityof 01
o1dcn MEMORANDUM DUV
valley Administrative Services
Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. H. Receipt of May 2016 Financial Reports
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly financial report provides a progress report of the following funds:
General Fund Operations
Conservation/Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund)
Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund),
Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund)
Motor Vehicle Licensing (Enterprise Fund)
Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund)
Equipment Replacement Fund (Capital Projects Fund)
General Fund Operations: As of May 2016, the City is using$4,493,043 of fund balance to balance
the General Fund Budget.
Attachments
• May 2016 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages)
• May 2016 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page)
• May 2016 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page)
• May 2016 Brookview Golf Course (1 page)
• May 2016 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page)
• May 2016 Storm Utility Fund (1 page)
• May 2016 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the May 2016 Financial Reports.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures
May, 2016 (unaudited)
Over %
2016 May YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
001 Council $322,960 32,249 124,102 ($198,858) 38.43%
003 City Manager 798,260 94,212 303,023 (495,237) 37.96%
004 Transfers Out 725,000 0 0 (725,000) 0.00% (1)
005 Admin. Services 1,869,995 155,494 615,646 (1,254,349) 32.92%
006 Legal 150,000 11,168 55,935 (94,065) 37.29% (2)
007 Risk Management 305,000 400 114,812 (190,188) 37.64%
oil General Gov't. Bldgs. 532,790 54,625 195,810 (336,980) 36.75%
016 Planning 353,800 38,809 126,486 (227,314) 35.75%
018 Inspections 777,690 83,335 280,517 (497,173) 36.07%
022 Police 5,671,180 597,881 2,094,913 (3,576,267) 36.94%
023 Fire 1,290,210 126,026 500,988 (789,222) 38.83%
035 Physical Dev Admin 298,755 35,679 116,503 (182,252) 39.00%
036 Engineering 783,470 88,772 274,628 (508,842) 35.05%
037 Streets 1,611,865 100,670 484,252 (1,127,613) 30.04%
065 Community Center 81,095 7,742 36,495 (44,600) 45.00%
066 Park & Rec.Admin. 705,660 66,003 259,997 (445,663) 36.84%
067 Park Maintenance 1,137,895 112,961 400,867 (737,028) 35.23%
068 Recreation Programs 374,995 32,242 103,136 (271,859) 27.50%
TOTAL Expenditures $17,790,620 $1,638,268 $6,088,110 ($11,702,510) 34.22%
(1)This transfer will be made in June, 2015.
(2) Legal services are billed thru April.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report- General Fund Revenues
May 2016 (unaudited)
Percentage Of Year Completed 42.00%
Over %
2016 May YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $14,278,810 0 8,648 ($14,270,162) 0.06% (1)
Licenses 217,515 66,750 189,135 ($28,380) 86.95%
Permits 840,125 92,942 619,311 ($220,814) 73.72%
Federal Grants 0 0 4,069 $4,069
State Aid 268,380 0 1,211 ($267,169) 0.45% (2)
Hennepin County Aid 0 3,435 3,435 $3,435
Charges For Services:
General Government 19,000 2,918 12,541 ($6,459) 66.01%
Public Safety 150,665 17,334 101,155 ($49,510) 67.14%
Public Works 145,800 18,997 64,601 ($81,199) 44.31%
Park & Rec 395,100 49,923 121,863 ($273,237) 30.84%
Other Funds 791,500 55,708 275,118 ($516,382) 34.76%
Fines & Forfeitures 320,425 17,409 93,591 ($226,834) 29.21% (3)
Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (4)
Miscellaneous Revenue 233,000 15,987 87,889 ($145,111) 37.72%
Transfers In 30,000 2,500 12,500 ($17,500) 41.67% (5)
TOTAL Revenue $17,790,320 $343,903 $1,595,067 ($16,195,253) 8.97%
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) Fines/Forfeitures are thru for April 2016.
(4) Investment income is allocated at year end.
(5)Transfers are monthly.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund
May 2016(unaudited)
Over
2016 May YTD (Under)
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,770 0 0 (56,770) 0.00%
Recycling Charges 373,950 33,429 121,327 (252,623) 32.44%
Miscellaneous Revenues 6,000 0 0 (6,000)
Interest on Investments 4,000 0 0 (4,000) 0.00% (1)
Total Revenue 440,720 33,429 121,327 (319,393) 27.53%
Expenses:
Recycling 451,460 81,599 156,332 (295,128) 34.63% (2)
Total Expenses 451,460 81,599 156,332 (295,128) 34.63%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Republic Services are billed thru April.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund
May, 2016(unaudited)
Over
2016 May YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Water Charges 4,303,105 343,111 1,296,056 (3,007,049) 30.12%
Emergency Water Supply 183,600 11,587 53,618 (129,982) 29.20%
Sewer Charges 3,309,260 322,389 1,230,309 (2,078,951) 37.18%
Meter Sales 8,000 1,708 3,660 (4,340) 45.75%
MCES Grant Program 0 0 0 0
Penalties 110,000 29,914 76,279 (33,721) 69.34%
Charges for Other Services 90,000 4,097 22,828 (67,172) 25.36%
State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,500 4,060 15,715 (29,785) 34.54%
Sale of Assets 10,000 0 0 (10,000) 0.00%
Franchise Fees(One year only) 700,000 0 0 (700,000) 0.00%
Certificate of Compliance 75,000 8,450 38,500 (36,500) 51.33%
Interest Earnings 15,000 0 0 (15,000) 0.00%
Total Revenue 8,849,465 725,316 2,736,965 (6,112,500) 30.93%
Expenses:
Utility Administration 2,526,190 91,665 331,546 (2,194,644) 13.12%
Sewer Maintenance 2,723,660 228,736 1,206,415 (1,517,245) 44.29%
Water Maintenance 4,655,120 282,214 1,534,350 (3,120,770) 32.96%
Total Expenses 9,904,970 602,615 3,072,311 (6,832,659) 31.02%
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund
May, 2016(unaudited)opened March 23
Over
2016 May YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Green Fees 795,000 141,866 221,886 (573,114) 27.91%
Driving Range Fees 167,000 34,293 61,928 (105,072) 37.08%
Par 3 Fees 137,370 28,701 41,602 (95,768) 30.28%
Lawn Bowling 42,000 2,383 2,383 (39,617) 5.67%
Pro Shop Sales 80,000 13,527 27,357 (52,643) 34.20%
Pro Shop Rentals 260,000 37,630 61,108 (198,892) 23.50%
Concession Sales 360,000 54,781 85,913 (274,087) 23.86%
Other Revenue 78,000 8,385 57,818 (20,182) 74.13%
Interest Earnings 2,000 0 0 (2,000) 0.00% (1)
Less:Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (36,000) (1,397) (1,812) 34,188 5.03%
Total Revenue 1,885,370 320,169 558,183 (1,327,187) 29.61%
Expenses:
Golf Operations 637,125 87,708 259,989 (377,136) 40.81% (2)
Course Maintenance 792,800 76,885 318,881 (473,919) 40.22%
Pro Shop 114,620 11,687 76,327 (38,293) 66.59%
Grill 251,750 48,817 78,643 (173,107) 31.24%
Driving Range 50,665 10,059 23,148 (27,517) 45.69%
Par 3 Course 27,295 3,954 4,661 (22,634) 17.08%
Lawn Bowling 27,195 968 2,045 (25,150) 7.52%
Total Expenses 1,901,450 240,078 763,694 (1,137,756) 40.16%
(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
May 2016 (unaudited)
Over
2016 May YTD (Under) %
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 2,000 0 0 (2,000) 0.00% (1)
Charges for Services 406,830 40,352 196,004 (210,826) 48.18%
Total Revenue 408,830 40,352 196,004 (212,826) 47.94%
Expenses:
Motor Vehicle Licensing 408,330 37,320 154,480 (253,850) 37.83%
Total Expenses 408,330 37,320 154,480 (253,850) 37.83%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-Storm Utility Enterprise Fund
May, 2016(unaudited)
Over
2016 May YTD (Under)
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 45,000 0 0 (45,000) 0.00% (1)
Storm Sewer Charges 2,275,000 183,405 885,027 (1,389,973) 38.90%
Bassett Creek Watershed 810,930 0 510,883 (300,047) 63.00%
Miscellaneous Receipts(Debt Proceeds) 5,692,000 0 18,750 (5,673,250) 0.33%
State Grant-Other 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue 8,822,930 183,405 1,414,660 (7,408,270) 16.03%
Expenses:
Storm Utility 9,045,465 82,799 887,836 (8,157,629) 9.82% (2)
Street Cleaning 126,420 8,761 45,821 (80,599) 36.25%
Environmental Control 323,260 36,264 142,400 (180,860) 44.05%
Debt Service Payments 170,985 0 929,076 758,091 543.37% (3)
Total Expenses 9,666,130 127,824 2,005,133 (7,660,997) 20.74%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and.
(3)This included the bond payment to pay off the storm bonds early.
2016 Equipment Replacement Fund(CIP)-Fund 5700
2016 May YTD
Budget Total Actual Remaining
Revenues:
Proceeds-Certificate of Indebtedness 800,000 0 0 (800,000)
Sale of Assets 35,000 19,452 36,437 1,437
Miscellaneous 0 635 43,745 43,745
Interest Earnings(allocated at year end) 24,535 0 0 (24,535)
Total Revenues 859,535 20,087 80,182 (779,353)
Expenditures:
Program# Project Number Project Name
5700 Bond Expenditures 0 0 2,700 (2,700)
5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars(Police) 80,000 4,675 59,954 20,046
(1) 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers(Finance) 80,000 3,560 14,658 65,342
V&E-016 Pickup Truck(Street) 35,000 0 0 35,000
V&E-020 Portable Computers(Police) 50,000 0 0 50,000
V&E-030 Rotary Mower(Park) 98,000 0 100,552 (2,552)
V&E-052 Asphalt Cold Planer(Street) 20,000 0 0 20,000
V&E-058 Fire Hose 10,000 9,470 9,470 530
V&E-060 Rescue Vehicle(Fire) 100,000 0 0 100,000
V&E-072 Pickup Truck(Engineering) 30,000 0 28,587 1,413
V&E-078 Aerial Bucket Truck(Park) 200,000 0 0 200,000
V&E-079 Utility Tractor(Park) 80,000 0 0 80,000
V&E-090 Single Axel Dump Truck(Street) 225,000 0 0 225,000
V&E-118 Sidewalk Tractor(Street) 150,000 0 120,133 29,867
V&E-122 Police Vehicle 40,000 0 34,148 5,852
V&E-127 800 Mhz Radios(Fire) 80,000 3,870 78,022 1,978
V&E-129 800 Mhz Radios(Police) 96,650 5,128 52,926 43,724
V&E-132 Thermal Imaging Camera 70,000 0 0 70,000
V&E-134 Cartegraph Software 13,000 0 0 13,000
Total Expenditures 1,457,650 26,703 501,150 873,500
(1)Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time.
(2)Includes a transfer from the DWI/VOTF Fund for the traffic car.
city 0
go 1 d e nilMEMORANDUM
valleyAdministrative Services Department
763 593 8013/763-593-3969 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. I. Approve 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 $30 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 requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff.
BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST
CC DATE
INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION DATE TIME SHELTER APPROVED
Pad, Marianne 06-23 11 am-4 pm Small 06-21-16
Julsru, Thomas 06-27 11 am-4 pm Large 06-21-16
Dicken, James 06-30 11 am-10 pm Small 06-21-16
Arteag, Martha 07-02 5 pm-10 pm Large 06-21-16
Turner, Tiffany 07-04 5 pm-10 pm Large 06-21-16
Bloom, Mitch 07-08 11 am-4 pm Small 06-21-16
Hempfer, Kris 07-09 11 am-4 pm Small 06-21-16
Fromm, Brenda 07-13 11 am-4 pm Large 06-21-16
Harvath, Victor 07-17 5 pm-10 pm Large 06-21-16
Lillemo, Bonnie 07-19 5 pm-10 pm Large 06-21-16
Wic, Samantha 07-21 5 pm-10 pm Large 06-21-16
Dutoit, Lucinda 07-21 5 pm-10 pm Small 06-21-16
Pollard, Rachel 08-07 11 am-4 pm Small 06-21-16
Weide, Matheu 08-10 11 am-4 pm Large 06-21-16
Nelson, Derek 08-11 11 am-4 pm Small 06-21-16
Sommer, Stacy 08-16 11 am-4 pm Large 06-21-16
Bell, Jenny 08-21 11 am-4 pm Large 06-21-16
Krutzig, Gail 08-25 11 am-4 pm Large 06-21-16
Heimeri, Kathy 08-28 11 am-4 pm Small 06-21-16
Buckner, Tazha 09-21 11 am-4 pm Large 06-21-16
C I t I,'
golden
4
valley, City Administration/Council
������j�,yy,, 763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax)
ydr//�... W
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
3. J. Board/Commission Reappointments
Prepared By
Shep Harris, Mayor
Summary
Each year staff contacts board and/or commission members whose term is expiring to find out
if they are interested in being reappointed. Listed below are those who would like to be
reappointed.
Recommended Action
Motion to make the following reappointments:
Board of Zoning Appeals
Richard Orenstein 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2017
Environmental Commission
Debra Yahle 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019
Human Services Fund
Andrea Mac Arthur 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2019
city 0f
9 Aden MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8095 1763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
60 day deadline:June 17, 2016
60 day extension: August 16, 2016
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing- Approval of Conditional Use Permit 149 - 1000 Boone Avenue North - Fired
Up, Inc., Applicant
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Fired Up, Inc. is proposing to operate a ceramics studio, Fired Up Studios, within the multi-tenant
building located at 1000 Boone Avenue North. The business will include a small gallery where
artists can sell their work. This property is zoned Industrial and guided for long-term Industrial
use on the General Land Use Plan Map. Accessory retail services require a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) in this zoning district.
The property contains an approximately 124,000 square foot one-story, U-shaped, multi-tenant
building with eleven spaces for individual tenants and 456 parking spaces. The building is
currently underutilized, with a number of vacant spaces waiting to be filled totaling
approximately 60,661 square feet. The eight existing tenants include various office uses as well as
other warehouse uses.
The applicant would like to lease approximately 7,221 square feet of space for the operation of a
ceramics studio. Fired Up Studios has been located in Minneapolis since 1997 and would relocate
to Golden Valley if the CUP is approved.
Fired Up Studios currently offers space, equipment, and glazing and firing services for adults who
range from beginner to professional potters. Office hours are 3 pm to 6 pm Monday through
Friday with extended hours (11 am to 6 pm) on Wednesday, Saturday from 1 pm to 6 pm, and
Sunday from noon to 2 pm. During these times, any of the 70 members may visit the studio. On a
typical day 3 to 15 people are on-site.
Fired Up Studios also offers a six week pottery class once a week for 2 % hours and occasional
weekend evening sessions with a 10 student maximum. Each December, the studio hosts an open
house and silent auction to benefit a non-profit organization.
To support the members and assist in the sale of their work, the applicant proposes to construct
a small gallery open to the public of about 600 square feet. This accessory retail operation
necessitates the CUP. The proposed size is negligible when considered within the context of the
124,000 square foot building and is well below the threshold of 10% of the gross floor area. There
are no other known accessory retail services at this location.
The lease for the ceramics studio would include 10 parking spaces. These spaces are not typically
signed within the lot.
Of the many potential impacts that are regulated through the CUP process, traffic and parking are
the primary issues which might be cause for concern with this proposal. In this instance, however,
the hours of operation, which are generally complementary to the other uses in the building, and
the large quantity of parking spaces available on-site appear to negate the potential impacts.
At the May 23, 2016, Planning Commission meeting the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the proposal. Specifically, the Commission felt the proposed use was in compliance
with the ten factors in the City Code that determine the eligibility of a conditional use, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The total amount of accessory retail space shall be limited to 600 square feet.
2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or
his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the
number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address
parking concerns.
3. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire
inspection after occupying the space.
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated May 23, 2016 (5 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission, dated May 23, 2016 (3 pages)
• Applicant's Narrative (1 page)
• Memo from the Fire Department dated May 16, 2016 (1 page)
• Plans dated April 18, 2016 (3 pages)
• Ordinance#604, Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 149. 1000 Boone Avenue North,
Fired Up, Inc (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #604, Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 149, 1000 Boone Avenue
North, Fired Up, Inc., Applicant.
iz�s
Poe 8535 1297 1296 129.7
^
1291
J� 1294 ' '1295 1294
\�t�0 • 1295 O
P��^ 1293 x
11801160.1 1289 1292 1293 y'. 1292
i I 1150
e
Subject Property: 1110 1140.1130 1278 Ca tle� 1290 1291 1290
(' 11
1120 1280 1282.12841286 1288 1289 1288
1000 Boone Ave. N.
1286
500 600650 660700 800 900
8810
000 400.
9000
1021 8360
•
8900 300 200 100
z B A
a
915
• a 8300
C
O
eg 10th Ave N 8325
890
888 925 8459:8443. 8437 8421 8405 8393
935870 830 8519'
860
838,8379 8365 8357 8341 8325
• 8854 a
Q
850 825
840 825
820 83041
800 ::.• v.. — -::!Le o
®
D 816820 801 dX _` .' `N.— ??7
76E
I 4
742 747 750 123g5,628'toQ
102 f 31'„3:8350
745 1�� 117, "'32q 32,s30023314 36.38 40- '
._ 907.200 '291315: 320 434 440
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
A regular meeting of the Planning Commis on was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
ouncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley R d, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
23, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called th meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those sent were Planning Commission rs Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka,
Segelbau and Waldhauser. Also presen ere Planning Manager Jason Zim rman,
and Adminis tive Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval Minutes
May 9, 2016, ular Planning Co ission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to th iscussion reg ding the siz the parking stalls for the
North Wirth Associates PUD endment oposal a questioned if the City is allowing
parking stalls to be 18 feet in I th throug out th ite, or only in the parking ramp.
Zimmerman stated that the appli is pla s the shorter parking stalls only in the
ramp.
Waldhauser referred to the last paragr n page four regarding her question about
adding a green roof. She clarified th a licant's response was that they could
possibly add a green roof, howev large a of their business is installing solar panels
so they have a preference for s r panels.
Waldhauser referred to the urth paragrap on page 1 and asked that the words "but
that is not the case for th hole City" be s uck from th ast sentence.
Kluchka referred to ' th paragraph on pag four and clarifie hat his comments
regarding Cor-Te eel applied to the style f the proposal an t necessarily just the
planters.
Segelbaum rred to the discussion on p e five regarding the use o e words "must"
and "shall a noted that there was nothin dded in the conditions of ap val and
asked if ose changes will be addressed in he staff report that goes to the ' y Council
Zimm man said yes.
M ED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhau er and motion carried unanimously to
prove the May 9, 2016, minutes with the bove noted corrections.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 1000 Boone Avenue
North — Fired Up, Inc. — CU-149
Applicant: Fired Up, Inc.
Address: 1000 Boone Avenue North
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 2
Purpose: To allow for accessory retail sales incidental to a permitted use
(ceramics studio) in the Industrial zoning district.
Zimmerman referred to the site plan and discussed the applicant's request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow retail services incidental to a permitted use (ceramics
studio) in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. He stated that the
property is a 124,000 square foot multi-tenant building with a mix of office and warehouse
uses. The building has eight existing tenants and 60,000+ square feet of vacant space
with 456 on-site parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing to lease
7,221 square feet of space for a member's only ceramics studio. He stated that the
applicant is currently operating in Minneapolis and their hours will be Monday to Friday
from 3 pm to 6 pm with extended hours on Wednesdays from 11 am to 6 pm. They will
also be open on Saturdays 1 pm to 6 pm and on Sundays from noon to 2 pm. He added
that 3 to 15 people visit the site on a typical day and that the reason they need a
Conditional Use Permit is because they are proposing to have 600 square feet of shelf
space in order to display and sell work done by the members. They also hold a silent
auction once a year in December.
Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that the proposed use calls
for 18 parking spaces. He noted that the proposed ceramic studio's lease includes 10
parking spaces and with the off-peak and weekend use, along with the abundance of
parking spaces on site, any potential parking impacts would be limited. Johnson asked if
the retail space was taken into consideration when reviewing the parking requirements.
Zimmerman said no because the retail space in this case is so small it would not have
made a difference in the amount of parking required.
Johnson asked if the hours of the retail space are the same as the studio space.
Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum asked if the hours of operation are limited by the City.
Zimmerman said no, but a condition regarding the hours could be added in the future if
problems arise.
Blum asked if a Conditional Use Permit runs with the tenant or with the property owner.
Zimmerman stated that a Conditional Use Permit runs with the land so another similar
use with the same amount of retail space could go into the space in the future.
