Loading...
05-15-18 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber May 15, 2018 6:30 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Proclamation for Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative and the Memorial Day Observance 3-4 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes: 1. City Council Meeting - May 1, 2018 5-10 B. Approval of City Check Register 11 C. Licenses: 1. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Chester Bird American Legion 12 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Good Shepherd Church 13-15 3. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License - Olivia’s Organic Café & Event Center 16 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Human Rights Commission - March 27, 2018 17-18 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - March 27, 2018 19-26 3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Task Force - April 18, 2018 27-29 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Award Contract for the 2018 Wesley Park Shelter Roof Replacement - Project No. 18-12 30-33 2. Approve Purchase of Rotary Mower 34-36 F. Receipt of April 2018 Financial Reports 37-50 G. Receive and File the Highway 169 Mobility Study 51-64 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #638 - Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Amendment #4 - 5430 Glenwood Avenue - Hopkins School District, Applicant 65-126 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input. A. Authorize Issuance, Award Sale, and Prescribe the Form and Details and Provide Payment for the $2,975,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A 18-36 127-146 B. Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan - Release for Public Review and Comment 147 Page 2 May 15, 2018 6. NEW BUSINESS - continued C. Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No. 112, Amendment #2 - 5200 Wayzata Boulevard - Global One Golden Valley, Applicant 148-156 D. Second Consideration - Ordinance #637 - Amend Section 5.02: Application and Licenses - Procedure and Administration and Summary of Ordinance for Publication 157-173 E. Review of Council Calendar F. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 1. C. Proclamation for the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative and the Memorial Day Observance Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary The Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative which includes the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale in partnership with the Chester Bird American Legion Post #523 would like to present a Community Memorial Day Observance to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The following Proclamation will be read at the event on Memorial Day, May 28, 2018, at 10 am at the Chester Bird American Legion Post located at 200 North Lilac Drive. Attachment: • Proclamation for Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative and the Memorial Day Observance (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt a Proclamation for the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative and the Memorial Day Observance. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROCLAMATION FOR THE BEYOND THE YELLOW RIBBON INITIATIVE AND THE MEMORIAL DAY OBSERVANCE WHEREAS, the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale have united to form the Quad Communities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative; and WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley support and actively participate in the Quad Cities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative; and WHEREAS, a Yellow Ribbon community unites key areas within a community to create a network that connects organizations, resources, and employers to meet the needs of local service members, veterans and military families in Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the outward showing of support enables successful transitions for those affected by military deployments and builds a stronger, more compassionate community; and WHEREAS, the Yellow Ribbon Community in partnership with the Chester Bird American Legion Post #523 would like to present a Community Memorial Day Observance to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice; and WHEREAS, the Community Observance will be held on Memorial Day, May 28, 2018, at the Chester Bird American Legion Post #523 located in the City of Golden Valley. NOW , THEREFORE, let it be known, that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby recognize the Memorial Day Observance at the Chester Bird American Legion and ask all to join in honoring this commemorative occasion and urge all citizens to express appreciation for those who lost their lives in the line of service. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 15th day of May, 2018. __________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA May 1, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1B. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Gillian Rosenquist and Steve Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Cisneros and City Clerk Luedke. 1C. Proclamation for the Minnesota Rolling Rowdies Prep Wheelchair Basketball Team Mayor Harris presented a proclamation to Program Coordinator Beka Bickel and David Petit, a member of the Minnesota Rolling Rowdies Wheelchair Basketball team recognizing the team’s achievements in 2018. Ms. Bickel and Mr. Petit provided additional information on their team. The Council congratulated Ms. Bickel and the team for a job well done. MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by the Council Member Clausen to approve the proclamation and the motion carried. 1D. Proclamation for Arbor Day and Arbor Month   Mayor Harris read a proclamation adopting May 10, 2018, as Arbor Day and May 2018 as Arbor month. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by the Council Member Clausen to approve the proclamation and the motion carried. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of May 1, 2018, as submitted and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to approve the consent agenda of May 1, 2018, as revised: removal of 3F-Acceptance of a Donation of a Memorial Bench Plaque and Bench and the motion carried. 3A. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting - April 17, 2018. 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C1. Approve the issuance of an On-Sale Brewer Taproom and Off-Sale Brewer Malt Liquor License to Under Pressure Brewing Company located at 8806 7th Avenue North, contingent upon the applicant providing proof that the Commissioner approved their license before the brewer begins selling alcohol. 3C2. Authorize renewal of Refuse and Recycling Vehicle licenses for the 2018-2019 period as follows: Ace Solid Waste, Baldy Sanitation and Waste Management of MN Inc.   Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- May 1, 2018 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - April 9, 2018 2. Human Rights Commission - January 23, 2018 3. Environmental Commission - March 26, 2018 4. Human Services Fund - March 19, 2018 5. Open Space & Recreation Commission - November 27, 2017 6. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - March 15, 2018 3E1. Authorize a contract with Seal Tech, Inc. in the amount of $50,000 for the 2018 Crack Sealing Project No. 18-13. 3F. Adopt Resolution 18-30, accepting a Donation for a Memorial Bench Plaque and a Bench for Brookview Golf Course. 3G. Adopt Resolution 18-31, accepting a Report of Inspection Procedure and Results for determining Qualification of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3M. Accept Donation of Memorial Bench Plaque and Bench for Brookview Golf Course   The Council thanked the donors for their donation of a memorial bench plaque and bench. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 18-30, accepting a Donation for a Memorial Bench Plaque for Rick and Connie MacKrell and a bench for Brookview Golf Course for Steve Feldman. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4A. Public Hearing - Xenia Avenue South and Golden Hills Drive Improvement Project No. 16-09 Assistant City Engineer Kakach presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Engineer Oliver answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Ms. Shelly Marsh, 5011 Circle Down, asked how the traffic on Xenia Avenue and the traffic coming off of Highway 394 would be configured during and after the improvement project. Mr. Tom Rost, TPI Hospitality Holiday Express, said he is concerned about the access and financial impact to his business during the project because the entrance to the business will be impacted during the improvement period. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Resolution 18-32, ordering Construction of Certain Proposed Public Improvements and authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Xenia Avenue South and Golden Hills Drive Improvement Project #16-09. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- May 1, 2018 4B. Public Hearing - Special Assessments for Xenia Avenue South and Golden Hills Drive Improvement Project Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 18-33, adopting and confirming Assessments for Various Public Improvements in the Xenia Avenue South and Golden Hills Drive Improvement project. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4C. Public Hearing - Ordinance #633 - Conditional Use Permit 110, Amendment #1 - 730 Florida Avenue South - Import Auto Sales, LLC, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Import Auto Sales LLC located at 730 Florida Avenue South. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Ordinance #633, approval of Conditional Use Permit 110, Amendment #1, 730 Florida Avenue South, Import Auto Sales, LLC, Applicant. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4D. Public Hearing - Ordinance #634 - Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, Amendment #3 - 701 Lilac Drive North - Transform Minnesota, Applicant Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Mr. John Giese, 500 Yosemite Avenue North, said he supports the Damascus Way development as long as level 3 sex offenders are not allowed as clientele. He said otherwise he supports half- way houses that help people transition back after being in prison and thinks it is positive that Golden Valley is keeping the organization here and that the building is being repaired. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the amendment to the Planned Use Development for Transform Minnesota located at 701 Lilac Drive North. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- May 1, 2018 4D. Public Hearing - Ordinance #634 - Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 - continued MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Ordinance #634, approval of Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, Amendment #3, Transform Minnesota, Applicant. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4E. Public Hearing - Amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map - Lot 2 of Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 - Oppidan, Inc., Applicant 18-34 Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the General Land Use Plan for Tennant Companies. MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 18-34, for an amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map for Lot 2 of Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, reguiding from Industrial to Medium-High Density Residential. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4F. Public Hearing - Ordinance #635 - Amendment to the Official Zoning Map for Lot 2 of Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 Plat - Oppidan, Inc., Applicant Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Ordinance #635, amending the Official Zoning Map for Lot 2 of Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, rezoning from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4G. Public Hearing - Ordinance #636 - Conditional Use Permit 159 - Lot 2 of Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 - Oppidan, Inc., Applicant Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Ordinance #636, approval of Conditional Use Permit 159, Lot 2 of Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, for a Residential Facility for up to 30 individuals. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4H. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Marie Estates - 7040 Glenwood Avenue Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report stating the applicant has withdrawn their application and no further Council action was needed. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- May 1, 2018 5. OLD BUSINESS   6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Award 2018 Trunk Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge Maintenance Project No. 17-21  City Engineer Oliver presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the Trunk Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge Maintenance project. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to award the bid and enter into a contract for the 2018 Trunk Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge Maintenance Project No. 17-21 to the lowest responsible bidder, PCiRoads in the amount of $206,191 and the motion carried. 6B. Authorize Agreement for Traffic Control Signal with the Minnesota Department of Transportation 18-35 City Engineer Oliver presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the agreement for the traffic control signal with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 18-35, to enter into a Traffic Control Signal Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Traffic Signal Replacement at the intersection of Trunk Highway 55 and Meadow Lane North. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6C. First Consideration - Ordinance #637 - Amendment to Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under this Chapter - Procedure and Administration City Clerk Luedke presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Cisneros and City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the proposed amendments to Section 5.02 regarding the liquor license application and license procedures. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adopt Ordinance #637, Amendment to Chapter 5: Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Regulations Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under this Chapter - Procedure and Administration. Upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Rosenquist and Schmidgall, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6D. Review of Council Calendar Some Council Members may attend the 2018 Bike Rodeo on May 3, 2018, at 6 pm at the Crystal Community Center located at 4800 Douglas Drive, Crystal. Unofficial City Council Minutes -6- May 1, 2018 6D. Review of Council Calendar - continued Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Little League opening day events on May 5, 2018, starting at 11 am at Isaacson Field located at 7101 Sandburg Road. Some Council Members may attend the 2018 Animal Humane Society’s Walk for Animals on May 5, 2018, from 8 am to 1 pm at the Golden Valley Animal Humane Society located at 845 Meadow Lane North. Some Council Members may attend the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the Jewish Family and Children’s Services and PRISM on May 8, 2018, at 4 pm located at 5905 Golden Valley Road. The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on May 8, 2018, at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Arbor Day Celebration on May 10, 2018, at 10 am at the School of Engineering and Arts located at 5905 Golden Valley Road. Some Council Members may attend PRISM’s Annual Taste of the Burbs Gala on May 10, 2018, at 5 pm at Crown Plaza Minneapolis West Hotel located at 3131 Campus Drive, Plymouth. Some Council Members may attend the Vehicle Fair on May 12, 2018, from 10 am to noon at the Crystal Community Center located at 4800 Douglas Drive, Crystal. Some Council Members may attend the Run Meadowbrook Run event on May 12, 2018, at 7 am at Brookview Park. The next City Council meeting will be held on May 15, 2018, at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Birdtown Half Marathon on May 19, 2018, at 8 am at Lakeview Terrace Park located at 3769 Crystal Lake Road, Robbinsdale. 6E. Mayor and Council Communication The Council thanked the Human Services Fund, city staff, sponsors and volunteers for a successful Run the Valley event. 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Fonnest and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Chester Bird American Legion Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary The Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive, has applied for a temporary on-sale liquor license for Saturday, June 23, 2018, from 5 pm to midnight for the 2018 Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Annual Street Dance. The City Code does provide for temporary sales of liquor with Council approval. Also, required is a certificate of liquor liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured in the amount of $1,000,000. The Chester Bird American Legion has provided this certificate for their event. Recommended Action Motion to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for the Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive, for the 2018 Golden Valley Fire Relief Street Dance on June 23, 2018. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Good Shepherd Church Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments • Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Good Shepherd Church. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING LG220 Appli~ation for Exempt Permit An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit Application Fee (non-refundable) 11/17 Page 1 of 2 organization that: Applications are processed in the order received. If the application • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and • awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the year. application fee is $100; otherw ise the fee is $150. If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite your county by calling 651-539-1900. service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION ~~~~:zation G:ocd -Shephod CJ'-\A.-rGh Previ?us Gambl ing X -:2.?00C/-I ¥ _ OO Cf Permit Number: Minnesot~ Tax ID Lj / _ O '8' -.,3?J~ / Federal Employer ID Number, 1f any: · Number (FEIN), if any: Mailing Address: 115 t---\PrSeV A ve . s . I City: Cx>lden V(}.._,II~ ,, State: (Y}t\J . Zip: ssv~ounty: 411ne,fl1~ Name of Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Feel)✓ r Lee fVl ar § u...o rd CEO Daytime Phone: ,~ -st/</-01/l~CEO Email:k+h-e rm o...r G uarcl@qoo::f 5/ie.,:;/2erc/ q v, I} (permit will be emailed (sl this email addr~s unless otherwise indicate?rbelow) Email permit to (if other than the CEO): NONPROFIT STATUS Type of Nonprofit Organizal,~heck one): D Fraternal Religious D Veterans D Other Nonprofit Organization Attach a copy of ilM of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) • A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.SQs,mite.ma.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767 • IRS Income tax exemption (S0l{c)} letter In your organization's name Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the • IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500. IRS -Affiliate of national, statewide, or International parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of bQtb of the following: 1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling; and 2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted Gcx:cf S/2 I, rJ c; ,,i / (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): _ · -f;/? -e "-• .6Q ,_ Physical Address (do not use P.O . box): Jlj_s · Je.rs--e~ A ve_ 5 · Check one : Colden 0vl½J Zip: 5S y';J(,, 4n,VV/1 ~Clty: County: 0Township: Zip: County: Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): &10 /l -16'-~j~ ' Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: M-affie DBingo D Paddlewheels •Pull-Tabs DTipboards Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffie boards, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo ball selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under the List of Licensees tab, or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 11/17 Page 2 of 2 LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before submitting application to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board) CITY APPROVAL for a gambling premises located within city limits ~he application is acknowledged with no waiting period. •The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days • (60 days for a 1st class city). The application is denied. PrintCityName: Go(J'fV) ua.Jl~ The city or county must sign before submitting application to the Gambling Control Board. COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises located in a township Bhe application is acknowledged with no waiting period. he application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period, and allows the Board to Issue a permit after 30 days. Ohe application is denied. Print County Name: ________________ _ Signature of County Personnel: Title: ______________ Date: ______ _ TOWNSHIP (If required by the county) On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application, per Minn. Statutes, section 349.213.) Print Township Name: _______________ _ Signature of Township Officer: ____________ _ Title: _____________ Date: ______ _ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE (required) The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the bes f my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial te. report will be completed and returned to the Boar 1t O da s the eve REQUIREMENTS MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENTS Complete a separate application for: Mall application with: • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days; or __ a copy of your proof of nonprofit status; and • all gambling conducted on one day. Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are conducted on the same day. Financial report to be completed within 30 days after the gambling activity Is done: __ application fee (non-refundable). If the application is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. Make check payable to State of Minnesota. A financial report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Board. To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for 3-1/2 years (Minn. Statutes, section 349.166, subd. 2(f)). Questions? Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 651-539-1900. Data privacy notice: The information requested on this form (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine your organization's qualifications to be Involved In lawful gambling activities In Minnesota. Your organization has the right to refuse to supply the information; however, If your organization refuses to supply this Information, the Board may not be able to determine your organization's qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to Issue a permit. If your organization supplies the information requested, the Board will be able to process the application. Your organization's name and address will be public Information when received by the Board. All other information provided will be private data about your organization until the Board issues the permit. When the Board Issues the permit, all information provided will become public. If the Board does not Issue a permit, all information provided remains private, with the exception of your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data about your organization are available to Board members, Board staff whose work requires access to the information; Minnesota's Depart- ment of Public Safety; Attorney General; Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota Management & Budget, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national and International gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order; other Individuals and agencies specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access to the Information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of Information after this notice was given; and anyone with your written consent. This form will be made available in alternative format (I.e. large print, braille) upon request. An equal opportunity employer Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 3. C. 3. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License - Olivia’s Organic Café & Event Center Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary Olivia’s Organic Café & Event Center, LLC dba Olivia’s Organic Café & Event Center has submitted an application for an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and 3.2 % Malt Liquor License. Olivia’s Organic Café will be in the Wirth Chalet located at 1301 Theodore Wirth Parkway which is the former location of Envision Catering & Hospitality. City Attorney has reviewed the application, and has found the documents are in order and complete and meets the requirements for consideration of the issuance of an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and 3.2 % Malt Liquor License. The Golden Valley Police Department is in the process of completing the back ground investigation, therefore, staff recommends approval of the license upon the completion of a satisfactory back ground investigation. Recommended Action Motion to approve the issuance of an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and 3.2 % Malt Liquor License to Olivia’s Organic Café & Event Center, LLC dba Olivia’s Organic Café & Event Center located at 1301 Theodore Wirth Parkway through June 30, 2018, contingent upon a satisfactory back ground investigation. Human Rights Commission March 27, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 MINUTES Human Rights Commission (HRC) Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Council Conference Room March 27, 2018 Commissioners present: Maurice Harris Jonathan Burris Adam Buttress Gloria Peck Carrie Yeager Commissioners absent: Kyle Pettersen-Scott, Chair Eve Clarkson Teresa Martin Isaac Mintzer Staff: Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director The meeting was convened at 6:36 pm by Vice Chair Harris. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Commissioner Yeager, seconded by Commissioner Peck to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 23, 2018 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Yeager, seconded by Commissioner Peck to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Recap Joint Council/Commission/Board Meeting Commissioner Peck requested a recap of the joint meeting that took place on February 27, 2018. Commissioner Harris, along with K. Santelices provided a synopsis of the meeting. Council/Manager Meeting Update K. Santelices provided the commission with a recap of the March 13, 2018 Council/Manager meeting where Chair Pettersen-Scott presented the Council with the HRC 2017 Annual Report and the proposed 2018 HRC Work Plan. Staff shared the Council’s positive feedback to HRC on the Welcome Statement HRC created, as well as the profound thanks from Council to the Commissioners for their dedication to the Commission and the City. Human Rights Commission March 27, 2018 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 NEW BUSINESS Pride Planning Date of the Pride event was confirmed by Commissioner Peck. Commissioner Burris pointed out that the HRC should purchase a booth sooner, rather than later, in order to preserve the spot. Staff researched cost of booth, which is $100. Motion by Commissioner Burris, seconded by Commissioner Buttress to approve $100 purchase of booth for the HRC at the 2018 Pride Festival. Motion carried 5-0. Staff will request check, and submit registration form on behalf of the Commission. Commission discussed what to include on the booth at the festival. Commission agreed to include the human rights bookmarks and the HRC magnets. Staff recommended updating the HRC brochure, and bringing them to the festival as well. Staff will work with communications to update the brochure, and check to see if the communications team is/or will be promoting the Pride festival through City channels. Commission further decided that the Commissioners should sign up for shifts to work at the festival. Staff will put Pride planning on the next meeting agenda. Voter Rights Awareness Vice Chair Harris introduced the topic. Staff shared some resources provided by Council Member Rosenquist, and the City Finance Director. Commission discussed several aspects of elections and voting education, including voting rights, how to find information on candidates, helping voters understand what they are voting for, and potentially, “how to be a candidate,” and encouraging underrepresented groups to run for offices. Commissioner Harris volunteered to work with Commissioner Peck on potential partnership with the League of Women Voters. Commissioner Yeager volunteered to start pulling together information to create an educational page – linked to the City’s HRC website. Staff will work with both and look into voter registration rules/laws within the City to determine how the HRC may be able to get involved with voter registration. Adjourn Motion by Commissioner Burris, seconded by Commissioner Buttress to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 pm. Motion carried 5-0. _______________________________ Kyle Pettersen-Scott, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Kirsten Santelices, Staff Liaison Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Santelices, Staff Liaison/Human Resources Director Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representatives Blum and Waldhauser. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes – January 23, 2018, Regular Meeting MOVED by Perich, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the minutes as submitted. Waldhauser and Blum abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 8806 Olson Memorial Highway Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Subdivision 3, Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces for Class III Restaurants • 20 parking spaces off the required 94 parking spaces for a total of 74 parking spaces Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new restaurant. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant’s proposal to replace the existing Perkins restaurant with a new restaurant. She noted that the existing building will be used however, Perkins was considered at Class I restaurant which means they did not have a liquor license and the proposed new restaurant will be a Class III restaurant with a liquor license. She added that the proposed new restaurant will also have a bar area and a patio on the west corner of the building which adds to the amount of required parking. Goellner discussed the parking requirements and explained that the proposed new restaurant is required to have 94 parking spaces and that they are proposing to have 74 parking spaces. Maxwell asked about the rationale behind requiring more parking with the addition of a liquor license. Goellner stated that generally Class III restaurants include a bar where people might come individually so more parking spaces would likely be needed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 2 Goellner noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include the following: there is no room to expand the parking lot, the outdoor seating is only used four months of the year, other communities count outdoor patio seating differently, operating a Class III restaurant without a patio or bar would still require a variance of five parking spaces, the City Code requires about twice as much parking for a restaurant serving liquor, and they are proposing to reduce the overall seat count from the existing Perkins. Blum stated that the building already exists and operates as a business. He added that the applicants are proposing to add the new patio and bar area and that both of these things are circumstances being created by the applicant. Goellner agreed and reiterated that in order to have any type of Class III restaurant at this property, a variance of five parking spaces would be needed. Orenstein asked if there is any on-street parking available. Goellner said there is some on-street parking available now, but that sidewalk and bike lanes are planned on 7th Avenue in the near future. She added that on-street parking doesn’t count toward the required number of off-street parking spaces. Orenstein asked where overflow parking would go. Goellner said it would most likely go to neighboring properties. Waldhauser added that a brewery is proposed for the property across the street and that they will probably need all of the available parking for their business. Goellner stated that the applicant has contacted TruStone Financial and Red Lobster about shared parking, but it hasn’t worked out. She stated that the applicant did adjust their plans to reduce the parking demand by eliminating 1,500 square feet of patio space, reducing the size of the bar area, and adding 11 existing parking spaces back into their plans. The applicant is also including bicycle racks in their plans. Blum asked if the proposed patio area could be used for parking instead. Goellner said no, parking spaces would not work in that area. Blum asked about the dimensions of the patio. Goellner said it is approximately 500 square feet. Blum asked about the dimensions of an average parking space. Goellner said an average parking space is 9 feet in width and 18.5 feet in depth. Blum asked if the dumpster will be located in the northwest corner. Goellner said yes. Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, representing the applicants, stated that they are currently remodeling the restaurant to be a Thai restaurant and it has been difficult changing the use. She stated that the patio is 18 ft. x 36 ft. and that a sidewalk wraps around the building so the west side of the building is not wide enough to add parking spaces and a drive aisle. She stated that the applicants also own a restaurant in Brooklyn Park that shares parking with a grocery store and has adequate parking so they don’t think the number of spaces in this proposal will be an issue. She said they know a brewery is going in across the street but they have hundreds of parking spaces and they are still talking with TruStone Financial about shared parking. She stated that this proposal has quite a few less seats than Perkins and they don’t think the bar calculations make sense for this use because they won’t have a bar that will be three people deep, it will just be a bar to serve the restaurant. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 3 Maxwell asked Freeman if the bar area could be made smaller. Freeman stated that it is a relatively small bar with 10 seats. If it were too much smaller there wouldn’t be adequate space for the things needed in a bar. Ann Ahmed, Applicant, stated that it doesn’t make sense that the bar only seats 10, but that 11 parking spaces are required. Freeman noted that the patio is only used three or four months out of the year, but the parking is counted the same as the interior space. Perich opened the public hearing. Rob Smolund, Open to Business, stated that there is a bike trail near this property and that he will bike to eat at this restaurant. He stated that he supports this proposal and that the parking requirements should be lowered to encourage people to find alternate ways to get to places. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Waldhauser stated that there is logic to the arguments for less parking. She stated the City doesn’t want a lot of excess parking, but right now the Zoning Code doesn’t support that. She said she thinks the proposed 74 parking spaces is probably adequate because the bar is basically used by people waiting for tables so the bar shouldn’t add a lot of parking demand. She said that there will be some on-street parking available and that the proposed patio is too small to add big crowds. She said it is a little more problematic when they look at the criteria used to grant variances because the circumstances are being created by the landowner but there is logic to what is being requested and it is hard to stay in business without a bar. Perich stated that the parking lot is too small and the City’s parking requirements are too large. He noted that the patio will only be used when the weather is nice, they’ve exhausted their options, and they are asking for a reasonable option. Orenstein agreed and said he thinks this is a reasonable request. Maxwell also agreed and said the applicant has tried to ameliorate their issues and the property has been a restaurant in the past so he is in favor of the requested variance. Blum said many people are excited to see new business in Golden Valley but he is struggling with the matter of equity and fairness. He said he thinks the BZA is more restricted in how they interpret things rather than pushing an outcome and it is ok for the BZA to be objectively following the rules and that there is an appeals process. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a variance for 20 parking spaces off the required 94 parking spaces for a total of 74 parking spaces to allow for the construction of a new restaurant. Commissioner Blum abstained. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 4 7210 Harold Avenue Tollberg Homes, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.22, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 5 ft. over the 28 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 33 feet. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.22, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(C) Maximum Garage Width • 10% off the maximum garage width allowed of 65% of the dwelling’s front facade to a garage width that is 75% of the dwelling’s front facade. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Goellner referred to elevations of a home being proposed at 7210 Harold Avenue and explained that the house requires two variances. The first variance request is to allow the house to be 33 feet in height rather than the allowed 28 feet, and the second variance request would allow 75% of the home’s front facade to be garage rather than the 65% allowed. Maxwell asked how much wider the house would have to be to make the garage percentage work. Goellner stated that the garage width could shrink or the width of the house could expand because there is some additional buildable area on the sides of the lot. Goellner noted that the applicant stated that the unique circumstances in this case include that the topography of the lot necessitates a tuck-under garage, the height of the proposed home above the tuck-under garage is normal height, the proposed garage width is 24 feet which is a standard size, the width of the lot (56 feet) limits the ability to meet maximum garage width requirements, they can’t meet the building envelope requirements if the house were made wider on all stories, and the proposed design has curb appeal without overemphasizing the garage. Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variances because while the topography necessitates a tuck-under garage, two stories above the tuck-under garage is optional, there is imposing visual impact from a tuck-under garage with two stories above, there is significant buildable area on the lot that is not being utilized, garage width requirements are important to preservation of neighborhood character in the R-2 Zoning District, the applicant is able to build a 24-foot wide garage if other design changes are made, and no alternative designs have been provided to show that all reasonable options have been exhausted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 5 Wade Tollefson, Northwest Design Inc., representing the applicant, referred to the height of the proposed house and stated that they would be building down into a hill so a regular two story home would not sit higher as it relates to the street. He stated that it is not a height issue, it is a grade issue and added that if they added retaining walls it would meet the requirements, but it wouldn’t change the height of the house. Maxwell asked if the house were moved forward on the lot if the variance regarding height would still be needed. Tollefson said he would still need the height variance and that moving the retaining walls would require about $10,000 in changes because they would need to be taller and engineered. He said that they are proposing a proper design for this lot and the two story product fits the buyer’s lifestyle and added that there would be a financial hardship just to meet the code, or they would be changing the grade to meet the height requirements. Maxwell asked about different options for the garage and front facade percentage. Tollefson said if they build a more traditional house, the trusses and design of the garage would appear much bigger from the street. Perich asked about making the house wider. Tollefson said there is no room on the east and it is very tight on the west. Perich said he would like to see other options they’ve tried. Blum noted that the applicant said he has built other homes taller than this one and asked if those are in Golden Valley. Tollefson said yes and stated that the house next door to this lot is equivalent or taller as it relates to the street. He stated that it is just a matter of how the grade is being viewed and that most cities use the average grade of the property, not just the grade at the front like Golden Valley does. He noted that if the average grade of the side and front were used, this house would work. Goellner asked Tollefson how the house would be designed differently if he had known about the grade requirements. Tollefson said he didn’t even realize there was a height issue and that this is the first house in the City where the garage width and percentage issue has come up. Blum asked if there is anything preventing a side or rear entry garage. Tollefson said neither would work with the grade of the lot. Blum asked if it was difficult, but not impossible. Tollefson said financially they couldn’t make a rear entry garage work. He added that the lot to the east is lower so a rear entry garage worked on that property. Tollefson said they could go with a traditional two story house but it would not fit in and it would look even taller which would do the reverse of the spirit of the Zoning Code. He showed the Board a rendering of a house that would fit on the lot and said it would look higher out of the ground as it relates to the neighborhood and the street. Perich opened the public hearing. Josh (last name not given), said he is looking to purchase this home and there is a dramatic slope and a wetland in the back of the house. He said the design of the home has a deck above the garage to overlook the park and to move two retaining walls just to meet the code doesn’t make sense. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 6 Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein said he would prefer to see other alternatives. He said he understands the rationale, but he would like to see other options. Perich said he understands the issue with the height variance request, it is the garage width request he is struggling with. Waldhauser said she also understands the issues, and the aesthetics of the proposed home are good but a five bedroom, 3 bathroom home is not what the City had in mind when this property was split into two 50-foot wide lots. Maxwell said he doesn’t understand why the house can’t be made wide enough to make the garage percentage work. Waldhauser noted that if the house were wider they may need side yard variances. Blum said the steep grade and wetland are compelling, but don’t seem to justify what the applicant is asking for because there are a lot of other options. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to table the request to the April 24, 2018, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 400 Ardmore Drive Rodney Haas, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 10 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a screened porch addition. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant’s request to build a screened porch addition on the north end of the house. She explained that the north property line is considered the rear lot line and the required setback is 25 feet. Goellner discussed the applicant’s stated unique circumstances which include that this is a small corner lot with two front yards, the rear yard is on the side of the house and the addition would meet side yard setback requirements, there is less space for an addition on the east side of the home due to the location of the house on the lot, the proposed porch would be away from the street, and the alley creates more space between this property and the home to the north. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 7 Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance because it is possible to build a smaller porch to reduce the size of the variance request and the neighborhood character may be better maintained with a smaller screened porch. Perich asked if the house was built before the alley. Goellner said she wasn’t sure but she would guess that the alley was probably built first. Maxwell noted that the alley does provide some distance between this home and the home to the north. Rodney Haas, applicant, said the house was built in 1964 and that the plan is to remodel it but maintain a lot of the existing features. He said he thought Ardmore Drive was the front of the property and that he considered putting a screened porch on the east side of the property on the back of the house, but there are some trees in that area that he would like to save so the north side of the property with the alley seemed to be the least intrusive location. Waldhauser asked about the size of the house. Haas stated that it is approximately 1,100 square feet and that he is also planning on building a second story that will meet all of the Code requirements. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein stated that this is an unusual corner lot, the variance request is due to the positioning of the house on the lot, the rear yard really acts like a side yard, and the alley provides a buffer for the property to the north. Waldhauser said she supports the requested variance. Blum said he doesn’t think that corner lots are a rationale the Board is supposed to use. He said this is a significant variance request and that he hasn’t heard any circumstances unique to this property. Orenstein said he would argue that the alley is unique to this property. Maxwell reiterated that the rear yard really acts like a side yard and the proposed porch would be in compliance if this were a side yard. He stated that most houses have clear front and back sides and that the same rules apply to corner lots as other lots which doesn’t always make sense. He stated that there is no real building envelope left because it is a small lot with large setback requirements. He added that the applicant didn’t build the house, the porch fits in with the neighborhood and the applicant has met the requirements for a variance. Blum said side and rear yard setbacks are very important and he doesn’t think this variance request meets the criteria the Board uses when approving variances. Orenstein said the proposed porch doesn’t bother him and that sometimes the Board makes decisions that make sense, but don’t necessarily meet the criteria exactly. Waldhauser suggested the porch be made more of an oblong shape and extend the access to the east. Haas said he would be open to making the porch smaller or moving Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 8 it further to the east, but he thinks he would probably still need a variance. Goellner added that the porch may need a variance from the articulation requirements if it is relocated. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 10 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a screened porch addition. Commissioner Blum voted no. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. • 2017 BZA Annual Report Goellner noted that there were significantly fewer variances in 2017. She referred to the annual report and discussed the various types of projects, trends, and maps of where variances were requested. Orenstein asked if variances change the look and feel of the community. Goellner said she thinks the Board is doing a good job looking for alternatives to granting variances and of keeping the character of the community in mind. She added that staff is also trying to update the Zoning Code when things aren’t working. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 pm. _____________________________ __________________________ David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant City of Golden Valley Bicycle & Pedestrian Task Force Annual Implementation Update Meeting April 18, 2018 Council Conference Room 6:00-8:00 PM Present: Council Members: Steve Schmidgall, Gillian Rosenquist Task Force Members: Billy Binder, Dawn Hill, Hubert Humphrey III, Paul Klaas, Robert Mattison, Dawn Peterson, Laura Pugh Staff: Jason Zimmerman, Emily Goellner, Marc Nevinski, Jeff Oliver, Amy Morgan Also Present: Greg Anderson Call to Order Schmidgall called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Task Force Role Nevinski provided a brief history of the Task Force’s activities since it was established by the City Council in 2016. The Task Force was tasked with creating a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the Transportation Chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which was completed in March 2017. The draft Comp Plan will be released for public comment in mid-May. In September 2017, the City Council agreed that the Task Force could continue meeting on an annual basis to receive updates on the implementation of the Plan, and that the Chair and City Manager may call special meetings as special issues arise. A special meeting on the LimeBike bike share program took place in February 2018. Task Force members asked for clarification on when special meetings will be held in the future. Staff noted that specific criteria has not been established, but the Chair and City Manager will work together to determine when a special meeting is appropriate. There was discussion of whether new members should be recruited to the Task Force. Three members were not present at the meeting, but two have expressed interest in staying involved. Nevinski noted that the Task Force’s role going forward to was receive updates, ask questions, and provide citizen feedback on the progress of the plan’s implementation. It is not the role of the Task Force to take on advocacy efforts that represent the City of Golden Valley or to direct additional work. The next annual meeting will take place in spring 2019 as projects are closing out and before budgeting for 2020 begins. Implementation Update Staff provided a summary of the implementation efforts that have taken place in 2017 and 2018, which included the following projects: 1. Crossing and signage improvements to Luce Line on Plymouth Ave at the intersection with Hwy 169 by Three Rivers Park District Minutes of the Golden Valley Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force April 18, 2018 Page 2 2. Addition of on-street bike lanes and trail reconstruction on Plymouth Avenue between Mendelssohn Ave and Winnetka Ave 3. Sidewalk construction on Golden Valley Rd, Decatur Ave, and 7th Ave in the Hwy 55 West Redevelopment Area 4. Construction of a multi-use trail on Rhode Island Avenue between Medicine Lake Rd and the Pennsylvania Woods Nature Area 5. Recent staff meeting with MnDOT to discuss options for the improvement of crossings of Hwy 55 at Boone Ave/General Mills Blvd, Winnetka Ave, Rhode Island Ave, Douglas Dr, Schaper Rd, Meadow Ln, and Theodore Wirth Pkwy - MnDOT will be repaving Hwy 55 from Boone Ave/General Mills Blvd to Hwy 100 between 2022 and 2027, which will provide the opportunity improve pavement markings and potentially traffic signals 6. Hwy 55 and Douglas Drive intersection will require additional design work before federal and state funding applications can be prepared – this design work will be considered during the upcoming City budgeting process. It was noted that this project must remain independent from the repaving of Hwy 55 planned for 2022- 2027 due to the significant difference in scope, cost, and funding sources for the projects 7. On-street bike lanes were added to Glenwood Ave between Hwy 55 and Xenia Ave by Hennepin County in 2017. Bike lanes will be added east of Hwy 100 in 2019 or 2020 and the City will assess the crosswalks in the portion of roadway at that time 8. Sidewalk construction and other ADA improvements will be made in the area adjacent to the intersection of Xenia Ave and Golden Hills Dr 9. Maintenance will be conducted on the Hwy 100 pedestrian bridge near Briarwood Nature Area this summer in partnership with the City of Crystal 10. Three Rivers Park District is pursuing funding from Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council for the final design work and construction of the Bassett Creek Regional Trail on Golden Valley Rd between Regent Ave and Bonnie Lane. There was additional discussion about the implementation of a multi-use trail on Golden Valley Rd from Douglas Dr to Regent Ave. After additional design work is completed by Hennepin County over the summer, staff will assess the options for funding and implementation for this segment. 11. Hennepin County installed temporary safety improvements to a crosswalk on Golden Valley Rd that connects a bus stop to Courage Kenney, which they are interested in making permanent in the future 12. Representatives from the Canadian-Pacific (CP) Railway inquired with the City, County, and Three Rivers Park District in fall 2017 about the future of a railway segment that CP is willing to sell at some point in the future. The segment runs between the intersection of Xenia Ave/Glenwood Ave and the intersection of Theodore Wirth Parkway/Luce Line Regional Trail. Staff added this segment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan as future multi-use trail. Staff noted that this is a long- term project due to the high cost for the land and that discussions with adjacent property owners such as Breck School will be necessary as the project progresses. 13. A multi-use trail on the south side of Talo Apartments will be built this summer 14. The Central Park adjacent to the Central Park West Apartments includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities that connect South Tyrol neighborhood/Kennedy Addition residents with the West End. A multi-use trail on Wayzata Blvd between Hwy 100 Minutes of the Golden Valley Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force April 18, 2018 Page 3 and the City of Minneapolis boundary is shown on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, but funding for its construction has not yet been identified. Funding will likely be arranged in partnership with City of St. Louis Park and City of Minneapolis. The Task Force and staff discussed whether on-street bike lanes could be implemented in the interim since it is less costly than a multi-use trail. It was noted that on-street bike lanes could create or worsen significantly safety concerns on that roadway and that a multi-use trail was the most appropriate facility to ensure safety of users. 15. Public Works staff will be installing signage for the signed bike routes on nearly 4 miles of local streets this summer, which are located in Maintenance District 3 16. Staff is obtaining a cost estimate for the installation of all on-street bike lanes and sharrows in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to understand how it can be incorporated into the City budget in the future 17. LimeBike bike share program will conduct a soft-launch over the following weekend. The Task Force had several questions about how the bike share program would operate and how problems and concerns would be addressed as they arise. The pilot program will last through the end of 2018 at no cost to the city, at which point the City will weigh the pros and cons of the service and decide if the program should continue. 18. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be released for public comment in mid-May. It includes the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Task Force members are encouraged to provide feedback on the entire plan this summer. 19. The City will be conducting a planning study of the downtown area this summer to understand the opportunities for redevelopment and ways to improve the bicycle and pedestrian network 20. The 2018 Bike Rodeo will take place on May 3rd at Crystal Community Center Staff also provided updates from the neighboring cities of Plymouth, New Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. Staff concluded the summary with a list of next steps, which included several of the projects previously summarized, which will be completed over the next year. It was noted that staff would continue pursuing grant opportunities, conducting studies, looking for opportunities to partner with other agencies, and consider the projects in the Implementation Plan throughout the City budgeting process. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Award Contract for the 2018 Wesley Park Shelter Roof Replacement - Project No. 18-12 Prepared By Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor Summary The 2018 Building Capital Improvement Program includes $270,000 for public building roof replacements (B-#041). The 2018 project includes exterior repairs to the north Wesley Park shelter building. The project consists of replacing the flat roof portions of the shelter with a full hip style roof, replacing the metal roof and replacing the plexi-glass roof window with an insulated window, and improving energy efficiency by adding insulation throughout the building. A bid alternate was included in the bid submittals to replace the asphalt shingle roof at Schaper Park with a metal roof consistent with other park shelters due to its poor condition. The following bids were received for the 2018 Wesley and Schaper Park Shelter Roof Replacement Project: Base Bid Bid Alternate Central Roofing Company $132,455 $75,280 Green Construction Company $131,100 $76,200 Flag Builders $123,880 Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) and staff have reviewed the bids and identified the bid alternates to be significantly higher than the Engineer’s estimate; therefore staff recommends not awarding the Bid Alternate. Staff will solicit additional quotes separately to complete the Schaper Park roof replacement. Attachments • EPI Engineer Estimate (1 page) • EPI Bid Recommendation (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to award contract for the 2018 Wesley Park Shelter Roof Replacement Project to Flag Builders in the amount of $123,800. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, INC.... 715 Florida Ave. S., Suite 111 18382 FM 302, Suite 103 Golden Valley, MN 55426 Fax: 763-398-0121 Canyon Lake, TX 78133 763-398-3040 Phone: 888-733-3050 830-935-4909 epimpls@go-epi.com www.go-epi.com epitx@go-epi.com April 12, 2018 Mr. Al Lundstrom Park Maintenance Supervisor City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: City of Golden Valley Wesley Park Shelter and Schaper Park Shelter – 2018 Roof Replacement Project City Project No.: 18-12 EPI File No. 2018-984 Dear Mr. Lundstrom: Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) has prepared a construction probable cost for the Medley Park Shelter and Schaper Park Shelter - 2018 Roof Replacement project as follows: Roof Replacement (Wesley) $ 92,000.00 Siding, Fascia, Soffit (Wesley) $ 9,500.00 Hip Roof Framing, Sheathing, Insulation (Wesley) $ 14,500.00 Window (Wesley) $ 14,000.00 Permits, Bonds, Insurance (Wesley) $ 4,000.00 Wesley Park Shelter Subtotal $134,000.00 Roof Replacement (Schaper Park Shelter) $ 21,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PROBABLE COST $155,000.00 The current competitive bid arena in our local has become volatile due to an increased demand in the construction trade industry resulting in fewer available qualified contractors and higher bids. This estimate does not reflect this unknown potential influence. Please call (763) 398-3040 with any questions, comments. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, INC. Denny R. Langer, PE Senior Engineer/Project Manager Copy: Michael Berreau, EPI EPI File No. 18-984 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, INC.... 715 Florida Ave. S., Suite 111 18382 FM 302, Suite 103 Golden Valley, MN 55426 Fax: 763-398-0121 Canyon Lake, TX 78133 763-398-3040 Phone: 888-733-3050 830-935-4909 epimpls@go-epi.com www.go-epi.com epitx@go-epi.com May 8, 2018 Mr. Al Lundstrom Park Maintenance Supervisor City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Re: City of Golden Valley Wesley Park Shelter and Schaper Park Shelter - 2018 Roof Replacement City Project No.: 18-12 EPI Project No.: 18-984 Dear Mr. Lundstrom: Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) reviewed the City of Golden – Wesley Park Shelter and Schaper Park Shelter 2018 Roof Replacement project work scope with Scott Cooper of Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. and there were no questions. Scott Cooper attended the pre-bid meeting on April 17, 2018 and indicated that they fully understand the scope of work and that they will be ready to start work in as in the tentative schedule. The work schedule will be discussed in the preconstruction meeting. Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. will be the General Contractor and will use subcontractors for the framing, roofing, window, and siding. Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. is based in Golden Valley, Minnesota. EPI has worked with Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. in the past. Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. successfully completed the City of Golden Valley Lion’s Park Shelter – 2012 Roof Replacement project and the Hampshire Park Shelter – 2014 Roof Replacement project. Based on the review of project work scope with Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. and the fact that they are the low bidder for the base bid (Wesley Park Shelter – 2018 Roof Replacement) we recommend awarding the project to them. The Alternate bids received for the Schaper Park Shelter – 2018 Roof Replacement project were significantly above our estimate, and therefore we do not recommend awarding this alternate bid. EPI recommends that the base bid cost of $123,880.00 for the City of Golden Valley – Wesley Park Shelter - 2018 Roof Replacement project be accepted from Flag Builders of Minnesota, Inc. Please call (763) 398-3040 with any questions or comments. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, INC. Denny R. Langer, PE Senior Engineer/Project Manager Copy: Michael Berreau, EPI EPI File No. 18-984                     Executive Summary For Action  Golden Valley City Council Meeting  May 15, 2018    Agenda Item   3. E. 2. Approve Purchase of Rotary Mower    Prepared By  Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager  Marshall Beugen, Street and Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor  Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor    Summary  The 2018 Vehicle and Equipment Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $25,000 for the  purchase of a rotary mower (V&E‐130)    The existing mower, unit 474, meets replacement criteria set forth in the City’s Vehicle Replacement  Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and  equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring 23 to 27 points meets the  category of “qualifies for replacement”. The 2009 mower due for replacement scored 25 points.    Staff utilizes the mower for mowing the City Hall campus, fire stations, and neighborhood parks.   Staff originally planned replacing the existing mower with a combination mower/spreader unit that  would have the ability to spread granular fertilizer. After considering all options, staff is  recommending purchasing a mower and spreader/sprayer separately. One significant reason is the  ability to use the single unit spreader/sprayer in the winter to apply de‐icing chemicals, mixed with  brine, around the City Hall campus. Staff anticipates using less chemicals and providing better  service with the added ability to use liquids.    The Minnesota Materials Management Division has awarded the following contracts:    Contract No. Item Vendor Amount  138559 Exmark Turf Tracer S‐Series Mower A‐1 Outdoor Power, Inc. $5,918.75  138559 Operator Control Discharge A‐1 Outdoor Power, Inc. $318.75  Total Mower Purchase Price  $6,237.50  138559 Exmark S‐Series Spreader/Sprayer A‐1 Outdoor Power, Inc. $7,758.75  Total Spreader/Sprayer Purchase Price $7,758.75  Total Remittance to Vendor $13,996.25     Attachments   A‐1 Outdoor Power, Inc. Quote (1 page)    Recommended Action  Motion to approve purchase of an Exmark Turf Tracer S‐Series Mower from A‐1 Outdoor Power, Inc.  in the amount of $6,237.50.    Motion to approve purchase of an Exmark S‐Series Spreader/Sprayer from A‐1 Outdoor Power, Inc.  in the amount of $7,758.75.      1 CP:Tony M Q U O T A T I O N DATE: CUSTOMER #: P.O.#: 22410 TERMS:Net 30 4/19/2018A-1 OUTDOOR POWER, INC. 7630 Commerce Street www.a1outdoorpower.com Corcoran, MN 55340 USA Phone #: (763)420-2748 Fax #: (763)420-2448 PHONE #: ALT. #: (763)593-8046 (763)593-8104 Ext: TODD LOCATION:1 STATUS:Active PAGE: ORDER #:1155226 SALES TYPE:Quote (612)741-0327CELL #: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ATTN: FINANCE DEPT. 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ATTN: AL LINDSTROM 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 22410BILL TO SHIP TO MFR PRODUCT NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE NET TOTAL EXM SSS270CSB00000 $10,766.00 $7,758.75 $7,758.751SPREADER/SPRAYER S-SERIES EX27 SUB STAND-ON EXM TTS600GKA523E0 $8,213.00 $5,918.75 $5,918.751TURF TRACER S-SERIES FS600V KAWI E/S 52" DECK EXM 116-8430 $399.00 $318.75 $318.751OCD - OPERATOR CONTROL DISCHARGE WAM/VT A1 100 $.00 $.00 $0.001SET-UP & SERVICED EXM INVOICE-BID $.00 $.00 $0.001INVOICE - BID PROGRAM MN STATE CONTRACT #138559 THANK YOU, TONY !! Quotes valid for 30 days. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS !!! VISIT OUR WEBSITE www.a1outdoorpower.com FOR CURRENT HOURS, PARTS LOOK UP LINKS, USED & NON-CURRENT EQUIPMENT SPECIALS I AGREE TO THIS TRANSACTION x_______________________________ $13,996.25ORDER TOTAL: $0.00TAX: SUBTOTAL:$13,996.25 Authorized By: Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 3. F. Receipt of April 2018 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) ∼ Brookview Center (Special Revenue Fund) ∼ Human Services Fund (Special Revenue Fund) ∼ Building Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) ∼ Park Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) General Fund Operations: As of April 2018, the City has used $5,025,352 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments • April 2018 General Fund (2 pages) • April 2018 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) • April 2018 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) • April 2018 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) • April 2018 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) • April 2018 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) • April 2018 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) • April 2018 Brookview Center Fund (1 page) • April 2018 Human Services Fund (1 page) • April 2018 Building Improvement Fund (1 page) • April 2018 Park Improvement Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the April 2018 Financial Reports. Over % 2018 April YTD (Under)Of Budget Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 001 Council $350,935 37,187 105,265 ($245,670)30.00% 003 City Manager 813,410 84,228 251,357 (562,053)30.90% 004 Transfers Out 1,982,580 0 882,580 (1,100,000)44.52%(1) 005 Admin. Services 1,986,970 232,882 597,628 (1,389,342)30.08% 006 Legal 158,100 19,890 62,279 (95,821)39.39%(2) 007 Risk Management 310,000 0 1,000 (309,000)0.32% 011 General Gov't. Bldgs.732,680 71,037 231,244 (501,436)31.56% 016 Planning 409,655 38,880 103,462 (306,193)25.26% 018 Inspections 811,280 90,301 233,005 (578,275)28.72% 022 Police 6,204,575 592,807 1,767,600 (4,436,975)28.49% 023 Fire 1,496,150 113,778 455,947 (1,040,203)30.47% 035 Physical Dev Admin 309,505 34,012 98,430 (211,075)31.80% 036 Engineering 776,095 71,601 209,177 (566,918)26.95% 037 Streets 1,790,925 175,266 538,394 (1,252,531)30.06% 066 Park & Rec. Admin.737,210 78,228 221,994 (515,216)30.11% 067 Park Maintenance 1,215,945 117,535 318,669 (897,276)26.21% 068 Recreation Programs 445,385 31,430 99,012 (346,373)22.23% TOTAL Expenditures $20,531,400 $1,789,062 $6,177,043 ($14,354,357)30.09% (1) Tranfers will be made in June, 2018 except for Equipment Transfer of $882,580. (2) Legal services are billed thru March. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures April, 2018 (unaudited) Division 33.00% Over % 2018 April YTD (Under)of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $17,253,460 0 0 ($17,253,460)0.00%(1) Licenses 220,980 37,570 84,505 ($136,475)38.24% Permits 929,785 119,517 443,675 ($486,110)47.72% State Aid 52,375 0 0 ($52,375)0.00%(2) County Aid 0 1,116 Charges For Services: General Government 25,250 1,148 5,231 ($20,019)20.72% Public Safety 160,900 8,190 82,441 ($78,459)51.24% Public Works 163,600 15,846 47,363 ($116,237)28.95% Park & Rec 415,550 14,100 93,254 ($322,296)22.44% Other Funds 691,500 53,458 223,097 ($468,403)32.26% Fines & Forfeitures 320,000 35,681 96,197 ($223,803)30.06%(3) Interest On Investments 75,000 0 0 ($75,000)0.00%(4) Miscellaneous Revenue 193,000 4,351 64,812 ($128,188)33.58% Transfers In 30,000 2,500 10,000 ($20,000)33.33%(5) TOTAL Revenue $20,531,400 $292,361 $1,151,691 ($19,380,825)5.61% 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. LGA is paid in July, Dec ($37,185 total). (3) Fines/Forfeitures are thru for March 2018. (4) Investment income is allocated at year end. (5)Transfers are monthly. Percentage Of Year Completed City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Revenues April 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 42,875 0 0 (42,875)0.00%(4) Recycling Charges 382,520 34,558 98,074 (284,446)25.64%(2) Miscellaneous Revenues 8,000 0 0 (8,000) Interest on Investments 4,000 0 0 (4,000)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 437,395 34,558 98,074 (339,321)22.42% Expenses: Recycling 461,605 24,478 76,916 (384,689)16.66%(3) Total Expenses 461,605 24,478 76,916 (384,689)16.66% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Includes utility billings thru April 2018. (3) This includes the recycling services thru March 2018. (4) Grant reduced due to no compost program. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund April 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,571,280 395,560 1,067,685 (3,503,595)23.36%(1) Emergency Water Supply 183,080 17,426 49,235 (133,845)26.89% Sewer Charges 3,512,300 468,986 1,166,484 (2,345,816)33.21% Meter Sales 20,000 1,622 11,686 (8,314)58.43% Penalties 130,000 2,303 48,799 (81,201)37.54% Charges for Other Services 100,000 5,852 34,821 (65,179)34.82% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 46,000 4,177 11,742 (34,258)25.53% Sale of Assets 10,000 1,959 3,459 (6,541)34.59% Franchise Fees 1,000,000 0 0 (1,000,000)0.00% Certificate of Compliance 75,000 5,300 24,350 (50,650)32.47% Interest Earnings 25,000 0 0 (25,000)0.00% Total Revenue 9,672,660 903,185 2,418,261 (7,254,399)25.00% Expenses: Utility Administration 2,930,400 66,637 543,119 (2,387,281)18.53% Sewer Maintenance 3,088,750 256,189 1,141,686 (1,947,064)36.96% Water Maintenance 4,712,065 257,519 1,249,658 (3,462,407)26.52% Total Expenses 10,731,215 580,345 2,934,463 (7,796,752)27.35% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund April 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 920,950 9,274 9,352 (911,598)1.02% Driving Range Fees 180,000 6,344 6,344 (173,656)3.52% Par 3 Fees 170,000 1,500 1,500 (168,500)0.88% Lawn Bowling 30,000 0 0 (30,000)0.00% Pro Shop Sales 90,000 3,403 4,585 (85,415)5.09% Pro Shop Rentals 300,000 1,511 4,954 (295,046)1.65% Concession Sales 889,960 70,379 220,673 (669,287)24.80% Other Revenue 182,500 105,686 142,600 (39,900)78.14%(3) Interest Earnings 5,000 0 0 (5,000)0.00%(1) Less: Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (30,000)(1,403)(4,425)25,575 14.75% Total Revenue 2,738,410 196,694 385,583 (2,352,827)14.08% Expenses: Golf Operations 802,410 64,276 192,219 (610,191)23.96%(2) Course Maintenance 1,219,520 370,466 580,362 (639,158)47.59% Pro Shop 124,400 15,436 54,680 (69,720)43.95% Grill 647,710 111,347 313,839 (333,871)48.45% Driving Range 74,300 832 2,078 (72,222)2.80% Par 3 Course 26,640 1,129 1,129 (25,511)4.24% Lawn Bowling 8,380 20 1,344 (7,036)16.04% Banquet Staffing 25,400 451 6,422 (18,978)25.28% Total Expenses 2,928,760 563,957 1,152,073 (1,776,687)39.34% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. (3) Includes the trade-in of golf carts -$100,500. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund April 2018 (unaudited) Course opened April 27 Over 2018 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 2,880 0 0 (2,880)0.00%(1) Charges for Services 469,965 37,236 156,168 (313,797)33.23% Total Revenue 472,845 37,236 156,168 (316,677)33.03% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 423,335 42,577 139,796 (283,539)33.02% Total Expenses 423,335 42,577 139,796 (283,539)33.02% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund April 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 50,000 0 0 (50,000)0.00%(1) Interest Earnings-Other 0 0 0 0 Storm Sewer Charges 2,475,000 220,916 732,863 (1,742,137)29.61% Bassett Creek Watershed 0 175,000 175,000 175,000 (5) Miscellaneous Receipts 313,300 0 4,500 (308,800) Sale or Loss of Assets 0 0 1,500 1,500 Total Revenue 2,838,300 395,916 913,863 (1,924,437)32.20% Expenses: Storm Utility 2,707,450 234,993 649,076 (2,058,374)23.97%(2) (3) Street Cleaning 128,595 17,074 26,317 (102,278)20.47% Environmental Control 336,790 17,768 60,560 (276,230)17.98% Debt Service Payments 65,000 0 31,750 (33,250)0.00%(3) Total Expenses 3,237,835 269,835 767,703 (2,470,132)23.71%(4) (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. (3) Debt service payments and Medicine Lake Rd Improvements will be reimbursed by TIF. (4) Reserves are being used that were planned. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Storm Utility Enterprise Fund April 2018 (unaudited) 2018 Equipment Replacement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5700 2018 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Sale of Assets 35,000 0 75,650 40,650 Miscellaneous 0 0 12,994 12,994 DUI Fund Transfer 40,000 0 80,000 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)23,538 0 0 (23,538) Total Revenues 98,538 0 168,644 30,106 (4) Expenditures: Program #Project Number Project Name 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars (Police)100,000 18,230 59,928 40,072 (5) 5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers (Finance)80,000 8,750 24,875 55,125 (1) V&E-009 Front End Loader (Street)260,000 0 0 260,000 V&E-022 Sign Truck (Street)120,000 0 0 120,000 5760 V&E-037 Aerial Ladder (Fire)575,000 0 905,753 (330,753)(2) V&E-060 Rescue Vehicle (Fire)90,000 0 0 90,000 V&E-095 Pickup Truck (Police)40,000 0 0 40,000 V&E-116 Bobcat Toolcat (Park)50,000 0 0 50,000 V&E-130 Rotary Mower (Park)25,000 0 0 25,000 5709 V&E-135 Body Cameras/Dash Cams/Software (Police)24,070 5,888 117,363 (93,293)(3) V&E-145 Skid Steer Loader (Street)55,000 0 0 55,000 5710 V&E-151 Fire Pumper (Fire)600,000 0 598,573 1,427 Total Expenditures 2,019,070 32,868 1,706,492 311,151 (1) Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. (2) In 2017, this included $400,000 for the first half payment that was not billed until 2018. (3) In 2016, a transfer was made to the equipment replacement fund to purchase video dash cams and body cameras together. (4) In 2017, $1,200,000 was transferred from positive performance. (5) In 2018, monies were transferred for an additional squad from the DUI Fund. Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. Over 2018 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Brookview CC Rentals 157,815 7,396 24,186 (133,629)15.33% Backyard Play Area 326,500 24,211 98,606 (227,894)30.20% Miscellaneous Revenues 5,500 0 0 (5,500)0.00% Interest on Investments 100 0 0 (100)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 489,915 31,607 122,792 (367,123)25.06% Expenses: General Area Rooms 290,790 26,313 77,436 (213,354)26.63%(2) Indoor Play Area 107,210 10,654 26,942 (80,268)25.13% Banquet Facility 87,945 7,809 23,958 (63,987)27.24% Total Expenses 485,945 44,776 128,336 (357,609)26.41% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Staff Time/Supplies for Brookview Rental City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Center Special Revenue Fund April 2018 (unaudited) Over 2018 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Pull Tab (10%) Revenues 30,000 2,263 9,704 (20,296)32.35%(3) Fundraisers 30,000 13,494 16,558 (13,442)55.19%(4) Interest on Investments 700 0 0 (700)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 60,700 15,757 26,262 (34,438)43.27% Expenses: Supplies 17,100 5,975 5,975 (11,125)34.94% Allocations 60,000 7,625 14,150 (45,850)23.58%(2) Total Expenses 77,100 13,600 20,125 (56,975)26.10% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Allocations in 2018 are $60,000. (3) Pull Tab revenues are thru March. (4) Solicitation Letters -$2,215.99-YTD; should be allocated to designation (4) Run/Walk -$14,342 YTD Fund Balance at 12/31/17 was $213,524. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Human Services Fund April 2018 (unaudited) 2018 Buiiding Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5200 2018 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Transfer from General Fund 350,000 0 0 (350,000)(1) Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)7,718 0 0 (7,718) Total Revenues 357,718 0 0 (357,718) Expenditures: Project Name Carpet Replacement-City Buildings 30,000 0 0 30,000 Generators 35,000 0 0 35,000 Air Compressor 10,000 0 0 10,000 Installation of Building Security Systems 30,000 4,071 7,373 22,627 Public Buildings Roof Replacement 270,000 22,420 22,420 247,580 Workstation Replacements 40,000 427 11,505 28,495 Window Replacements-Various Buildings 25,000 0 0 25,000 Total Expenditures 440,000 26,918 41,298 398,702 (1)Transfer will be made in June. 2018 Park Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5600 2018 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Transfer from General Fund 300,000 0 250,000 (50,000) Park Dedication Fee 0 0 0 0 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant 150,000 0 100,000 (50,000) Little League/Youth Associations/Play Eq Grants 15,000 0 18,500 3,500 Other Donations 0 0 21,454 21,454 Golden Valley Community Foundation 0 0 35,000 35,000 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)4,915 0 0 (4,915) Total Revenues 469,915 0 424,954 (44,961) Expenditures: Project Name Bleacher, Etc Replacement 25,000 0 19,103 5,897 Park Trail and Parking Lot Improvements 40,000 0 4,659 35,341 Play Structure Replacement 55,000 0 82 54,918 Ball Field Lighting 250,000 0 213,721 36,279 Outdoor Basketball and Hoop Replacement 28,000 0 0 28,000 Park Signage Replacement 10,000 864 10,658 (658) Sun Shelter Replacement/Additions 50,000 0 0 50,000 Tennis & Pickle Ball Court Resurfacing 30,000 0 0 30,000 Wildwood Pickleball Courts 60,000 0 0 60,000 Relamp Athletic Field and Rink Lights 25,000 0 0 25,000 Dugout, Fence and Field Replacement 55,000 1,281 1,281 53,719 Tennis Court Reconstruction 150,000 0 0 150,000 Total Expenditures 778,000 2,145 249,504 528,496 Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 3. G. Receive and File the Highway 169 Mobility Study Prepared By Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary The Highway 169 Mobility Study was initiated by Scott County, MnDOT, and Metropolitan Council in 2015 to evaluate the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), MnPASS Highway Express Travel Lanes, and highway spot mobility improvements in the southwest metropolitan area. The study area for the BRT, MnPASS, and spot mobility improvements considered in the Highway 169 Mobility Study runs roughly 20 miles from Marschall Road in Shakopee in Scott County to Highway 55 in Golden Valley in Hennepin County, and then another seven miles to downtown Minneapolis. The corridor is populous and jobs-rich, with more than 215,000 residents and 187,000 employees at thousands of businesses in a range of industries within two miles of Highway 169. The study was finalized in 2018 and the City has included the study recommendations in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan draft. The BRT alternatives in the study considered the use of either I-394 or Highway 55 to travel from Highway 169 to downtown Minneapolis. The study recommends that Alternative 2 along Highway 55 continue to be utilized for future study, analysis, and design. Additionally, the study recommends adding center-running MnPASS lanes in both directions on Highway 169 from Marschall Road in Shakopee to Highway 55 in Golden Valley. The study also recommends adding a frontage road connection on the east side of Highway 169 between Highway 55 and Betty Crocker Drive in order to improve safety and decrease traffic delays. A detailed Implementation Plan as well as several technical memos provide information on each recommendation. The full report can be access at http://goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/studies/index.php Attachments • Executive Summary, Highway 169 Mobility Study (13 pages) Recommended Action Motion to Receive and File the Highway 169 Mobility Study. Executive Summary Highway 169 Mobility Study Draft 2.0 Prepared for: Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by: March 2018 SRF No. 8989 Report Name i SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Table of Contents Why Highway 169? ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Outreach and Engagement ............................................................................................................................... 2 Selection Among Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 2 Recommended Improvements......................................................................................................................... 5 Highway Spot Mobility Improvements ............................................................................................. 5 MnPASS................................................................................................................................................. 5 Bus Rapid Transit ................................................................................................................................. 6 Implementation and Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 9 Phasing of Highway Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 9 Interim Bus Route Options .............................................................................................................. 10 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Report Name 1 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Why Highway 169? Highway 169 connects residents, employers, and communities, including Shakopee and Savage in Scott County, and Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, and Plymouth in Hennepin County. The corridor is populous and jobs-rich, with more than 215,000 residents and 187,000 employees at thousands of businesses in a range of industries within two miles of Highway 169. Highway 169 has been the subject of several recent studies. The Highway Transitway Corridor Study (2014) compared bus rapid transit on Highway 169 between downtown Minneapolis (via I-394) and Marschall Road in Shakopee to bus rapid transit on other highway corridors across the region. Highway 169 was found to be a comparatively strong candidate for highway bus rapid transit (BRT). As part of the MnPASS System Study Phase 3 (2018), Highway 169 was reaffirmed to be a strong candidate corridor for adding MnPASS Express Lane capacity. These previous studies, as well as the Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan (2013), led to the unique scope of the Highway 169 Mobility Study, which considers BRT, MnPASS, and highway spot mobility improvements in a single, coordinated effort. • Bus Rapid Transit –uniquely branded transit service that operates frequently for at least 16 hours each day and stops at well-defined stations with amenities such as pre-pay boarding, well-lit and heated waiting areas, and information for customers. • MnPASS- highway lanes that during peak travel times provide a congestion-free option to transit and vehicles with two or more people (i.e. carpools), motorcycles, and solo motorists willing to pay a fee. • Spot Mobility Improvements- these are highway improvements that improve the roadway so that more people can use the road safely and without as much delay. For full documentation, see the Highway 169 Mobility Study Implementation Plan. Figure 1: Study Area Report Name 2 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Outreach and Engagement Stakeholders were involved early in the project through more than twenty events in the suburban portion of the study area. Employer surveys were returned by representatives from more than 22 employers and nearly 3,000 responses were collected from an online survey on personal use of Highway 169. Fact sheets about the project were shared at all MnDOT tabling events in the study area during early 2016. Business chamber meetings, employer round tables, and pop-up events at community events and large employers all shaped the purpose and need statement, goals, and evaluation measures used to guide decision-making on the project. The project was guided by three committees, the Project Management Team (PMT), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). The PMT, comprised of staff from MnDOT, Scott and Hennepin Counties, the Metropolitan Council, and the consultant team, guided development and ensured progress of the study. The PMT facilitated coordination among partner agencies, study committees, and the consultant team. The TAC, tasked with providing technical input on the study process, was staffed by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, county and city staff as well as MnDOT and Metro Transit. The PAC, staffed by elected and appointed officials from cities counties and partner agencies in the Highway 169 corridor, considered project information and provided input on the study process, issues, and recommendations. Selection Among Alternatives The project progressed through four main areas of work. First, the purpose and need was created with the committees and the feedback from the community. Next, initial alternatives and evaluation measures were assessed. Concept development included a deep technical analysis of alternatives to help choose and refine the Recommended Improvements. The project was wrapped up with the full definition of the Recommended Improvements detailed in the Implementation Plan. The purpose of the project is to increase access to jobs and destinations, provide transportation choices, and improve safety and travel time for Highway 169 users. The needs of the project were: • Improved connections between people, jobs, and other destinations throughout the corridor • Move a growing number of people and goods with more travel options Report Name 3 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. The Recommended Improvements most effectively deliver the vision for mobility and access along the Highway 169 Corridor • Solutions that fit within the existing transportation system, current policy plans, and financial constraints Three alternatives were created to assess options along the corridor: • Alternative 1: MnPASS along Highway 169 and BRT Service on Highway 169 and I-394 between Marschall Road and Downtown Minneapolis • Alternative 2: MnPASS along Highway 169 and BRT Service on Highway 169 and Highway 55 Between Marschall Road and Downtown Minneapolis • Alternative 3: MnPASS on Highway 169 between Marschall Road and I-494 The study area for the BRT, MnPASS, and spot mobility improvements considered in the Highway 169 Mobility Study runs roughly 20 miles from Marschall Road in Shakopee in Scott County to Highway 55 in Golden Valley in Hennepin County, and then another seven miles to downtown Minneapolis. The BRT alternatives in the study considered the use of either I-394 or Highway 55 to travel from Highway 169 to downtown Minneapolis. In the study area, Highway 169 crosses a range of landscapes and land uses that include corporate campuses, industrial and warehouse facilities, retail centers, single-family residential neighborhoods, clusters of apartment buildings, and several prominent natural features. Significant users include both commuters and freight. Each alternative was evaluated using measures derived from study