Segelbaum referred to the language in the Zoning Code regarding allowing 10% of the
gross floor area to be used for retail space and asked if that is the recently amended new
language or if that is the old language. Zimmerman said the new language was used in
the calculation. Kluchka questioned why 10% of the gross floor area is used and not 10%
of the actual space. Segelbaum noted that a tenant could monopolize the entire 10% if
they were the first tenant in the building with a retail use. Zimmerman said it is possible
that one tenant could use the entire 10% but the point is that the City wouldn't be having
to pick and choose which tenant could use the retail space. Waldhauser said from the
stand point of the property owner it gives them the most flexibility in allowing tenants
some retail space. Zimmerman agreed and said ultimately the City just wants to limit the
amount because that tends to limit the amount of traffic.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 3
Beth Robinson, Owner, Fired Up Inc., said she started her business 19 years ago. She
explained that the retail space is not the basis of her business, it is just a member's
benefit.
Baker asked Robinson where in Minneapolis she was located and why she decided to
move. Robinson said they were located in Northeast Minneapolis and that the building is
being renovated and the rents are going up. Baker asked where the proceeds of the retail
sales go. Robinson said she gets 40% and the members get 60%.
Blum asked Robinson how many employees she has. Robinson said she has two part-
time employees.
Waldhauser asked Robinson if the public sales are announced or advertised. Robinson
explained that the retail sales will only occur during their limited office hours, but they do
announce their annual silent auction and a percentage of the proceeds from the auction
go to a non-profit organization.
Segelbaum asked Robinson if she is looking for new members. Robinson said she only
has space for one more member, but they do offer various classes.
Baker referred to the kilns the applicant will be using and asked about ventilation in the
space. Kyle Gikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, said Robinson has
been working with their property manager and the City regarding building code issues and
making sure the space will meet the building code requirements.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kluchka questioned whether or not they should include the condition limiting the amount
of retail space to 600 square feet. If the property owner is managing who gets the retail
space he questions why the Conditional Use Permit needs to state that one tenant gets
600 square feet especially if the business needs to be more flexible than that. Segelbaum
questioned how else the amount of retail space in a building would be managed.
Zimmerman stated that staff relies on the plans and proposals submitted to help
determine that the retail use is an incidental accessory use to the permitted use. Kluchka
asked if all of the regulations are listed in the Zoning Code why there needs to be a
condition capping the square feet at 600. Zimmerman said it has been the practice with
Conditional Use Permits to be specific to make sure that accessory retail space doesn't
creep over time. Baker asked if the Conditional Use Permit would have to be amended if
this tenant wanted to expand their amount of retail space. Zimmerman said yes.
Baker asked about the total amount of potential retail space in this building. Zimmerman
said the entire building is 124,000 square feet so there could be up to 12,400 square feet
of accessory retail space.
Segelbaum said he doesn't see a reason to limit the amount of square footage of retail
space in this case, but if that is how the City calculates the amount of accessory retail
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 4
space he is ok with the condition allowing 600 square feet as a practical matter. Kluchka
said it seems like an odd way to calculate the square footage of retail space.
Baker said it would put staff in a bind and take a lot of work to figure out the square
footage for accessory retail space if they had to calculate it for every proposal. Kluchka
suggested relying on building permit information and plans for that information.
Baker questioned why tenants are the applicants on these types of requests. Zimmerman
explained that the tenants are the ones doing the proposed use so it is helpful to have
them be the applicant. Baker stated that it might be easier to make the property owner,
rather than the tenant, do the space calculations.
Segelbaum said he is in favor of keeping the condition regarding limiting the amount of
accessory retail space to 600 square feet. Zimmerman stated that he asked the applicant
to estimate high on the amount of retail space they will need so he thinks 600 square feet
will probably be more than enough for this applicant.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Fired Up Studios is an existing
business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on
their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of
demand there will be for their operations.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A ceramics studio is consistent with
the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on
the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on
the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the
neighborhood extremely unlikely.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal
and largely concentrated in the evenings and weekends. Staff does not expect any
negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking
available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently
underutilized.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications,
staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 5
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi-tenant industrial
property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses.
Conditions:
1. The total amount of accessory retail space shall be limited to 600 square feet.
2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City
Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require
modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation
in order to adequately address parking concerns.
3. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine
fire inspection after occupying the space.
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
Informal Public Hearing — C ditional Use Permit— 710 Pennsylvania Avenue
South — Morrie's Heritage Ca Connection — CU-150
plicant: Morrie's Heritage ar Connection
Addr s: 710 Pennsylvani Avenue South
Purpose: To allow for auto obile rentals in the 1-394 Mixe se zoning district.
Zimmerman referred a site plan of e property which incl s both 710 and 750
Pennsylvania Avenue uth. He exp ined the applicant' quest to allow for automobile
rentals in the 1-394 Mixe se zonin district. The ap an is proposing to store
approximately 30 classic c in the ilding that Id be available for rental between 8
am and 5 pm, 7 days a week. he a licant a ' ipates up to 10 customers per day with 1
to 3 employees on-site to assis ith ental erations. The applicant is also proposing to
use a portion of the building for a a r club for classic car enthusiasts which will
require a building code analysis an ertificate of Occupancy prior to any public
assembly use.
Zimmerman referred to the ing r quir ents for this use and stated that based on the
size of the building, the a mobile r ntal u requires 5 parking spaces and the applicant
is allocating 22 parkin aces. Her ferred t e applicant's parking plan and discussed
the number of parki spaces locat in variou reas on the site. He added that there
will be no dealers inventory parki g allowed o e property.
Waldhauser ed if there has bee ny discussion out how many people would gather
in the car b area. Zimmerman sai the number of pe le allowed would be addressed
in the b ' ing code analysis and th Certificate of Occup cy.
Blu asked if the rental cars are ex lusively stored inside the building. Zimmerman said
y , the cars will be securely store indoors.
city 0f Uk
001,
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: May 23, 2016
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit (CUP-149)to Allow for Accessory
Retail Services Incidental to a Permitted Use at 1000 Boone Avenue North — Fired
Up, Inc., Applicant
Summary
Fired Up, Inc. is proposing to operate a ceramics studio, Fired Up Studios, within the multi-tenant
building located at 1000 Boone Avenue North. The business will include a small gallery where
artists can sell their work. This property is zoned Industrial and guided for long-term Industrial
use on the General Land Use Plan Map. Accessory retail services require a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) in this zoning district.
Background and Existing Conditions
The subject property is bounded by 101h Avenue North to the south, Boone Avenue North to the
west, industrial properties to the east, and a single family neighborhood to the north located on
the far side of the railway corridor and Luce Line Trail.
The property contains an approximately 124,000 square foot one-story, U-shaped, multi-tenant
building with eleven spaces for individual tenants. 376 parking spaces surround the building while
another 80 spaces are located internal to the U portion. Loading docks for each space are also
located within the U. The primary entrance to the property is located to the west, off of Boone
Avenue, with a secondary access in the southeast corner of the lot.
The building is currently underutilized, with a number of vacant spaces waiting to be filled
totaling approximately 60,661 square feet. The eight existing tenants include various office uses
as well as other warehouse uses. Parking spaces are abundant and even with a majority of the
building held to the City's required parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of office use (the
more stringent requirement), excess parking spaces would still be available.
The property owner has indicated that the number of spaces typically assigned as part of a lease
are 4 per 1,000 square feet of office and 1 per 1,000 square feet of warehouse.
Proposal
The applicant would like to lease approximately 7,221 square feet of space for the operation of a
ceramics studio. Fired Up Studios has been located in Minneapolis since 1997 and would relocate
to Golden Valley if the CUP is approved.
Fired Up Studios currently offers space, equipment, and glazing and firing services for adults who
range from beginner to professional potters. Office hours are 3 pm to 6 pm Monday through
Friday with extended hours (11 am to 6 pm) on Wednesday, Saturday from 1 pm to 6 pm, and
Sunday from noon to 2 pm. During these times, any of the 70 members may visit the studio. On a
typical day 3 to 15 people are on-site.
Fired Up Studios also offers a six week pottery class once a week for 2 % hours and occasional
weekend evening sessions with a 10 student maximum. Each December, the studio hosts an open
house and silent auction to benefit a non-profit organization.
To support the members and assist in the sale of their work, the applicant proposes to construct
a small gallery open to the public of about 600 square feet. This accessory retail operation
necessitates the CUP. The proposed size is negligible when considered within the context of the
124,000 square foot building and is well below the threshold of 10% of the gross floor area. There
are no other known accessory retail services at this location.
The lease for the ceramics studio would include 10 parking spaces. These spaces are not typically
signed within the lot.
Evaluation
Of the many potential impacts that are regulated through the CUP process, traffic and parking are
the primary issues which might be cause for concern with this proposal. In this instance, however,
the hours of operation, which are generally complementary to the other uses in the building, and
the large quantity of parking spaces available on-site appear to negate the potential impacts.
The findings and recommendations for a CUP are based upon any or all of the following factors:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Fired Up Studios is an existing business that has
shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on their past experiences, they
are able to accurately predict the expected amount of demand there will be for their
operations.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A ceramics studio is consistent with the Industrial
designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the
surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on the far side
of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the neighborhood
extremely unlikely.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and largely
concentrated in the evenings and weekends. Staff does not expect any negative traffic
impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no
shortage of parking is anticipated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate a minor
increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently underutilized.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise
levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration:The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase
in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does
not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property.
10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects
of the proposed use. The location is a multi-tenant industrial property with adequate parking
to serve the individual uses.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 149 allowing for accessory retail services
incidental to a permitted use in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. The
approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions:
Planning
1. The total amount of accessory retail space shall be limited to 600 square feet.
2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or
his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the
number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address
parking concerns.
Fire
3. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire
inspection after occupying the space.
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Applicant's Narrative (1 page)
Memo from the Fire Department dated May 16, 2016 (1 page)
Plans dated April 18, 2016 (3 pages)
Fired Up Studios Narrative Description of Site Usage
The space at 1000 Boone Avenue North in Golden Valley will be used for Fired Up Inc. (d.b.a. Fired Up
Studios). For the past 19 years we have been providing the services in Minneapolis that potters need to
make and complete their work. These services include a space and equipment, glazes and firing
services. We are an adult only facility and our customers include beginners, hobbyists, and professional
potters.
Fired Up Studios currently employs 2 part-time employees. Our office hours are 3pm to 6pm Monday,
Tuesday,Thursday, and Friday. On Wednesday we are open from 11am—6pm,Saturday from fpm—
6pm, and Sunday noon to 2pm. We currently have approximately 70 members who pay a monthly fee
to have access to our services. On any given day,we have between 3 and 15 people at our studio.
We also provide a six week pottery class,with a maximum number of 10 students per class,which meets
once a week for 2% hours to teach adults the basics of wheel thrown pottery. Over the weekend we run
a two hour"Clay Date" on Friday&Saturday evenings plus Sunday afternoons. This class is for
individuals who want to see what it is like to use a potter's wheel, or what we like to call the non-sexy
"Ghost" experience.
We also have a small gallery on shelves where our members can sell their work.The purpose of the
gallery is member retention—it is not a major focus of Fired Up or a revenue source. Once a year we do
an open house, usually the first weekend in December. During this event we do a silent auction to raise
money for a non-profit organization.The recipient of this silent auction changes every year. If you
would like more detail about Fired Up please feel free to go to our web site www.firedupstudios.com.
valla Fire Department
763-593-8080 f 763-593-8098 (fax)
Date: May 16, 2016
To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner
Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
From: Rick Hammerschmidt, Deputy Fire Chief
Subject: CUP, Ceramics Studio, 1000 Boone Ave N
I have reviewed the conditional use permit information for the Ceramics Studio, 1000 Boone Ave N
and have listed my comments below.
• Contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire inspection after
occupying the space
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the site conditions depicted and the comments required above, the fire department finds the
proposed CUP at this property acceptable.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763 593-8080 or by email,
rhammerschmidt(d-)goldenval Ieymn.gov
�Q��
as [,yq i Iis(rm iNNlw snow.VNII4-HIaoN ell,n n37Nm uo dill-7ff 1191 IOb9S tllOS3NNIYi'SIlOJtl3NNl%-H180N 30N3Atl lStll1 IN L-Q
I'�I',!.h�I�,al��ll� le.oT17 IIh�Y�iflli II'>•.Iu���I(IIU� ,n.11 ��hll�l�ll.��l''� W�
�KN3 U�o
LSI I LL J
a I
t o
° c94 E u
E aIli ii � u
E z
Pd E3 t & s E ° by m E ►« N Nx X
o a u sa ii N N X
SE - - Eo 3• mu E r ii N
Ea
E o
_ nm u�iaic
-Na o�°2 _
. �4 ° - I4
ii w
m Y?tm E ndcQ-
(n c `�V ° - - �'c n E° °c m ; 'ao E..a,u W
W °c° S� SH sm o0 o°pn rn'E dE(^nni n75
�� Y W ��
nEo v ° a6^ owco°a v _ =� E"mom~�NJz W Q zU
O = _° moo,° _ - u'o o°vn aEE�� $(o= p �O a
Z o °dv« °o `o - o>oa c - -O uoo u O
E'-o ash $-
K (n UJ Q
3 N J ,�♦0] J — z
N U7-1 M Q J (� U C.�Q U I
_ucQZDFU '
u � ° uZ G Q O W a
LLJ
O
EJ
t O LL
D� \Co W 3oW
Z W ccio uW-S uE `n - cs sa u oo OE -Eo Z
-6 o s 3: Q JUz =
W W�
�
wQ wQ wOa x w wW Qx Dw O
Z 3 Z 3 Z V13 W p Z
J (n 5F—
S F o z �w
3
W m j Z d0 %U �w
a� a m� ¢¢ wm
JU m Z 0f uY Sw Z< Y� !3J ODU
ci o con p z °r (n m� �g ok' tt< o x 1- x��� O
zm < M o jW ��LL o <;8 �o
dln zil II. w sW m >
_z a air XVW 9 e3i�i> QI
Z $iz z o� w a a o' �; a m Z aic
; fill-„L WI
_ J
W a 50 o f zo z i¢ w � $ yi `�yuoa �y k' `i W
N 2 <z a a z i
S2
d d d LL d 4 m g J ”<i s Fie ss S� 4 F—
O Wo
U < u �' o m I. N < e M� J.I
Oil
0 U O O T} W
o(YSO ww a - N W O IZ 9K 6Z }'a
ma m O> a< ma o N as _ F a M NOO VW ro f—N
\ �N ~ WO Ud >�QU'J O -Q Fd OQ U0V N J I <MM
Ln gs o� = oa �o >ti N oz uro m�m-ui p -i r vry of
W u iLL�N N OZ(rn z x'ou OZ zw o� rn <z- (nz�Qv.
b'_� � o_my �- >.
WO�� u \<Oz 92 QO 0 oa 8w BOE wa 1-'' O_Oi(�
aU �W LJ~Z VIS .0 f�U3Z pF-Ys
xs Of-
Coe 0,
Jl�id -Q OH ZQH OUH2'
zmi oZiHro -'xQ V)0-
�
o3
a 9 vZz az I-
� m(
w
vw„rof J
IW„6Z W
-a Wo
C n
u �a
a i
a
El
ism zs�
N Z z O <
2 Z 3
ZFa I O N� O� F (/Wjam� 3
3Q a �utV UmN
o
w�LLK
adz� o�ioam gm Z
F—
\// aUW 24iV�d UU Q
jZw U N; 0
0
UUP s OZW UN WZ Oas
aQ o�o��Zw ww W
d01-..mam UU J
u
\ \ wmw l „19-,6f �
\\ /� ,6 -,L Wo
Mw -
woaNIiN
M j
z o
Q �
J neo Z
u y �F< Q
U z U G Z U Na
J¢ < Z Jw)
UN '� U O Y U
q R O2 2 O O aaz
030
W
_ W
I �l
MQ II
X'
/ U�
z U
I
JAZ.�t r ,^� '•a Z 'J .� 1 `T�p v'� i .r. -r
w t Z Y 5 2 t cr .,r 4•s d ;`!:: )#mak `'q.',t,3Mics*
. a ..
. _ ;,yn. .mac. ..:�, M: r`.. ,. ..,. 'v .:_:.,�a s. t. ';.�... fv .y �.
C h ,s ..:. -k. `�'- S.' a 5�,t.,.t-.�' ...' ....5:. -_... 4 Nit .v1
-.. 'F..n " SS'; .S✓.w:,. ,... a,..,,MC^-.'•sty: % +.z5?. �k;b y..:l '; T_.,il,:g
:Fa. �hl.•.tt,,,,� :.`� .::.
"1V4^ix•„-.ea
N c i + am, tY
Wti
.
E411
ma { v
1 - <
Iuv
10
J
? - VI O O.$
o
T c n - EEE333 ^K'
cv n f. E •. �$o of al m� ;�� <
.. .�'. aV L cao � A 'P9 . .br:E o��•t�''u! h�t lk5°
0 Cc
yppm3•v
m O o r O
lu
�•'� v - mac, 3 r V C� Q r N D �AS
. s 8�"W'f' QO C I�lt' : 1��”
v t '." A q Vimy..,.z v•.-` n O ., Q • N - O�-L_ �( •�Y- �4
OOL
_'o q
O T L 6 N r E " L L O' n N m xs` a:J k�'..
G� " •. eoa't-'e - _.
t,t - C N O NC•.�- O ~ N C i
«Cr
a�,
O Y •
n 2
a
1 � u 3 r �
^{`•a �' •1+. La Qac Lio Z 0 II C: A[.97-
Y' V F ` a�i(y� 6•� O a W w•^-a 'g aCi e , 1 L � q!
al
.`V
Lu
{ .q
i'
LD
quautls-"ul uC? eau'l'b _ o)
C? --
J07 JO a �s
gaa cIS
s I.
,�,�,Y a';>r. '� _: y •`>'Aka, � ('�' >R-.} ��.
,�, 9 r,� � a'.� .a '�Fu:xl 4}1!HF�'Y s�'•-• y�,�p'�vT�" 'qJ
CY stn 001. ,; .00L
oD
Iz
CID
' � � f • ' 1 � � I ^� �� � � m 4y4 a`I � 8 a �pr �
Z •�
o
r
j `� p I�• 1 ':f' `V 19f1� Y
o
Er
go
lo
rw
SO
T-1 10
43,
10I s lJ OZI
44.
C
cc ��` �`ilk O.I 8 � � �\ •� ��
�t
c f-
a t'701 A o N A \LZ
ool -61F
•� .. . � I'I � ,..I, --- -Pfy�. t unv.T � �. - sp! WS 11!/9 $ .�-
LL
y�
'
1 .r 6NW W%� t 4 fa wjo \ / o ,M
a r' 8U11ull M/?)-ON3AWallo09 ♦ FI
:_ tR nw +s - 1 aul� t lbn-
WII
g•ONx r�3rlN3ittf t, t�o� w :•a� "
s' 31�ba -b�—
'y`q.ul-WS 'flW uuoigi
I 3k
t '. s•>� ;'yd '}"Vi'µ°!,>d', 1.
:x" �;" .:11,i.. ..f ;•KY ,,,i.. .;u' .a�. I.. .r4•rt,r:�§ t+ ,:;. "_i �t 't. f. 'wk
� �-.i-. :;. .. .A.c, tih�•xh �_ a„ ti4� :.y n E'TM"3 �t 4� r- *, t .,�,� ."+%'"d <.,r. t �. R � 'Yk .+ l � .:,.,) ti
",Y. e 9 ,yf �'.' s:ta- 'ta ` `�Y'., s � _ �` I ~' r :. ` f ... s ".,ty - �. •..-; ,u S n, ,. .ta.
ORDINANCE NO. 604, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 149
1000 Boone Avenue North
Fired Up, Inc., 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 11.36, by approving a Conditional Use
Permit for a certain tract of land at 1000 Boone Avenue North, thereby allowing accessory
retail services incidental to a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District.
This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the findings of the Planning
Commission pursuant to City Code Section 11.80, Subd. 2(G), which findings are hereby
adopted and incorporated herein as follows:
1. Fired Up Studios is an existing business that has shown a demand exists for the
services they provide. Based on their past experiences, they are able to accurately
predict the expected amount of demand there will be for their operations.
2. A ceramics studio is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the
General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the surrounding property values.
Nearby single family residential uses are located on the far side of the property and
across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the neighborhood extremely unlikely.
4. The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and largely
concentrated in the evenings and weekends. Staff does not expect any negative traffic
impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no
shortage of parking is anticipated.
5. The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the
location which is currently underutilized.
6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels.
7. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does not
anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property.
10.Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is
a multi-tenant industrial property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses.
This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued
including, but not limited to the following specific conditions:
1. The total amount of accessory retail space shall be limited to 600 square feet.
2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager
or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications
to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to
adequately address parking concerns.
3. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire
inspection after occupying the space.