goals, including travel models, cost, and environmental impact. • Improve Access • Mobility • Transit Ridership • Return on Investment • Supportive Conditions • Preserve Environment Alternative 3 was only assessed by metrics for the goals it satisfies-- Access, Mobility, Return on Investment, and Preserve Environment. Both Alternatives 1 and 2 were found to meet all study goals, and so they were tested with different station combinations and frequencies to find cost savings where available. With support from the Technical Advisory Committee, the Project Management Team selected Alternative 2 as the basis for the Recommended Improvements. The TAC came to consensus that Alternative 2 best met the project goals and recommended it for further development in the implementation plan because it provides service to a currently unserved area with a population that is most likely to use the service. Another factor that influenced the selection of Alternative 2 include connections to other regional transitways including the Blue Line Extension light rail and C Line Arterial BRT on Penn Avenue in Minneapolis. Given the rationale for the TAC’s recommendation, the project management team proceeded with preparation of this implementation plan for Alternative 2. Later, if project sponsors wish to pursue Alternative 1, a similar plan may be drafted for that alternative. Report Name 4 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. At their final meeting, the PAC passed a resolution in support of the Recommended Improvements and Interim Bus Service Option 2 with one abstention from the City of Bloomington. This resolution will allow the Metropolitan Council to designate Highway 169 and Highway 55 as a project with study recommendations under the increased revenue scenario. Report Name 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Recommended Improvements The Recommended Improvements most effectively deliver the vision for mobility and access along the Highway 169 Corridor, including MnPASS, highway improvements, and bus rapid transit service. Highway Spot Mobility Improvements Spot mobility improvements are lower-cost/high-benefit highway concepts that seek to reduce existing congestion issues. These solutions are ideally able to be implemented more quickly and at lower cost than traditional capacity expansion projects. Successful improvements are expected to provide benefits for the existing facility and would also be compatible with the addition of MnPASS lanes to the facility. Full information on the spot mobility improvements can be found in the Implementation Plan, but a few examples include: • Solution to reconfigure lane alignment at the Highway 169 southbound exit to Highway 101. • Eliminating the south ramps at the Cedar Lake Road interchange • Adding a frontage road connection on the east side of Highway 169 between Highway 55 and Betty Crocker Drive MnPASS The Recommended Improvements call for adding center-running MnPASS lanes in both directions on Highway 169 from Marschall Road in Shakopee to Highway 55 in Golden Valley. MnPASS on Highway 169 would be part of the same system of MnPASS lanes currently on I-394 and planned on I-494 in Bloomington. However, direct connections between these MnPASS lanes that allow users to stay in MnPASS from one corridor to the next are not assumed as part of the MnPASS construction on Highway 169. From Marschall Road to south of the I-494 interchange MnPASS would be constructed in the median of Highway 169. The existing Bloomington Ferry Bridge over the Minnesota River would be used with expansions to several spans of the bridge to accommodate the lanes and recommended shoulder widths. In this and all segments, bridges over Highway 169 would need to be expanded accordingly. From south of the I-494 interchange to north of the Highway 62 interchange, Highway 169 will be expanded to the inside for the MnPASS lanes. North of Highway 62, widening of Highway 169 would be required to accommodate the addition of MnPASS lanes. The MnPASS and spot mobility improvements between Marschall Road and Highway 55 are estimated to cost approximately $400 million to implement if coordinated with planned bridge and pavement preservation projects. Report Name 6 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Bus Rapid Transit Bus rapid transit (BRT) would operate on Highway 169 for the portion of the corridor between Marschall Road in Shakopee and Betty Crocker Drive in Golden Valley, using MnPASS lanes from Canterbury Road to Viking Drive, and between Hopkins and General Mills. When BRT buses are not in MnPASS lanes, they will use general travel lanes unless traffic is moving slower than 35 miles per hour, allowing them to use bus-only-shoulders. BRT would also operate on Betty Crocker Drive and General Mills Boulevard to reach Highway 55 and operate on Highway 55 to 7th Street near downtown Minneapolis. The BRT would serve 15 stations every 15 minutes during peak periods, including five stations in downtown Minneapolis. Some stations are offline and require the bus to leave the highway and make a few turns to access the station. Other stations are inline, which are adjacent to the highway on interchange ramps. BRT is assumed to begin after completion of the Green Line Extension (Southwest) light rail and use planned arterial BRT stations in and near downtown Minneapolis. This timing allows for greater ridership from connections to other service and cost-savings as BRT will be able to share stations with areterial BRT. Ridership estimates for the BRT service in year 2040 are 5,600 daily riders, 2,300 of whom are transit dependent, 2,800 off-peak riders, and 3,200 who are reverse-commuters (traveling from the central cities towards Scott County.) Report Name 7 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. The estimated total cost of construction and vehicle costs for the BRT is $45.5 million, and the estimated annual cost to operate BRT is $13.6 million. Connecting Bus Service The background transit network assumes the following major transit improvements to be in place by 2040: • Green and Blue Line light rail extensions and Orange Line BRT on I-35W south of downtown • Penn Avenue and Chicago/Emerson-Fremont arterial BRT • Background bus network changes from Green and Blue Line light extension bus service plans There are proposed changes to several existing routes operated by Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (495, 497, 499), Plymouth Metrolink Route 774, and Metro Transit Routes 46 and 542. Two new Minnesota Valley Transit Authority routes are considered as part of the Recommended Improvements, extending service connections to the Amazon Distribution Center, Canterbury Park and Seagate Technology in Shakopee. Several new or altered transit routes that are part of the Green Line Extension bus service plan will also connect to Highway 169 BRT service with no alignment or frequency changes. For more detail on the supporting bus network, including maps of proposed routes, see Tech Memo 12: Recommended BRT Service Plan, Operations and Maintenance Costs, and Interim Service Plan. Bus Rapid Transit by the Numbers Length: 28 miles Stations: 15 Forecast 2040 Ridership: 5,600 Estimated Cost for Construction and Buses: $45.5 million* Estimated Annual Cost to Operate: $13.6 million* Service Frequency: every 15 minutes End-to-End Travel Time: 75 minutes *2018 dollars Report Name 8 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Report Name 9 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Implementation and Next Steps Both highway infrastructure and BRT are best completed in stages. Highways age and need scheduled maintenance and repairs, so changes to highway infrastructure are best timed with scheduled work. Frequent transit service like BRT performs best when it is preceded by other transit service. The following are approaches to build toward the Recommended Improvements. Phasing of Highway Infrastructure Highway infrastructure, including both the spot mobility improvements and completion of MnPASS, will be completed in phases to reduce construction impacts and maximize cost savings. Due to planned updates to infrastructure, funding timelines, and political realities, it will take many years and separate stages for the Recommended Improvements to be completed. Preservation needs along the corridor were assessed for compatibility with the Recommended Improvements. Several preservation projects (including repaving and bridge maintenance) allow for cost savings in the phasing plan, where nearby improvements are timed with planned preservation investments. Work in stages is grouped into four phases based on timing of preservation and location of improvements. Full information on work completed in each stage can be found in the Implementation Plan. Phase 1 provides quick relief to significant areas of congestion along the corridor by completing southbound spot mobility improvements and a northbound MnPASS over the Minnesota River. Phase 2 covers work necessary to complete MnPASS between Marschall Road in Shakopee up to I-494 in both directions. Phase 2 includes considerable bridge work on more than 15 bridges to create enough space to complete MnPASS south of I-494. Phase 3 is implementation of MnPASS north of Highway 55 (outside the study area) that will have an impact on the construction of MnPASS south of Highway 55. Phase 4 will complete MnPASS between I-494 and Highway 55. Some of the work for Phase 4 includes removing exits from the highway near Cedar Lake Road, changing ramp access near Betty Crocker Drive, and several bridge widenings. Report Name 10 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Interim Bus Route Options To build a market for BRT service and to begin serving demand for trips in the corridor currently not served by existing service, such as suburb-to-suburb and reverse commute trips, two interim service bus routes are proposed. Because Green Line Extension and the bus service improvements planned to be implemented alongside it are important connections for the interim service, it is assumed that interim bus service would not be implemented until after Green Line Extension opens, currently anticipated in 2023. Furthermore, while the interim service is important to building the market, its usefulness depends on its connectivity to the broader transit network. Interim service should be implemented in conjunction with the supporting transit network. Interim bus route Option 1 assumes service from the Marschall Road Transit Station in Shakopee to General Mills. Interim stops are proposed at Viking Drive/Washington Avenue and Downtown Hopkins. Option 2 assumes continuation of Option 1 service along Highway 55 from General Mills to downtown Minneapolis, stopping at all Recommended Improvements proposed stops along Highway 55 and in downtown Minneapolis. Interim route will serve existing bus stops and Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle networks can support the interim bus stops. It is assumed that interim routes will begin service after the Green Line Extension (Southwest) light rail service begins so that they can benefit from connections to other transit service described in detail on page six. Interim routes will need to capture approximately 600 (Option 1) to 1,000 Report Name 11 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (Option 2) weekday passenger trips per day to reach suburban transit service expectations, and would need to exceed these to be considered for an upgrade to BRT service and infrastructure. Interim routes are proposed to have 30-minute frequencies at peak and hour frequencies midday and on weekends. Annual cost estimates were created for operation of both Option 1 and Option 2 for weekday and seven-day service. Capital cost estimates total $4.4 million dollars for Option 1 and $8.8 million for Option 2. The lowest cost interim service option would be Option 1 weekday only service, with $1.7 million in operating and $4.4 million in capital costs, totaling $6.1 million. Interim Service Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimates (2018$) Cost Item Weekday Only Service 7-Day Service Interim Service Option 1 $1,700,000 $2,200,000 Interim Service Option 2 $2,600,000 $3,300,000 Interim Service Capital Costs (2018$) Cost Item Capital Cost of Interim Service Interim Service Option 1 $4,400,000 Interim Service Option 2 $8,800,000 Next Steps Highway and transit projects require sustained attention and support from local governments to acquire funding and gain support. A coalition of project champions made up of staff and elected officials from governments along the corridor can support the project, continue to involve local employers, and apply for funding for spot mobility improvements and interim bus service. Local governments may also undertake projects that bolster pedestrian and bicyclist connections to future stops and stations with small area plans and in their comprehensive plan updates. Details about funding sources, improvements for pedestrian access to future stops and stations, and spot mobility improvements can be found in the Implementation Plan and supporting technical memos.                     Executive Summary For Action  Golden Valley City Council Meeting  May 15, 2018  60 day deadline: July 3, 2018    Agenda Item  4. A. Public Hearing ‐ Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Amendment #4 ‐ 5430 Glenwood Avenue ‐  Hopkins School District, Applicant    Prepared By  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager    Summary  Hopkins Public Schools, represented by Patrick Poquette, is applying for a Major Planned Unit  Development (PUD) Amendment in order to expand the existing elementary school building to the  north with the construction of nine new classrooms. One existing classroom would be converted to  non‐classroom space, leaving a net addition of eight classrooms.    As part of the proposal, queuing lanes and other traffic‐related improvements would be constructed  to accommodate vehicles arriving and departing before and after school hours.    History  PUD No. 90 was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000. The PUD was established to  allow the City and the School District to build the Davis Community Center following the relocation  of Turners Crossroad and Xenia Avenue. The first amendment to the PUD was approved in May 2012  to allow a small addition to the building. The second amendment, approved in November 2012,  allowed for modifications to be made to the parking area.    A third amendment was approved in October 2013 to consolidate the Meadowbrook School parcel,  the Davis Community Center parcel, and the former Crisis Nursery parcel (which was connected to  the main school building via a newly constructed tunnel). Although this amendment was approved  and the tunnel constructed, the final plat was never recorded with Hennepin County. This step must  be completed. No permits for a building expansion project may be issued until this situation is  resolved.      Meadowbrook and the City have a history of working through traffic concerns at this location dating  back to before the approval of Amendment #3. At that time, new circulation patterns were created to  try and address traffic congestion. As recently as the spring of 2017, however, traffic congestion  caused by vehicles waiting to pick‐up students after school resulting in the blockage of the ramps  exiting southbound Highway 100. In addition, vehicles traveling eastbound on Glenwood Avenue were  forced to queue while waiting for left‐turning vehicles to enter the site. Golden Valley Police brought  these public safety concerns to the attention of City staff.    Proposal  The PUD amendment would allow for the construction of 15,111 square feet of new classroom space  to the north of the building as well as a small addition to the cafeteria and the conversion of an  existing classroom to student restrooms. An open courtyard and a new loading dock would be created  as part of the proposal. New sidewalks and ADA compliant routes would be added to the site to  provide better access to the school.    The project would be phased in order to have two classrooms, the restrooms, the courtyard, and the  cafeteria space ready for use in the fall of 2018. The remaining spaces (six classrooms and common  space) would be finished by the fall of 2019.    Enrollment would be expanded to 890 students and the addition of two staff would bring the total to  77. The school projects the number of enrolled households would increase to 711. This translates to  approximately 1.25 students/household.    In response to concerns regarding traffic that has been observed backing‐up onto Turners Crossroad  and Glenwood Avenue, the school also outlined three site improvements they believe would  satisfactorily address the existing problems and avoid future issues as more students are enrolled.  These include:    1. Widening the southern driveway on Turners to avoid conflicts between cars as they enter and exit  the site.  2. Removing the existing play area in the northeast corner of the Turners/Glenwood intersection and  replacing it with an expanded loop that would increase the queue length in front of the  community center.  3. Constructing a secondary “loop” within the east parking area to provide more queuing space on‐ site during drop‐off and pick‐up periods.    Staff Review  At the time of the last PUD Amendment in 2013, enrollment was only 673 students and there were 35  faculty on site. In the intervening years, the addition of free full‐day Kindergarten resulted in an  increasing number of students and a fifth Kindergarten section. As these students have aged (they are  now in fourth grade), classroom space has become tight. The current proposal would provide enough  space for these fifth section students as they reach fifth and sixth grades. Along with the additional  classrooms, a new Spanish curriculum in 2014 has increased the number of teachers at the school. The  overall growth also resulted in the need for additional teaching specialists (art, music, Phy Ed, etc.).  Hence, there are many more vehicles utilizing the site in 2018 compared to 2013, and there have been    numerous observed instances of traffic backing up onto the public right‐of‐way. This is staff’s main  concern as the current proposal is being evaluated.    With this knowledge, staff required a traffic study be conducted as a part of the review process for the  current proposal. During observations in January of 2018, congestion was recorded for both morning  drop‐offs and afternoon pick‐ups on both Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue (see attached  Traffic Observations memo). This congestion is likely due to both a lack of queuing space on‐site as  well as the absence of turn lanes on Turners Crossroad (a northbound right‐turn lane) and Glenwood  Avenue (an eastbound left‐turn lane).    Meadowbrook has provided traffic management exhibits it feels adequately address the concerns  surrounding congestion (see attached Meadowbrook Traffic Exhibits). While staff generally agrees  with these steps, it is recommending one modification and two additional improvements be  constructed to handle on‐site queueing and to provide satisfactory capacity for through‐traffic on  Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue (see the attached Engineering memo).    Meadowbrook proposals Staff recommendations  A – widened south driveway entrance on  Turners Crossroad  A – as proposed  B – expanded loop on west parking lot in place  of play area  B’ – reduced loop on west parking lot in order to  preserve play area  C – additional loop to the north of the east  parking lot  C – as proposed   D – new right‐turn lane for northbound Turners  Crossroad traffic   E – new left turn‐lane for eastbound Glenwood  Avenue traffic    At the Planning Commission meeting on April 23, there was a split opinion regarding options B and D  above. While Meadowbrook advocated a large queuing loop (Option B) in order to avoid the need to  construct a turn lane (Option D), staff and some Planning Commissioners felt preserving the play area  and landscaping in the northeast corner of the Turners Crossroad/Glenwood Avenue intersection was  important for aesthetic and site design reasons. Staff recommended reducing the size of this loop and  compensating for the loss of queuing space by constructing the right‐turn lane on Turners. The  Planning Commission ultimately voted to recommend a set of conditions that included the larger loop  (Option B) and not the turn lane, but staff continues to believe a reduced loop (Option B’) would  better keep with the PUD findings of Quality Site Planning and Preservation of desirable portions of  the site’s open spaces and that the right‐turn lane on Turners would help improve safety and reduce  congestion and back‐ups.    Option E above, proposed by staff as recommended by the City’s traffic engineer, would likely require  the widening of Glenwood Avenue to the north. The cost of reconstruction of public right‐of‐way  facilities in order to accommodate development is typically borne by the applicant. Hopkins School  District has agreed to submit a letter of credit to cover the cost of reconstruction, but the City and the  School District have agreed to spend the next year looking for other creative solutions to the traffic    issues in and around the site which could reduce the need for some of the proposed improvements.  Depending on the scope of possible future modifications, an additional PUD Amendment may be  necessary, but all improvements would need to be constructed prior to the full use of the new  classrooms in the fall of 2019.    In addition to traffic management, staff is recommending a number of conditions be included to deal  with landscaping, utilities, student enrollment, bicycle trails, and the recording of an approved plat.  These conditions are listed below.    The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on April 23, 2018, and after lengthy discussion  recommended approval (7‐0).     Evaluation  Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the existing PUD, if modified by the conditions being  recommended below, would not be in conflict with the initial findings supporting the creation of  Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90. Specifically:    1. Quality Site Planning. If the listed conditions are required as a part of the approval, the  proposed expansion and site improvements would not negatively impact the overall quality of  the site. Enhancements to circulation and queueing areas should help traffic flow more smoothly  in and around the site, relieving existing congestion.  2. Preservation. While a number of trees are being removed as a part of the proposal, improved  landscaping will be required and would help mitigate their removal.  3. Efficient – Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by allowing the  construction of classrooms to support a complete fifth section of classes on‐site.  4. Consistency. The proposed amendment would allow the current school building to better  manage the number of students currently on‐site and would allow for a small number of new  students to be enrolled over the next two years. This is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive  Plan which advocates a “complete community” and prioritizes the preservation of elementary  schools. However, without close oversight of future enrollment, problems around overcrowding  could arise once more.  5. General Health. Important traffic improvements must be made in concert with the proposed  expansion in order to address concerns regarding the general health, safety, and welfare of  those who visit or travel through the Meadowbrook School area.  6. Meets Requirements. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards applied to  the existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code.    Staff recommends approval of Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Amendment #4, subject to the  following conditions:    1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division,  dated April 19, 2018, shall become a part of this approval.  2. Improvements and modifications to traffic management, as explained in the Engineering memo  and clarified in the Planning memo, shall be constructed and/or funded by Meadowbrook School  in 2018 and 2019. These include five physical improvements (Options A, B’, C, D, and E) as well  as operational optimization by Meadowbrook. Hopkins School District must post a financial    security with the City sufficient to cover the estimated cost to construct the improvements, but  is not released from its responsibility to pay the full improvement cost once it has been  determined.  3. The City and the School District shall work together to explore creative solutions to traffic issues  in order to achieve the goals of reducing traffic congestion on public rights‐of‐way and ensuring  public safety while accommodating the planned enrollment growth at Meadowbrook. While it is  possible that some of the identified improvements could be modified or found to be  unnecessary due to joint agreement on new concepts, the City—in consultation with Hennepin  County—shall make the final determination of what elements are needed for implementation.  4. A revised tree and landscaping plan, including a tree survey with tabular inventory, and which  includes a 1 to 1 replacement of all significant and planted trees, shall be submitted for review  and approval prior to the issuance of a Tree and Landscape Permit.   5. The school must provide a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the City’s I/I code. All  new or rehabilitated sewer services must be inspected by the City after repair or construction,  and must obtain compliance with the City’s I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building or  release of funds.  6. An east/west bike trail must be maintained and options for a trail connection east of the east  parking lot that avoids vehicular conflicts shall be explored with City staff.  7. No permits shall be issued until the Final Plat approved as part of Amendment #3 has been  recorded with Hennepin County.  8. Enrollment shall be capped at 890 students. Information on enrollment shall be provided to the  City annually. Additional enrollment may only occur in concert with the construction of  comprehensive traffic management solutions.    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)   Memo to the Planning Commission dated April 23, 2018 (7 pages)   Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated April 23, 2018 (9 pages)   Project Narrative (1 page)   Letter from Meadowbrook School dated March 21, 2018 (2 pages)   Plans submitted March 5, 2018 (12 pages)   Memo from the Engineering Division dated April 19, 2018 (7 pages)   Traffic Observations Memo from SEH dated March 16, 2018 (7 pages)   Traffic Mitigations Memo from SEH dated March 23, 2018 (4 pages)   Meadowbrook Traffic Exhibits Narrative (1 page)   Meadowbrook Traffic Exhibits (5 pages)   Ordinance #638, Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Amendment #4, Hopkins Public Schools,  Applicant (2 pages)    Recommended Action  Motion to adopt Ordinance #638, Approval of Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Amendment #4,  incorporating all Findings and Conditions listed in the Staff Memorandum dated May 15, 2018.  4017- --- - 305 355 330 287 5850 5830 5800 5740 5700 5630 5620 305 325 320 LeringLn 5600 300 310 5845 5815 5745 5705 5625 5540 55365520 312 too 270 260 250 205 5605 5545 5535 5525 240 215 Subject Property 220 209 271 259 °,��4 225 230 iF C;r 261 241 251 7{rfnBl$POrrtf 200 .te Q Gb.cs ;d Ca51R0 Gterr t POad Glenwood Ave 5Md 5300 Dug Pond 5635 5501 5431 5423 5601 21 54155405 5747 5J 17 5301 5 9 15 17 5 5745 5743 30 15 25 40 25 i 5747 4 100 101 104 Fw 101 109 108 � 109 112 � 109 117 116 - 117 200 5160 250 u, 201 200 115 201 " m 208 209 210 3 SrB S trle 315 216 209 220 221 5212 5200 5120 5100 300 0 �� 301 319 308 310 city of <<, olden MEMORANDUM valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: April 23, 2018 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Amendment#4— 5430 Glenwood Avenue— Hopkins Public Schools, Applicant Summary Hopkins Public Schools, represented by Patrick Poquette, is applying for a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment in order to expand the existing elementary school building to the north with the construction of eight additional classrooms. Background PUD No. 90 was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000. The PUD was established to allow the City and the School District to build the Davis Community Center following the relocation of Turners Crossroad and Xenia Avenue. The first amendment to the PUD was approved in May 2012 to allow a small addition to the building. The second amendment, approved in November 2012, allowed for modifications to be made to the parking area. A third amendment was approved in October 2013 to consolidate the Meadowbrook School parcel,the Davis Community Center parcel, and the former Crisis Nursery parcel (which was connected to the main school building via a newly constructed tunnel). Although this amendment was approved and the tunnel constructed, the final plat was never recorded with Hennepin County. This step must be completed. No permits for a building expansion project may be issued until this situation is resolved. Existing Conditions The size of the Meadowbrook PUD is roughly 10.5 acres. It is bounded on the west by Turners Crossroad North, on the east by Highway 100, and to the south by Glenwood Avenue. An office building sits adjacent to the PUD to the east at the intersection of Highway 100 and Glenwood Avenue. 