Ordinance No. 604 -2- June 21, 2016
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows:
Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Busch's Golden Valley Acres, Hennepin County
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 21 st day of June, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city of 01
1den MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
60 day deadline:June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing- Approval of Conditional Use Permit 150- 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South -
Morrie's Heritage Car Connection, Applicant
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Morrie's Heritage Car Connection is proposing to operate a rental business for classic
automobiles within the existing building at 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South. The property is
zoned 1-394 Mixed Use and is guided for long-term Mixed Use on the General Land Use Plan Map.
Automobile rentals require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in this zoning district.
The property is 1.8 acres and contains two buildings and two parking lots. One of the parking lots
flows into and also partially serves the adjacent property to the north. In addition, employees
from Morrie's Cadillac (across the street to the east) use some of this area for parking. Due to the
complicated nature of the site, staff have required the submittal of a parking plan that better
defines how the lots will be used going forward.
The applicant hopes to gain approval for a CUP to operate a classic car rental business out of an
existing building. Approximately 30 vehicles would be stored indoors and the location would
serve as the pickup/drop off center for customers. One to three employees would be located on
site to conduct transactions and to assist with the rental business. Hours of operation would be
between 8 am and 5 pm daily, including weekends. The applicant anticipates up to 10 customers
a day.
In the past, this area has been used as overflow parking and storage of dealership inventory
vehicles, neither of which is allowed under the zoning code. Staff is recommending conditions
which explicitly limit the parking uses that can occur on-site.
Of the many potential impacts that are regulated through the CUP process, traffic and parking are
the primary issues which might be cause for concern with this proposal. In this instance, however,
the limited anticipated intensity of the use and the adequate quantity of parking spaces available
on-site appear to negate any potential impacts.
At the May 23, 2016, Planning Commission meeting, staff discussed a potential building and fire
code issue involving the proposed "car club" use at this location. The applicant has subsequently
indicated this is no longer a part of the proposal. Following the public hearing, the Commission
voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the CUP. Specifically, the Commission felt the proposed use
was in compliance with the ten factors in the City Code that determine the eligibility of a
conditional use, subject to the following conditions:
1. Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016, with
signage to indicate use.
2. All vehicles must be parked on paved surfaces and no vehicles may be located in the
accessible parking discharge areas. Accessible parking discharge areas shall be signed as
required by code.
3. No dealership inventory vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site.
4. Due to the change in occupancy, the applicant shall submit for review a code analysis from a
registered architect.
5. The building shall be completely protected with a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
6. The fire alarm system in the building shall meet NFPA 72 and UL Certifications.
7. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire
inspection after occupying the space.
8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
9. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated May 23, 2016 (5 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission, dated May 23, 2016 (4 pages)
• Applicant's Narrative (1 page)
• Memo from the Fire Department dated May 16, 2016 (1 page)
• Site Plans dated April 22, 2016 (2 pages)
• Parking Plan (1 page)
• Ordinance #605, Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 150, 710 Pennsylvania Avenue
South Morrie's Heritage Car Connection (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #605, Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 150, 710 Pennsylvania
Avenue South, Morrie's Heritage Car Connection, Applicant.
400 401
420 421 420 421 480 460 440
415 7490--- 7400
Quebec Ave 5 • 771 4
07 6p
424 I 1* •
417 500 501 500 501 500 501 421 T470
i
515 7495 57485475�4g5
500 520 521 7700 521 520 521 510 • • •
4 1 aurel Ave Subject Property:
623 600 611 7701 710 Pennsylvania Ave. S.
14
642 623 675
643 648 • 700
• 7425
723 716 723 716 rn
m
733 732 71
m Q
4 743743 732 75
705
,. c
801 > 815 814 825 7*0
820 Q
_ 820 a c 701
Q m
843 840 E 843 830 D 840
c
n
911
D
914915 950 O 900
r
10123 0:
1 U30 904
1033 1030
1000 7400 7200
1041 1040 •
1040 7300
1051 1050 7610 •
1060
7650`
• 7 630 7600 7570 7500 7560
Way2ata Blvd 7330
Interstate Hwy 394 ammommawamm •-
U rae—Interstate Hwy 394 .
WAY 7A TA 131 V+•C2 �u�..�..�..�..�w..�.�.w.u�..�..�..�..�..�.. ....
TTTj]�
STILOUIS PARK
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 5
10.Other Impacts to the City and esidents: Staff does not an icipate any other
negative effects of the proposed se. The location is a - enant industrial
p with adequate parking serve the indiv' uses.
Conditions:
1. The total amount of ac space shall be limited to 600 square feet.
2. In the event complaints to egarding parking are deemed by the City
Manager or his/her de ' ee to a si ' ' ant, the City reserves the right to require
modifications to th umber of aces leas to the days and hours of operation
in order to ad tely address rking concerns.
3. The applic shall contact the olden Valley Fire Depa t to schedule a routine
fire ins tion after occupying t space.
4. Th' pproval is subject to all of r state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
aws with authority over this velopment.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 710 Pennsylvania Avenue
South — Morrie's Heritage Car Connection — CU-150
Applicant: Morrie's Heritage Car Connection
Address: 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Purpose: To allow for automobile rentals in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property which includes both 710 and 750
Pennsylvania Avenue South. He explained the applicant's request to allow for automobile
rentals in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district. The applicant is proposing to store
approximately 30 classic cars in the building that would be available for rental between 8
am and 5 pm, 7 days a week. The applicant anticipates up to 10 customers per day with 1
to 3 employees on-site to assist with rental operations. The applicant is also proposing to
use a portion of the building for a casual car club for classic car enthusiasts which will
require a building code analysis and a Certificate of Occupancy prior to any public
assembly use.
Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements for this use and stated that based on the
size of the building, the automobile rental use requires 5 parking spaces and the applicant
is allocating 22 parking spaces. He referred to the applicant's parking plan and discussed
the number of parking spaces located in various areas on the site. He added that there
will be no dealership inventory parking allowed on the property.
Waldhauser asked if there has been any discussion about how many people would gather
in the car club area. Zimmerman said the number of people allowed would be addressed
in the building code analysis and the Certificate of Occupancy.
Blum asked if the rental cars are exclusively stored inside the building. Zimmerman said
yes, the cars will be securely stored indoors.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 6
Waldhauser asked what triggered the submittal of the Conditional Use Permit application
because it seems that a number of proposed uses are already occurring. Zimmerman
said that staff has been working with the applicant for a while about the process and
recently the applicant came to the City and said they were ready to apply. He added that
he thinks that the car club has had a "soft opening" but they would now like to go forward
and make it more publicly known.
Kluchka asked if there are any opportunities to add landscaping conditions. Zimmerman
explained that the conditions are targeted to the impacts generated by the use. The
applicant has indicated that they intend to paint the building and do some clean-up. He
added that the Planning Commission could ask that some landscaping be done especially
in the areas where cars have been stored.
Waldhauser asked if there will be food and beverage service in the car club area.
Zimmerman said they won't be allowed to prepare food on-site.
Baker asked what the business is at 750 Pennsylvania Ave. Lynn Robson, CFO Morrie's
Automotive Group, said they don't own that building, but it is a company called Midwest
Maintenance.
Kluchka asked about landscaping plans particularly in the front area where cars have
been parked. Robson said they would be willing replace the grass in that area.
Segelbaum asked if they have plans to fix up the property to make it look nicer. Robson
said this is first time she has heard that fixing up the property is an expectation. She
agreed that the grass looks unsightly and needs to be taken care of, but they haven't
hired a landscape architect to see if there is any possibility to do any landscaping in front
of the building.
Baker asked where the rental cars would be maintained. Robson said maintenance would
occur at their dealership locations.
Waldhauser asked when they started using this building in this way as a rental service or
a car club. Robson said they started leasing the building in October of 2014 and they've
been storing vehicles there, but they have been trying to figure out the viability and if
there really is a market for this proposed use. Segelbaum asked if they've been operating
the car rental use at this location. Robson said they have been operating the rental
service from their Subaru store in Minnetonka.
Waldhauser asked if they've had any events and if so, what the turnout was for them.
Josh Karsten, Morrie's Automotive Group, said they've had a couple of small events with
5 or 10 people but the number of people they are allowed to have in the space will be
determined with the building code analysis and permit process.
Blum asked about the sidewalk shown on the northeast portion of the property. Karsten
explained that it is more of an emergency exit walkway than a sidewalk.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 7
Johnson asked the applicants if they have any comments about the grass areas being
used for dealership inventory parking in violation of the Zoning Code. Robson said they
have met with City staff and they are getting better at policing the parking of their
inventory and they know they are not allowed to park inventory there. Segelbaum asked if
there is reason to think that inventory parking will still occur. Robson stated that since it
will be a condition of approval for the Conditional Use Permit they will talk to their
employees and they will comply. Johnson suggested landscaping be installed that would
discourage or prohibit parking in the grass/landscaped areas. Robson said that is a
possibility.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she agrees with the suggestion
that there be additional landscaping and a parking plan. She said she is concerned about
more coming her way with so much going on with the Laurel Ponds project and added
that she would like the parking spaces to be clearly signed.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Segelbaum asked if there are continuing concerns with the parking. Zimmerman said he
hasn't heard any complaints lately about inventory storage. He stated that staff did meet
with a number of dealerships and will be working on amending the outdoor storage
section of the City Code.
Waldhauser questioned if transports should be unloaded at all on this property and
suggested they be delivered to Morrie's instead. Segelbaum noted that the applicant
needs to have 5 parking spaces and they are proposing to have 22 spaces so he
questions if it is an issue to park inventory in the extra spaces. Robson stated that they
have stopped unloading vehicles at this location. Zimmerman explained that the City's
position is that inventory parking should occur on the dealer's own property, not on other
properties. Segelbaum said he would like to add a condition about unloading cars on this
property. Waldhauser suggested it be added to condition #4. Baker agreed.
Kluchka suggested condition #2 be amended to read as follows: "parking spaces shall
be designated "and signed" as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016."
Segelbaum questioned if only the car club spaces should be signed. Kluchka said he
would like the parking spaces organized in some way to help address the storage
issues. He changed his suggestion for condition #2 to read "parking spaces shall be
designated "and signed as needed" as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016."
Baker questioned why employee parking would need to be signed if they tell the
employees where to park. Segelbaum said he would be in favor of some signage
indicating where customers should park for the classic car rental business. Kluchka
changed his suggestion for condition #2 to read "parking spaces shall be designated as
shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016, with signage to indicate use."
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 8
Kluchka suggested a condition be added requiring landscaping improvements to
prevent parking in designated grass areas.
Baker stated that condition #4 should be amended to address the unloading of
inventory. Kluchka suggested condition #4 be changed to "no dealership inventory
vehicles shall be unloaded or stored on-site."
Robson reiterated that they don't own the property at 750 Pennsylvania and clarified
that they won't be able to put any signs on that property.
Kluchka reviewed the proposed changes as follows: condition #2 is modified to state
"Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016,
with signage to indicate use." Condition #4 should state "No dealership inventory
vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site." And a condition should be added
stating "Landscaping improvements will be added to help prevent parking in designated
grass areas."
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following
findings and conditions.-
Findings:
onditions:Findings:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Morrie's has identified a demand for
classic car rentals and believes there is a viable market for their operation.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An automobile rental business is
consistent with the Mixed Use designation of this property on the General Land Use
Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on
the surrounding property values. The area is generally occupied by light industrial or
manufacturing uses with car dealerships to the east.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal
and staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas.
Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is
anticipated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Staff does not anticipate a negative change in the visual quality of
the property. The applicant has indicated that the building will be painted and
additional signage installed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 9
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a non-residential area with
adequate parking to serve the use.
Conditions:
1. No assembly use shall be permitted until the Inspections Division approves and
issues a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16,
2016, with signage to indicate use.
3. All vehicles must be parked on paved surfaces and no vehicles may be located in
the accessible parking discharge areas. Accessible parking discharge areas shall
be signed as required by code.
4. No dealership inventory vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site.
5. Landscaping improvements will be added to help prevent parking in designated
grass areas.
6. Due to the change in occupancy, the applicant shall submit for review a code
analysis from a registered architect.
7. The building shall be completely protected with a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
8. The fire alarm system in the building shall meet NFPA 72 and UL Certifications.
9. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine
fire inspection after occupying the space.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
11. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation.
Informal Public Hearing eneral Land Use Plan Map Amendment—
9050 Golden Valley Road CPAM-59
A cant: City of Golde Valley
Addresse 9050 Golden alley Road
Purpose: To ange th designatio he General Land Use Plan Map from
High sity eside ' o — Commercial-Office.
S. Informal Public Hearin operty Rezoning — 9050 Golden Valley Road —
Z022-05
Applicant: of Golde Valley
Addres 9050 Golden alley Road
P ose: To rezone th property from High Density Residential (R-4) to
Business an Professional Offices.
city of .
eoldent� rMEA e
C)pvalley�. e Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: May 23, 2016
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit (CUP-150)to Allow for
Automobile Rental at 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South —Morrie's Heritage Car
Connection, Applicant
Summary
Morrie's Heritage Car Connection is proposing to operate a rental business for classic
automobiles within the existing building at 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South. The property is
zoned 1-394 Mixed Use and is guided for long-term Mixed Use on the General Land Use Plan Map.
Automobile rentals require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in this zoning district.
Background and Existing Conditions
The subject property is bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue South to the east and light industrial uses
to the north, south, and west. This area was rezoned to 1-394 Mixed Use in 2008. The 1-394 Mixed
Use zoning district requires a CUP for any conditional uses allowed in the Commercial zoning district
occupying more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. The footprint of the building at 710
Pennsylvania is 10,346 square feet. Subdistrict B, in which this property is located, limits building
height to six stories.
The property is 1.8 acres and contains two buildings and two parking lots. One of the parking lots
flows into and also partially serves the adjacent property to the north. In addition, employees
from Morrie's Cadillac (across the street to the east) use some of this area for parking. Due to the
complicated nature of the site, staff have required a parking plan to be submitted that better
defines how the lots will be used going forward.
Morrie's has previously leased this space for an unrelated use; it appears they have commenced
the classic car rental business operations with a "soft opening" that would now be legalized with
the approval of the CUP.
dd'
u
Proposal
The applicant hopes to gain approval for a CUP to operate a classic car rental business out of an
existing building. Approximately 30 vehicles would be stored indoors and the location would
serve as the pickup/drop off center for customers. One to three employees would be located on
site to conduct transactions and to assist with the rental business. Hours of operation would be
between 8 am and 5 pm daily, including weekends. The applicant anticipates up to 10 customers
a day.
In addition to the rental business, Morrie's would like to establish a casual car club that would
allow for social gatherings by car enthusiasts within the building. At this time, the Inspections
Division is requesting a code analysis to determine what building improvements would be
required by code for this use to go forward. Until this is completed and a Certificate of Occupancy
is issued, no public assembly shall be allowed in the building.
The site is unique in that there are two buildings on one parcel, serving at least two businesses. In
addition, the parking lot in front of 710 Pennsylvania also serves the business on the lot to the
south, at 750 Pennsylvania. The applicant has submitted a parking plan that not only indicates
how the parking spaces will be divided between these entities, but also reserves 12 spaces for the
employees of Morrie's Cadillac across the street to the east.
For the Heritage Car Connection, the applicant has reserved 20 parking spaces in front of the
building as well as two spaces for employees at the rear of the building (accessed through the
parking lot for 750 Pennsylvania). The zoning code requires 1 space per 2,000 square feet of
display area. At 10,000 square feet, only five parking spaces are required.
In the past, this area has been used as overflow parking and storage of dealership inventory
vehicles, neither of which is allowed under the zoning code. Staff is recommending conditions
which explicitly limit the parking uses that can occur on-site.
Evaluation
Of the many potential impacts that are regulated through the CUP process, traffic and parking are
the primary issues which might be cause for concern with this proposal. In this instance, however,
the limited anticipated intensity of the use and the adequate quantity of parking spaces available
on-site appear to negate any potential impacts.
The findings and recommendations for a CUP are based upon any or all of the following factors:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Morrie's has identified a demand for classic car
rentals and believes there is a viable market for their operation.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An automobile rental business is consistent with
the Mixed Use designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the
surrounding property values. The area is generally occupied by light industrial or
manufacturing uses with car dealerships to the east.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and staff
does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount
of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate a minor
increase in the number of employees at the location.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise
levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration:The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase
in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Staff does not anticipate a negative change in the visual quality of the
property. The applicant has indicated that the building will be painted and additional signage
installed.
10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects
of the proposed use. The location is a non-residential area with adequate parking to serve the
use.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 150 allowing for automobile rental in the 1-
394 Mixed Use zoning district at 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South. The approval of a Conditional
Use Permit is subject to the following conditions:
Planning
1. No assembly use shall be permitted until the Inspections Division approves and issues a
Certificate of Occupancy.
2. Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016.
3. All vehicles must be parked on paved surfaces and no vehicles may be located in the
accessible parking discharge areas. Accessible parking discharge areas shall be signed as
required by code.
4. No dealership inventory vehicles shall be stored on-site.
Fire
5. Due to the change in occupancy, the applicant shall submit for review a code analysis from a
registered architect.
6. The building shall be completely protected with a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
7. The fire alarm system in the building shall meet NFPA 72 and UL Certifications.
8. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire
inspection after occupying the space.
9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
10. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Applicant's Narrative (1 page)
Memo from the Fire Department dated May 16, 2016 (1 page)
Plans dated April 18, 2016 (2 pages)
Parking Plan (1 page)
April 18, 2016
City of Golden Valley
Planning Department
7800 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Planning Department and City Council Members:
Enclosed please find the Conditional Use Permit application for your consideration for Morrie's
Heritage Car Connection. Morrie's has operated in the City of Golden Valley since it acquired
the Cadillac dealership in 2006. Since that time, Morrie's has continued to increase its footprint
in Golden Valley with the investment in the Maserati, Bentley and Aston building constructed in
2015. As part of the ongoing business development for Morrie's Automotive Group, our
marketing research has determined that our customer base has an interest in renting classic
cars. We have acquired a vehicle fleet that supports and highlights the vehicle brands that
Morrie's sells. The initiative creates a unique opportunity to connect with our community
beyond our typical operations.
Morrie's Heritage Car Connection (MHCC) is a classic car rental business and car club that offers
daily and weekend rentals to the public. MHCC intends to use the building located at 710
Pennsylvania Ave S. in Golden Valley as the main site for business operations. The facility will
house the fleet of approximately 30 vehicles indoors and serve as the pickup/drop off center for
renters. A staff of between one and three employees will work onsite to coordinate fleet
logistics, conduct business development activities and conduct rental transactions with
customers. We expect anywhere between one and ten customers to visit this boutique facility
daily between the hours of 8am and 5pm.
We do acknowledge that parking on the property has been a challenge in the past. To
accommodate the incremental vehicle traffic to the property, and create more favorable curb
appeal, we've established plans to better utilize existing property that we own to accommodate
employee parking. We have immediate plans to move 20 cars off of the 710 Pennsylvania
Avenue site effective May 15Y. We are also in the midst of new property acquisitions that will
further ease parking constraints. We're also committed to painting the building on 710
Pennsylvania Ave South to enhance the visual impact it has on passersby.
We thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me with
any questions regarding this application.
Sincerely,
Ben Robertaccio
Marketing Director
952-797-1335
0
goldenv
valle Fire Department
763-593-8080/ 763-593-8098 (fax)
Date: March 16, 2016
To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner
Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
From: Rick Hammerschmidt, Deputy Fire Chief
Subject: CUP, Morrie's Heritage Car Connection, 710 Pennsylvania Ave S
I have reviewed the conditional use permit information for the Morrie's Heritage Car Connection, 710
Pennsylvania Ave S and have listed my comments below.
• Because this is a change in occupancy a code analysis from an architect will be needed
• This building is currently protected with a fire sprinkler system but unknown if it's completely
protected. If it's found not to be 100% protected with a NFPA 13 System, it would need to be
brought up to code
• If the buildings current fire alarm system does not meet NFPA 72 and UL Certifications, it will
need to be brought up to code
• Contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire inspection after
occupying the space
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the site conditions depicted and the comments required above, the fire department finds the
proposed CUP at this property acceptable.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763 593-8080 or by email,
rhammerschmidt(c)goldenvalleymngov
i
m�
0
^oPy
m
g
3
0 0
0o m
UC A
o
? m
A io
a�
NV
3 m O
� Om
zz
N �l9
a
I �
O
Midwest Maintenance & Mechanical a' Floor Plan R
11 a � Golden Valley, MND
a� � SBgP>
LAUREL AVENUE
W
BUILDING Z
BITUMINOUS W
BITUMINOUS
BITUMINOUS VJ
710 PENNSYLVANIA AVE �Z
1-STORY BRICK BUILDING BITUMINOUS
J
z
BUILDING
W
SCALE
0 30 60 90 150
APR 2 2 2016
BY:
r
r.
y
700 Pennsylvania —1 space on-site
710 Pennsylvania—22 space (20 to the east, 2 to the south)
750 Pennsylvania—10 spaces to the north of the building
12 spaces reserved for employees of Morrie's Cadillac
ECEIVE-
MAY 16 2016
BY:
ORDINANCE NO. 605, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 150
710 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Morrie's Heritage Car Connection, 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 11.47, by approving a Conditional Use
Permit for a certain tract of land at 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South, thereby allowing a
rental business for classic automobiles in the Mixed Use Zoning District.
This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the findings of the Planning
Commission pursuant to City Code Section 11.80, Subd. 2(G), which findings are hereby
adopted and incorporated herein as follows:
1. Morrie's has identified a demand for classic car rentals and believes there is a viable
market for their operation.
2. An automobile rental business is consistent with the Mixed Use designation of this
property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the surrounding property values.
The area is generally occupied by light industrial or manufacturing uses with car
dealerships to the east.
4. The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and staff does not
expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of
parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated.
5. The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the
location.
6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels.
7. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Staff does not anticipate a negative change in the visual quality of the property. The
applicant has indicated that the building will be painted and additional signage installed.
10.Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is
a non-residential area with adequate parking to serve the use.
This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued
including, but not limited to the following specific conditions:
1. Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016,
with signage to indicate use.
2. All vehicles must be parked on paved surfaces and no vehicles may be located in the
accessible parking discharge areas. Accessible parking discharge areas shall be signed
as required by code.
3. No dealership inventory vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site.
4. Due to the change in occupancy, the applicant shall submit for review a code analysis
from a registered architect.
5. The building shall be completely protected with a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
Ordinance No. 605 -2- June 21, 2016
6. The fire alarm system in the building shall meet NFPA 72 and UL Certifications.
7. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire
inspection after occupying the space.
8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
9. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows:
All that part of the Southwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter Section 5, Township 117,
Range 21, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 5; thence West on the North line of said
Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, 297.7 feet; thence South parallel with the
West line of said Section 217.71 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land
hereby to be described; thence continuing South along said parallel line 140.71 feet; thence
East parallel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the
East line thereof; thence North along the East line thereof to a point where a line drawn
through the point of beginning and parallel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter intersects said East line; thence West parallel with the North line of
said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the point of beginning.
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 21 st day of June, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city 0 01
r
ldenMEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
4. C. MS4 General Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, 2015 Annual Report to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Prepared By
Jeff Oliver P.E., City Engineer
Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician
Summary
As authorized by the Clean Water Act of 1972 and its amendments, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) oversees the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program which regulates point and non-point sources of pollution into our nation's
waterways. Point sources include pipes and ditches, and non-point sources include overland
precipitation runoff. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) manages the permit
program for EPA in Minnesota.
Cities like Golden Valley, which operate their own storm sewer systems, are required to obtain a
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit from MPCA. The permit allows
Golden Valley to discharge stormwater into public receiving waters. It also requires that the City
develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)to reduce the
contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges.
Golden Valley's SWPPP addresses the six minimum control measures outlined in the MS4 permit
requirements:
1. Public Education and Outreach
2. Public Involvement and Participation
3. Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination
4. Construction Site Runoff Control
5. Post Construction Runoff Control
6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping
The holding of an annual public meeting and preparation of an annual report are requirements of
the MS4 permit. The meeting has been advertised for June 21, 2016, at 7 pm. The City must
create a record of the public comments received, either written or oral. The public input must be
considered and a record of decision must be added to the annual report to MPCA.
Attachments
• Resolution Issuing a Negative Declaration of Need for Revisions to the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (1 page)
Recommendation
Motion to adopt Resolution Issuing a Negative Declaration of Need for Revisions to the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Program.
Resolution 16-43 June 21, 2016
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
FOR REVISIONS TO THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) its permit application for operation of the City's Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) on March 10, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the permit requires that the City develop a plan for regulating and
improving stormwater discharge commonly referred to as the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP); and
WHEREAS, staff has been working to meet the objectives set forth in the SWPPP
and is required to report to the MPCA on the status of the plan's implementation on an
annual basis; and
WHEREAS, the City has placed notification of a public hearing in the City's official
newspaper and has held a public hearing to report on progress made in implementation of
the SWPPP and to take public testimony; and
WHEREAS, comments made during the public hearing will be incorporated into the
City Council record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Golden Valley has determined
that no revisions to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program are required and staff is
hereby directed to file the annual report with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
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 rry
golden MEMORANDUM
a �,'.� Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
4. D. Public Hearing- Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map and Official Zoning Map -
9050 Golden Valley Road - City of Golden Valley, Applicant
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
The City, acting as the applicant, is proposing to redesignate the property at 9050 Golden Valley
Road from Residential - High Density to Commercial - Office and to rezone the property from High
Density Residential (R-4)to Business and Professional Office (BPO).
Background and Existing Conditions
9050 Golden Valley Road is currently occupied by a vacant fast food restaurant (formerly a Taco
Bell/KFC). There is an existing Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru use.
This property- along with 9000 Golden Valley Road -was redesignated from Commercial - Retail
to Residential - High Density and rezoned from Commercial to High Density Residential in mid-
2015 due to concerns by the City Council that the vacant fast food restaurants could be used for
auto repair or other "high impact" uses.
At the City Council meeting of August 18, 2015, where the changes were approved, it was stated
by the City Attorney that non-conforming commercial uses could still be allowed to occupy the
vacant properties as long as the nonconforming status was maintained. Once the nonconforming
status was lost, the properties would only be available for High Density Residential development.
9000 Golden Valley Road is now slated for development as a senior apartment building.
The owner of 9050 Golden Valley Road has a party interested in the property for use as a credit
union. Conversations with staff have been ongoing over the past few months and this seemed to
be an appropriate use under the nonconforming status. However, subsequent investigation by
the City Attorney determined that due to the specific language included on the existing
Conditional Use Permit for the property, the only nonconforming use that can occupy the
property is a fast food restaurant with a drive thru. This is a much more stringent restriction than
was previously understood by the property owner, staff, or the City Council in 2015.
The property owner has balked at this new restriction and has stated that he does not wish to sell
the property for residential use or for a fast food restaurant. In fact, had he been aware of this
restriction he would have opposed the rezoning to High Density Residential as the option to allow
many other nonconforming commercial uses would not have been available as was assumed.
General Land Use Plan Map Amendment
Redesignating the property for Commercial - Office would allow the property owner to pursue
other, non-residential uses, while limiting the types of commercial uses that could locate there.
Zoning Map Amendment
Rezoning the property for Business and Professional Office would accomplish two goals. First, it
would open up the property for a number of conforming commercial uses, including the credit
union which is interested in purchasing the site. Second, the limitations within the BPO zoning
district would prohibit the types of"high impact" uses the Council feared could locate on these
properties (ie, auto repair, car sales, etc.).
Discussion at Planning Commission
At the Planning Commission meeting on June 7,the Commissioners discussed the vision for this
area and stressed they believed it was their obligation to follow the direction of the City Council
to encourage higher density development- primarily residential uses but with some appropriate
office and retail uses. Understanding that the alternative to the proposed changes would likely be
the reuse of the property by a fast food restaurant, they felt this was an acceptable trade-off in
the short term with the hope for redevelopment in the longer term. The Commission was
sympathetic to the property owner's situation but voted to recommend denial of the proposed
amendment and rezoning by a vote of 0-6.
Additional Information and Recommendations
Staff believes that this area in the northeast quadrant of Highways 55 and 169 is well-suited for the
application of a new Mixed Use zoning district that would allow for a range of housing, office, and
limited commercial uses located in close proximity and decided by the market rather than
predetermining which use would be appropriate for a given property. Revision of the existing 1-394
Mixed Use zoning district to accommodate this vision will take time to develop and will necessitate
a holistic review of potential locations for this district within the City. Staff anticipates conducting
this exercise as part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
However, staff is also aware that this vision is just that- an idea that may or may not come to
fruition as the City's zoning districts are revisited over the next few years. Given this uncertain
future and the zoning districts that exist today, the City is left to consider the tradeoffs between
rezoning the property at 9050 Golden Valley Road and paving the way for the potential
establishment of a credit union, or keeping the existing residential zoning and seeing the building
reused for a fast food restaurant. The Council's past concerns regarding "high impact" commercial
uses, coupled with the limited interest in the site for residential use, lead staff to believe that the
proposed rezoning to BPO has the best chance of filling a long-vacant building with a use that is
compatible with the surrounding properties.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated May 23, 2016 (4 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated May 23, 2016 (2 pages)
• Letter from the Property Owner dated June 14, 2016 (1 page)
• Business and Professional Offices Section of City Code (5 pages)
• General Land Use Plan Map (1 page)
• Official Zoning Map (1 page)
• Resolution Amending the General Land Use Plan Map Designating 9050 Golden Valley Road
from Residential - High Density to Commercial - Office (1 page)
• Ordinance#606, Rezoning 9050 Golden Valley Road from High Density Residential to Business
and Professional Offices (1 page)
Recommended Actions
Motion to adopt Resolution Amending the General Land Use Plan Map Designating 9050 Golden
Valley Road from Residential-High Density to Commercial-Office.
Motion to adopt Ordinance #606, Rezoning 9050 Golden Valley Road from High Density
Residential to Business and Professional Offices.
708 696 690. _._,.
682 680 676
640 e
672
668e670
•
701
Subject Property:
201 1111*2 1048
ss s4 e a t s a s • • • 0
884(8838
8
1!450156168186190 9050 Golden Valley Rd. `202 • • •
110 10911103A1031020 86622 6280831•29158#181 632634S 23 •
0 • •• ii107 2
626 630 638'642 646 •
650 209 2(205B 204 >
s 00 • 4205A Q
- --- --- --- 208
71u106 12)-153 u 7th Ave
924012 a 10 12 + p
Joel 7 9E 11 +
9290 91408� 845
' 8900
' M
9.80 123 53
9326 1211=3 04 7181019000
1 9030 9000
010 12 9200 12
7 9 ii 9210 9110 9f 10 600
>tr
Goldin Valley Rd
8950
9.5 9300 9201 9100 90410 0
•
State ltwy NO -
- -- - 8
to ttv+Y NO 55 - 439
Melr+oliat NwY 4
' I p15O^ 8951 8945 Z
433 *
9031 433 Q 4
_ -
9.131 Z
424 423 A
>
9141,101 02 421 Q
c �
304 303 in
3-2.9147 347 w 410 8928 415
3.362g .19131A24 8920 8912
* 205 304G205iG10103 _
4L,102
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 9
0.Other Impacts to the City and Re idents: Staff does not anticipate any other
'Negative effects of the proposed u . The location is a non-residential ar with
a uate parking to serve the use
Conditions:
1. No assembly a shall be permitt until the Inspecti ivision approves and
issues a Certific of Occupancy
2. Parking spaces sha designat as shown he Parking Plan dated May 16,
2016, with signage to in to us
3. All vehicles must be parked a ed s ces and no vehicles may be located in
the accessible parking discharg . Accessible parking discharge areas shall
be signed as required by code.
4. No dealership inventory vehicl all b ded/unloaded or stored on-site.
5. Landscaping improvements I b added to prevent parking in designated
grass areas.
6. Due to the change in upancy, a applicant shall mit for review a code
analysis from are ' ered archite .
7. The building sh e completely otected with a NFPA 13 prinkler system.
8. The fire alarm stem in the buildi g shall meet NFPA 72 and ertifications.
9. The applic shall contact the G en Valley Fire Department to s dule a routine
fire inspe on after occupying the pace.
10. This a oval is subject to all othe tate, federal, and local ordinances, r lations,
or la with authority over this dev opment.
11. F ' re to comply with any of the to s of this permit shall be grounds for
r ocation.
4. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment—
9050 Golden Valley Road — CPAM-59
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 9050 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
High Density Residential to— Commercial-Office.
5. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 9050 Golden Valley Road —
Z022-05
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 9050 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To rezone the property from High Density Residential (R-4) to
Business and Professional Offices.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 10
The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 5 and 6 were combined.
Zimmerman explained the City's proposal to redesignate and rezone the property located at
9050 Golden Valley Road from High Density Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional
Offices. He discussed the history of the property and stated that prior to August 2015, the
property was zoned Commercial and occupied by a fast food restaurant. The City rezoned
the property to High Density Residential and the property owner was told he may continue
with non-conforming commercial uses or switch to residential.
Zimmerman explained that the property owner intended to sell the property for use as a
credit union however,previously undiscovered language in the existing Conditional Use
Permit limits any non-conforming use to "Fast Food Restaurant (with drive thru) only." This
language limits the options and the property would have contested the rezoning done in
2015 if this had been known at the time. He stated that there is no legal way to remove the
existing Conditional Use Permit or amend the language to allow for other non-conforming
uses since the property is now zoned High Density Residential. Redesignating the property
to Commercial-Office and rezoning it to Business and Professional Offices would allow for a
limited range of commercial uses while avoiding the higher impact uses that concerned the
City Council. Redesignating and rezoning the property would also be consistent with the
vision of a new Mixed Use zoning district to be created and implemented in this area as part
of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Waldhauser asked if the property is redesignated and rezoned to Business and Professional
Offices if a retail use could be proposed. Zimmerman stated that limited retail services
would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.
Kluchka asked about the uses across the street at 9100 and 9010 Golden Valley Road.
Zimmerman stated that one of the properties is Chip and Putt which is open seasonally, and
the other is a small vacant office building.
Baker questioned if this proposal is a creative solution because there is no other way to
eliminate the existing Conditional Use Permit. Zimmerman stated that if the existing
Conditional Use Permit is rescinded the only option left to the property owner is High
Density Residential. Baker said his concern is that the City wants this area to be a vibrant
residential/mixed use area and a credit union isn't a particularly attractive use to get the City
where it wants to go. Zimmerman stated that several other uses could occur if the property
is zoned Business and Professional Offices even though a credit union is what is being
discussed. He said he agreed with Baker about a new mixed use zoning district for the area,
but said there are no good solutions until that is created.
Baker questioned what the consequence would be in leaving the property zoned High
Density Residential even though it may not be fair to the owner. Zimmerman stated that the
property could be used by another fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. Waldhauser
questioned if the City would rather have that use. Baker said with the new residential uses
in the area a creative fast food use might be good.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 11
Segelbaum asked if a credit union with a drive-thru would need a Conditional Use Permit if
the property is zoned Business and Professional Offices. Zimmerman said yes.
Waldhauser asked if the property is 100 feet wide as required in the Business and
Professional Offices zoning district. Zimmerman said yes.
Blum asked about the height of the buildings to the east and west of this property.
Zimmerman stated that the building to the west is a two-story residential building with 1-
story garages and the building to the east will be an approximate 5-story, senior living
building.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Blum said it seems like the Planning Commission has received some guidance from the City
Council to make this area walkable. He said he does not see a one or two story building
getting them there, or achieving that goal with this proposed use.
Kluchka said when he looks at the size of this property he thinks it is a great place for a high
density residential use and a more pedestrian friendly area. He noted that there are some
existing commercial uses in the area and some other commercial uses that could be in
transition.
Waldhauser stated that when they've talked to credit unions in the past, access, visibility,
and signage were important to them and that this property has none of those. Zimmerman
stated that there is a credit union who is interested in the site and they say it meets their
needs. If that doesn't work out a fast food restaurant is the property owner's fallback use. He
added that the property owner has been marketing the property for residential uses and that
there hasn't been any interest at the listed price.
Waldhauser said she got the impression from the staff reports that some of the
misinformation that the property owner and the City discovered should have been figured
out sooner. Zimmerman said it has been an interesting process because the language in
the existing Conditional Use Permit limits the uses allowed on the property. Waldhauser
asked if the existing property owner purchased the property after it was rezoned to High
Density Residential. Zimmerman said he believes the property owner inherited the property
so he didn't buy it with wrong information.
Johnson asked how many units would be allowed on this property with the High Density
Residential (R-4) zoning classification. Zimmerman said the R-4 zoning would allow 12 or
more units per acre. Johnson stated that there are approximately 1,500 units currently being
created in Golden Valley so one thing the City needs to think about if the property is kept
high density residential, is if it would lighten the demand and just stagnate.
Baker said he wishes there was another route to get mixed use in this area where there will
be a lot of residential properties but with nothing to walk to like a book store, coffee shop, or
small grocery store. He said if the City wants areas like the West End development they
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 12
need to start doing it now. Zimmerman stated that part of the issue may be that the market
needs to catch up because there aren't enough people in the area yet to have a successful
coffee shop, etc. but there may be more demand in the future.
Segelbaum asked if the property were zoned Commercial if a credit union would be a
permitted use. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked why the proposed zoning is Business and
Professional Offices if the property owner has an offer from a credit union. Waldhauser said
there are some commercial uses nearby but it might not be so bad to have one office
building in the area.
Segelbaum said just because the property hasn't been developed into R-4 yet, doesn't
mean that it won't be in the future. He said it seems appropriate to make this a walkable
area and he is not sure this proposal gets the City where it wants to be. He added that it
seems like "spot zoning."
Johnson questioned if a credit union would be allowed if the property was zoned Mixed Use.
Zimmerman said it would depend on how the language was written and what the vision is
for the area. Johnson asked if the current 1-394 Zoning Code language would need to be
completely re-invented. Zimmerman said the 1-394 language was tailored to the 1-394
corridor, so it couldn't be used in this area now, but it could maybe be scaled down and
improved for use in this area.
Baker said he is opposed to this proposal because it feels like "spot zoning." He said if the
property ends up being a fast food use for a couple of years during the Comprehensive
Planning update process that feels more flexible to him than a credit union. Kluchka agreed
and said he would like there to be some more patience and time with this property. He said
pushing the current proposal because of perceived mistakes isn't a way to plan and he
would rather see a restaurant type of use on this property and he would also like to see the
properties to the west redeveloped into residential properties. Segelbaum agreed.
Waldhauser agreed and said she is sympathetic to the property owner but she thinks the
current zoning is appropriate.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
denial of the proposal to change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
High Density Residential to Commercial-Office and to recommend denial of the proposal
to rezone the property from High Density Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional
Offices.
--Short Recess--
6. Reports on Meet' gs of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
uncil, Board o Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Zimmerman di sed e v requests on the upcoming Board of Zoning Appeals
agenda and state a will be a presentation of the new Brookview Community
Center at the a Commission meeting.
city
90
1 d le .�Y 1 : MEMORANDUM
t r Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: May 23, 2016
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing–Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map and
Official Zoning Map –9050 Golden Valley Road–City of Golden Valley, Applicant
Summary
The City, acting as the applicant, is proposing to redesignate the property at 9050 Golden Valley
Road from Residential - High Density to Commercial - Office and to rezone the property from High
Density Residential (R-4)to Business and Professional Office (BPO).
Background and Existing Conditions
9050 Golden Valley Road is currently occupied by a vacant fast food restaurant (formerly a KFC).
There is an existing Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru use.
This property—along with 9000 Golden Valley Road—was redesignated from Commercial - Retail
to Residential - High Density and rezoned from Commercial to High Density Residential in mid-
2015 due to concerns by the City Council that the vacant fast food restaurants could be used for
auto repair or other "high impact" uses.
At the City Council meeting of August 18, 2015, where the changes were approved, it was stated
by the City Attorney that non-conforming Commercial uses could still be allowed to occupy the
vacant properties as long as the nonconforming status was maintained. Once the nonconforming
status was lost, the properties would only be available for High Density Residential development.
9000 Golden Valley Road is now slated for development as a senior apartment building.
The owner of 9050 Golden Valley Road has a party interested in the property for use as a credit
union. Conversations with staff have been ongoing over the past few months and this seemed to
be an appropriate use of the nonconforming status. However, investigation by the City Attorney
subsequently determined that due to the specific language included on the existing Conditional
Use Permit for the property, the only nonconforming use that can occupy the property is a fast
food restaurant. This is a much more stringent restriction than was previously understood by the
property owner, staff, or the City Council back in 2015.
The property owner has balked at this new restriction and has stated that he does not want to
sell the property for residential use or for a fast food restaurant. In fact, had he been aware of
this restriction he would have opposed the rezoning to High Density Residential as the option to
allow many other nonconforming Commercial uses would not have been available as was
assumed.
General Land Use Plan Map Amendment
Redesignating the property for Commercial - Office would allow the property owner to pursue
other, non-residential uses, while limiting the types of commercial uses that could locate there.
Zoning Map Amendment
Rezoning the property for Business and Professional Office would accomplish two goals. First, it
would open up the property for a number of conforming commercial uses, including the credit
union which is interested in purchasing the site. Second, the limitations within the BPO zoning
district would prohibit the types of"high impact" uses the Council feared could locate on these
properties (ie, auto repair, car sales, etc.).