1 The entire Meadowbrook School site—all three parcels—is guided for Institutional use in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned 1-1 Institutional, the category reserved for schools and places of worship. IMY r. \- f - I a „:.:;.� 7 40 - 5501: +F i °��,..... �. 54(15 ";'�� ! •, ` , t Existing Meadowbrook School PUD There are currently four access points to the school campus—two on Turners Crossroad and two on Glenwood Avenue. The northern driveway on Turners provides access to the loading and unloading area for buses. The southern driveway provides access to a small circular drive and parking area which is utilized for student drop-offs and pick-ups for the school and the community center. Along Glenwood, the eastern driveway is reserved for entering vehicles (teachers, staff, and parents) while the western driveway is limited to exiting the site. Student drop-offs and pick-ups within the eastern parking lot are carried out via a loop that threads its way through an upper and lower parking area. Enrollment at the school is reportedly at 836 students, though the District website references "approximately 790 students." This is based on 684 currently enrolled households. 75 staff members oversee 48 classrooms. 2 Proposal The PUD amendment would allow for the construction of 15,111 square feet of new classroom space to the north of the building as well as a small addition to the cafeteria and the conversion of an existing classroom to student restrooms. An open courtyard and a new loading dock would also be created as part of the proposal. New sidewalks and ADA compliant routes would be added to the site to provide better access to the school. The project would be phased in order to have two classrooms, the restrooms, the courtyard, and the cafeteria space ready for use in the fall of 2018. The remaining spaces (six classrooms and common space) would be finished by the fall of 2019. Enrollment would be expanded to 890 students and the addition of two staff would bring the total to 77. While nine new classrooms would be constructed, one existing classroom would be converted meaning the proposal anticipates a net increase of eight classrooms. The school projects the number of enrolled households would increase to 711. This translates to approximately 1.25 students/household. 15 trees are shown for removal around the north wing of the school building and approximately 14 trees would need to be removed in order to construct a parking lot expansion (loop) on the east side of the building. No trees have identified for replacement. New vegetation would be added in the landscaped courtyard and to the north of the loading dock. Impervious coverage as shown on the submitted plans would increase by roughly 15,246 square feet (or 0.35 acres). This would bring the percentage of impervious surfaces on the site to 59%, though this figure could increase as additional traffic improvements are required by the City. Exterior LED fixtures and security cameras would be installed around the perimeter of the new addition. In response to concerns regarding traffic that has been observed backing-up onto Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue, the school also outlined three site improvements they believe would satisfactorily address the existing problems and avoid future issues as more students are enrolled. These include: 1. Widening the southern driveway on Turners to avoid conflicts between cars as they enter and exit the site. 2. Removing the existing play area in the northeast corner of the Turners/Glenwood intersection and replacing it with an expanded loop that would increase the queue length in front of the community center. 3. Constructing a secondary "loop" within the east parking area to provide more queuing space on-site during drop-off and pick-up periods. Neighborhood Meeting The neighborhood meeting required by the City's Neighborhood Notification policy was not initiated early enough by the applicant to meet the required deadlines for both advanced property 3 owner notice through a mailing and to allow time for feedback to be incorporated into the staff memo. Therefore, while a neighborhood meeting was scheduled to be held on Thursday, April 19, any comments received at the meeting will need to be summarized by staff at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff Review At the time of the last PUD Amendment in 2013, enrollment was only 673 students and there were 35 faculty on site. In the intervening years, the addition of free full-day Kindergarten resulted in an increasing number of students and a fifth Kindergarten section. As these students have aged (they are now in fourth grade), classroom space has become tight. The current proposal would provide enough space for these fifth section students as they reach fifth and sixth grades. Along with the additional classrooms, a new Spanish curriculum in 2014 has increased the number of teachers at the school. The overall growth also resulted in the need for additional teaching specialists (art, music, Phy Ed, etc.). Hence, there are many more vehicles utilizing the site in 2018 compared to 2013. This is staff's main concern as the current proposal is being evaluated. Traffic Meadowbrook and the City have a history of working through traffic concerns at this location dating back to before the approval of Amendment#3. At that time, new circulation patterns were created to address traffic congestion. As recently as the spring of 2017, however, traffic congestion caused by vehicles waiting to pick up students after school resulting in the blockage of the ramps exiting southbound Highway 100. In addition, vehicles traveling eastbound on Glenwood Avenue were forced to queue while waiting for left-turning vehicles to enter the site. Golden Valley Police brought these public safety concerns to the attention of City staff. A temporary solution was found involving circulating vehicles through the driveway and parking lot of the property directly to the east (5300 Glenwood). This appeared to relieve much of the congestion, but this arrangement was not continued for the 2017-18 school year. With this knowledge, staff required a traffic study be conducted as a part of the review process for the current proposal. During observations in January of 2018, congestion was recorded for both morning drop-offs and afternoon pick-ups on both Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue (see attached SEH memo). The City's traffic engineer evaluated both the existing conditions and the proposed changes to enrollment, and then reacted to the circulation modifications being proposed by the school. The result was a list of potential improvements that would address both current concerns and limit future impacts. Meadowbrook has responded with traffic management exhibits it feels adequately address the concerns surrounding congestion (see attached Meadowbrook traffic exhibits). While staff generally agrees with these steps, it is recommending two additional improvements be constructed to handle on-site queueing and to provide satisfactory capacity for through-traffic on Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue (see the attached Engineering memo). 4 Landscaping Plans for the proposed building addition show the removal of 15 trees around the north end of the building, with roughly 11 of them located between the existing building and Turners Crossroad. Approximately 14 more will apparently need to be removed to construct the "loop" at the north end of the east parking lot. No trees are proposed to be replanted, though new vegetation would be installed near the loading dock. As addressed in the memo from Engineering, staff will require new trees to be planted with an emphasis on revegetating the western edge of the school to provide screening. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted and approved by staff. Li htin A lighting plan, showing the anticipated levels of the new fixtures that will be installed on the north end of the building, must be submitted and approved by staff in order to ensure the City's "dark skies" lighting standards are met. Utilities As part of the investigation of the property for the proposed amendment, it was discovered that the sanitary sewer line is in need of repair. Meadowbrook must replace or repair the line in order to become compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration requirements. If they work cannot be completed prior to occupancy, securities must be held by the City to ensure eventual compliance. Enrollment While the school reports that the construction of the eight new classrooms will be used to relieve existing overcrowding, and that no more than 54 students will added to the current enrollment, staff is concerned that any additional enrollment or changes to programming—without associated significant investments in a comprehensive traffic solution—would result in a repeat of the situation in which the school now finds itself. Therefore staff will be recommending that enrollment be capped at 890 students in order to ensure that any future growth happens in concert with larger circulation improvements. Other Items Amendment#3, approved in October of 2013, involved a new plat for the PUD. While the work associated with the amendment was conducted, the final plat was not recorded with Hennepin County. This step must be completed before any additional permits will be issued for the property. Engineering and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division. A memorandum from the City Engineer that addresses traffic management, utilities, stormwater management, tree and landscape plans, and other permits is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal and, beyond the traffic congestion concerns already outlined, had no other comments. 5 Evaluation Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the existing PUD, if modified by the conditions being recommended below, would not be in conflict with the initial findings supporting the creation of Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90. Specifically: 1. Quality Site Planning. If the listed conditions are required as a part of the approval,the proposed expansion and site improvements would not negatively impact the overall quality of the site. Enhancements to circulation and queueing areas should help traffic flow more smoothly in and around the site, relieving existing congestion. 2. Preservation. While a number of trees are being removed as a part of the proposal, improved landscaping will be required and will help mitigate their removal. 3. Efficient—Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by allowing the construction of classrooms to support a complete fifth section of classes on-site. 4. Consistency. The proposed amendment would allow the current school building to better manage the number of students currently on-site and would allow for a small number of new students to be enrolled over the next two years. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which advocates a "complete community' and prioritizes the preservation of elementary schools. However, without close oversight of future enrollment and programming, problems around overcrowding could arise once more. 5. General Health. Important traffic improvements must be made in concert with the proposed expansion in order to address concerns regarding the general health, safety, and welfare of those who visit or travel through the Meadowbrook School area. 6. Meets Requirements. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards applied to the existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Amendment#4 to Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, subject to the following conditions: 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated April 19, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Improvements and modifications to traffic management, as explained in the Engineering memo, shall be constructed and/or funded by Meadowbrook School in 2018 and 2019. These include five physical improvements as well as operational optimization. 3. A revised tree and landscaping plan, including a tree survey with tabular inventory, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Tree and Landscape Permit. 4. A photometric plan with light levels identified for all new fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval. 5. The school must provide a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the City's 1/1 code. All new or rehabilitated sewer services must be inspected by the City after repair or construction, and must obtain compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building or release of funds. 6 6. No permits shall be issued until the Final Plat approved as part of Amendment#3 has been recorded with Hennepin County. 7. Enrollment shall be capped at 890 students and changes to staffing levels or programming activities shall be discussed with the City prior to implementation. Information on enrollment, staffing, and program activities shall be provided to the City annually or more frequently if changes are proposed or anticipated. Additional enrollment, or changes to staffing or programming, may only occur in concert with the construction of additional comprehensive traffic management solutions. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Project Narrative (1 page) Letter from Meadowbrook School dated March 21, 2018 (2 pages) Plans submitted March 5, 2018 (12 pages) Memo from the Engineering Division dated April 19, 2018 (7 pages) Traffic Observations Memo from SEH dated March 16, 2018 (7 pages) Traffic Mitigations Memo from SEH dated March 23, 2018 (4 pages) Meadowbrook Traffic Exhibits Narrative (1 page) Meadowbrook Traffic Exhibits (5 pages) 7 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 regular meeting of the Planning mmission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Co I Conference Room, 7800 Iden Valley Road, Golden Valle , Minnesota, on Monday, it 23, 2018. Chair Bak called the meeting to ord pm. Those present were ng Com issioners A , aker, Black, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Segelbaum and au r. Al sent were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman. I. Approval of Minu April 9, , Regular Planning ommission Meeting MO by Waldhauser, seconded b Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to a rove the April 9, 2018, minutes a ubmitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment— 5430 Glenwood Avenue — Meadowbrook PUD #90, Amendment #4 — PU90-A4 Applicant: Hopkins Public Schools Address: 5430 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To allow for a 15,000 square foot addition Zimmerman referred to the Land Use Map and noted that the properties in the PUD are currently guided for schools and religious facilities, public facilities, and semi-public facilities. He noted that on the proposed new Land Use Map the properties will all be guided for assembly use which is consistent with what is there today. He added that the properties are zoned Institutional (1-1) which is reserved for churches and schools. Zimmerman gave a history of the PUD and explained the applicant's current proposal to construct a nine-classroom addition at the north end of the building to accommodate the overcrowding that exists today. He explained that as a part of this proposal one existing classroom will be converted to restrooms and utility space so there would be a net of eight classrooms added. In addition there will be an internal courtyard created, an expanded cafeteria, and an improved loading dock area. He noted that the proposed work would be done in two phases starting with phase one in 2018 and phase two in 2019. He explained that staff's main concern is traffic primarily at drop off and pick up times and the traffic queuing on Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman referred to the traffic study done to examine existing conditions and forecast conditions under this proposed amendment. He explained that the existing Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 2 enrollment is 836 and the proposed enrollment would be 890. He stated that the average number of observed vehicles dropping off in the morning was 377 and 261 during the afternoon pick-up. The number of vehicles queued on the street was 8 to 15 in the morning and 4 to 21 in the afternoon. Segelbaum asked for clarification about the average carpool statistics and asked about the timeframe of the drop-offs and if that includes staff arrivals. Zimmerman said the study looked at when parents started arriving and when they stopped because of school starting. The average over four days was 377. Zimmerman stated that 38 spaces is the number of queuing spaces that the traffic engineer felt was the minimum number of spaces necessary to keep the cars off the public streets and on the site. Zimmerman showed an aerial photo of the site and explained the four different access points used for buses, access to the Davis Community Center, and for cars dropping off and picking up students. Zimmerman stated that when the traffic engineer's findings were presented to Meadowbrook they came back with some proposals as to finding space for the additional 38 queuing spaces. One idea is to widen the entrance off of Turners Crossroad to create better flow and add approximately 5 additional queuing spaces. Another idea is to remove an existing playground and landscaped area near the corner of Glenwood and Turners Crossroad in order to create a larger one-way loop which would increase the queuing capacity on site and a larger area for students to be dropped off and picked up. Another idea is to add a loop on the east parking lot that would allow 16 more spaces. He added that by doing some other adjustments in the existing parking lots another 10 spaces for queuing could be added. He said that staff reviewed the applicant's proposals and has some slightly different opinions. He said staff agrees with the proposal to widen the entrance on Turners Crossroad along with the addition of a right line on Turners Crossroad to increase public safety. He stated that staff doesn't want to see the playground and landscaped corner area removed, but would support a smaller extended loop area on the west side of the site. He added that the County is interested in seeing a left turn lane added on Glenwood Avenue either by restriping or doing some curb work/construction to obtain enough width to allow people to bypass the queue on the right. Zimmerman referred to the landscaping plan and explained that the applicant is proposing to remove 15 trees along Turners Crossroad and approximately 14 trees north of the east parking lot. He stated that a tree survey will be required to evaluate significant trees on the site and that tree replacement will be required. Zimmerman discussed the lighting on the site and stated that a lighting plan for the proposed new fixtures on the north end of the building will be necessary. He noted that there are also outstanding inflow and infiltration corrections that need to be made and that staff is recommending that enrollment be capped at 890 students in hopes of avoiding future crowding issues. Staff is also recommending that if the applicant wants to expand in the future there will need to be a much more significant traffic study done. He added that the final plat from the applicant's third PUD amendment must be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 3 recorded with Hennepin County prior to any permits being issued and that the applicant should explore options to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the campus from the east without crossing the ingress and egress driveways on Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Baker asked for a comparison of the differences between what the applicant is proposing and what the City is proposing. Zimmerman referred to a map of the property and reviewed the three areas where the applicant is proposing changes on their site to help with traffic and queuing and a map showing the changes the City would like to see including a smaller loop on the west side of the building and the addition of a left turn lane on Glenwood Avenue to help traffic flow better through the area. Blum referred to the landscaping plan and asked if a tree survey has been done yet. Zimmerman said no, a tree survey has not yet been done. Blum noted that the landscaping plan showing the trees to be removed didn't seem to encompass the widening of the driveway on Turners Crossroad. Zimmerman explained that some of the trees would need to be removed because of ADA entrance requirements and other tree removal has to do with grading and utility work that will take place. Johnson stated that the applicant is building nine new classrooms, but have said there is a net of eight new classrooms and questioned why they aren't just saying that they are building nine. Zimmerman explained that they are proposing nine classrooms, but one existing classroom is being taken away so there is a net of eight new classrooms being constructed. He added that this doesn't mean that there will be eight new classes of 24 students each, the new classrooms will accommodate the existing students and approximately 54 additional students. Brookins asked for clarification regarding the one-way loop referred to in the staff reports. Zimmerman explained that staff has suggested a one-way loop system on the campus to allow cars to get off the public streets and to queue up on site instead. However, there are space constraints on this property that would make that difficult. Baker said he finds that idea compelling and is disappointed to hear that idea wasn't more seriously considered. Segelbaum referred to the proposed extension of the existing loop on the west side of the property and asked why the City is recommending that be made smaller instead of the applicant's larger loop proposal. Zimmerman said it is a safety issue and the loss of pervious surface, landscaping, and playground area. Baker asked if the proposed widening of Glenwood Avenue would take place within existing right-of-way, or if additional property would have to be acquired. Zimmerman said he doesn't believe it would involve any taking of property from adjacent property owners because there appears to be enough right-of-way available. Segelbaum asked who would pay for the widening of Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman said the district Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 4 would because the improvements would be necessitated by the proposed expansion project. Johnson asked if there is sufficient parking on the property. Zimmerman said there haven't been any complaints or concerns about parking compared to the queuing at drop off and pick up times. Johnson asked if it will be difficult for cars to turn left out of the parking lot on Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman said it could potentially be a problem. Waldhauser asked about the service area for Meadowbrook and where their students come from. Zimmerman suggested having the applicant address that. Brookins referred to the impervious surface on the site and asked if staff is confident that stormwater BMPs can be put in place with the addition. Zimmerman stated that staff is not confident yet because it depends on what traffic mitigation plan is implemented. He added that the applicant will be required to have a stormwater permit as part of the process. Waldhauser asked if there is any stormwater treatment currently in place. Zimmerman said he didn't think so. Segelbaum asked why the recommendation includes a cap on staff as well as students. Zimmerman said he is willing to work with the applicant regarding that recommendation. Blum referred to the proposed enrollment cap and asked if the authority to do that arises from the fact that this is a PUD proposal. Zimmerman said yes, and explained that capping the enrollment is a tangible way to address the capacity of the site. Blum referred to the suggested changes on Glenwood Avenue and asked if the City could potentially lose specific lanes for bikes or pedestrians in the future. Zimmerman said he believes there will always be trails, it is just a matter of whether they will be on- street or off-street trails. Baker asked the applicant to address each of staff's recommended conditions starting with the proposed loop area on the west side of the property. Neil Tessier, SAF Engineering, stated that the City asked Meadowbrook to get 38 vehicles off of the road and that with the concept they are proposing it gets 46 vehicles off the road so they feel they've met that condition. He added that it will be challenging to add a turn lane on Turners Crossroad because of the grade and the expense and that the school district's position is that they would really prefer not to do any work on the roads. He explained that the school doesn't use the existing play area on the west side as much as they did in the past so that is why they are proposing the larger loop concept, instead of the smaller one recommended by the City. Segelbaum asked about the suggestion of a double lane access in the loop area. Tessier stated that the loop could be made wider to help address the issues with pick up and drop off. Baker asked why the School District is against making changes on Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue. Tessier reiterated that there are grading issues on Turners Crossroad and that the numbers in the traffic study use the worst case scenario. He stated that 90% of the time there are no issues on the streets, especially on Turners Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 5 Crossroad so there really isn't the need for an additional turn lane on Turners Crossroad as recommended because the vehicles are being brought on site. He referred to Glenwood Avenue and said the County and the City really need to look at the width of that road because he doesn't think there is enough space, and it would be a major undertaking, to provide a safe turn lane with bike lanes, curbs, and sidewalks. He added that all of the development going on in the City is contributing to the congestion on Glenwood so they don't feel the School District should bear all of the responsibility. Baker stated that people wouldn't be turning there, but for the school. Tessier stated that a significant amount of cars use Glenwood as a by-pass to get to Highway 100. Blum said he would like to see a bigger picture of the volume of traffic and the direction it is coming from in order to see the pressure on these points. Tessier noted that the traffic study said approximately 25-30% of the trips come in from Turners Crossroad and that the rest come from Glenwood Avenue. Blum asked about the demographics of the people coming to this school. Tessier said he didn't know exactly, but he does know there is a major amount of open enrollment, and people come from many different places. Zimmerman noted that the traffic engineer's report doesn't show where the trips are coming from, but it does show that the trips entering the site are fairly evenly split between the Turners Crossroad entrance and the Glenwood Avenue entrance. Greta Evans-Becker, Principal of Meadowbrook School, said that the west side of the site is the only place where students are dropped off, but the larger number of pick-ups occur on the Glenwood Avenue side of the property so that is why the numbers look evenly split. Baker asked why the suggested loop around the east parking lot was dismissed as not an option. Tessier said separating bus traffic and parent traffic is something almost every school in the state does because there is significant liability and safety concerns so that is something the School District really does not want to do. Baker asked about the differences between the applicant and the City regarding landscaping. Tessier said they are prepared to submit a tree survey and a new landscaping plan. Baker asked about the staff's recommendations regarding the lighting plan. Tessier said they will provide a photometric plan to make sure light doesn't spill into the neighborhood. Baker asked about the staff's recommendations regarding utilities. Tessier said they are waiting for the infiltration report and discussed the sewer work done in the past. He added that they will fix any issues that need repair. Baker asked Tessier about stormwater BMPs. Tessier said they are proposing to run the storm sewer pipe from the roof area into an existing catch basin that goes into a stormscepter and Bassett Creek. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 6 Baker asked Tessier about the proposed enrollment requirement and the outstanding plat. Tessier said they have no issue with capping the enrollment and that they are working on getting the plat finished. Baker referred to the bike flow issue and asked Tessier to respond to staff's suggested concept. Tessier explained that there could be a challenge with the staging of bikes on the east part of the site when the entrance is completely around the building on the west side. He stated there is also a hill, a lot of trees, a storm sewer, and a drainage swale to be considered. He added that there are bike paths that cross driveways all over the City and questioned what the City typically does in any other situation. He stated they are comfortable adding signage, but to reroute the bike path all the way around the school is a fairly large expense they would like to avoid. Segelbaum noted that the existing bike racks are located where the loop is proposed to be expanded and questioned where they would be relocated to. Tessier said the plans at this point are schematics and they don't have all the details yet, but they will put several bike racks in. Waldhauser asked if there are crossing guards at the entrances. Tessier stated that there are people within the site supervising drop offs and pick-ups. Evans-Becker stated that none of Meadowbrook's students are walkers so they don't have crossing guards on the streets. Baker asked Tessier if Meadowbrook has considered hiring a traffic control officer which could solve many of the problems. Tessier stated that a traffic control officer wouldn't be effective on Glenwood Avenue where people turn into the school because it wouldn't help with the issue of people trying to go around that traffic. Segelbaum stated that one of the City's recommendations is to cap the number of staff as well as the number students and asked if Meadowbrook has issues with that. Baker clarified that the condition regarding staff doesn't cap the number of staff, it requires that changes to staffing levels or programming activities shall be discussed with the City prior to implementation. Evans-Becker said that requirement seems complex when it doesn't impact the number of families that are coming or going. Waldhauser stated that program changes do affect capacity. Evans-Becker said things should stay in balance with a cap on student enrollment. Waldhauser asked about the service area for Meadowbrook and how many of the students are from that area, and outside of that area. Evans-Becker said the attendance area is mainly south of Highway 55, west of Winnetka down to 1-394 and to Theodore Wirth on the east. She stated that half of the students come from the attendance area and the other half are open enrolled students, many of which come from the rest of Golden Valley among many other cities. Baker opened the public hearing. Paula Pentel, 941 Angelo Drive, said she has been involved with Meadowbrook since 2000 and she is concerned that the maps aren't showing where the new addition is going to be constructed. She said she is glad a tree survey is going to be required and that she is concerned about the amount of impervious surface on the site and the size Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 7 of the playground. She referred to the suggested parking lot addition on the east side and said she is concerned about the specimen trees in that area and the lack of a buffer. She questioned how the student population will actually be capped and said that the fact that the district decided that they want to put five levels of classes starting with kindergarten doesn't make an emergency for the City to allow a development that may be too large for the site. She questioned if the Boy Scout property to the east may be available to Meadowbrook in order to alleviate some of the issues and said she is not sure every option has been considered. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she feels like Meadowbrook has outgrown their space. She said she understands the interest in having Meadowbrook in the community but it was built as a small neighborhood school that is now trying to serve students from all over the place. She questioned how much the City should do to help this one school serve as many students as possible when there are a lot of other options. She said she is not interested in seeing any expansion of Meadowbrook. Blum agreed and said he would recommend that the City pause on this decision. Baker agreed with Blum and stated that this proposal could be tabled in order to try and resolve some of the issues. Black stated that the student expansion has already happened so the question is whether they want to keep them in this small space. Johnson stated that the school has an issue with traffic but they are trying to solve it by getting more of the traffic off the streets and onto their site. Segelbaum agreed and said he supports Meadowbrook and thinks they are trying to accommodate the traffic. He said he is not sure it is completely plausible to add a turn lane on Glenwood Avenue so he doesn't want to make it a mandatory requirement at this point. Baker asked if the queuing on Glenwood is a result of people waiting to turn into the parking lot or if it queues all the way to the school's entrance. Zimmerman said it is a bit of both. Blum questioned why so many people are choosing to use the Glenwood entrance. Zimmerman stated there are more parking spaces and more queuing space on the east side. Baker said he is impressed with the compromises that have been reached. Brookins said he is not in support of the proposal. He said he thinks there are other opportunities that haven't been considered in terms of the long term vision and that he would be in favor of tabling the proposal. Angell agreed and added that the larger loop proposal isn't ideal. He said he'd like to see more detail about potential plantings as well. Baker said the proposal seems hasty and it feels like more thought could have been put into it. Black said the main issue was traffic and that an entire traffic study was done. He said there are other issues that are important, but the applicant has addressed the main concerns the City has. Segelbaum said he thinks tabling the proposal would be the worst option for the district. He said if there is more information required it can be added before it goes to the City Council, but the Planning Commission's purview is to decide whether or not the proposal meets the standards, not if it they are moving too Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 8 quickly. Blum said he thinks the hesitation flows into the criteria they are supposed to consider and are within their purview. Segelbaum said he feels it would be a disservice to the school to not give them a vote. Segelbaum referred to the second recommended condition of approval and questioned if options B and/or D1 from the traffic engineer's memo should be excluded. He also questioned if a turn lane of Turners Crossroad would be necessary if the larger loop option were constructed on the west side of the property. He said he would like there to be further study before the proposal goes to the City Council regarding the traffic issues on Glenwood Avenue and whether re-striping or adding a through lane would be best. Baker reiterated that he thinks the proposal should be tabled. Johnson stated he would like the staff report to state that they are creating nine additional classrooms rather than a net of eight new classrooms. Segelbaum referred to the seventh condition of approval and said he would like to strike the language after the words "enrollment shall be capped at 890 students." Zimmerman stated that the City would still like to get annual information on enrollment from Meadowbrook. Brookins said he would like the enrollment capped at even fewer than 890 students. Johnson referred to the eighth condition of approval and said he thinks options for a bicycle/pedestrian plan should be required the same as any other bike trail. Baker recommended the language state that an east/west bike trail must be maintained and options for a trail connection the parking lot should be explored. Brookins asked if there should be timing requirements added to the conditions regarding traffic improvements. Zimmerman said it depends on the County requirements. Brookins asked if the internal site modifications could be addressed sooner. Baker suggested adding language that requires options B and C be done during the first phase. Johnson suggested that condition number three regarding tree mitigation be more specific and include a 1 to 1 replacement of all significant trees. MOVED by Segelbaum seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Major PUD Amendment plan for Meadowbrook PUD No. 90, Amendment #4 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. If the listed conditions are required as a part of the approval, the proposed expansion and site improvements would not negatively impact the overall quality of the site. Enhancements to circulation and queueing areas should help traffic flow more smoothly in and around the site, relieving existing congestion. 2. While a number of trees are being removed as a part of the proposal, improved landscaping will be required and will help mitigate their removal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 9 3. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by allowing the construction of classrooms to support a complete fifth section of classes on-site. 4. The proposed amendment would allow the current school building to better manage the number of students currently on-site and would allow for a small number of new students to be enrolled over the next two years. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which advocates a "complete community" and prioritizes the preservation of elementary schools. However, without close oversight of future enrollment and programming, problems around overcrowding could arise once more. 5. Important traffic improvements must be made in concert with the proposed expansion in order to address concerns regarding the general health, safety, and welfare of those who visit or travel through the Meadowbrook School area. 6. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards applied to the existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Conditions.- 1- onditions:1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated April 19, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Improvements and modifications to traffic management, as explained in the Engineering memo, shall be constructed and/or funded by Meadowbrook School in 2018 and 2019. These include physical improvements (A, C and E in the traffic engineer's memo and the school's original option B) as well as operational optimization. B and C shall be constructed in 2018. 3. A revised tree and landscaping plan, including a tree survey with tabular inventory, which includes a 1 to 1 replacement of all significant trees shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Tree and Landscape Permit. 4. A photometric plan with light levels identified for all new fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval. 5. The school must provide a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the City's 1/1 code. All new or rehabilitated sewer services must be inspected by the City after repair or construction, and must obtain compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building or release of funds. 6. No permits shall be issued until the Final Plat approved as part of Amendment #3 has been recorded with Hennepin County. 7. Enrollment shall be capped at 890 students. Information on enrollment shall be provided to the City annually. 8. An east/west bike trail must be maintained and options for a trail connection east of the parking lot that avoids vehicular conflicts shall be explored with City staff. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports Meetings of a Housing and elopment Authority, City Council, Bo f Zonin Appea er Meetings Zimmerman stat ions will occur at the next Planning Commission meeting. Meadowbrook Elementary—Hopkins School District 01 —PUD Project Narrative Meadowbrook Elementary School is located at 5430 Glenwood Avenue in zoning district I, sub-district I-1.A new addition is planned for the north side of the school building to address enrollment capacity needs. The 15,111 square foot addition has been designed to complement the characteristics of the existing building and capitalize on the qualities of the site. Site grading and drainage plans maintain the site's features without affecting the playground, the community center,or any other amenities on the site. The addition does not impede on the setbacks nor does it exceed the height limits required by the Institutional zoning district. Improvements to the main driveway at the entrance to the school property will increase safety, and the addition of a loading dock to the building will make deliveries and trash pick-up easier and less obtrusive. Overall, the changes to the building and site meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provisions and will further enhance the school's significance to the community. Committed to Equity&Excellence Meadowbrook Elementary School Hopkins Public Schools 5430 Glenwood Avenue 1001 Highway 7 HOPKINSGolden Valley, MN 55422-5120 Hopkins,MN 55305-4723 :P1 Dr. Greta Evans-Becker 952.988.4000 Principal www.hopkins.k12.mn.us PUS LIC SCHOOLS Natalie Sawatzky Assistant Principal (952)988-5100•(952)988-5115 fax March 21, 2018 Jason Zimmerman Planning Manager I City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Zimmerman, I understand that you are wondering why eight new classroom spaces is not more than 50 students. As the principal at Meadowbrook I can explain this and give you reasons why this is true. The simple reason is that we have outgrown our current space and we are completely on top of each other. The proposed addition to Meadowbrook is to re-balance the building after a number of years of enrollment growth. In 2013 Meadowbrook added a fifth kindergarten section. Each year since then there have been five sections of kindergarten. As the students have aged, Meadowbrook has moved very close to becoming a five section school. The majority of our growth has already occurred. Currently we have five sections of Kindergarten, first, second, third and fourth grades. In the next two years these students will move to fifth and sixth grade and we plan to have five sections of kindergarten both years. Then our growth will be complete. The school does not intend to grow beyond this size which is a total of approximately 50 students more than we have now. In 2014 the State of Minnesota started free full-day Kindergarten and moving from half-day to full-day required us to add two Kindergarten classrooms. The 2014 addition allowed Meadowbrook to have the five kindergarten classrooms we needed and preschool classrooms in the former Crisis Nursery(east wing). Since the addition, three third grade classrooms have been located in the east wing, remote from the other third grade classrooms--which is not an ideal situation for learning or teachers working together. With the new addition, they will be reunited. In 2014 the district added Spanish to the curriculum and Meadowbrook now has three Spanish teachers. Two of the Spanish teachers are in classrooms. Both Spanish classrooms have had to share space with Kids and Company. Serving the communities of: Eden Prairie • Edina Golden Valley - Hopkins • Minnetonka Plymouth - St. Louis Park An equal opportunity/affirmative action educator and employer. In 2014 the district added Spanish to the curriculum and Meadowbrook now has three Spanish teachers.Two of the Spanish teachers are in classrooms.Both Spanish classrooms have had to share space with Kids and Company. We needed to get rid of both of our computer labs and turn them into classrooms. We have no room for break out spaces, Makers Spaces or places to set up engineering events because every possible room and closet is being used and most likely being shared. With its growth, Meadowbrook hired additional specialist teachers. We have added a second art teacher, a second music teacher, an additional gifted and talented teacher, and an additional Phy. Ed. teacher. We now have two music rooms and two gifted and talented rooms. Music, art, PE,and gifted and talented are all also sharing their classroom spaces with the school-age child care program which is not an ideal situation. We are literally on top of each other, shuffling furniture and equipment in and out of classrooms both before and after school. The Specialists need their own space so they can work in their rooms before and after school. Our before and after school program is very popular and it needs its own space for equipment and games for the children. The eight classroom addition is not so that we can grow, it is so that we can get out from being on top of each other and have enough space to move from a great elementary school to a world class elementary school. Accounting of the 8 net classroom addition (main building only): • 2 provide for the additional 2 sections (50 students) one in fifth and one in sixth as the students who are already at MB get older and the kindergartners remain stable at 5 sections • 3 provide space in the main building for 3`d graders who were in the east building • 1 provides space for a Kids &Company 'home base' • 1 provides an additional classroom for Spanish instruction - no longer a shared space • 1 provides space for the Gifted and Talented room-no longer a shared space in summary,, this means that most of the PnrnllmPnt grnwth wa-, nrPCPnt on cit,- in the 2017-2018 school year. Thus, the traffic study reflects most of the growth, and the additional 50 projected for 2018-19 is the final needed to fill out the 5-section enrollment. If you have any questions, I would be happy to discuss this with you. Sincerely, Greta Evans-Becker Ed.D. Principal W O Z� S w z z = z} >- J z Ell w u O N o :F r O > m 'a Z Ow VJ Q 0 W ZN } l� F o a 34 .� Q N���N� �> Elf �- w LL W 4L HSL^ o n., E Z G O U O° z Q o w '� <` z O m �aB N } z� J agog > Z z � �o z Mrl it a O U W o O CWC I 2u- Z ' 4scauo 50£'" & 0 1 O ro > u� N�1 G Y�w> O U W Z Z �' °a� a Q € 'S J VR w d' V W Q W u Q �Zuw u_ o WO O LL -tfu z Z V i Z Cn _j zW vl O Q LLJ aOvo O > Fnm Ix E°^£ Y 0 G Q u+ d 2 U u* V i V 00'800- W fA2 Com. I ' O Z u V g 1 /T 6 eQo el P n `���`�! n - /� P x x TREED+ \ P ode ...x // x �:'� .m0. , .vf Y.. u �9 i� °♦ _-- + g �o & a '4' anlno srownl�e 6 o 0 epP o Q +di .✓ OAO 000 4 y, �^ � 8�� S- �� � e� I � x a r y? I� 4 I" av �O` imT 6' G yy5p5p ,y,y�rr h 9 o.aso e ;0'? `\r '' e+ " " �.6 `� co i p6 / ? W x "k°• -. .x � ,-'"'wry° .,,p j4`,b nw V• 'fiLL ° x w ¢x- 9b M yb »C. g " + d'; h 7 / • x k .... r" Q $+ - ? x S1?L Rte+ , `------` 6. Q o qQr' 1 � � ,.. x ,. r1 ..< a s • - x �a(�. � ` s �.cj°6*/a Wo,`� FP i8 Y � �G. �// n ��" � .. __. o � i 4y`rr / v I " 7L � 9+ y'I B'�dNA�k I',�,r k,V '•t� � / rte-.- espe � g '.� 1- .. � rrrr =t �I o � rr r e d. dr7 '.� / i r 'Z 1NOMY.39YN1'NO... QQ d' 1 x 4 a �1 I I ry �ryj a} y; I I r •roR $ '' �� �dr �8 � R db l�<�b d,9'8 dp �� yyry 'I �W ��� �� � m����Imp:.� � C I t7 . w mW AC-G nZl P a0 I I r'° � vC o �'� � _ i s � � .yA�9p I� N•� aaex ii /e 4 d' * k' A V 9 II 2 < �> ' \ tt S B a9b 49951, . 2 . O g 8 0 O b \ GNX / pb$ °y a' �\V) �" $x � gid+°'$Y '$ry-� xE ry 'i;.Sf,qD. yAA �• �� &CB'�$q�2gA ill h a' w Zx Ys' H 1 a\ . r �d on ! x �,S x 'max. •dt ��' �",: ,..� - q � � � $ � 60 E9 M..E9,00.00S "O m dm _ ry 4 $ �,e 0N; �qo�m dy +`� � spsG �W _ __-__5} 6 � ap/0m. p ,,,a 19C g A a' C,' °'"� gb � �i S` \ `li / 1 8 a rw ' BSSt,R oq �� '8 ' I z°1� Pd v 40� - �r,b- �A �}.'< ,� rxLL rrr x x ab•°�°` >> a ym} �iYi �; 9�d o Q Or r a� — gng �Z3 ve� �� koro sz d\L>> �QN q oe: ���� � _ `� �" 6 � �• ill �i�s>�el a � �i ug3 g� Ngoc \x rn mFFx rw^aFm�z�i�3 dzrte„__ ____ Z W xZ :k EZ=o< o E'� 2; i ` � ¢ ffi ao 3'it5c wWm $o zzoozzz ;xWNZ-°`=o��u� rc °Y� uFa o '� Cz $ao ? 6. � \ x "-'/ ryP^.a;° u°f. LLJ m. _ j i Z i � oi�Wg�aa��^moo Z OSYE�xF°� o -Z o, �3 z ' �W. ". aW>�us� °woe Y �Jo n iz 'off %y• `2- / 'i 38 dd9M� .' '�, "b .. � 71 Z7r !� p,., m`. a°pt z O pN�°w oSsa�Fo� �Wa o uo � Ld \" 9. fir' I ; ' ir�0_ Wo 4u3r5 uu �w = w to K 12 o z F�O z z O z u w U oiw�zra� Eos f iarc a W� Ek>c Cc w z"�rcGl�u°-�¢fQI� �° 5 V U o�o"; is Z z�w CSw OIJ oril z zO0 zz o- a-LL w �Nrn °\ r m > �w�o5�°��?oo€a� s90 03 ati o du m y _ + + r \ X Z `< Q t" OR Ha �s E �Irmg6 °r8 ". ba a,6�� �F€it � �� 4; kk ° a 5"q qq a �� _ g gm owe 7d rcz�Q ...,T •'0 25 11 Oi � zS os 2 Z. �' = _ _ °a�� .oy�, e. `� W �i ° 33 $ux4uN o r u ,cY rv0 I "'r,rye 4�.\. w'` it u a e a It, W o ®pv ne . E 'tm lx--OwTFH DO=3 �Nb Npz,".. ^:1� m� d J .r S� Ixogo� MW iW oa�iza>C a d ar a�a Ct- + H >3'^'no �z o� a hb76d° •5. , rvz,•� °a r O aN„� N u7 zz aV off€ > roe a i u �"' ~� i ma4 Z o� �o� p �� o a�s� 4a3p�.... N n - xY 6 O w ;o 4�• - - �t _ Z ipI N Z �R o � O o'or 9 emn:FzO s« Iz sz o F� ----------- >_ du �� tW/r Wim 0>Cry GLU z '1w�wu u Fa �._.._.- '-_______- + t ♦ w^ C 000, S� a gN w E Dr y w 3 & €IN fill 1xU ( € �N d0 CZ U N mn � ow5u LU 2 5. O Cc U) C V cl) Q X � Fb@ w (z 4Z o IIIIIIII �. ! I II ! iilli !�ill dd � �L•oChJ•r•iUr Cie e;a�� w �� z ' yfa@EiEE$� ya ��q�c�EE�� O moos Rte/ N •O i::i I..T4 DO-I Kw O°O�•OL9 •iJ w a• 0 aa � 1.1 C!1%.: In ma- n I- J :l L.j 00°00 �.�. y /// �a\mo. ��w Il L�.i MCI Ll- > BanJ 31 3aONOJ � '' ?h ®(n' 1 in mu>(tl 27 J S18nOO ),Vld snONIW1118x > f" / jl II c wl a a < W a z (• \ m Lp -- --�---°�- ------- - m II 11 I•.I�_ aoaJ o -------------- ------------- a a a OC,) N o li ll ------------- ------- --- n> m( ll -------- -<:----------- n� Ili I m ° ( mqm, 10 w II IIo II ll E o w `<J .' JJJCr it it it i.. ro w�-cui'J31 V w� n II k `n I II I 1 I \ i II Ij II ; as i z \ I coas II II\ cna ''� 5m I I I p X LLJ {-Tn�N �d r I'd � O W i `J li.. �N 631s dW ... � I \\ na :_ Irn \\ III \\ -j ' ccr ,r iL G t SILO �N � w r > I I i I W �� m� ) F( , 14 co 00 oo Lj — r ---- -- --- _ LY 06. ------------- V ISN yosG__ IL1ti~ �+ 'C r) �f •--�� ^�J (moi?� I --=�2:�-- --.�---.� .. ,. (T Cc, 1 n n I u) 1 .i r. \�� I II -),0 ...�) (o U w I' 11 II U(9 m L., 7 U Ii7"_ O(a7 c. (n// LY I F �. y v ) �,. d< 3 ► �O gga y g„a as w ; -p (n f WO I _ cl) CN _ _ Z = C� ' A p r a 0 O O >✓ O � U a N < 4Z -ClIV cz Illillllllllll x h a s °s � dpi S, a o � MH =rswz�3 _ w cox Ga gI eAR °� (n i3 w Y� p0u0a j0 �F � afra UM H •0 0 a Oo0o0O00&0 rn rn w M as's� rae�saa L-I /// L,J rr// //I C] ny r / 41 I w o• ill i /,/r H✓N.:!© /r ) m - -- i ma J O:. I..... w ) ,if 1 J L.) Alla)a yW au a) Imo_ ------- ��// / 1 I 0- g Z uj 11�38 m . mccc)m II Slanoo kv,id SnONIWn118 �? � II II •, W L I L Y 0C cF 8 D Lj” V n r,C A 7"7---- -- - - - _ w+--- ------- '^ " L: = cy ln o) X II[i It II II rI. LL 1 dF xi is vzb31 ck:z--m II II $ z I ms II II 1 x II II 0 o C) II II ..i i i II r wm ) I I, w ii S cY to ° Fib w CoLJ II I Ik ii S �w )1 884 fY J Coro r, .� II =.- t0 y X'7YZ (it 11 uo a 11 y s Ia- /t •1 I, w,. L � i it< V (b 0.) 14r' - \... 1> < x CL) L11 al i CO T.0.) T I II L)lY) r.tt) 1 :'P fr`�.,��_ \ a] _ 6 L6 1`E� CC) Ll. lY to 1 S r I (C, rY lX) W(w T tiu)V — Ln a. (Y)IX7 j II IX)10 lil.')' II li ) ;,o, c)uL1 \ \ WCA It T z. m!L'.r. �' V)R' Cr)(,i rn :a,C� '- \ !Y (0.)W r � m�u) L)(17 uo a a) M r_.. �� a A )cn m c �L I it it 2 Li M u) > i5 / Il04,l (xi4 0.)R .'_ �` fed 4 e 0010 = n gm � Ua cd W ` to 31 ■ g ;z ? CA U N t N Q cz am <58 L C C 'cz cz c Q ld, 5 E ca O 4z IIIIIIIIII ! OW 33 k!IIIIIIIII�IIII C:) '�' y�3PBi5EI� � o I I 11 zfill G x 00 aOooDoel 40-000410 ;o �G w o• a I II Sls I] rxW -1,. .��.. ..._..-. v z / /LLQ 50N� uiY� Fr 3z: `• \ w __----------- a0 �• iy 2--�A8"" ; .,•\"` \t �\ �- 9 a,_ / z n f .may=TN. JH i n l LLl '.�\\,,111 • ...�?(.. i / \�" �I .> � �8� '� ,'• N %/ :-� �D Nj. C 1, y \ CDCL ' , Cly.. Q,, .ti n ,11,• 1111 � %// �--- z r' .<''ec > 5 , / / Iltas��-' a { rI 1 111111 111 I` if EH Sl. did SOONItNil.LIG r l }X11 11• 1( '�• __ _ � __ _ _ ____ _ `s W m I�•./:.1.A,, , t- i 11 i 11 1 1 II\ I I 1MEi 1 ee' 1 I 111 , ,� S11 Lv( ULD II II it WO 19 h I' s�41 I 1 +I y 1 _ i I,•' i7 _4$�:3�1.,.1 80 �SFiB OD \ 11 ,i 111 , 1 1,j,��•1 1 11 )I e U i �`' N Ott ') I It 1 \''` Lii�ll-';il\ u'V 1 i 1 -,1 }.: x 11 111 `z x I c0 V4\li r�„p51,' t 11 zy�`' 1 n ►. o �5 �L�L�1. ` 1 I-^ 1 IN POTC, Li OD /%M,.f ,00.00��� � t 6r \ �,; ss.\ J ��a wa> _ s'rsa 00> tA II y ` X wLi =-' '� - --a,�-....: /l, F3�i;lt1 i 4 c� 9' =— O �- /._ m ) �eR. Ln N I a0 a�0 _ 1`1":\` ' I ! II ul M 6'09 s 00 00 q0 = II II a? m N �:�.� tb M II II II g > a<,i N C,/rr= u:,ul ry ��?7 "'Z 0m 00 0 . 0.1 a7 1 1' V1[Y Z N tt) W o0 L 1:'?".._. II '„ �ti T _ '.``y q II II II II .' \ I mom? ( \ , 1 1 n ? V)F z I �i n �. `$��� c m u rT Tom- II R I q < \�? v pl v fg o ab0 ul °o irr -.. 71 Axl / �` t a o do j ��s. m 4� „„ Wzl 11M.01111111 f� o a� a� I v Er- CD Ya!_ I IIII �� . II—I W� IM� Z y TLI 2 pLL, y III 1 g �U w S Z 3 W III�II o I11 � 3 W -1—II= II-1 -a � �� ` III-TI l HIIL ins I IIE �� – g�w —1 IIE -Wo - ¢0 g� III Olp III: 0w = ow I I Fw o wo w Fw o zo ; UC= 7 of Q3 OUZ g Zp •+ - J ` N m O Q _ m U H m V a LU z �u5� • w C/3 a- LI B wK Z z O z ¢J vl cn f N m Q Q x LL, w 000 v I 4 cr Q a 00, o pD (nQ 000aU 0000 l CL 000 . Tr Y Q U I"s-I 0 0° 00000 �...i l 1 3 J 000°00 CF [, I'L F Q TIcr 1 ! I 3 '�5 3 3 F a 'NIW DNICN Z $ a 3 I:12 d Z Rl f Q Q twig W E vYW xz Zxi45]�S � ¢ Z ui , . amz LL WS— 'S q3s _ .eI Z . d Z _ u 8 ' 0#0 `2E f • ` g a" m ct = fn Lo m• a �QLLE TQi a� ggm k o y $ �0 5w a� ®33 ^' 115 L� '�" 04 E fz C ,f O Q U) U 2 < 3 m p cc us I� m i s ' 1, -• IWBJ yY N J N� Z I �� w0 --- �u Q g I S W I� 'Fg g < SoFbZg� �Z y%yo z a= pFppZc �< FS<Ao 1W<J U3< �5�����pX� qVZ f-,t;z pm z � ; a W mz a LU '�o qq �cmN 8coiN q�q a k1s1z F o �o Zcoi°wm � �i? a o •I 1 _ _jo s m o &Z� s V4J U' ' ,z T_.9l J .ar 318VINVA \ N �- 4 Z —1 _ 1 APPROVED DECEMBER 31,3015 TYPIF (ONDUCTILE C6L TO 8RE toldenWey Lu CITY ENGINEER REG 223110 IRON MAIN) DY.WM.020 cr is S ofi 1 a > <w T' i LgSW y u = m-. q� dl0 zs iD Ij13 igx a g P' ` LL 6' 0 z ao3s� �=� 4J sus€€€55 _ � pp-55IgXm g z O m ib i m iz�o �d 9 r i W = U Q U 310VWVA vt$$c YF yw ggil pi$# a� fid WE p! W9 YIpZ' 4z Eg p i e � � a E z� .. w �...... .._..1. Q 0 z Z¢ . g oz ) ail pqd all6 b4 qb�b P WypF!w3a P�•RnPP. h 36 wa$;ww �Eaa _� ° ° 4 5 Ile (t3 S a `-« a m y a 6 ISD C5, .4.c7 aEi< p a C-0 c 0 0 I#Z �� IIIIIIIII!! � � o IIIIIIIIIIIIII P1 I *0000-3.10►oe a ° a c 6m 13 J SK5 akkY@ fly E tlfE15 W I (D II c7 S x iG N so 000e00o1400013000e40 ¢ I ® 0 g4 �� 7s x� t I 3 '011 h Y0 �ji It f a, „b W p u b 9r Qs=$p i�� °vii o'Sc L6 �- Y asg a c�° '� '�-� o ��>i �'� � 7�{g �► �`odo pz. .�u, 3�� �pp y q°.8�8 ppppt( s; g1� ;F°�aY 9yg4 ro _ � 6 t Cf Sjj' i Sa 7 -- 0-1 I ------- ------------ 80 -80 ' //j/ wt'n tr m%i� ni S � �..r�s'•..`ts�.,tl'Y,.I ;-'- -------- --- s Ll -90 91 1 �1 6 -----Ejdtk� 31.1N�N0 1Vt -_' Q oo, S (- 1, I, 11- 1.L1�10(j_>V IQ S NlWllllf3 e6 ' > o //]] I a Y �1 I ¢ __ a_. 10 -.•� '9`'G, ..'60 ,.•:�R C.-ro ptV Q t _ _ __ _ ____I --• J IN 11 11 -1--- ---------Y ___ __ m 1 m ID m NLi° it 'aOt131w2=--n 1 1 , 71 II 11 I ' 1 In w ,1 I 1,wI 11 +Y 1 a• w I 1 l � .i \ 0 w L, C7 \ o nw � r' � t�.W / ,' }t K z 2¢ . 0 I 'de 19. h . 1, �y' it '---____-------' LI)LI) 10II I <n r I ' Hya t�{�,y POT -Al ,EV 00.00S ^T a y.__ x I 4 by8 `Qf)5' U `��+. �angi ¢l 06— ;—.. —„�]q_.,, 1 \ f`- cli I uro)li.i)rF .I ) m m IcI , tTY,a�(0 �.We �rj. II II u) y H6 H 10 ID CID (>rr>} �) _ tS) nl `•aj Q W i" m _ct �G�'�.� -.a �' /K.:� `ti.a9� as i LL) •.+ \ m Q I o .' a �\ yp �J ti. \ 1 a an CC .-` �\ U \L°ar.in ;Yi 11 79 II II II •) ^r�In II <\N` \\ 3.\ II `I{` /Mi;11-'' �1 tD u) -`�'+ 'LL's �. S`,` j `.lJQb °'� 1 Nl LL') ' p \ w _ )/mm_ t—:.:K? '.\ O \ 1 \`. / N b _ I' 2 fEit j x 3 d CCS C 1 W N Z °� � J f � to � r- Cz OgaJ e � oil5 4 'fill Il g s ill, W 1.� ? g ail g! Oi At a 9�6M ; j ; $ � 0iMH it; m Jig Baa € x 9jw w gy ail ' TIS akit if 111 H H H M a �§ a a L , X91 H xg011611 it g I 1 X11 Will, 2i b y W e•� rr 4 r / j W CO z ° i [�e6 o t� O Z 11 p, 3y I $.a•� ! a N rw t V l7 �uii sY i �� T a oS Y J d d J 6 2 WLq N lug J i d C I\ O J t Mfi 1� I I `•I—Iii=iii. T—T—i W S I—IIIT yy g g 4 4 e� sr.x is Heidi - we � ZZb99 NW'Aall8A uaPIOJ 6 any POOMUGIE)0£b9 M v lig 0 c �� b s O is s o uolIlppy ISaMPON 8602 loogoS ARWOW913 jooagmopeaW 1e0140913 -U81d OI S W cz MR 9 9 Hill LM l J 1 O O / o EE 1 1 1 � I I I I t----- ---- ZIM IE \- 1 ; \ \ \ I .......... / \ \ 4- ....-.-.., \ A i I N 1 1 o 1 1 �I� 1 1 s Z €� w O CO d b £ JJ I p E. cI 3 IB W Y. I vy < I yy BFJFLB� 1 F � I 4 .B-.L 4 ISN 8 4-A ` iI I q .B-.CL pyll gyll p y�§ 3 E i 1 1 =Y p�'I$�Y I of I I �I I I I 3BIllilOi__ _ 8 mg� I bey�y � A L4 8 3NI1B101 Z 3 J a 3 �I r 4 ^g 3 b S o-•L Nil -66" I`r� � • � 4i9 ; i F A'.Y A'•r � � I a���� I I b n I I I � I I I a I A..LL I L _ I \ I J I I I I I I m,gj I I I � b 1 I I I � I I 1 i I c V b 8 -ly I1—�—LI I �Ib b city ofi4 golden40w##� EORANDb Ut valley ey Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: April 19, 2018 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Coordinator Subject: Major PUD Amendment— Meadowbrook School Engineering staff reviewed the application to expand the existing building and parking lots at Meadowbrook School to accommodate the addition of classroom space, restrooms, cafeteria, and support spaces in the north section of the main school building. Comments are based on plans dated March 5, 2018 and Traffic Exhibits dated April 6, 2018. 1. Plat a. The current proposal does not include re-platting the property. However, in 2013, when a PUD Amendment was approved to combine the former Crisis Nursery with the Meadowbrook School parcels, the new plat was not recorded with Hennepin County. Because of this, the corresponding easement vacations and rededications did not take place. As a condition of approval of this proposal,the plat that was approved in 2013 must be recorded before any building or site permits are issued. In addition, walkway easements must be dedicated to the City through a separate document for all public walkways along Glenwood Avenue that are not currently located within public right-of-way. b. The proposed PUD amendment is adjacent to Glenwood Avenue and Trunk Highway 100 and therefore must be reviewed by Hennepin County and MnDOT, respectively. 