Additional Information
Staff believes that this area in the northeast quadrant of Highways 55 and 169 is well-suited for the
application of a new Mixed Use zoning district that would allow for a range of housing, office, and
limited commercial uses to be decided by the market rather than predetermining which use would
be appropriate for a given property. Revision of the existing 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district to
accommodate this vision will take time to develop and will necessitate a holistic review of potential
locations for this district within the City. Staff anticipates conducting this exercise as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update over the next two years.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, redesignating 9050 Golden
Valley Road from Residential - High Density to Commercial - Office.
Staff also recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, rezoning 9050 Golden Valley Road
from High Density Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional Office.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Business and Professional Office Section of City Code (5 pages)
Official Zoning Map (1 page)
General Land Use Plan Map (1 page)
June 14,2016
To Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager City of Golden Valley, MN
From: Bob MacGillivray, Managing Member, MacGillivray Ranch, LLC
Dear Mr.Zimmerman,
Our company owns a property located at 9050 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. We have owned this
property for over a decade,the past two years the property has sat vacant due to a bankruptcy of the long term
tenant who was also the area franchisee for Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The MacGillivray Ranch, LLC is a small family company based in California. Our name is derived from our former
five generation farming and ranching company. The family property was sold due to severe dementia of my Father
coupled with a severe head injury to my brother from a farming incident leaving that member in a coma for 2 1/2
years when he later died 60 days after my Father. The ranch was unmanageable for my aging mother so we sold it
to buy this property in Golden Valley among two others to support my mother in retirement. Loans were secured to
make up for the monies needed to complete their purchases.
For the first few years the property paid its way, however the tenant was continuously having financial
problems. Then over 2 '/2 years ago the checks stopped coming. The tenant declared bankruptcy. The building sat
in limbo for months as the process proceeded. Since the lease was a NNN we were not responsible for taxes and
upkeep until they vacated the property. We were left with $200,000 of bad debt and only a settlement of$3,500 from
the bankruptcy court.
We have vigorously marketed the property with little luck. We turned down multiple offers from used car dealerships
before the rezoning hoping to keep the property viable for what we felt was its best use. We have had little luck with
Nationally Branded fast food franchises. We have strong interest from no name food operators who would pay far
less for the property and who would likely have a high turnover. We can fill this property with perpetual occupants
like this until the end of time.
We were then unilaterally rezoned to high density residential against our wishes. We never asked to be rezoned, in
fact we asked that we would not have this change. Regardless, the change to our zoning was done against our
wishes. Our only offers then came in at hundreds of thousands of dollars lower than our asking price because of the
down zoning. These offers would not even satisfy the debt on the property.
We continue to face$30,000 per year property taxes and thousands a month in utilities, alarm and facility
management with zero income. We have had repeated break-ins resulting in tens of thousands of dollars of damage.
The most recent was just weeks ago when someone attempted to steal the copper from the parking lot lights. The
property is putting our very modestly sized company in jeopardy with our lender as they have had us cross
collateralize our other properties to the subject property or they would have called the loan, it has gotten so bad that
we are hopeful to make it through the summer without losing the property to foreclosure.We have a very patient
lender, thus far,their patience is drawing to an end.
Four months ago we thought we had our prayers answered with a Credit Union who gave us a very strong offer that
would pay off the debt and allow us to walk away from this property with enough money to pay the taxes. We were
very close to closing but the deal disintegrated due to the down zoning. We had a very strong back up offer from a
dental office,we had to decline this offer due to the same zoning issue.
We feel establishment of either a Credit Union with drive through or a Dental office would pose a no negative effect
on the area. We feel either would be a positive addition to the property.
We are respectfully asking that we can pursue an immediate rezoning of the land so that we can finally sell this
property that has hung over our head like a very expensive dark cloud for years now. We ask for Golden Valley's
help for the ability to exit this property without having to go through the foreclosure or short sale process. We think
our sale to Affinity Credit Union allows this to happen while providing the community with a financial institution who
believes in the neighborhood and will be an important commercial fixture for years to come.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert MacGillivray
Managing Member
MacGillivray Ranch, LLC
§ 11.45
Section 11.45: Business and Professional Offices
Zoning District
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The purpose of the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District is to provide
areas wherein there may be erected, maintained and used, offices for persons
engaged in business pursuits not involving the sale of or handling of goods, wares,
merchandise or commodities, as for example, accountants, insurance brokers,
realtors, fiscal agents and the like; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
interpreted to prohibit in such districts the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or
commodities by sample, as for example, by manufacturer's representatives.
Subdivision 2. District Established
Properties shall be established within the Business and Professional Offices Zoning
District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter,
and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.45, Subdivision 2
by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.45 and which shall
become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set
forth herein. In addition the Business and Professional Offices Zoning Districts thus
established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and
established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the
City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
*Subdivision 3. Building Height
No building in this zoning district shall exceed three (3) stories in height at the front
or street grade level, unless a Conditional Use Permit has been granted allowing
such building or structure to exceed three (3) stories in height.
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
*Subdivision 4. Yard Restrictions
A. Front Yard Setbacks. Front yards shall be provided for all buildings as
follows:
1. No building or other structure in the Business and Professional Offices
District shall be located closer than thirty-five (35) feet from the property
line along any abutting street. The thirty-five (35) foot front setback as
described above shall all be landscaped.
2. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the front setback shall be
increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or
each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet.
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 5
§ 11.45
B. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. Side yards and rear yards shall be provided for
all buildings as follows:
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
1. In the case of premises abutting a Residential or R-2 Residential Zoning
District, side and rear yards of such premises shall be not less than fifty
(50) feet in depth or width, of which at least twenty-five (25) feet
adjacent to the lot line or property line shall be planted, landscaped and
maintained as a buffer zone.
Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-15-02
2. In the case of premises abutting on a Multiple Dwelling Zoning District or
an Institutional Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than
thirty (30) feet in depth or width, of which at least the fifteen (15) feet
adjacent to the lot line shall be planted, landscaped and maintained as a
buffer zone.
3. In the case of premises abutting on another Business and Professional
Offices Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than twenty
(20) feet in depth or width for each building, tract, lot or premises of
which at least one-half (1/2) the setback as measured from the lot line
shall be landscaped and planted.
4. In the case of premises abutting on a Commercial or Industrial Zoning
District, side yards and rear yards shall be not less than twenty (20) feet
in depth and width of which at least one-half (1/2) the setback as
measured from the lot line shall be landscaped and planted.
5. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the side and rear setbacks
shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3)
stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30)
feet.
*Subdivision S. Area Restrictions
No building or other structure in this zoning district shall occupy more than forty
percent (40%) of the tract of land on which it is located. An additional twenty
percent (20%) of the tract of land shall be allowed for the construction of a parking
structure.
*Subdivision 6. Lot Area
No building or other structure located in this zoning district shall be located on a
parcel of land that is less than one (1) acre in area or less than one hundred (100)
feet in width.
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 5
§ 11.45
*Subdivision 7. Conditional Uses
A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted
within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business
and Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or
the service they provide to the public. These conditional uses require
particular considerations as to their proper location in relation to adjacent
established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the City. The
conditions controlling the location and operation of such conditional uses are
established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 396, 2nd
Effective Date: 3-28-08
B. Authority. The Council shall have the authority, after having received the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, to permit the following types
of the conditional uses of land or structures, or both, within a Business and
Professional Offices District, if the Council finds that the proposed location
and establishment of any such use will be desirable or necessary to the
public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compatible with
other uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the selected site.
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
1. Buildings exceeding three (3) stories in height, subject to the provisions
of Subdivision 5, Subparagraph A, Item 2, and Subparagraph B. above,
and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
2. Recreational facilities such as ball fields, swimming pools and
playgrounds.
3. Daytime activity centers and/or other facilities providing school and/or
training for retarded or handicapped people.
4. Financial institutions, including drive-in facilities.
5. Limited retail services within a professional office building.
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
6. Heliports, as herein defined.
Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 5
§ 11.45
7. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with the
uses specifically described above.
Source: Ordinance No. 643
Effective Date: 11-16-84
8. Adult Day Care Center.
Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-13-02
9. Child Care Facilities.
Source: Ordinance No. 396, 2nd
Effective Date: 3-28-08
*Subdivision 8. Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District:
A. Offices
B. Essential Services - Class I
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
*Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses
The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District:
A. Essential Services - Class I
B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be
required for accessory structures in this Zoning District:
1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to
the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In
that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front
setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing
principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage
or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition
to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be
built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be
considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of
separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and
the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the
existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of
separation can be met.
2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the
required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along
a street right-of-way line.
Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 5
§ 11.45
3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than
the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a
side or rear yard property line.
4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no
less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other
accessory structure.
5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10)
feet from an alley.
6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning
District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed
ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory
structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space.
7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty
(30) inches into a required setback.
8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory
structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure
shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an
accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1000) square feet or
less than one hundred-twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory
structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses,
gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for
storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling,
except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only
on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building
code.
9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the
principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials
as determined by the City Manager or his designee.
10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District
require a building permit.
11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures
and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used
to meet the required number of parking spaces.
Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 05-25-06
*Renumbering Source (Subd. 3-9):
Ordinance 346, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 7-1-06
Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 5
g g S a J
H
a a C 9 �
o G t C
m '
W 5 m E Y $ $ € = a 8 8
le e O
LA_
O N `o m m Q y N a
ll1 N R� C v a •� w y J c $
y Ip a' N U_ _ v t/)
jy J = C ► to j
R N C y LL d IY (L °W'
.2 .> o
L d E �
1 W = 3o aI m rn_ 4) WE m L rn v .x n U m aI CL °� m c
Z J 2 0 �' y J 0 cn a In 0 tz ( v " o
5110 dtl9N NIW 30 AII� I10d V3NNIIN 30 A11.J
.............. ,. ..�, ----------------------
z
-- ---_ _ 1 ._ �sRw°.ys_u____rs__s•s _ ___..___._�.._.1, --sx,n,.•,,,,,,,,.
11 1 t 4c
- p
1,
U yV 5y�
eTM' L�
p yrj
.Y R
S110 d A11
x x,
e
a,
altlasNtaaoa
30 A1/3 Y L
$y
-- ----'
s _ _
I
x
.,v.,� _ , "i e 7 ✓ }ism , —.� `� -
n
a
" d' `a
4
I + t m
t
c
.a, t
\l
I ru °• ....o '-1n,�ti,.-_ "....- ...�I'�. `__�� {{��ILi L. � �S ._�4'-� �" :a t i.5 h, � � a❑ a^`.e,+° i
I I,
v: 5$
, _ ��, •' fir- �� li I.—
_ s _
Y f . , of •i T x°nv.nN x vq i - N r �j 1w1� -\\4 .. Y I
I
{y
_F-1 T
%m\
x N
NS
RRM
7tl1SA8J d0 A.LIJ � "'°"'" xp'°� „, g"•
r re
e F x•,r... M , " L. ,i�
(F \
2 \
• � • _ Q u ,M dY �
_
,x
I'gN.1 I..
,
Nbc 1`` �Ar
IPI
:fig' R• '`nh��= �r�t"�'�� �'` m'wtia',���I�I� �'%I r � ° \\`` D
J
r---------------------
77
w way`_ � � � -- M� � \ I
N
"^"9
�_I.xww.•e... i-� :..,. ' ._ 'R - �\ i
z d '
C� }-Ttt1�� - �,1 w :
v r �;. ,.�1_ til F++'-�{� �-�-�--�111111����f` � � I ,s B 'a,,,• �\\� !
_ r r
TT
t - , y E
Yom'
�4N �_ x vm•w>'vn-�. l�„. ._�i �,�
r
A
0 N J
Ln
]
p
MEN
W,
Is
�
-------------------------------- -
a
� w
H111ONXId do.II O T H1flo NXI !Xxvd 911101,1S
d0 ASIJ � d0 A1IJ 0���u
-J X" n C, i Pg ;w79
_ Jr tiff?Y( "s4i
a
y
v a a d s W
�••� ;.r, 09 E^• "� y 4C. y7 a-� C_ a a>
E
44-jQ) fn 9 'd•. ° a° @E �' lv
E g N 0
pq I v o l n c to
p"i N IE
J o >~ a3 «+ + a a.a + t1, o g-
u 8 v m i nn
r: gg '
f �m
•, ' ' Q CC v w Q A D A A v gagui
c>¢r
O o V
y
, c2 oUw v1e
N
11V Z
C zj QpU Q E N L o p O
"C3 ," �•. ,� w 3 u E 0 $ o Z r W c c7
Oas
,.: W 873F, Cn , a` fir= Q c s 2Q c '° i 8
CL a
2 HN v
N
MON NONE a a � a a "a a
0 ,a �; � o �o < a
S110dVaNNIW d0 AIL) I10d VdNNIW 10 A.LIJ
IWAMXp »
m #fit O °� ry •- II' a>
O
yy_ `
CO
20
w s S 3 Y
m
a
OdVg NNIW AO A.LIJ
t
^r
97tlQSNIRROB.i—''te a .. �� �,.ai ^ 5' ..rr m a t
-._._..._.
PP
° .
a
» Y»x d»� a a _I i ..a� war gt•�# �>_,N..r ¢ IPI � d�'�a 8
d .� i II "`"r Yl NuY.• r s g.g. b� _ � r.°°e Fb^OO+nM � say.,.,
x t
�, � �' II d 0•X� � '°� it �� ¢�� � .d. �.` y; �� `�X ♦. I
s
y
r-
e
ox a.xv.X°onr ala•W'NIS b� °� 'nm r) wx° W8 I
6 r
»,ru, a x•xo » _ X�WWnq a • °°I,wv .t+,nn� �I I _ �� �/ B �� N
•'r
il.. �''h"•^» x.,.IM„� � WL ♦ »•�P� § u xw ro°„y�, r, �.� /J�/��°� � €� B
x»'r»m '.. a `O•r°a rm w, S
tb I
.�_. T ��._I.0 -._ .-. ._.Ni p9[__--._ ---+'-�--•' .Iran _ _ ____ ... . _ .---^�'-` IA. \ !i�r
'1VISKID aO x.uD�
CCits {SyY,yy�
lWxXx,N vro Xx•IM; - _all - z � •�' � 4 yy� ,.' i I�
a
I.
5 . b
cs'
\I
n
a � r
f ..
.;. -'�x.M. ...» -.� I \.�'�W» i L °� ...M ror.x•a°¢ u 6 j..� � O
o
uV
x s
""r•rN.n f � I C., .,,.,,� � � � y.we..x � r �w -.1� � �4
,T» xm•p.w s 3 i I ,,XXXI ,�.. / Porn` I I t” o- s.,r•orn• e .. \ I .
z
X ®�
LLL
L"P',
p l_
» o
3$ •.w
r'st'w^'°a,��
. N
4P
x >
N•w .. x.numn "' S $ ' W J 1 Ir 0 Y
3
gg ♦
I.»x x•,vw"" � ••rnn v y ``✓ 'a5 0 F�� � f �I \��� � �
a
i { On
0 et
I _
a
MCIO :n'•„„ .„ a I n rim j
5l rHSf10WA7d d0 x1IJ fi r” - __— I °
IIOWA a 9Ino 7
d J d0 A.LIJ cad
" � G c�ianc7n
Resolution 16-44 June 21, 2016
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP
DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT 9050 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD FROM
RESIDENTIAL-HIGH DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL-OFFICE
WHEREAS, the City Council has met at the time and place specified in a notice duly
published with respect to the subject matter hereof and has heard all interested persons,
and it appearing in the interest of the public that the General Land Use Plan Map as
heretofore adopted and enacted by the City of Golden Valley be amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that pursuant to the provision of Chapter 11.90, Subd. 7 of the City Code for the City
of Golden Valley, and subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council for
conformity with regional systems plan as provided in state law, the General Land Use Plan
Map for the City of Golden Valley is hereby amended by changing the property at 9050
Golden Valley Road to Commercial-Office.
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.
ORDINANCE NO. 606, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Rezoning 9050 Golden Valley Road from
High Density Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional Offices
City of Golden Valley, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is
amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts
of land from High Density Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional Offices.
Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cooperman Subdivision
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 21 st day of June, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
ATTEST: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city of I"
voldeni MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
4. E. Public Hearing-Amending Section 11.22 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District
Prepared By
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Summary
This public hearing was tabled at the City Council meeting on June 7, 2016, to allow for discussion
by the full City Council. In conducting research on the buildability of lots zoned for Moderate
Density Residential use (R-2 Zoning), staff has determined that the minimum setbacks, lot size,
and lot width requirements were not conducive to the construction of single family homes. While
single family homes are permitted in the R-2 District, the minimum lot size and lot width are larger
than those required in the R-1 Zoning District. Staff is recommending changes that accommodate
single family homes at the same density as two-family homes in the District. Staff is also
recommending the addition of essential regulations found in the R-1 District that are missing from
the R-2 District.
There are currently 27 properties zoned for Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in the City. Of
those 27 properties, 15 have single-family homes, 10 have two-family dwellings, and 2 are vacant.
All properties would conform to the proposed changes.
At the Planning Commission meetings on April 11 and May 9, Commissioners were supportive of
the adoption of the additional R-1 District requirements into the R-2 District. The changes to allow
single family homes at the same density as two family homes was discussed further. There was
concern about the potential for existing R-1 properties to be rezoned to R-2, but any application to
rezone a property from R-1 to R-2 would require City Council approval. After staff and the
Planning Commission update the Housing Chapter and Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan in 2017-2018, the City could then explore the option to rezone additional properties to R-2.
Staff is unlikely to support any rezoning applications from R-1 to R-2 until the Comprehensive Plan
update is completed. After further research by staff and two discussions with Planning
Commission, the Commission unanimously supported the recommended changes.
Attachments
• Memo to Planning Commission dated April 11, 2016 (7 pages)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated April 11, 2016 (5 pages)
• Memo to Planning Commission dated May 9, 2016 (5 pages)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated May 9, 2016 (4 pages)
• Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District
(12 pages)
• Ordinance#602, Amending Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (11 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #602, Amending Section 11.22 Moderate Density Residential Zoning
District.
city 0f .
golde _' MEMORANDUM
valley
P Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: April 11, 2016
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Subject: Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2)
Zoning District
Background
In conducting research on the buildability of lots zoned for Moderate Density Residential use (R-2
Zoning), staff has determined that the minimum setbacks, lot size, and lot width requirements
are insufficient when compared to the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District. Staff is recommending
changes that further clarify the purpose of the R-2 District, modify the dimensional standards to
meet that purpose, and add essential regulations missing from the R-2 District.
The Moderate Family Zoning District (previously called the Two-Family Zoning District) was
established in 1981, about 45 years after the first Zoning Code was adopted in Golden Valley. At
the time, this district did not allow single-family homes. It was created to allow duplexes. Since it
was geared toward duplexes, the lots were meant to be larger with greater setbacks to
accommodate two families rather than one.
In 2007, major changes were made to all Residential Zoning Districts. Single-family homes were
added to the list of permitted uses in the R-2 Zoning District to bring the existing single-family
homes on those lots into conformance. By not listing single-family homes as permitted in
previous years, those single-family homes were considered non-conforming uses and therefore
no additions could be made to those homes. This unintentionally resulted in lower reinvestment
in those homes. It is believed that some single-family homes were zoned for R-2 use because they
were located in areas that were envisioned for slightly higher density in the form of duplexes.
However, twin homes are not a popular housing product in the real estate market following the
great recession of 2008 and the homeowner liability lawsuits that have plagued the condominium
and townhome market for several years. When single-family homes were added to the list of
permitted uses back in 2007, the dimensional standards were not addressed. Staff would like to
take the opportunity to adjust the dimensional standards to adequately accommodate both
single-family homes as well as duplexes/twin homes.
Lot Size
The existing minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet does not adequately address the purpose
and intent of the R-2 Zoning District, which is to provide up to 8 units/acre of housing. An acre is
equivalent to 43,560 square feet. One acre of land
can only be divided into 3 lots under the existing Proposed Minimum Lot Size of 10,00o SF
regulations, which can only provide up to 6 Density Calculation for Two-Family Dwellings
units/acre. By reducing the minimum lot size to Permits upto8 units/acre
10,000 square feet, one acre of land can be i Acre=43,560 SF 200 x 200=40,000 SF
divided into 4 lots and provide up to 8 units/acre.
The minimum lot size in the R-1 District for most loo fr x 10o fr 1oofr x loop
properties is 10,000 square feet. Some areas of =10,0005F =1Qoo0sF
the city require a minimum size of 15,000 square 2 dwellings 2 dwellings
feet depending on the size of surrounding lots. permuted permitted
200 ft
In order to provide the option for small lot single- loop x loop loop x loop
family residential in the R-2 District, staff =-t0000sF =10000sF
recommends distinguishing a minimum lot size of 2 dwellings 2 dwellings
6,000 square feet for single-family homes in the R- permuted permitted
2 District. In this case, one acre of land can be
divided into 7 lots and provide up to 7 units/acre. 200 ft
The lot sizes established in the R-1 District provide up to 2-4 units/acre depending on the
neighborhood. The R-3 District provides up to 10-12 units/acre and the R-4 District provides over
12 units/acre.
Lot Width Lot Size=6,000 SF
Lot width is a very important regulation in
managing density and neighborhood character. Front
Without a minimum lot width, lots could be very =35 ft
narrow and deep. The minimum lot width in the Side Side
R-1 District is 80 feet. Staff proposes keeping a 5 ft = loft
minimum lot width of 100 feet for R-2 lots with
two-family dwellings and allowing a minimum lot Buildable Area
width of 50 feet for R-2 lots with a single-family lot = 2,100 SF
dwelling. There are 30 properties zoned for R-2 Depth 120
30%lot
residential in the City. All lots are wider than 100 = 120 ft coverage=
feet (see attached table for more details). house under
1,800 SF
Side Yard Setback footprint
As with lot width, side yard setbacks are an Rear=25
25 ft
important regulation that effects the character of
a neighborhood. Since extensive work was Lot Width=50 ft
completed in 2015 on new regulations for side
yard setbacks in the R-1 District, staff would like to incorporate that concept into the R-2 District
as well.
Garage Width
As has been discussed in the past, the front facades of homes on narrower lots have the potential
to be dominated by garage doors. Staff is interested in applying a maximum garage width to
homes in the R-2 zoning district in an effort to limit this effect.
Addition of R-1 Regulations to R-2 District
It has come to staff's attention that City Code Section 11.22 "Moderate Density Zoning District (R-
2)" has not been updated along with City Code Section 11.21 "Single Family Residential (R-1)"
over the last several years. Staff is recommending that multiple subdivisions be added to the R-2
District to make it further align with the R-1 District. The additions will help clarify many issues
that could potentially arise in the R-2 Zoning Districts. The subdivisions include:
• Side Wall Articulation
• Structure Width
• Height
• Paved Area
• Outdoor Storage
• Temporary Outdoor Storage
• Decks and Platforms
• Home Occupation Requirements
Properties Affected
There are currently 27 properties zoned for Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in the City. Of
those 27 properties, 15 have single-family homes, 10 have two-family dwellings, and 2 are
vacant. All properties would conform to the proposed changes.
Comparison of R-1 and R-2 Dimensional Standards (Existing and Proposed)
Highlighted boxes reflect the dimensional standards that staff is recommending be updated
Dimensional
Standard R-1 Single-Family R-2 Moderate Density R-2 Moderate Density
(Existing) (Proposed)
Lot Size 101000 SF if lots within 11,000 SF 6,000 SF (for single-
250 ft are on average < family homes)
18,000 SF
10,000 SF (for
15,000 SF if lots within duplexes/twin homes)
250 ft are on average >
18,000 SF
Lot Width 80 ft 100 ft
50 ft (for single-family
homes)
100 ft (for
duplexes/twin homes)
Side Yard Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft 15 ft Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft
Setback and 2:1 slope above 15 and 2:1 slope above 15
ft at setback line ft at setback line
Lots between 65 ft and Lots between 65 ft and
100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and 100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and
2:1 slope above 15 ft at 2:1 slope above 15 ft at
setback line setback line
Lots < 65 ft wide: 10% Lots < 65 ft wide: 10%
of lot width on north of lot width on north
and west sides and 20% and west sides and 20%
of lot width on south of lot width on south
and east sides and both and east sides and both
sides require 4:1 slope sides require 4:1 slope
above 15 ft at setback above 15 ft at setback
line line
Front Yard 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft
Setback
Rear Yard 25 ft 25 ft 25 ft
Setback
Structure > 22 ft No standard > 22 ft
Width
Side Wall Side wall > 32 ft long No standard Side wall > 32 ft long
Articulation must shift 2 ft in depth
must shift 2 ft in depth
for at least 8 ft for at least 8 ft
Structure Lots > 10,000 SF: < 30% < 30% coverage < 30% coverage
Coverage on coverage
Lot Lots > 5,000 SF: < 35%
coverage
Lots < 5,000 SF: < 40%
coverage
Impervious < 50% impervious < 50% impervious < 50% impervious
Surface
Height 28 ft for pitched roofs 30 ft for all roofs 28 ft for pitched roofs
25 ft for flat roofs 25 ft for flat roofs
Paved Area 3 ft setback No standard 3 ft setback
< 40% of front yard may <40%of front yard may
be paved be paved
Accessory All structures total < All structures total < All structures total <
Structures 1,000 SF 650 SF per dwelling 650 SF per dwelling
No single structure >
800 SF
Garden < 10 ft in height < 10 ft in height < 10 ft in height
Structures 5 ft setback to all 5 ft setback to all 5 ft setback to all
property lines property lines property lines
Garage Width No standard No standard 22 ft maximum width
Local Case Studies: Roseville, Minnetonka, and Eagan
Staff has investigated whether other cities accommodate small lot single-family residential in
their Zoning Codes. Several cities accommodate it, but at varied levels of difference when
compared to their R-1 Districts.
City of Eagan Residential Dimensional Standards
Zoning District R-1 (single-family) R-IS (small lot) R-2 (two-family)
Lot Size 12,000 8,000 15,000 or 7,500/unit
Lot Width 85 65 100 for single family
Front Setback 30or 50 for two-family
30 30
Side Setback 10 6 10
Rear Setback 15 15 15
Height 35 35 35
Building Coverage 20% 25% 20%
Key Observations: The City of Eagan has regulations that align the most with the staff
recommendations in this proposal. Eagan's Code states that the R1S District was created to
increase the variety of housing styles and values within the City.
City of Roseville Residential Dimensional Standards
Zoning District R-1 (single-family) R-Ssmall lot)) R-2 (two-family)
Lot Size 6,000 4,500 6,000
Lot Width 60 45 60
Front Setback 20 18 20
Side Setback 5 interior, 15 street 5 interior, 12.5 street 5 interior, 15 street
Rear Setback 20% lot depth, 10 10 and minimum
open space of 700 SF 20% lot depth, 10
Height 35 35
35
Building Coverage 20% 20% 20%
Key Observations: Roseville allows significantly smaller lot sizes, but there is small amount of the
lot that many be covered by the building. This may cause larger lot sizes than the minimum
amount allowed. R-S (small lot) standards are consistently 25% smaller than R-1 and R-2.
City of Minnetonka Residential Dimensional Standards
Zoning District R-1 (single-family) R-1A (small lot) R-2 (two-family)
up to 3 units/acre up to 3 units/acre
Lot Size 22,000 15,000 12,500/unit
Lot Width 110 75 55
Front Setback 35 35 35
Side Setback 10, sum of all sides
setbacks > 30 10 10
Rear Setback 40 or 20% of depth 30 or 20%of depth 30 or 20% of depth
Height 35 35 35
Building Coverage 20% 20% o
Buildable Area 3,500 2
2,400 2,400
Key Observations: Minnetonka's R-2 district was created to allow two-family dwellings, but not
to provide for increased residential densities in comparison to R-1. The dimensional standards for
the R-2 District are "per dwelling," not "per lot." The R-1A category is not an official Zoning
District, rather it is acknowledging the previously platted "lots of record" like Golden Valley has
on Rhode Island Avenue.
Rhode Island Avenue
Seven new single-family houses were built on Rhode
Island Avenue in the last 3 years and are an excellent
example of small lot single-family development in the
city. All of the lots are 50 feet wide and have a total lot _
size of 6,950 square feet. These lots were platted many ®_ 71 *
decades ago, so were not subjected to current subdivision
regulations which limit lot size and width. The homes are A }
zoned for R-1 and although they meet many of the setback requirements, variances were given
from the side wall articulation requirement and the additional side setback for structures over 15
feet in height. The corner lots also received variances from the setback requirement on one of
the front yards. A summary of each property's dimensions is attached.
Summary of Recommendations
Staff recommends amending Section 11.22 of the Zoning Code to modify lot size, lot width, and
side yard setbacks; and add regulations regarding structure width, side wall articulation, paved
area, outdoor storage, temporary outdoor storage, decks and platforms, and home occupation
requirements.
Staff would like to discuss further the trade-offs in the proposed lot sizes and lot widths, as well
as review the side setback and side wall articulation requirements and idea of a maximum garage
width.
Attachments
Summary of R-2 Zoned Properties (1 page)
Map of R-2 Zoned Properties (1 page)
Summary of Two-Family Dwellings in the R-1 Zoning District (1 page)
Map of Two-Family Dwellings in the R-1 Zoning District (1 page)
Summary of Recent Developments on Rhode Island Avenue (1 page)
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2016
Page 6
Kluchka asked if the City could have rezone the property prior to its sale. Zimmerman
id there was a small amount of time that t City knew the property was for sale. He
e ained that the property hasn't been on t Zoning Map or Land Use Map for many
year t has just been designated as right-o ay.
Baker ask if the original zoning on the pr erty was ever formally remov . Goellner
stated that th a is no evidence that it was er removed. Baker asked ut the risks if
the property is t rezoned. Zimmerman st ed that if there is no zon' on the property,
technically there no rules or requireme s. He added that the ' would like to avoid
any potential issues zoning it R-1.
Waldhauser said she is clined to zone th property R-1eems to fit in nicely with the
neighborhood and meets of the dimensi nal require nts. There would also be some
certainty as far as what can built on this roperty. , e said as far as natural habitat the
neighborhood still has all of Th dore Wirt Park . the back side of this property. She
added that she is also intereste keepin the fisting park access/connection located
to the south.
Baker asked if the excess right-of-way the existing park access could be
incorporated into the subject property. erman said MnDOT would have to be open to
allowing someone else to own and nt in so he thinks it makes sense to work with
MnDOT and the Park Board on ke ing t at a ess. Goellner added that with a noise
wall located to the south, it is unli ly Mn OT w d sell any of the right-of-way.
Segelbaum said the public is oncerned out the u owns in this situation and that he
thinks the best route is to r one the pro rty to R-1 to event the unknowns from
happening. He said he w Id also like to t the City Cou 'I know that the Planning
Commission would like maintain the tr it/park access. W hauser added that if the
remaining MnDOT ri -of-way property ere offered for sale, nd this property hadn't
been developed ye here is a possibilit the two could be put to ther and then
subdivided so rez ing this property no would end that.
MOVED by KI hka, seconded by Wald auser and motion carried una ' ously to
recommend pproval of the request to c ange the designation on the Ge ral Land Use
Plan Map m Right-of-Way to Residen al-Low Density for Lot 11, Block 8, est Tyrol
Hills (for erly 3900 Wayzata Blvd).
MOV by Kluchka, seconded by Wald user and motion carried unanimously to
re c mend approval of the request to r one Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly
3 0 Wayzata Blvd) from Right-of-Way t Single Family Residential (R-1).
--Short Recess--
4. Discussion Item —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending Moderate
Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District—ZO00-104
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2016
Page 7
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To discuss modifying the language regarding setbacks, lot size, and
lot width and adding other missing regulations to the Moderate
Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
Goellner stated that staff is proposing amendments to the Moderate Density Residential
(R-2) Zoning District because the dimensional standards were not addressed in 2008
when major amendments were made to all Residential Zoning Districts. Demographics
and housing demands are changing, and duplexes are not a common product in this
market.
Goellner stated that the suggested modifications can clarify the purpose for the R-2
Zoning District, they can accommodate new construction that meets market demand
and a variety of housing needs, and they can provide regulations that are currently only
in the R-1 Zoning District. She explained that small-lot, single-family residential
development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of housing options and
discussed several other cities' requirements for this type of housing.
Goellner summarized the staff recommendations including: requiring a lot size of 6,000
square feet for single-family homes, a minimum lot width of 50 feet for single-family
homes, the same height requirements, side yard setbacks, side wall articulation,
structure width, paved area coverage and setbacks, outdoor storage, deck
requirements, and home occupation requirements as lots in the R-1 Zoning District, and
also the consideration of a maximum garage width. She noted that there are 27
properties in the City affected by this proposal and all of them would meet the lot width
and size recommendations being proposed.
Goellner referred to the densities allowed in each residential zoning district and
explained that the stated purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to allow for up to 5 units
per acre, however due to the lot size requirements it really only allows 2-4 units per
acres. The stated purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to allow for up to 8 units per
acre, but the lot size requirements for two-family dwellings really allows 6 units per acre
and 3 units per acre for single-family dwellings. The stated purpose of the R-3 Zoning
District is to allow up to 10-12 units per acre, and the stated purpose of the R-4 Zoning
District is to allow for over 12 units per acre. She stated that staff is recommending
10,000 square feet for a minimum lot size for two-family dwellings to provide up to 8
units per acre, and 6,000 square feet for a minimum lot size for single-family dwellings
which provides up to 7 units per acre. Staff is also recommending that the lot width be
100 feet minimum for two-family dwellings, and 50 feet minimum for single-family
dwellings.
Goellner discussed the idea of a maximum garage width and noted that there are
currently no regulations in any residential zoning district regarding garage width. She
stated there are anticipated issues if lots are allowed to be narrower and said staff is
proposing that garages be limited to a maximum of 22 feet in width for single-family
dwellings in the R-2 Zoning District.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2016
Page 8
Goellner summarized the proposed modifications and stated that they could position the
R-2 Zoning District more appropriately with the regulations of all residential zoning
districts, they could provide opportunity to build single-family homes at the same density
as two-family homes, and they would add regulations that are missing, but assumed to
be applicable to the R-2 Zoning District.
Segelbaum asked if the City is required to have a certain amount of R-2 zoned
properties. Goellner stated that 5 units per acre is what the Metropolitan Council
requires, but the current Zoning Code only allows 2 to 3 units per acre. Zimmerman
added that the Metropolitan Council will review the City's Comprehensive Plan in order
to determine if Golden Valley can meet its population growth. Baker asked if the City
adopts the proposed R-2 amendments if it will then cause pressure to create more R-2
properties, or if the City is covered with the use of the R-4 Zoning District. Zimmerman
explained that the proposed amendments are less about density and more about
housing demand and offering a variety in housing styles.
Baker noted that the only block of R-2 zoned properties is on Harold Avenue and he
knows how hard it has been to develop those properties. Goellner stated that she
noticed the requirements in the R-2 Zoning District need to be aligned with the density
allowed in that district. Zimmerman added that the City Council wants to accommodate
some more density in the appropriate places but the tools the City has don't really work
so the R-2 Zoning District needs some updating and clarifying.
Waldhauser stated that the proposed changes would allow more single-family, small lot
developments without requiring a PUD. Segelbaum agreed.
Baker asked about the cons with the proposed changes. Goellner stated that it will need
to be clear in the Comprehensive Plan where the City wants R-2 zoned properties and
where it doesn't, which will make it easier to deny inappropriate proposals.
Segelbaum questioned if someone with a 100-foot wide lot could rezone it to R-2 and
then split it into two lots. Goellner stated that the land would also need to be guided in
the Comprehensive Plan for higher density. If the City wants to reduce the number of
rezoning applications it could also increase the rezoning application fee.
Segelbaum asked the Commissioners if they are in favor of making the R-2 Zoning
District more consistent with the R-1 Zoning District and to allow the same density with
smaller homes instead of duplexes similar to what has been done in some recent PUDs
like Laurel Ponds. Zimmerman stated that currently, a PUD was the only way to get a
product like Laurel Ponds. Baker asked if it is likely that instead of applying for a PUD
developers would just rezone a property to R-2 instead. Zimmerman said that could
potentially happen, but it is up to the City Council to approve a rezoning, whereas with a
PUD if a developer meets certain standards it is harder to deny their proposal.
Blum stated that changing the side yard setback requirements, articulation
requirements, height requirements, etc. in the R-2 Zoning District to match what is in the
R-1 Zoning District makes sense and will make it easier and more consistent with the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2016
Page 9
other residential districts. He stated that limiting the width of garages is also a smart
suggestion, but he has some concerns about the proposed lot width and lot size and
how it might change the R-1 Zoning District to look more like Minneapolis
neighborhoods with blocks and alleys which he isn't sure will be attractive and Golden
Valley could lose a competitive advantage. He said he thinks that R-2 properties will
likely appear in existing R-1 neighborhoods. He said it also seems that the City's use of
R-3 and R-4 have been good in maintaining R-1 areas and help justify mass transit and
other uses.
Johnson questioned what would stop someone from buying an R-1 property and
splitting it into two lots using the proposed R-2 requirements. Zimmerman stated that
the property would need to be rezoned in order to do that. He added that with a typical
subdivision if the proposal meets the City's requirements, the City has to approve it,
however the decision to rezone a property is almost entirely at the Council's discretion.
Baker said he is concerned that rezoning properties to R-2 could be a back door way to
subdivide R-1 properties. Waldhauser said that wouldn't happen if the proposed
rezoning were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zimmerman agreed and
noted that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map have to match.
Segelbaum said he would like the R-2 Zoning District to be consistent with the R-1
Zoning District, but there was opposition to similar changes just months ago with PUDs,
so it seems strange to him to recommend approval of the proposed changes now. He
stated that an aggregation of more R-2 properties, or a PUD concept seems better to
him than a mix of different zoning districts in one area. Kluchka suggested a policy
regarding spot zoning be created which would require a grouping together of R-2
properties. Goellner stated that when the City is determining where to put R-2 Zoning
Districts, staff can look at a conglomeration of areas.
Baker said he likes the idea of accommodating other types of housing, but these
changes have got to be about more than just the properties on Harold Avenue. He
asked staff if they can think of any areas where people would be amenable to rezoning
their neighborhood to R-2. Goellner referred to areas of R-1 zoned properties that
already conform to the proposed R-2 regulations. She stated that the City can continue
to not have a lot of properties in the R-2 Zoning District. She added that she would do
more research and show more examples of a variety of housing types within the same
area. Zimmerman suggested some properties along Douglas Drive might be appropriate
for R-2 zoning.
Segelbaum stated that the Planning Commission has heard from residents in the past
that they don't want lot sizes shrunk, and in fact, want them to be larger. Zimmerman
stated that there might be areas in the City where this zoning district works. He said
staff will look at the bigger picture and where it might be able to be used. Blum said he
is concerned about making it too easy to do this anywhere people want to do it.
Johnson said if the R-2 Zoning Districts are in the Comprehensive Plan then it's easy to
control. Segelbaum agreed, but said he thinks the City will see more rezoning
applications. Waldhauser said one benefit would be to allow more re-development in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2016
Page 10
modest housing and not just high end housing. Baker said he would like to see some
examples of where this would work.
Goellner said this item will be brought back to a future Planning Commission meeting
for a public hearing.
Reports on Meetings o the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zon' g Appeals and other Meetings
Zimm man stated that a PU Amendment for the Central Park Officewer is expected
to be s itted soon.
Waldhauser 'scussed an arti a that was in the SunPo garding the neighborhood
meeting policy.
6. Other Busin s
• Council Liais R port
No report was given.
7. Adjournmen
The meeting adjourned 9:16 p
John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
City of .
widen MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
J
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: May 9, 2016
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending Moderate
Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District
Summary
At the Planning Commission meeting on April 11, staff discussed potential changes to the R-2
Zoning District in order to address two issues. First, the R-2 District is lacking some of the
regulations currently included for homes in the R-1 District. Second, modifications to some of the
dimensional requirements of the R-2 District could allow it to be better used as a tool to provide
a wider variety of housing types in Golden Valley.
The Commission supported the adoption of the additional R-1 District requirements into the R-2
District. The changes to allow small lot single family homes were discussed further. The
Commission asked staff to return with suggestions for how this tool could be applied throughout
the city. There was discussion about the potential for existing R-1 properties to be rezoned to R-
2. Some Commissioners are concerned that several R-1 properties could be rezoned as R-2,
initiated by the City or a property owner.
Staff recommends adopting changes to the R-2 Zoning District prior to designating any additional
properties as R-2. It would be premature to rezone any properties to R-2 without analyzing,
defining, and clarifying the purpose of the District and all of its regulations. After staff and the
Planning Commission update the Housing Chapter and Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan in 2017-2018, then the City could explore the option to rezone additional properties to R-2.
Potential Priorities for R-2 Locations in 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (see attached map):
• Along streets with major reinvestment in infrastructure (Douglas Drive)
• Near major arterial roadways or activity centers
• Near frequent transit service (existing or planned)
• Some existing two-family dwellings (depending on location) (Xerxes Avenue)
• Conglomeration of single-family lots conforming to R-2 dimensions (Rhode Island Avenue)
There are currently 27 properties zoned for Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in the City. Of
those 27 properties, 15 have single-family homes, 10 have two-family dwellings, and 2 are
vacant. All properties would conform to the proposed changes.
Garage Requirements
The front fagades of homes on narrower lots have the potential to be dominated by garage
doors. Staff is recommending that a maximum garage width be established in the R-2 District in
order to mitigate this potential visual impact. Staff
proposes that the garage be limited to 65% of the home's
width. This would be measured using architectural
elevations. For a lot 50 feet in width, the maximum width s
of a home is limited to 35 feet by the side yard setback - --►
requirements. Therefore, a garage could be up to 22.75
feet wide measured from one exterior wall to the other
(22.75 feet is 65% of the 35 foot wide home). If a builder
or homeowner prefers a larger garage, then the lot must Rhode Island Avenue in Golden Valley
be wider. On Rhode Island Avenue, the lots are 50 feet wide and the garages are 20.5 feet wide.
For a Two-Family dwelling, it is recommended that the maximum width of the garage be limited
to 65% of the width of each dwelling. In the R-1 District, a single-family dwelling must have a two
stall garage unless an applicant can show adequate space for a second stall to be built in the
future without a variance. In the R-2 District, a two stall garage is required for single family
dwellings. For two family dwellings, each unit must have a one stall garage. Staff is
recommending that the requirement for a two stall garage in single family dwellings be removed
from the R-2 District requirements so that a minimum of one stall is required per dwelling unit.
Articulation
Staff recommends that the side wall articulation requirement be included in the R-2 Zoning
District. In 2008, the City Council adopted an articulation requirement to the R-1 District in order
to prevent the visual impact of long walls, which can create a tunnel-like effect between homes.
For any new construction in the R-1 District, whether a new house, addition, or replacement
through a tear-down, any resulting side 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. The
homes that were recently built on Rhode Island Avenue received a variance from this
requirement to minimize cost and maximize buildable area.
Benefits Potential Consequences
• Prevents tunnel-like effect between homes • Cantilevers are a common way to provide
• Provides visual interest on sides of homes articulation; bay windows and chimney
• Consistency with R-1 is easier to administer chases allowed in minimum setback
• Often requires higher cost of construction
• Variance applications may increase and the
Board may be sympathetic to small lot size
Side Yard Setbacks
Staff recommends that the side yard setback requirements used in the R-1 Zoning District be
included in the R-2 Zoning District. In 2008, the City Council adopted a height component to the
side yard setback requirement. In 2015, it was refined through the Subdivision Study process. The
height component uses a "tent" approach to determine side setbacks. This ensures that light and
air can reasonably reach neighboring homes. For R-1 lots less than 65 feet in width, the side
setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured
to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 4:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above
the side setback line. The homes that were recently built on Rhode Island Avenue received a
variance from this requirement to maximize square footage on the second story of the homes.
Benefits Potential Consequences
• Ensures more light and air in between • Reduces buildable area for 2nd story
homes • Garage could look more prominent
• Consistency with R-1 is easier to administer . Potentially a higher cost of construction
• Variance applications may increase and the
Board may be sympathetic to small lot size
Comparison of R-1 and R-2 Dimensional Standards (Existing and Proposed)
Highlighted boxes reflect the dimensional standards that staff is recommending be updated
Dimensional R-2 Moderate Density R-2 Moderate Density
Standard R-1 Single-Family
(Existing) (Proposed)
Lot Size 10,000 SF if lots within 11,000 SF 6,000 SF (for single-
250 ft are on average < family homes)
18,000 SF
10,000 SF (for
15,000 SF if lots within duplexes/twin homes)
250 ft are on average >
18,000 SF
Lot Width 80 ft 100 ft 50 ft (for single-family
homes)
100 ft (for
duplexes/twin homes)
Side Yard Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft 15 ft Lots > 100 ft wide: 15 ft
Setback and 2:1 slope above 15 and 2:1 slope above 15
ft at setback line ft at setback line
Lots between 65 ft and Lots between 65 ft and
100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and 100 ft wide: 12.5 ft and
2:1 slope above 15 ft at 2:1 slope above 15 ft at
setback line setback line
Lots < 65 ft wide: 10% Lots <65 ft wide: 10%
of lot width on north of lot width on north
and west sides and 20% and west sides and 20%
of lot width on south of lot width on south
and east sides and both and east sides and both
sides require 4:1 slope sides require 4:1 slope
above 15 ft at setback above 15 ft at setback
line
line
Front Yard 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft
Setback
Rear Yard 25 ft 25 ft 25 ft
Setback
Structure > 22 ft
No standard
Width > 22 ft
Side Wall Side wall > 32 ft long No standard Side wall > 32 ft long
Articulation must shift 2 ft in depth must shift 2 ft in depth
for at least 8 ft for at least 8 ft
Structure Lots > 10,000 SF: < 30% < 30%coverage < 30%coverage
Coverage on coverage
Lot Lots > 5,000 SF: < 35%
coverage
Lots < 5,000 SF: <40%
coverage
Impervious < 50% impervious < 50% impervious < 50% impervious
Surface
Height 28 ft for pitched roofs 30 ft for all roofs 28 ft for pitched roofs
25 ft for flat roofs 25 ft for flat roofs
Paved Area 3 ft setback No standard 3 ft setback
<40% of front yard may < 40%of front yard may
be paved be paved
Accessory All structures total < All structures total < All structures total <
Structures 1,000 SF 650 SF per dwelling 650 SF per dwelling
No single structure >
800 SF
Garden < 10 ft in height < 10 ft in height < 10 ft in height
Structures 5 ft setback to all 5 ft setback to all 5 ft setback to all
property lines property lines property lines
Garage Width No standard No standard maximum width = 65%
of width of principal
structure, measured on
front elevation
Summary of Recommendations
Staff recommends amending Section 11.22 of the Zoning Code to modify lot size, lot width,
height, and side yard setbacks; and add regulations regarding structure width, side wall
articulation, garage provisions, paved area, outdoor storage, temporary outdoor storage, decks
and platforms, and home occupation requirements.
Attachments
Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (11
pages)
Map of Potential Priorities for R-2 Locations in 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (1 page)
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 9, 2016
Page 9
10.0ther Impacts to the City and esidents: Staff does not anticipate any other
ative effects of the propose use. The location is a multi-tenant industrial
prop with adequate parking serve the individual use"""'
Conditions:
1. The plans by submitt the ppli on April 12, 2016, shall become a part of
this approval.
2. In the event complaints to arding parking are deemed by the City
Manager or his/her de ' ee to a sig ' nt, the City reserves the right to require
modifications to t umber of paces lease to the days and hours of operation
in order to ad ately address arking concerns.
3. All signa ust meet the requ ements of the City's ode (Section 4.20).
4. Thisroval is subject to all o er state, federal, and local ances,
r ations, or laws with autho y over this development.
4. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending
Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District—ZO00-104
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To modify the language regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot width
and adding other missing regulations to the Moderate Density
Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
Goellner reminded the Commission of their discussion on this proposed amendment
held on April 11. The consensus at that time was to add the following R-1 Single Family
Residential regulations to the R-2 Moderate Density Residential section of the City
Code: side wall articulation requirements, minimum structure width, paved area
coverage, setbacks, garage provisions, outdoor storage regulations, deck and platform
language, and home occupation requirements. The Commission also requested further
discussion on the function and location of future R-2 zoned properties.
Goellner discussed the densities allowed in the residential zoning districts and
explained that the goal is to position R-2 more appropriately with the regulations of all
the residential zoning districts. She noted that the stated purpose of the R-1 zoning
district allows up to 5 units per acre and currently allows 2-4 units per acres due to
minimum lot sizes. The stated purpose of the R-2 zoning district allows up to 8 units per
acre and currently allows 6 units per acre if all two-family dwellings, 3 units per acre if
single-family dwellings. The stated purpose of the R-3 zoning district allows up to 10-12
units per acre and the stated purpose of the R-4 zoning district allows over 12 units per
acre.
Goellner referred to various photos of residential properties and noted that small-lot
single-family residential development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of
housing options. It also provides an opportunity to build single family homes at the same
density as two-family dwellings.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 9, 2016
Page 10
Goellner discussed staff's recommendations including: a minimum lot size of 6,000
square feet for single-family homes, a minimum lot width of 50 feet for single-family
homes, the same side yard setbacks and height regulations as the R-1 Single Family
zoning district, and a maximum garage width of 65% of the home's width. She added
that the maximum garage width regulation is being proposed because currently there
are no garage width regulations in any residential zoning district, and there are
anticipated issues with wide garages on narrower lots.
Goellner stated that there are currently 27 properties that would be affected by the
proposed amendments. Fifteen of those are single-family homes, 10 of those are two-
family homes, and two are vacant. All of the 27 existing properties would meet the
proposed lot width and lot size recommendations. Goellner noted that traditional single
family homes on large lots will still dominate Golden Valley as it is the community's
vision to keep most residential lots larger in size. She referred to a map of the City and
discussed various areas where the R-2 zoning district might be appropriate.
Waldhauser said it seems logical to split 100-foot wide lots into two 50-foot wide lots if
the City wants to allow smaller single-family properties. She questioned if something
narrower than 100 feet would be logical for a twin home.
Segelbaum referred to the garage requirements and questioned if the proposed
language would require each unit to have two garage stalls. Goellner stated that each
unit would be required to have one garage stall.
Segelbaum questioned if the side yard setback requirements would be different if an R-
2 zoned property borders an R-1 zoned property. Zimmerman stated that the side yard
setbacks are based on the width of the lot and would be the same for R-1 and R-2
zoned properties.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, said he wholeheartedly supports the proposed
amendments, knowing that the variance process is available if a need is thought to
exist.
Peter Knaeble, 6100 Glenwood, said he agrees with Mr. Gross that the proposed
amendments are a good idea. He stated that there may be issues in regard to side wall
articulation requirements and increased side yard setbacks with the height of a house.
He would not recommend those two regulations be included in the R-2 zoning district
because they won't be as big of an issue on narrower lots like they are on R-1 zoned
properties. Goellner noted that the homes recently built on Rhode Island Avenue have
20.5 ft. wide garages and would meet the proposed garage width regulation.
Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 9, 2016
Page 11
Blum said he is concerned that the purpose of these proposed changes is to maximize
density which is contrary to the desire of the community. Segelbaum questioned if the
minimum lot size should be larger than 6,000 square feet.
Blum questioned if the changes made to the Zoning Code as a result of the recent
subdivision moratorium study would be applied to the R-2 zoning district. Goellner said
no. Blum reiterated that during the moratorium, residents said they didn't want density
maximized. Waldhauser stated that another goal of the City is to offer different types of
housing options. These proposed changes give the City an opportunity for more variety
which is broader than just maximizing density. She stated that smaller homes on
smaller lots work and that the City did add protections to the areas with large homes on
larger lots.
Segelbaum questioned if the proposed changes would create a desire for homeowners
to rezone their properties to R-2. Baker said he shares the same concern, but when he
looks at the Zoning Map the properties zoned R-2 are not in the areas where concern
has been expressed in the past so he is at ease with the proposed amendments
keeping in mind that if there were a push to rezone properties to R-2 they would hear
about it. Segelbaum said he is concerned about going from the required 11,000 square
foot minimum lot size for R-2 properties to 10,000 square feet because he doesn't want
to get inundated with rezoning requests. Blum questioned the desire for these proposed
changes if there have been legal problems and no demand for twin homes in the past.
Zimmerman stated that the City is trying to shift the focus from twin homes to small-lot
single-family homes that would not increase the density.
Waldhauser referred to the aesthetics of a twin home and said she thinks twin homes
are great and she would rather see twin homes and townhomes than individual homes
with alleys between them. Blum asked if twin homes could be removed from the
recommendation entirely. Zimmerman stated that removing twin homes from the
recommendation would cause existing twin homes to be non-conforming.
Segelbaum referred to the language requiring only one garage stall per unit and stated
that the Board of Zoning Appeals sees a lot of requests to add second garage stalls. He
questioned if only requiring one garage stall is setting the City up for more variance
requests. He said he would like to require two garage stalls for each dwelling. Baker
said he would not support requiring two garage stalls because he would like to
encourage fewer cars.
Segelbaum asked the Commissioners how they felt about the setback requirements and
the requirement regarding increased setbacks as the height of the house increases.
Blum said he was okay with the recommended language. Waldhauser agreed although
it makes homes more expensive to build, larger setbacks will protect neighboring
properties. She stated that she doesn't think the City will see smaller or more affordable
homes as a result of these proposed changes. There will just be big homes on smaller
lots.
Blum suggested that the proposed lot width be 60 feet to match the ratio in the Single
Family zoning district. Zimmerman stated that they tried a number of different lot sizes
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 9, 2016
Page 12
and the 6,000 square foot lot size and 50 foot width requirements fit. Waldhauser noted
that if the minimum lot width were 60 feet then an existing 100-foot wide lot couldn't be
split into two lots. Kluchka said he does not want to require 60-foot wide lots in the R-2
zoning district. Baker agreed that if the City is trying to create an additional option than
requiring 60 feet of lot width wouldn't work. Blum said he hesitates to think that they are
meeting the City's goal of keeping single-family large lot residential neighborhoods with
this proposed change. He said he is concerned about Golden Valley losing a real
competitive advantage and questioned what future generations are going to want. He
said he supports higher density development in certain areas like around transportation
hubs and light rail stations, but he is against these proposed R-2 zoning amendments in
single family areas. Segelbaum agreed but said this seems to be a reasonable
compromise for existing R-2 properties. Baker agreed and said he also doesn't think the
City will see a lot more R-2 zoned properties as a result of the proposed changes.
Kluchka agreed and said the proposed changes make the existing R-2 zoning district
more usable. Waldhauser agreed with Blum that there are more dramatic ways to meet
the City's density goals with R-3 and R-4 zoned properties and she thinks that would be
a good discussion for the community to have. Blum said he is okay with the majority of
the proposed changes, but he is concerned about the purpose and the proposed lot
width. Zimmerman stated that the purpose statement could be better defined in each
district to address increasing housing options, diversity in housing, etc.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed R-2 Zoning Code text amendments.
Informal Public Hearing –Zoring Code Text Amendment– Amending
Temporary Uses and Events ZO00-105
A licant: City of Golden V ley
Purpos To consider rem ing redundant language in the Zoning Code
regarding Temp ary Events.
Zimmerman stated tha the last Cit Council meeting the ciI adopted a separate
special events section of ' Code s the existing Ian a in the Zoning Code
regarding temporary events now re undant an uld be removed.
Segelbaum asked if the new Co s was similar to the existing language in the
Zoning Code. Zimmerman said d added that all of the Planning related issues with
special events have been a ssed a new Special Events language.
Segelbaum opene a public heari . See and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum cl the public hearin
MOV y Kluchka, seconded by B ker and motion rried unanimously to recommend
ap val of the Zoning Code text am ndment removing anguage regarding temporary
ents.
--Short Recess—
Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential
Zoning District (R-2)
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family
dwellings at a moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly
related and complementary uses.
Subdivision 2. District Established
Properties shall be established within the Moderate Density Twe Famil (R-2)
Residential Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision
3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section
11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section
11.22 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2
thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Moderate Density Two Family
(R-2) Residential Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes
to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be
reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this
Chapter.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses
The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts:
A. Single Family dwellings
B. Two-Family dwellings
C. Townhouses
D. Foster Family Homes
E. Home occupations, as regulated by Sectien 11.21, Subdivision 15
F. Essential Services - Class I
G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in
each dwelling unit
Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning
District:
A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter.
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 12
Subdivision S. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures
set forth in this Chapter:
A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons
B. Group foster family homes
Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots
No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a
residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the
requirements of this Section except on those lots located within an approved plat
A. Single Family Dwellings A lot of a minimum area of six thousand (6,000)
square feet and a minimum width of fifty (50) feet at the front setback line
shall be required for one (1) Single Family Dwelling
B. Two-Familv Dwellings A lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000)
square feet and a minimum width of one-hundred (100) feet at the front
setback line shall be required for a Two-Family Dwelling
Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility
All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner
visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code.
Subdivision S. Easements
No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public
easements.
Subdivision 9. Building Lot CoverageMamirnum Coverage by Building
and !Innis-serviout,
Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty
percent (30%) of the lot area.
I the let area-.
_Subdivision 10 Impervious Surface
Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot
or parcel area
Subdivision 4811. Principal Structures
Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following
requirements:
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 12
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.
Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 07-13-07
2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
Source: Ordinance No. 547, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 03-26-15
3. Side Setback. The Fequired side setback shall be fifteen (15) feet.
Seuree. Gfdinanee "—Ne.371,2nd Sertes
CTe[ZFive Date, 07
Lt , 0T13 0
'r
3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the
minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure
and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements:
a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or
greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15)
feet or less in height shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for
any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall
be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2.1 beginning
at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see
Figure belowl;
2:1 slope
Average height of highest
------------------------------ pitchedroof28'maximum
-------------------------------- Flat roof 25'maximum
15'height 15'height
15'side setback 15'side setback
Lot width 100'or greater
Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 12
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 any portion of
a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one-
half (12.5) feet The side setbacks for any portion of a structure
greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an
Inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2.1 beginning at a point fifteen
15) feet directly above the side setback line [see Figure belowl
r a
r `
rr �
r `
2:1 slope r �;
Average height of highest
pitched roof 28'maximum
" Flat roof 25'maximum
15'height 15'height
12.5'side setback 12.5'side setback
Lot width greater than 65'&less than 100'
c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty five (65) feet or less, the
side setbacks for any portion of a structure 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 portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15)
feet In height measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 4:1
beginning at a point fifteen 15) feet directly above the side setback
line [see Figure belowj;
t m
i a
� t
� y
� c
r �
r e
r t
4:1 slope tt i
Average height of highest
- — — - -- pitched .of 28'maximum
Flat roof 25'maximum
15'height 15'height
South or East North or West
Side setback 20%of lot width Side setback 10%of lot width
Golden Valley City C Lot width 65' or less
if 12
4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter
Front Lot Line.
Source: Ordinance No. 547, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 03-26-15
5. Building Envelope Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and
the height limitation shall constitute the building envelope [see Figures
belowl. No portion of a structure may extend outside the building
envelope, except for:
a. cornices and eaves, no more than thirty (30) inches:
b. bay windows or chimney chases, no more than twenty-four (24)
inches:
c. chimneys, vents, or antennas
d. stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size;
e. accessible ramps
�Irar Lct tine
�i
'v
Lcn Line
f
/✓ i7fid`Yatr
Side
LtYt Lx71 *-
SU ding
Side Side
Yard YArd k ton;Yatd
Front Yard
k'rdre;Tsai 4.ine,
B. Height Limitations.
Distriet te exceed a height ef thfirty (30) feet as defined in the City's buildifv@
—No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District with a
Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 12
building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and
twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses
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. Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new house,
addition, or replacement through a tear-down, any resulting side 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.
E-7—
(30) inches into a requiFedd setback.
E_Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from
ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure.
F. Fences. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures
Subdivision 121. Accessory Structures
Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements:
A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and
setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District:
1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to
the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In
that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front
setback and side setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built
on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where
an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the
rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal
structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may
remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10)
feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the
addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be
made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten
(10) feet of separation can be met.
2. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty-
five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line.
3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located
no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line.
Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 12
4_Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no
less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other
accessory structure.
5. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet
from an alley.
B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning
District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed
ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory
structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space.
C. Garage Provisions .
1. Minimum Garage Stalls. No building permit shall be issued for the
construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not
including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. Single faFAHY
dwelling units shall requiFe a twe (211" stall garage.
2. Maximum Garage Width. The width of the front wall of a garage, whether
attached or detached, shall not exceed sixty-five percent (65%) of the
width of the dwelling's front fagade For purposes of this subsection, a
dwelling's front facade means that portion of the dwelling's building facing
a front lot line that includes any front wall of a garage and provides
vehicular access to the garage.
a. Measurement of Front Fagade In the case of a Single Family Dwelling,
the width of the front fagade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal
distance between the dwelling's exterior side walls at the front fagade's
widest point. In the case of a Two-Family Dwelling or Townhome, the
width of the front fagade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance
between the dwelling unit's side boundary walls at the front fagade's
widest point.
b. Measurement of Front Garage Wall For purposes of this subsection, the
front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the garage facing the front lot
line, including any door providing vehicular access to the garage The
width of the front wall shall be the direct linear, horizontal distance
between the exterior or outermost location of the garage's two side
walls at their intersection with the garage's front wall
D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty
(30) inches into a required setback
E. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached
sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six
hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not
Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 12
included in this requirement. Any accessory structure over two hundred
(200) square feet in area requires a building permit
F. Size of Accessory Structure No accessory structure shall be larger in size
than the principal structure
G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location
requirements as accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the
property line to the pool's edge Decks surrounding above ground pools shall
meet setback requirements
H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall
meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures
I. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be
allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling.
Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 07-13-07
I Roof. Gambrel or Mansard roofs are not oermitted on any accessory building
with a footprint of more than two hundred (200) square feet
K. Photovoltaic Modules. Free-standing Photovoltaic modules, including solar
panels and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three
(3) square feet shall meet the same setback, location and height
requirements as accessory structures.
Source: Ordinance No. 443, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 8-13-10
Subdivision 13. Decks and Platforms
Decks and platforms not more than thirty (30) inches but greater than eight (8)
inches above adjacent grade and not attached to a structure with frost footings and
which is not part of an accessible route shall require a zoning permit issued by the
City Manager or his/her designee The fee for the zoning permit is established by
the City Council. The purpose of the zoning permit is to insure that decks greater
than eight (8) inches but less than thirty (30) inches in height are located in a
conforming location on the lot
Subdivision 14. Home Occupation Requirements
A. Home occupations in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the
following requirements:
Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 12
1. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental
and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes
2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the
operation of the home occupation
3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the
home occupation.
4. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home
occupation.
5. A permitted occupation, shall not result in noise fumes traffic lights,
odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service electrical, radio
or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health safety,
enjoyment and general welfare of the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
6. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises except
such that are incidental to the permitted home occupation
7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for
residential purposes.
8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the
home shall be limited to between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm
9. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the
dwelling shall be used for the home occupation
10. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the
driveway of the property where the home occupation operates
11. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight (8) client trips per
day and serve no more than two (2) clients or customers at a time
12. There shall only be one (1) outside employee allowed on the premises at
which a home occupation is located
13. All other applicable City, State and Federal licenses, codes and regulations
shall be met.
B. The following uses are prohibited home occupations:
1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats and
other vehicles
2. Restaurants or cafes
Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 12
3. Animal hospital
4. Veterinarian Clinic
5. Funeral Home, mortuary or columbarium
6. Medical/Dental clinic or similar
7. Stable or kennel
8. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one (1) person and
repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or
motor
9. Retail sales
10. Sale or repair of firearms
Subdivision 15. Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage of items on properties within the R-2 Zoning District is governed
by the following provisions:
A. Front Yard Storage.
1. Storage of items in the front yard may occur solely upon a driveway, and
in no other location.
2. No personal motorized recreational vehicle or boat may be stored in a
front yard, except upon a trailer.
3. Only one (1) of the following may be stored in all front yards of any lot:
a. Recreational camping vehicle;
b. Trailer. The term "trailer", as used in this Subdivision, means a trailer
for multiple purposes including but not limited to hauling a boat
personal motorized recreational vehicle or fish house
-1—.4. Storage in the front yard of items other than those listed in
Subdivision 14(A)(3) above may not exceed thirty (30) days unless a
Front Yard Storage Permit is issued to the property owner. A Front Yard
Storage Permit may be issued at the discretion of the City Manager or
City Staff designated by the City Manager.
B. Setbacks.
Golden Valley City Code Page 10 of 12
1. Front Yard Storage Any storage of items in the front yard shall be behind
the property line.
2. Side Yard Storage Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the
front of the rear yard may not be stored within three (3) feet of the
property line. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the rear of
the primary structure or attached garage, may not be stored within five
(5) feet of the property line
3. Rear Yard Storage Items stored in the rear yard may not be stored within
five (5) feet of the property line
C. Screening. Side and Rear Yard Storage Any storage of a recreational
camping vehicle fish house trailer, boat, or personal motorized recreational
vehicle in the side or rear yard must be screened using either vegetative
screening or a fence in accordance with Section 11.72 of this Chapter.
Subdivision 16. Temporary Outdoor Storage
Temporary Outdoor Storage in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the
following requirements:
A. Duration. Temporary outdoor storage units shall not be stored on a property
for more than seven (7) days
B. Location. Temporary outdoor storage units shall be stored on a hard surface
and be located completely on private property.
Subdivision 17. Paved Area Requirements
Paved areas in the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, include those
constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, and are governed by the
following provisions:
A. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved
B. Setbacks. Paved areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard
property line except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners
pursuant to a private easement
C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be
covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers
D. Street Access. Each lot may have only one (1) street curb cut access, except
the following lots may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses:
1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages
Golden Valley City Code Page 11 of 12
2. A lot of a resident that requires additional driveway access that qualifies
for a reduced class rate for homestead property as defined by MN Statute
273.13 subdivision 22 Class 1b
Subdivision 18�. Garden Structures
Garden Structures shall be located no closer than five (5) feet to any property line.
Garden Structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height.
Source: Ordinance No, 433, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 2-26-10
Golden Valley City Code Page 12 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 602, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District is
deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:
Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2)
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a
moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly related and
complementary uses.
Subdivision 2. District Established
Properties shall be established within the Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning
District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and
when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an
ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 and which shall become a
part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In
addition the Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts thus established, and/or
any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar
manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11
of this Chapter.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses
The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts:
A. Single Family dwellings
B. Two-Family dwellings
C. Townhouses
D. Foster Family Homes
E. Home occupations
F. Essential Services - Class I
G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each
dwelling unit
Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District:
A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter.
Ordinance No. 602 -2- June 21, 2016
Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth
in this Chapter:
A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons
B. Group foster family homes
Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots
No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential
dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this
Section, except on those lots located within an approved plat.
A. Single Family Dwellings. A lot of a minimum area of six thousand (6,000) square feet
and a minimum width of fifty (50) feet at the front setback line shall be required for
one (1) Single Family Dwelling.
B. Two-Family Dwellings. A lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet
and a minimum width of one-hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be
required for a Two-Family Dwelling.
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. Building Lot Coverage
Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%)
of the lot area.
Subdivision 10. Impervious Surface
Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot or parcel
area.
Subdivision 11. 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,
Ordinance No. 602 -3- June 21, 2016
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.
3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum
required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot
lines shall be governed by the following requirements:
a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater, the
side setbacks for any portion of a structure fifteen (15) feet or less in height
shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure
greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly
sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly
above the side setback line [see Figure below];
2:1 slope
Average height of highest
______________________________ pitched r.of 2,,maximum
-------------------------------- Flat roof25'maximum
15'height 15'height
15'side setback 15'side setback
Lot width 100'or greater
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 any portion of a structure
fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one-half(12.5) feet. The
side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in
height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1
beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly above the side setback line [see
Figure below];
2:1 slope %
Average height of highest
pitched roof 2gmaximum
------------------------ Flat roof25'maximum
15'height 15'height
12.5'side setback 12.5'side setback
Lot width greater than 65'&less than 100'
Ordinance No. 602 -4- June 21, 2016
c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty five (65) feet or less, the side
setbacks for any portion of a structure 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 portion of a
structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height measured to an inwardly
sloping plane at a ratio of 4:1 beginning at a point fifteen (15) feet directly
above the side setback line [see Figure below];
a o
# v.
l E
! l
4:1 slope I
Average height of highest
------------ pitched roof 28'maximum
----------
Flat roof 25'maximum
15'height 15'height
South or East North or West
Side setback 20%of lot width Side setback 10%of lot width
Lot width 65' or less
4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter Front
Lot Line.
5. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the
height limitation shall constitute the building envelope [see Figures below]. No
portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for:
a. cornices and eaves, no more than thirty (30) inches:
b. bay windows or chimney chases, no more than twenty-four (24) inches;
c. chimneys, vents, or antennas;
d. stairs and stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size;
e. accessible ramps.
Ordinance No. 602 -5- June 21, 2016
Rear Lot line
f r"
Rear Yard
V
Side
Lot Line
Sot 1 S'Heey Ir
lot Lrrn
[EiBull
side ` We
Yard Yard Froma Yard
Front Yard
From;L49 Linv
B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District
with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and
twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses.
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. Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition, or
replacement through a tear-down, any resulting side 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.
E. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level
shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure.
F. Fences. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures.
Subdivision 12. Accessory Structures
Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements:
A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and
setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District:
1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear
of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an
accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback and side setback
as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal
structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory
Ordinance No. 602 -6- June 21, 2016
structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal
structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing
garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long
as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal
structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure.
Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as
the ten (10) feet of separation can be met.
2. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty-five (35)
feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line.
3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less
than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line.
4. Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less
than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory
structure.
5. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from an
alley.
B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District
to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from
the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for
storage and/or utility space.
C. Garage Provisions.
1. Minimum Garage Stalls. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of
a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a one (1)
stall garage per dwelling unit.
2. Maximum Garage Width. The width of the front wall of a garage, whether
attached or detached, shall not exceed sixty-five percent (65%) of the width of
the dwelling's front fagade. For purposes of this subsection, a dwelling's front
fagade means that portion of the dwelling's building facing a front lot line that
includes any front wall of a garage and provides vehicular access to the garage.
a. Measurement of Front Fagade. In the case of a Single Family Dwelling, the
width of the front fagade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between
the dwelling's exterior side walls at the front fagade's widest point. In the case
of a Two-Family Dwelling or Townhome, the width of the front fagade shall be
the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling unit's side boundary
walls at the front fagade's widest point.
b. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this subsection, the front
wall of a garage shall be the wall of the garage facing the front lot line,
including any door providing vehicular access to the garage. The width of the
front wall shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the exterior or
Ordinance No. 602 -7- June 21, 2016
outermost location of the garage's two side walls at their intersection with the
garage's front wall.
D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30)
inches into a required setback.
E. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds,
greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six hundred fifty (650)
square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement.
Any accessory structure over two hundred (200) square feet in area requires a
building permit.
F. Size of Accessory Structure. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the
principal structure.
G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location
requirements as accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the
property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet
setback requirements.
H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet
the same setback requirements as accessory structures.
I. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in
the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling.
J. Roof. Gambrel or Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a
footprint of more than two hundred (200) square feet.
K. Photovoltaic Modules. Free-standing Photovoltaic modules, including solar panels
and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three (3) square feet
shall meet the same setback, location and height requirements as accessory
structures.
Subdivision 13. Decks and Platforms
Decks and platforms not more than thirty (30) inches but greater than eight (8) inches
above adjacent grade and not attached to a structure with frost footings and which is not
part of an accessible route shall require a zoning permit issued by the City Manager or
his/her designee. The fee for the zoning permit is established by the City Council. The
purpose of the zoning permit is to insure that decks greater than eight (8) inches but less
than thirty (30) inches in height are located in a conforming location on the lot.
Subdivision 14. Home Occupation Requirements
A. Home occupations in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following
requirements:
1. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and
secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes.
Ordinance No. 602 -8- June 21, 2016
2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation of
the home occupation.
3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the home
occupation.
4. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home
occupation.
5. A permitted occupation, shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor,
excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio or TV
interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment and general
welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
6. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises except such that
are incidental to the permitted home occupation.
7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for residential
purposes.
8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the home
shall be limited to between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm.
9. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall
be used for the home occupation.
10. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway of
the property where the home occupation operates.
11. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight (8) client trips per day and
serve no more than two (2) clients or customers at a time.
12. There shall only be one (1) outside employee allowed on the premises at which a
home occupation is located.
13. All other applicable City, State and Federal licenses, codes and regulations shall
be met.
B. The following uses are prohibited home occupations:
1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats and other
vehicles
2. Restaurants or cafes
3. Animal hospital
4. Veterinarian Clinic
Ordinance No. 602 -9- June 21, 2016
5. Funeral Home, mortuary or columbarium
6. Medical/Dental clinic or similar
7. Stable or kennel
8. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one (1) person and repair
and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or motor
9. Retail sales
10. Sale or repair of firearms
Subdivision 15. Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage of items on properties within the R-2 Zoning District is governed by the
following provisions:
A. Front Yard Storage.
1. Storage of items in the front yard may occur solely upon a driveway, and in no
other location.
2. No personal motorized recreational vehicle or boat may be stored in a front yard,
except upon a trailer.
3. Only one (1) of the following may be stored in all front yards of any lot:
a. Recreational camping vehicle;
b. Trailer. The term "trailer", as used in this Subdivision, means a trailer for
multiple purposes including but not limited to hauling a boat, personal
motorized recreational vehicle, or fish house.
4. Storage in the front yard of items other than those listed in Subdivision 14(A)(3)
above may not exceed thirty (30) days unless a Front Yard Storage Permit is
issued to the property owner. A Front Yard Storage Permit may be issued at the
discretion of the City Manager or City Staff designated by the City Manager.
B. Setbacks.
1. Front Yard Storage. Any storage of items in the front yard shall be behind the
property line.
2. Side Yard Storage. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the front of the
rear yard, may not be stored within three (3) feet of the property line. Items
stored in that portion of the side yard to the rear of the primary structure or
attached garage, may not be stored within five (5) feet of the property line.
Ordinance No. 602 -10- June 21, 2016
3. Rear Yard Storage. Items stored in the rear yard may not be stored within five (5)
feet of the property line.
C. Screening. Side and Rear Yard Storage. Any storage of a recreational camping
vehicle, fish house, trailer, boat, or personal motorized recreational vehicle in the
side or rear yard must be screened using either vegetative screening or a fence in
accordance with Section 11.72 of this Chapter.
Subdivision 16. Temporary Outdoor Storage
Temporary Outdoor Storage in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following
requirements:
A. Duration. Temporary outdoor storage units shall not be stored on a property for more
than seven (7) days.
B. Location. Temporary outdoor storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be
located completely on private property.
Subdivision 17. Paved Area Requirements
Paved areas in the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, include those
constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, and are governed by the
following provisions:
A. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved.
B. Setbacks. Paved areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line,
except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private
easement.
C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with
concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers.
D. Street Access. Each lot may have only one (1) street curb cut access, except the
following lots may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses:
1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages.
2. A lot of a resident that requires additional driveway access that qualifies for a
reduced class rate for homestead property as defined by MN Statute 273.13
subdivision 22 Class 1 b.
Subdivision 18. Garden Structures
Garden Structures shall be located no closer than five (5) feet to any property line. Garden
Structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height.
Section 2. 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.
Ordinance No. 602 -11- June 21, 2016
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon passage and publication of
Ordinance 603, as required by law or on the 30th day of June, 2016, whichever is sooner.
Adopted by the City Council this 21St day of June, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city of
O401,
lden MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-80951763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
6. A. Second Consideration - Amending Sections 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards and
12.50: Minor Subdivision and Consolidations Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
In order to clarify the frontage requirements for newly subdivided lots and how access to them
shall be provided, staff has worked with the City Attorney to revise a key line of the Subdivision
Code.
The changes make it clear that the front of a lot must abut entirely on a public street right-of-way
and access must be provided via that frontage or via a public alley. This would help avoid
potential misinterpretation of how frontage should be considered and disallow attempts to
utilize frontage where no access is allowed.
In 2015, the City Council approved changes to the Subdivision Code that required the minimum
width of new R-1 zoned lots be maintained for a distance of 70 feet into the lot. Staff
recommends extending this requirement to R-2 zoned lots as well. On June 7, 2016, the City
Council approved the first reading of the amendment (3-0).
The proposed changes would be applied to both regular and minor subdivisions (Sections 12.20
and 12.50).
Attachments
• Underlined/Overstruck Version of Section 12.20 Subd. 5: Lots, and Section 12.50 Subd. 3:
Conditions for Approval or Denial (2 pages)
• Ordinance #603, Amending Chapter 12: Subdivision Regulations (Platting), Regarding
Frontage, Access, and Lot Width (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt second consideration Ordinance#603, Amending Chapter 12: Subdivision
Regulations (Platting), Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width.
§ 12.20
A. 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. 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 entire front of each lot shall abut entirely on a
street right-of-way and there shall be vehicular access to and from each
lot via an improved street on which the lot abuts and/or via an improved
public alleyway on which the lot abuts.
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.
C. Features. Due regard shall be shown for all natural features, such as tree
growth, water course, historic spots or similar aspects, which if preserved
will add attractiveness and stability to the proposed development.
§ 12.50
A. 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.
Source: Ordinance No. 548, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 4-16-15
B. 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.
Source: Ordinance No. 34, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 4-11-90
Subdivision 3. Conditions for Approval or Denial
A. Minor subdivisions or consolidations shall be denied if the proposed lots fail to
meet the following 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 minor subdivision after November 4,
2015, 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 minor subdivision after November 4,
2015, 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 entire front of each lot shall abut entir-ely on a
street right-of-way and there shall be vehicular access to and from each
lot via an improved street on which the lot abuts and/or via an improved
public alleyway on which the lot abuts.
4. Corner lots shall be platted at least twenty (20) feet wider than the
required minimum lot width as required by the Zoning Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 582, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-12-15
B. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's determination
that the buildable portion of a resulting new lot is encumbered by steep
slopes or excessive wetness. Alternatively, approval of the minor subdivision
may be conditioned on the applicant's submittal of a certified engineer's
ORDINANCE NO. 603, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Sections 12.20: Minimum Subdivision Design Standards and 12.50: Minor
Subdivisions and Consolidations, Regarding Frontage, Access, and Lot Width
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(A)(2) & (3) Lots are amended
to read as follows:
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 and R-2
Moderate Density Residential Districts created through subdivision after
November 4, 2015, 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 entire front of each lot shall abut on a street right-of-way and there shall
be vehicular access to and from each lot via an improved street on which the
lot abuts and/or via an improved public alleyway on which the lot abuts.
Section 2. City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(A)(2) & (3) Conditions for
Approval or Denial are amended to read as follows:
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 and R-2
Moderate Density Residential Districts created through minor subdivision after
November 4, 2015, 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 entire front of each lot shall abut on a street right-of-way and there shall
be vehicular access to and from each lot via an improved street on which the
lot abuts and/or via an improved public alleyway on which the lot abuts.
Section 3. 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 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 21 st day of June, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
ATTEST: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city of 01
olden MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
6. B. Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Task Force Appointments
Prepared By
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Summary
As part of the update to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City has established a Task Force to
represent community members in discussions with staff and elected officials on the long-term
goals and priorities for the bicycle and pedestrian network in Golden Valley. There were 18
applications received. A small committee including staff and Council Member Larry Fonnest have
selected 10 members to serve on the Task Force. Applicants were selected because they best
demonstrated the following strengths:
• The applicant's reasons for serving on this Task Force display a commitment to the long-
term success of the City, understanding of the topic, ability to have a balanced point of view
that represents the community, and consistency with the City's mission and vision
• Past experiences and background demonstrate the ability to commit to the responsibility of
representing the community in a balanced way throughout this planning process
• Representation of a unique perspective that will be helpful for decision-making
• Ability to attend scheduled Task Force meetings
Members will serve on the Task Force through March 2017. If a Task Force Member is unable to
fulfill their commitment, the selection committee will recruit a replacement from the list of
applicants. The first Task Force meeting is scheduled to take place on Monday, August 1 at 6 pm at
City Hall. City Council Member Steve Schmidgall will serve as the Chair of the Task Force.
Recommended Action
Motion to appoint the following individuals to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Task Force:
Billy Binder, Kelly Grissman, Dawn Hill, Hubert Humphrey III, Paul Klass, Robert Mattison, Paula
Pentel, Dawn Peterson, Laura Pugh, Wendy Rubinyi.
city o,f
golden!i �v MEMORANDUM
valley City Administration/Council
763-593-39891763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
June 21, 2016
Agenda Item
6. C. Authorization to Sign Police Officers (LELS Local 27) Agreement
Prepared By:
Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager
Summary
Information for this item is pending the results of the Executive Session to discuss labor relations
negotiations, to be held immediately prior to the Council meeting.
C 0
AGENDA
Vgoldell
1 Regular Meeting of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
July 5, 2016
6:30 pm
1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Receipt of Community Partnership Grant from CenterPoint Energy 16-
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 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 June 21, 2016
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
E. Bids and Quotes:
F.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 9050 Golden Valley Rd - Affinity Plus Credit
Union
B. Public Hearing - Major PUD Amendment - 810 Lilac Drive - Addition
C. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 825 Boone Ave N - Executive Leasing
(Auto Sales/Rentals)
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Minor PUD Amendment - 1725 Bridgewater Road
B. Approve Agreements with Monarch Solar for 2016 Solar Project
C. Announcements of Meetings
1. Future Draft Agendas: Council/Manager July 12, 2016 and City Council July 19
and August 3, 2016
D. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
le X
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
July 12, 2016
6:30 pm or immediately following the HRA Meeting
Pages
1. Golden Valley Community Foundation Update (20 minutes)
2. DeCola Ponds Governance Update (15 minutes)
3. Debt and Infrastructure Discussion (20 minutes)
4. Positive Performance General Fund Transfer (20 minutes)
5. Biennial 2017-2018 Proposed General Fund Budget (45 minutes)
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
L
document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats MI include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette,etc. SW
'city
AGENDA
9 Regular Meeting of the
Millen City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
July 19, 2016
6:30 pm
1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
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 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 July 5, 2016
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
1.
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.
E. Bids and Quotes:
1.
F. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Morris Leatherman Company for Resident
Survey
G.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing - First Consideration - Lodging Tax for Conventions and Visitor Bureau
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Announcements of Meetings
1. Future Draft Agendas: City Council July 19, August 3, 2016 and
Council/Manager August 10, 2016
B. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
AR910This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.