2. Demolition—As part of the demolition and construction process, all foundations, pavements, driveways, utilities, and other facilities must be completely removed. Permits from the City and other public entities must be obtained prior to starting demolition work. Staff in the Physical Development Department can assist the contractor in determining all requirements prior to the application of permits. I Site Plan, Access, and Circulation (Traffic Management) -The plans submitted by Meadowbrook include the addition of eight new classrooms and supporting spaces on the north end of the main school building. Staff from Meadowbrook and Hopkins Public Schools have indicated that the new classrooms will help balance and redistribute the existing students at the school, and that they expect approximately 50 new students and two new staff would be added under this proposal. This would increase student enrollment from 836 to 890. Access to Meadowbrook School is currently provided with two driveways onto Xenia Avenue/Turners Crossroad and two driveways onto Glenwood Avenue. The north driveway onto Turners Crossroad provides access to the north parking lot utilized by school busses and the south driveway provides access to the west parking lot for student pick-up/drop-off and community center parking. The east driveway onto Glenwood Avenue is ingress only and is used to access the east parking lots for student pick up/drop off and parking. The west driveway onto Glenwood Avenue is egress only. According to the PUD plans submitted, the four driveways serving the school will remain in their current locations. Staff from Meadowbrook School and Hopkins Public Schools have been working with City staff for many years to address site circulation, congestion, and pedestrian issues within the site and on the public street system. Most recently, the City approved a PUD Amendment in 2013 allowing Meadowbrook to incorporate the former Crisis Nursery building into its campus and connect via underground tunnel. The preliminary PUD plans were approved with the condition that Meadowbrook School submit a Traffic Management Plan as part of its final PUD submittal. A Traffic Management Plan and a Phasing Plan, showing pre- and post-project enrollment, were submitted to the City with the final PUD plans. The plan submitted by Meadowbrook attempted to balance the traffic demands on the west and east sides of the campus, and improve site circulation on the east side where new students were being added. As part of the 2013 submittal,the City and Hopkins Schools entered into an agreement to retain the City's Traffic Engineer to review the school's Traffic Management Plan, perform a field review of the current site conditions and traffic operations, and identify issues and opportunities for improving traffic management within the site while reducing the potential conflicts and impacts to safety and traffic flow on the public street system. The 2013 Traffic Engineer's report outlined findings and observations made during the field review of traffic operations in the east parking lots accessed from Glenwood Avenue. The report also provided recommendations for improvements to the school's Traffic Management Plan. As part of the 2013 PUD approval, staff recommended that Meadowbrook School implement the recommendations contained in the Traffic Engineer's report. In addition, the staff report included the following language to address future issues: ...there are no congestion issues anticipated on the public street system (Glenwood Avenue). However, staff reserves the right to require Meadowbrook School to modify the access to this portion of the site if issues do arise. Public Works and Police staff will continue to monitor access and traffic circulation at the school following build-out of the addition for access and safety issues...County staff requests the City's assistance in monitoring this area for access and safety. Although Meadowbrook implemented many of the recommendations in the 2013 staff report, traffic issues still remain onsite and new issues have been observed and reported on the public street system. Given the history of traffic issues and the current proposal to add more students and faculty, the City and Hopkins Schools executed an agreement in 2018 to retain the City's Traffic Engineer to perform a comprehensive traffic study of the campus and surrounding street system. The study identified congestion, delays, and safety concerns on Xenia Avenue/Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue during peak arrival and dismissal periods at the school. The report found that approximately 38 parking and queuing spaces are needed on site to help resolve the traffic impacts under the current proposal to add 50 students. It also identified potential options to consider to help resolve the traffic issues moving forward. The Traffic Engineer's report is divided into two memos (review of traffic operations, and considerations for onsite improvements) attached for reference. Staff met with County staff and also with Hopkins Schools staff on multiple occasions to discuss the findings and recommendations and the various options for safety, access, and site circulation improvements (site improvements) to address the traffic issues and provide the parking and queuing spaces needed. Through those conversations, a number of solutions emerged that were acceptable to the County and the school district, and the school proceeded to develop its traffic plan exhibits. The traffic exhibits submitted were missing a few key site improvements that are summarized below. As a condition of approval of the PUD Amendment, the following site improvements must be constructed and/or funded by Meadowbrook School to improve safety, access, and site circulation with the site and on the public street system. (The options below correspond with the concept map in the Traffic Engineer's traffic improvements memo dated March 23, 2018): Option E—Construct/stripe eastbound left turn lane on Glenwood into school site (to be completed by City and funded by Meadowbrook in 2018, pending approval by Hennepin County) Option D1—Construct northbound right turn lane on Turners Crossroad to west lot (to be constructed by City and funded by Meadowbrook in 2018) Option A—Widen school's west parking lot entrance at Turners Crossroad (to be constructed by the school in 2018) Option B—expand pick-up/drop-off zone in west parking lot (to be constructed in 2019 by school) Option C as modified by Meadowbrook in its traffic exhibit—additional drive aisle along the north side of the easterly parking lot adjacent to the playground. The west and east ends of this area would continue to be staffed by the school to facilitate circulation and access. (This would be constructed in the summer of 2019) Optimization -The Meadowbrook team will also be reviewing its operations and logistics in terms of balancing and optimizing drop-off and pick-up at the west and east entrances and looking for additional efficiencies, and assessing and improving safe pedestrian movements throughout the site. This includes reviewing its policies for staff parking at the site, including on the east side of the east entrance. Staff reserves the right to work with the school to further refine the options discussed above. As a guarantee that the site improvements will be constructed in the timeframe provided, the school district must post a financial security with the City in a form acceptable to the City and in the amount of 125% of the estimated costs to construct the improvements. Since the site improvements described above only accommodate the current proposal to add 50 students, as a condition of approval,the student enrollment must be capped at 890 students. In addition, staffing levels and programming activities must not change without discussion with City staff. Information on enrollment, staffing, and program activities must be provided to the City on an annual basis or more often if any change is proposed or anticipated. If any proposed change to the site causes student enrollment to go over the cap, or parking and queueing demand to rise above the planned levels indicated in the traffic report, or if any site conditions unexpectedly cause negative traffic and safety impacts to the public street system, Meadowbrook School and Hopkins Schools must meet with the City to discuss the next steps in studying and resolving the issues. This may include construction of Options F1 and G or F2 and D2 discussed in the traffic engineers March 23 memo, to be funded by the school district. If at some point in the future, a more comprehensive traffic solution is constructed, the enrollment cap may be revisited and revised. The driveway to the west parking lot is being reconstructed and must comply with the City's standard for commercial driveways. In addition, any sidewalks or pedestrian curb ramps impacted by this PUD must be constructed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines and City engineering standards. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit must be obtained before working on driveways, pedestrian ramps, or other facilities located in the public right-of-way or easements. 4. Sidewalks and Trails-There are existing sidewalks and trails on Xenia Avenue and Glenwood Avenue adjacent to the Meadowbrook School site. The City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan shows the construction of bike lanes on Glenwood in the future. Due to the need for an eastbound left turn lane on Glenwood to enter the school site, the interim plan for Glenwood between Xenia and Trunk Highway 100 is to continue to provide off- street facilities until such time when Glenwood can be reconstructed with bike lanes. The City will continue to work with the County on the details of the interim and long term plan for Glenwood Avenue. The City will also continue to work with Meadowbrook School to look for opportunities to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility in proximity to the school. Any sidewalks and curb ramps that are impacted by this PUD must be constructed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines and City engineering standards. 5. Utility Plan - Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) -The City has a Sanitary Sewer 1/1 Reduction Ordinance to reduce the amount of clear water entering the sewer system. All buildings and sewer services within the PUD are subject to the City's 1/1 Ordinance and must obtain a certificate of compliance. Records indicate that the school began working on the phased compliance of its sanitary sewer system in 2013, and that the site is not currently compliant. The City is in the process of completing an updated inspection of the school's sewer service and issuing a new letter of non-compliance. As a condition of this PUD approval,the school must provide a financial guarantee, before the issuance of permits, to ensure compliance with the City's 1/1 code. All new or rehabilitated sewer services must be inspected by the City after repair or construction, and must obtain compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the buildings or release of funds. 6. Stormwater Management—The PUD is located within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed and would disturb over 10,000 square feet of area. Therefore, the plan must be reviewed by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) for erosion and sediment control. Based upon the size and scope of the project as proposed in the plans, the BCWMC water quality requirements do not apply. However, this may depend on the size of the impervious areas being added with the construction of the traffic-related site improvements discussed earlier. The plans must be forwarded to the watershed once they are found to be acceptable to the City. The Sweeney Branch of Bassett Creek is located along the north boundary of the PUD and eventually flows to Sweeney Lake. Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water for excess nutrients (phosphorus) and chloride by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study was completed for the lake and approved in 2011.The study lists implementation strategies such as filtration/infiltration practices and street sweeping that can be incorporated into development projects. The applicant must incorporate stormwater best management practices into the design and maintenance of this site to help achieve water quality goals for the lake. The City and school district have an existing agreement in place for sweeping the parking lots on a regular basis. Staff also recommends the preparation of a chloride management plan as part of the submittal. The plans show the extension of a storm sewer pipe from the new building addition to the wetland near the Sweeney Branch of Bassett Creek. City and Bassett Creek Watershed policy require stormwater to be treated via a best management practice (pond, infiltration basin, structural pollution control device) prior to discharge to a natural receiving water. Please revise the plans to reflect this requirement. The west side of the site drains to an environmental manhole owned by the school located near the west parking lot entrance and Xenia Avenue. The drainage area includes the new building addition and proposed traffic-related site improvements. The applicant must verify that this pollution control device is adequately sized to accept flows from these new impervious surfaces. A City Stormwater Management Permit is also required for the proposed project. The application must include the fee, financial security, and a stormwater plan meeting the City and BCWMC standards. 7. Tree and Landscape Plan—Trees are proposed to be removed as part of this project. The trees were part of an approved landscape plan when the original PUD was constructed. A Tree and Landscape plan was submitted with this proposal and includes new shrubs, perennials, and low-mow turf grass in areas disturbed by construction. While the landscaping efforts are robust, the plans do not show new trees being planted. As a condition of this PUD approval, the trees removed as part of this project must be replaced at a minimum 1:1 basis, depending on the results of the tree survey. Staff is available to discuss this in more detail with you at the time of permitting. Based on the information above, a Tree and Landscape Permit is required for this project and must be obtained before beginning any work onsite, including site clearing and demolition. The applicant must submit a tree survey and tabular inventory as part of the permit submittal and a plan showing trees to be protected and planted. Consistent with the City's natural resource management plan, staff recommends removing buckthorn and any other exotic, invasive, or noxious vegetation species located on the property as part of this project and in accordance with state and local laws. The City Forester will review the inventory and plan in more detail at the time of permitting. 8. Permits-The Developer must obtain all appropriate permits from the City and other governmental entities, including but not limited to Stormwater Management, Right-of- Way Management, Tree and Landscape, and other permits that may be required for development of this site. Recommendation Engineering staff recommends approval of the Meadowbrook PUD Amendment if all comments and conditions listed in this report and in the Planning report are addressed as discussed above. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other governmental entities such as Hennepin County. Please feel free to call me or Eric Eckman if you have any questions regarding this report. C: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Sue Virnig, Finance Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Joe Kauth, Building Official Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Marshall Beugen, Street &Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Joe Hansen, Utilities Supervisor RJ Kakach, Assistant City Engineer -A SEH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Oliver,PE Golden Valley City Engineer FROM: Mike Kotila,PE Sr. Transportation Engineer DATE: March 16,2018 RE: Meadowbrook Elementary School Summary of Traffic Operations Review SEH No.GOLDV 145493 This memorandum summarizes our review of existing traffic conditions at Meadowbrook Elementary School. A second memorandum will be provided related to potential site access and circulation improvements to better serve existing and future needs. Meadowbrook School serves pre-kindergarten through sixth grade students. Student transportation is provided by the District via school buses or by parents via passenger vehicles.The key issue to be addressed in this study is to assess the capacity of the site to accommodate parent drop-off and pick-up activity and to identify strategies to manage arrival and departures without disruption of traffic flow on the public street system. Table 1 provides a summary of the key variables tracked to assess the key issues. Table 1—Meadowbrook School Study-Key Issues Existing Conditions School Variable School Comments Reported SEH Observed Proposed Enrollment 836 - 890 Increase 54 students Staff 75 - 77 Increase 2 staff Number of classrooms 48 - 56 Net Increase 8 classrooms Class size 24-27 - 24-27 Households enrolled 684 - 711 1.2 students/household Bus riders 560 - - 67%reported bus riders Carpool students 134 - - 33%reported carpoolers School buses 10 12 arrival; 10 56-60 students planned per 10 dismissal bus(capacity 72 per bus 261 average per day 377 average per day Carpool vehicles 149 arrived for pm pick-up - departed in the am after drop off Key issue: Queued 21 vehicles on the Observed range:4-21 traffic not served on site 4-5 street(maximum - vehicles in pm;varies by observed; on a Friday) day of week Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,10901 Red Circle Drive,Suite 300,Minnetonka,MN 55343-9302 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 952.912.2601 fax Meadowbrook School—Site Traffic Operations Review March 16,2018 Page 2 Existing Conditions Review of existing on site access and operating conditions was performed using traffic video cameras that were deployed at each site ingress and egress point.Cameras were active from mid-day on Tuesday,January 23,2018 until Friday,January 26 at 5:00 pm. This time period included three school arrival events (Wednesday—Friday)and four school dismissal events(Tuesday—Friday). Weather and road conditions were poor on Monday that week,but cleared on Tuesday through the rest of the week.Temperatures were typical for January on Tuesday through Thursday with daily lows and highs ranging between 10 and 28 degrees and warmer on Friday with a low of 26 and a high of 47 degrees. Cameras were placed at five locations—each allowing daily observation of operational issues during am arrival or pm dismissal periods: 1. On Turners Crossroad to observe the bus entrance and exit.No operational issues were observed due to bus arrival and departure. 2. On Turners Crossroad to observe the westerly driveway(entrance and exit). Observed queue lengths in the driveway especially those that backed onto the street interfered with northbound traffic.Also noted when the traffic queue totally blocked the northbound lane. 3. On Glenwood Avenue to observe the easterly school driveway(entrance only).Observed westbound right turn queues and eastbound left turn queues waiting to enter the site.Also observed eastbound queues from the TH 100 ramp intersection and its interference with access to and from the school site. 4. On Glenwood Avenue to observe the westerly school driveway(exit only).Observed traffic leaving the site turning both right(to westbound Glenwood)and left(to eastbound Glenwood).Noting that left turn delays contributed to queues likely creating congestion within the parking lot drive aisles. 5. On the school site to observe queues staging to use the exiting driveway to Glenwood Avenue. Camera was placed to view exiting queues along the north side of the former Crisis Nursery building. Traffic Camera Observations Inbound and outbound traffic was counted from the video(on high speed playback)at camera sites 1 —4. These counts provide insight into arrival and departure patterns for parents(or other responsible adults) dropping off or picking up their students. Detailed information from each of the video recordings is compiled in Tables 2—8 which are attached to this memorandum.The counts of parents arriving and departing for student pick-up were fairly constant throughout the week. The average number of parent vehicles leaving campus after dropping a student off in the morning was 377. The average number of parent vehicles arriving at campus to pick up students after school was 261. This infers that school bus ridership is greater in the afternoon than in the morning. AM—School Arrival Period Counts at each driveway provided a daily number of parent drop-offs based upon the number of vehicles leaving the site prior to school in the morning.Arrivals to the site likely included some staff members,making the departing traffic a better indicator of parent activity. Exiting traffic demand was typically highest from 9:15 to 9:33 am each day. Delays were witnessed for vehicles leaving the site although spillbacks on-site did not result is issues for vehicles entering the site.Vehicles on eastbound Glenwood Avenue experienced delay as left turning school traffic waited for gaps in westbound traffic stream.The eastbound queue length varied from 8-15 vehicles—with only small portion of them desiring to turn left into the school driveway. PM—School Dismissal Period Counts at each driveway provided a daily number of parent pick-ups based upon the number of vehicles entering the site prior to,or just after school dismissal in the afternoon. Arriving traffic demand was typically highest from 3:30—4:30 pm each day. The parking lot and drive aisles filled up each day resulting in traffic queues of varying lengths out onto the public streets. Queues were observed on eastbound Glenwood waiting to turn left into the site,on westbound Glenwood waiting to turn right into the site,and on northbound Turners Meadowbrook School—Site Traffic Operations Review March 16,2018 Page 3 Crossroad waiting to turn right into the site. These queues always cause some level of interference with traffic flow desiring to pass by in the through lane and sometimes cause traffic in the through lane to be blocked creating longer queues that include non-school traffic.The duration of the queuing issue,and length of queue varied each day but were longer(both in number of vehicles and duration)on Thursday and Friday than on Tuesday or Wednesday with the worst case occurring on Friday. The worst case for queuing and blocking on the public street occurred on Friday afternoon when up to 21 vehicles were waiting on the public streets to access the site at the same time from three different directions(6 on northbound Turners Crossroad,3 on eastbound Glenwood Avenue and 12 on westbound Glenwood Avenue). Queues varied in length but sustained for 5-10 minutes dependent on location. Proposed School Expansion and Increase in Enrollment The District proposes to increase enrollment by 54 from 836 to 890 students,a 6.5%increase. Assuming that transportation for the new students follows the same trends observed for the existing student body, we can conclude that that the average daily number of parent pick up trips in the afternoon will increase by 6.5%from 261 to 278. This is an increase of 17 vehicles desiring to access the site during a short timeframe. So,the school expansion should be accompanied by at least 17 more parking or queuing spaces on site. The existing worst case queueing on the street total was observed to be 21 vehicles,so the total need to accommodate the existing problem and the additional demand due to expansion is 38 parking or queueing spaces. School District's Current Plan The School District provide preliminary plans to accommodate on-site vehicle storage which are useful and effective measures to partially manage the issue.They included: A. Widening of the Turners Crossroad driveway to provide more space for waiting vehicles. This is not intended as a drop off/pick up area,it would allow queuing to occur without blocking the inbound and outbound driveway movements. SEH estimates that 4 waiting cars could be accommodated. B. Expansion of the loading and drop off zone in the westerly parking lot along the westerly perimeter of the semi-circular parking lot end. If this is intended as a"double lane"of on-site parking,it appears that up to 10 additional vehicles could be accommodated. If the double lane approach is intended,great care should be taken to ensure that walking students and moving vehicles are not occurring simultaneously. C. Adding an additional drive aisle along the north side of the easterly parking lot adjacent to the playground.The drive aisle will accommodate about 14 vehicles. Key Issue to Solve The existing queuing issue observed indicates a need for 21 vehicles to be accommodated to relieve interference with non-school traffic on Glenwood and on Turners Crossroad.Based on the planned enrollment increase 17 more vehicles should be accommodated resulting in a total need of to serve 38 additional parking or queueing spaces. It appears that the School Districts planned improvements could accommodate about 28. Potential Solutions? Concepts to consider to improve access and internal circulation will be presented in a separate memorandum. Attachments: Tables 2-8—Site Observations Summary Meadowbrook School Site Observations Summary Table 2 Meadowbrook School Site Access Observations Traffic cameras in place beginning Tuesday PM,January 29 through Friday PM,February 2,2018 Observation periods(8-10 am,3-5 pm) School Site Arrival or Weekly Average Traffic General Observations Access Dismissal Peak Times In Out (See Tables 3-7 for more specific information) Turners Arrival 12 12 9:15-9:30 am Buses arrive,unload and depart individually Crossroad Bus Only Entry Dismissal 10 10 3:45-4:12 pm Buses arrive,load,then leave all at the same time without issue Turners Arrival 209 204 9:00-9:33 am Little to no queue spillback onto the road Crossroad Occasional queue spillback onto the road; Entry Dismissal 117 115 3:30-4:30 pm some causing significant backups on NB Turners Crossroad EB Glenwood queues caused by TH 100 ramp Glenwood Arrival 193 2 9:05-9:33 am intersection(not by traffic back ups on school Avenue site) School EB&WB Glenwood queues are caused by Entrance Dismissal 144 2 3:30-4:25 pm queue spill back from school entrance in both directions Glenwwod Arrival 0 171 9:10-9:40 am No significant queuing issues Avenue NB left turns exiting create queue spillback on School Exit Dismissal 0 170 4:00-4:30 pm site;occassionally extends to the school entrance driveway Table 3 Meadowbrook School Observations Observation periods(8-10 am,3-5 pm) Total number of arriving and departing vehicles- all driveways Vehicle T Arrival or Type Dismissal In Out Peak Times Notes Arrival 12 12 9:15-9:30 am Bus Dismissal 10 10 3:45-4:12 pm Assume 2 buses leave mid-day Arrival 402 377 9:00-9:33 am Inbound total includes some staff Cars Dismissal 261 287 3:30-4:30 pm General Notes 1) Parents begin arriving about 1/2 hour before dismissal 2)Parking lot typically full at about 3:40 pm 3)Drive aisles typically full by about 4:00 pm 4) Inbound and outbound volumes in Tables 1 and 2 are averages of all days observed Turners Crossroad Accesses Table 4 Meadowbrook School Observations Observation periods(8-10 am,3-5 pm) Bus Only Driveway on Turners Crossroad Arrival or Day Dismissal Buses Bus Entry Time Notes Tuesday Dismissal 10 3:40-4:11 pm Buses arrive individually and depart all at once Arrival 12 9:18-9:30 am Shorter bus arrives earlier(9:12) Wednesday Dismissal 10 3:46-4:12 pm Buses arrive 3:45-4:05 pm Arrival 12 9:17-9:27 am Shorter bus comes earlier(9:10) Thursday Dismissal 10 3:42-4:12 pm One late bus at 4:16 pm Arrival 12 9:16-9:26 am Shorter bus comes earlier(9:05) Friday Dismissal 10 3:47-4:11 pm Shorter bus leaves as soon as loaded Notes:Buses unload and leave right away in the AM,Buses arrive,load,then all buses leave at the same time in the PM; Assume 2 buses leave mid- day-possibly with K students(confirm with school) Table 5 Meadowbrook School Observations Observation periods(8-10 am,3-5 pm) School Driveway on Turners Crossroad Arrival or Queue out of Day Dismissal In Out Peak Times Drivewa Notes Tuesday Dismissal 102 107 3:30-4:30 pm4:04-4:07 pm 3 cars on NB Turners Crossroad Arrival 231 209 9:00-9:33 am 9:10-9:10 am 1 car on NB Turners Crossroad- Wednesday very briefly Dismissal 95 109 3:30-4:25 pm None Arrival 203 215 9:00-9:33 am None Thursday 3-5 cars on road along NB curb Dismissal 145 114 3:30-4:30 pm 4:01 -4:11 pm (long delays);NB through traffic can sneak by Arrival 194 189 9:05-9:33 am None Major backups for NB traffic; No Friday space for NB traffic to sneak by Dismissal 125 129 3:30-4:20 pm 4:01 -4:11 pm (4-6 cars on road); Duration about 10 minutes,during which NB through trafffic is blocked for about 1 minute) Glenwood Avenue Accesses Table 6 Meadowbrook School Observations Observation periods(8-10 am,3-5 pm) Westbound Glenwood right turn queue entering school driveway; Also,influence of EB queue from TH 100 interchange Da Arrival or WBR Queue EB Queue from TH 100 ramp Day Dismissal WBR Queue Times WBR turn Queue to school Intersection Tuesday Dismissal 3 4:02-4:04 pm WB right turners use shoulder- allows WB through traffic to pass Arrival 0 None Wednesday Dismissal 1 4:02-4:03 pm WB right turners use shoulder- EB queue gets close to school allows WB through traffic to pass driveway Arrival 0 None Thursday EB queue extends just beyond the Dismissal 7 4:00-4:04 pm WB right turners use shoulder- school driveway;interferes with allows WB through traffic to pass EB left turns to school site Arrival 0 None Friday EB queue extends just beyond the Dismissal 12 4:03-4:08 m WB right turners use shoulder- p allows WB through traffic to pass school driveway;interferes with EB left turns to school site Table 7 Meadowbrook School Observations Observation periods(8-10 am,3-5 pm) Eastbound Glenwood left turn queue entering school driveway Arrival or Day Dismissal In ronOu Wa Peak Times Driveway Full EBL Queue Tuesday Dismissal 136 5 3:30-4:25 pm 4:02-4:04 pm Max queue length 12-15 cars; includes 1-2 lefts to school; Arrival 204 1 9:05-9:33 am Never Max queue length 12-15 cars; Wednesday includes 3-4 lefts to school; Dismissal 143 0 3:30-4:20 pm 4:02-4:03 pm Max queue length 10-12 cars; includes 1-2 lefts to school; Arrival 181 3 9:10-9:33 am Never Max queue length 10-12 cars; includes 5-6 lefts to school; Thursday Long EB queus includes 2-3 lefts Dismissal 147 1 3:35-4:20 pm 3:58-4:10 pm to school;20-30 vehicles snuck by on right Arrival 194 2 9:10-9:33 am Never Max queue length 8-10 cars; includes 3-4 lefts to school; Friday Long EB queue; includes 2-3 lefts Dismissal 148 1 3:40-4:20 pm 4:01 -4:12 pm to school; 12-15 vehicles snuck by on right Notes: Separate building(Preschool?)ends around 3 pm everyday but Friday Eastbound queues in the AM are typically waiting for agap in westbound traffic Eastbound queues in the PM are typically waiting for space in the school driveway Table 8 Meadowbrook School Observations Observation periods(8-10 am,3-5 pm) Meadowbrook School Exit to Glenwood Day Arrival or Out Peak Times NB Driveway Dismissal Queue Queue Description Tuesday Dismissal 167 4:00-4:25 pm 4-5 left turners Not at lot of queuing occuring Arrival 175 9:10-9:40 am 7-8 left turners Left turn queue on site just around the building Wednesday corner Dismissal 174 4:00-4:25 pm 7-8 left turners Left turn queue on site just around the building corner Arrival 168 9:13-9:38 am 7-8 left turners Left turn queue on site just around the building corner Thursday Queue on site around building corner back to the Dismissal 165 4:03-4:25 pm 12-15 cars entrance driveway;One lane queue after the building corner Arrival 171 9:12-9:40 am 6-7 left turners Left turn queue on site just around the building corner Friday Queue on site around building corner back to the Dismissal 173 4:00-4:28 pm 12-15 cars entrance driveway;One lane queue after the building corner Notes NB Right turn queue clears quickly; Sustained queue occurs in the left most NB exit lane.When queue extsnds around building corner,those destined for right turn lane tend to be blocked. J J SEN MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Oliver,PE Golden Valley City Engineer FROM: Mike Kotila,PE Sr. Transportation Engineer DATE: March 23,2018 RE: Meadowbrook Elementary School Considerations for Improved On-Site Traffic Operations SEH No.GOLDV 145493 This memorandum supplements my March 16,2018 memorandum,which summarized the results of our traffic observations review on the Meadowbrook Elementary site. The previous memo identified that on-site traffic queue management is the key issue to resolve; especially vehicle storage for parents picking up students at school dismissal time.Also of concern is safety on the public roadway system; standing queues of traffic waiting to enter the site were routinely observed on eastbound and westbound Glenwood Avenue as well as northbound Turners Crossroad during school arrival and/or dismissal periods.These queues are disruptive to non-school traffic flow. Potential Solutions City,County and SEH staff met to discuss a range of potential improvements on and off the school grounds to better accommodate the traffic queues on site and reduce the related safety issues on the streets.Included in this memo is a preliminary assessment of the potential improvements identifying pros and cons for each of several improvement ideas that have been considered. Attached Exhibit 1 shows the improvement concepts discussed herein. These concepts are intended to communicate the operational intent. Further review will be needed to determine that these concepts feasible. Consensus was reached that a combination of safety,access and site circulation improvements should be part of a long term solution to address the existing operational issues and accommodate school expansion and growth in enrollment.These improvements would include these elements: • Construction of an internal connecting,or"loop",roadway that allows circulation between Glenwood Avenue and Turners Crossroad and provides additional on-site vehicle parking spaces and queuing/vehicle storage length on the east side of the school. • Expand the loading zone in the westerly lot and widen the driveway to accommodate waiting vehicles as shown in the site drawings provided by School District staff. • Addition of turn lanes on Glenwood Avenue and on Turners Crossroad to improve safety The following section identifies considerations(pros and cons)to be contemplated in the development of a final overall site improvement plan. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,10901 Red Circle Drive,Suite 300,Minnetonka,MN 55343-9302 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 952.912.2601 fax Meadowbrook School—Considerations for Improved On-Site Traffic Operations March 23,2018 Page 2 Loop Road Considerations(See Exhibit 1 Concepts F1 and F2) 1. A loop road will reduce internal traffic pattern conflicts and facilitate improved ingress and egress from the site resulting in more efficient drop-off and pick-up of students(i.e.better access to parking spaces, less blocking of drive aisles,etc.). 2. A loop road with a parking lane provides opportunity for approximately 30 additional vehicles to be parked without blocking the driving lane.There is opportunity for additional 90 degree or angled parking stalls along the loop.These would be most beneficial near the south end. 3. One way loop road operation(clockwise or counter-clockwise)would promote consistent site access and egress expectations for parents;this would be preferable rather than two-way operation. a. Counter-clockwise traffic flow on the loop road(F1) i. Access to the site would occur from Glenwood Avenue with an exit through the existing bus lot to Turners Crossroad. ii. A sidewalk would be provided on the passenger side(east side)requiring a pedestrian crossing of the drive aisle near the south end of the loop road. iii. Increases traffic demand on southbound Turners Crossroad approach to Glenwood Avenue. A protected/permissive southbound left turn phase would be needed. b. Clockwise traffic flow on the loop road(F2) i. Access to the site would occur from Turners Crossroad through the bus lot;egress would occur from the site to Glenwood Avenue. ii. A sidewalk on the passenger side(west side)would not create another pedestrian crossing. iii. Left and right turn access from Glenwood would still be needed to serve users during the off peak hours,or if loop road is gated at times(see#4 below). 4. Access to the loop road could be managed with gates to disallow its use while playground activities are occurring.Gates would also impede non-school cut-through traffic. 5. As drawn in Exhibit 1 —the loop road encroaches in MnDOT right of way. This would require permit approval by MnDOT.Alternative loop road alignments could be considered entirely on school property but would have greater impact to the existing playfield areas. 6. Conflicts with bus arrival,unloading,loading and departure would need to be managed by school staff whether clockwise or counterclockwise operation is selected. Glenwood Avenue Turn Lane Considerations(See Exhibit 1 Concept E) 7. Improvements made on Glenwood Avenue as part of the school site plan work should be consistent with a more comprehensive improvement plan for Glenwood Avenue. Concept E depicts a comprehensive improvement alternative that includes a continuous left turn lane between Xenia Avenue and TH 100 and also includes bike lanes. 8. It may be possible to construct elements of the overall plan for Glenwood along the school frontage that satisfy the operational needs of the school in the short term but defer implementation of bike lanes until the south curb line can also be reconstructed.Further design feasibility of this approach would be needed. At a minimum,the school site work should include establishing the north curb and trail location that fit with the overall concept depicted in the exhibit and also includes an eastbound left turn lane of 325 feet in length. The school site plan work should include walks and trails impacted by the widening improvements needed 9. A westbound right turn lane on Glenwood Avenue to the school entrance was discussed. It was agreed that left turn lanes provide greater safety and operational improvement and are therefore preferred. If it is determined that left turn lanes are not feasible,a right turn should be included which maximizes its length within the space available westerly of the adjacent Boy Scout site(5300 Glenwood Avenue) driveway. Meadowbrook School—Considerations for Improved On-Site Traffic Operations March 23,2018 Page 3 Turners Crossroad Turn Lane Considerations(see Exhibit 1 Concepts D1 and D2) 10. Turners Crossroad turn lane(s)should be constructed to reduce public safety issues caused by conflicts resulting from northbound right turn delays into the school site. 11. A northbound right turn lane should be provided on Turners Crossroad to the westerly school access driveway. In addition,depending upon the directional flow(clockwise or counter-clockwise)of the previously described loop road,a right turn lane may be needed to the existing bus lot if it serves inbound traffic. 12. The length of the northbound right turn lane to the westerly school parking lot should be optimized considering proximity to the schools proposed parking lot/loading zone expansion.If a turn lane is provided to the bus lot(and loop road entrance)driveway,its length should be maximized between the two driveways. Other Site Access and Circulation Improvements(Exhibit 1 Concepts A,B& C) The School District provided preliminary plans to accommodate on-site vehicle storage which may be effective measures to consider in combination with the loop road and turn lanes.They included: 13. Widening of the Turners Crossroad driveway to provide more space for waiting vehicles(Concept A). This is not intended as a drop off/pick up area but it would allow queuing to occur without blocking the inbound and outbound driveway movements.Approximately 4 waiting cars could be accommodated. 14. Expansion of the loading and drop off zone in the westerly parking lot along the westerly perimeter of the semi-circular parking lot end(Concept B). If this is intended as a"double lane"of on-site parking, it appears that up to 10 additional vehicles could be accommodated. If the double lane approach is intended, great care should be taken to ensure that walking students and moving vehicles are not occurring simultaneously. 15. Adding an additional drive aisle along the north side of the easterly parking lot adjacent to the playground (Concept Q. This concept adds queue storage only and should not be considered in combination with the loop road due to conflicting counter flow movements that would result. Summary Constructing the turn lanes described above and shown in Exhibit 1,would result in improved safety for all users(students,parents,staff and all other non-school drivers on Glenwood Avenue and on Turners Crossroad).Turn lanes would also provide assurance that if on site queues overflow onto the public street they won't immediately impact traffic flow in the adjacent through lane. Constructing the loop road,as described above and shown in Exhibit E,plus the queueing and loading improvements at the west parking lot(Concepts A and B)would result in a net increase of 44 spaces for waiting vehicles on site—which satisfies the minimum need estimated within the March 16°i memorandum (the need was defined as at least 38 on-site parking or queuing spaces). m o w w z z E- xz z z O 3 w w W z �g z z z ° 0 - O z Y Qa ir � g w LLZ Q >> w W F :D Q Z Z LL w w 0 w U p� _ =w DHa >F z-i Dia _ �- z Q U o w w �cn C� U_' Z) LL � Q CYJ3 Z W L� 1 wF p 3 Z F p W w Z w a 0 O w O a LL a g Q U p a � 0 ° °F- owl 00F Uin CWF OQ wg �0 D �Z z(nz -J 2p -J e; w on OU NOS z�° m m0 mzO QO U 3a C�F � ' 0of a0 in �oU 0wa � O OLL <w zOOai m V aIU��_J�/////'���,\) 3 <� w F W °J Q Z � 2 Z F Z IL W Q w O Z -j O w LL p ' z�Q 00U -10 U-j 00 U°>- F-0LL 0 U) pC0 LL aw � zwED > Q � Zov ZO 5YfO w u�~iO N3 OU? Fn_� 3 LLOZQ +� wiz z � zm zw0 Z�0° °'n ° Z) Mw UQ xwQ pQU 00 00 O-jw OQ �Q FZW 00 fr 3U) < wa � CJa _ UH OF 000 UwU_. inQ� �<nF0 ui 1 z r• m + i ¢ Za ui Q LU W8 + C0 9r p � t w fop I J r 1 e"-, A. .t.�tz=•.t�. . jC{ LU + N Y 1 w UJ Fn Y s ' sE e,r¢i LLt v+wvs »r,..onns pnouon•mr,•uswwx n�n.w•wrewW.OvaentrNwoaovferve st urouu we NWwen me•ic:ouu ws Meadowbrook Elementary Traffic Exhibits Narrative to accompany Traffic Exhibits Diagrams for major PUD Amendment at Meadowbrook Elementary School Meadowbrook Elementary is located at the corner of Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley.At student arrival and dismissal times,the traffic on these two streets can become congested, inconveniencing local traffic.In response to this congestion,Hopkins School District is proposing the following changes to the Meadowbrook site to relieve the number of cars waiting on the streets while lined up to drop off or pick up students. The drive lane from Turners Crossroad leading into the west side of elementary school site is being widened.This proposed change(identified as Option A on the diagram)is planned for completion before the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year. The widening of this drive lane will allow five(5)additional cars to queue on the school property. With the addition of these five cars,it is estimated that a total of thirty-six cars will then be able to queue in the parking lot on the west side of the school. To further relieve traffic congestion at drop off and pick up times,Hopkins School District is proposing two solutions to be implemented in the near future. One proposed solution(identified as Option B on the diagram)is to create an extended loop at the parking lot on the west side of the building. This loop will run along the west end of the property near the community center and 6d'grade wing. With this proposed change,an additional fifteen(15)cars will be able to queue on site,thus creating space for a total of fifty- one(5 1)cars on the west side of the property. Identified as Option C on the diagram,the third proposed solution will occur on the east side of the property and relieve congestion on Glenwood Avenue.An additional drive lane will be created on school property north of the existing east parking lot. Striping on the property will also take place to provide two lanes for cars egressing the site. This will reduce the amount of back-up on site which will lessen the amount of time cars must wait on Glenwood Avenue before turning onto the school property. With the new striping and new drive lane, an additional 26 cars can be in queuing lines on campus resulting in a total of 100 cars dropping off or picking up students in the east parking lot. Together,strategies A,B and C create the potential for forty-six(46)additional cars to queue on site. With such an increase in queuing capacity,parents can enter the site more quickly thus allowing local traffic to continue traveling unimpeded. Diagrams: Diagram 1—Plan of the site as traffic currently travels through for drop off and pick up. Cars in green indicate those entering the site;cars in red are leaving the site. Diagram 2- Option A Plan showing the anticipated wider drive lane allowing for two drive aisles—one for ingress(green)and one for egress(red). Diagram 3—Option B Plan showing the extended loop allowing increased queuing space on the west side of the campus. Diagram 4—Option C Plan showing the addition of a drive lane north of the existing east parking lot and the location where striping will create two lanes of egress traffic(red). Diagram 5—Site drawing showing all three Options together. Wmti O o5 y o o y m wQ W w � v _ 5 WWW Wv -z LU LL IM o vw u 6 � x o S ,00r---j Li D , i♦ '"; — — I moo o i i /.. o NJN3e y3( V 3 / LLJ v I aatldd tl315dW�d 1 1 11 11 11 O� Od z LLJ ,\ O W 3Nusrorrvr;4e a3nvs lsn Avm3-v"w•oNmvuo----I ear f 4z / � k @ | ¥ \ z -M !■| `§ // ° h2 2§ -0) } k §j m } §(\ / (1) � \\ \ /\ )! ) § ± )) \ \ $[ / � ( (( \ \ � / � . . � . ». . . < � : . . �.�. . : . , , . . . + § Ell IE X \ . . . . . . . a_r aVS__c____ g s 3 $m Y Az gig w ❑<$ J c U a cn z5 m 33 Q mw Z o Q d• °o © O c_ s a� m O s� w`� - w 2 QIM it�� a zi d d_ y �� a ED ED .00 � QS w o LLo � , p i 3Nusronrr A6 03iYs is"Up•r-.Ld0-ft"r•-DNwvyo----/Wr• § / ) �! � ■G| §( _ \ f § \\ % ^ % | #§| :i « 4z ® \ 0. : � � e K § � } §§§ ! ! < kz � k / !)§ / ) ] /( � \ % \ - � : . » f CZ nt > y vves» w > . « . . . . . . . - . . < a_*ways__-d-j___m-----wr 4z $ 5 � J m _ -O 3ivw --i@ w-g� a � a � � o � � 0o C C C �� H m r �Q m 8535 3 5 55 z reg s LL b _ Q y a $ ® W 01 ai i o �o > > F E ��oo E ;E ° E �o no 00 ° p V o ui� o w3 0 $ QO 00� OC 0 0 oa c o0 El oo Egx a o oa 3N sr,D yr:l8 03AVS 1SV7 6ap7W"0-BHOf-JNNIYNO----1 60r ORDINANCE NO. 638, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Major PUD Amendment Plan Meadowbrook School P.U.D. No. 90, Amendment #4 Hopkins Public Schools, Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled “Land Use Regulations (Zoning)” is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, and Section 11.55, by approving a Major PUD Amendment Plan to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) 90 thereby allowing the expansion of the existing elementary school to the north with the construction of nine new classrooms. This PUD is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions: 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated April 19, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Improvements and modifications to traffic management, as explained in the Engineering memo and clarified in the Planning memo, shall be constructed and/or funded by Meadowbrook School in 2018 and 2019. These include five physical improvements (Options A, B’, C, D, and E) as well as operational optimization by Meadowbrook. Hopkins School District must post a financial security with the City sufficient to cover the estimated cost to construct the improvements, but is not released from its responsibility to pay the full improvement cost once it has been determined. 3. The City and the School District shall work together to explore creative solutions to traffic issues in order to achieve the goals of reducing traffic congestion on public rights-of-way and ensuring public safety while accommodating the planned enrollment growth at Meadowbrook. While it is possible that some of the identified improvements could be modified or found to be unnecessary due to joint agreement on new concepts, the City—in consultation with Hennepin County—shall make the final determination of what elements are needed for implementation. 4. A revised tree and landscaping plan, including a tree survey with tabular inventory, and which includes a 1 to 1 replacement of all significant and planted trees, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Tree and Landscape Permit. 5. The school must provide a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the City’s I/I code. All new or rehabilitated sewer services must be inspected by the City after repair or construction, and must obtain compliance with the City’s I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building or release of funds. 6. An east/west bike trail must be maintained and options for a trail connection east of the east parking lot that avoids vehicular conflicts shall be explored with City staff. 7. No permits shall be issued until the Final Plat approved as part of Amendment #3 has been recorded with Hennepin County. 8. Enrollment shall be capped at 890 students. Information on enrollment shall be provided to the City annually. Additional enrollment may only occur in concert with the construction of comprehensive traffic management solutions. Ordinance No. 638 -2- May 15, 2018 In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 6(Q): 1. If the listed conditions are required as a part of the approval, the proposed expansion and site improvements would not negatively impact the overall quality of the site. Enhancements to circulation and queueing areas should help traffic flow more smoothly in and around the site, relieving existing congestion. 2. While a number of trees are being removed as a part of the proposal, improved landscaping will be required and would help mitigate their removal. 3. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by allowing the construction of classrooms to support a complete fifth section of classes on-site. 4. The proposed amendment would allow the current school building to better manage the number of students currently on-site and would allow for a small number of new students to be enrolled over the next two years. This is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan which advocates a “complete community” and prioritizes the preservation of elementary schools. However, without close oversight of future enrollment, problems around overcrowding could arise once more. 5. Important traffic improvements must be made in concert with the proposed expansion in order to address concerns regarding the general health, safety, and welfare of those who visit or travel through the Meadowbrook School area. 6. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards applied to the existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows: Parcel A: Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Hennepin County, Minnesota Parcel B: Lot 2, Block 1, Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Hennepin County, Minnesota Parcel C: Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowbrook School Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota 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 15th day of May, 2018. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 6. A. Authorize Issuance, Award Sale, and Prescribe the Form and Details and Provide Payment for the $2,950,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary The proceeds of the $2,950,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A will finance the street and driveway projects included in the 2018 Pavement Management Program. Council approved the project and assessments with two public hearings on January 16, 2018. The debt service on these bonds will be paid from tax levies and special assessments levied against benefitted properties. A representative from Springsted, Inc., will be in attendance at the meeting to present the bid results that will be received the morning of May 15. Figures will be filled in when final numbers are known from the bidding process. If the Council desires to proceed with these bond sales, after reviewing the bid results, they should adopt the attached resolution. Attachments • Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing For The Payment of $2,950,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A (19 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $2,900,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A. Resolution 18-36 May 15, 2018 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $2,950,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2018A FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Sale of Bonds. 1.01. Authorization. It is hereby determined that it is necessary and expedient that the City issue approximately $2,950,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A (the “Bonds”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475 (the “Act”) to provide financing for certain assessable public improvements in the City, including without limitation the City’s 2018 Pavement Management Program (the “Improvements”). The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9) to negotiate the sale of the Bonds if the City has retained an independent financial advisor in connection with such sale. The City has retained Springsted Incorporated as an independent financial consultant in connection with the sale of the Bonds. 1.02. Award to the Purchaser and Interest Rates. The proposal of Northland Securities Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the Bonds of the City described in the Terms of Proposal thereof is hereby found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of $2,942,562.68, (par amount of $2,950,000.00, plus a net premium of $31,117.20 less underwriter’s discount of $38,554.52) for Bonds bearing interest as follows: Year of Maturity Interest Rate Year of Maturity Interest Rate 2019 3.00% 2026 3.00% 2020 3.00% 2028* 3.00% 2021 3.00% 2031* 3.00% 2022 3.00% 2034* 3.125% 2023 3.00% 2036* 3.125% 2024 3.00% 2038* 3.375% 2025 3.00% * Term Bond 1.03. Purchase Contract. Any original issue premium and any rounding amount shall be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created or deposited in the Construction Fund hereinafter created, as determined by the City’s municipal advisor and the City Finance Director. The City Finance Director is directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds. The Mayor and City Clerk are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City. Resolution No. 18-38 -2- May 15, 2018 1.04. Terms and Principal Amounts of Bonds. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to the Act in the total principal amount of $2,950,000, originally dated the date of delivery, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and maturing serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 2019 $130,000 2026 $155,000 2020 145,000 2028* 320,000 2021 145,000 2031* 420,000 2022 145,000 2034* 420,000 2023 150,000 2036* 300,000 2024 150,000 2038* 315,000 2025 155,000 * Term Bond As may be requested by the Purchaser, one or more term Bonds may be issued having mandatory sinking fund redemption and final maturity amounts conforming to the foregoing principal repayment schedule, and corresponding additions may be made to the provisions of the applicable Bond(s). 1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2027, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2028. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in Section 7 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. 1.06. Term Bond; Mandatory Redemption. The Bonds maturing on February 1, 2028, February 1, 2031, February 1, 2034, February 1, 2036 and February 1, 2038, shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “Term Bonds.” The principal amounts of the Term Bonds subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on any date may be reduced through earlier optional redemptions, with any partial redemption of the Term Bonds credited against future mandatory sinking fund redemptions of such Term Bond in such order as the City shall determine. The Term Bonds are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and shall be redeemed in part by lot at par plus accrued interest on the sinking fund installment dates and in the principal amounts as follows: Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2028 Term Bonds 2027 $160,000 2028 (maturity) 160,000 Resolution No. 18-38 -3- May 15, 2018 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2031 Term Bonds 2029 $165,000 2030 125,000 2031 (maturity) 130,000 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2034 Term Bonds 2032 $135,000 2033 140,000 2034 (maturity) 145,000 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2036 Term Bonds 2035 $150,000 2036 (maturity) 150,000 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2038 Term Bonds 2037 $155,000 2038 (maturity) 160,000 Section 2. Registration and Payment. 2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2019, to the registered owners of record as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not that day is a business day. 2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a Registrar, transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Resolution No. 18-38 -4- May 15, 2018 Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes and payments so made to a registered owner or upon the owner’s order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds in an amount sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Resolution No. 18-38 -5- May 15, 2018 Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. (i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. 2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days’ notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Finance Director must transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the direction of the City Finance Director and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Clerk, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, that signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Finance Director will deliver the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract Resolution No. 18-38 -6- May 15, 2018 of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit B with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor and cancelled. Section 3. Form of Bond. 3.01. Form. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3.02 Approving Legal Opinion. The City Finance Director is authorized and directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and to cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond. Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants. 4.01 Debt Service Fund. The Bonds are payable from the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A Debt Service Fund (the “Debt Service Fund”) hereby created. The proceeds of general taxes hereinafter levied (the “Taxes”), special assessments (the “Assessments”) levied or to be levied for the Improvements and all investment earnings on funds in the Debt Service Fund are hereby pledged to the Debt Service Fund. If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the City Finance Director is directed to pay such principal or interest from other funds of the City, and such fund will be reimbursed for those advances out of the proceeds of Assessments and Taxes when collected. There is hereby appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i) any amount paid by the Purchaser over the minimum purchase price of the Bonds, to the extent designated for deposit in the Debt Service Fund and (ii) capitalized interest financed from Bond proceeds, if any. 4.02 Construction Fund. The proceeds of the Bonds, less the appropriations made in Section 4.01, together with any other funds appropriated for the Improvements, and the Assessments collected during the construction of the Improvements will be deposited in a separate construction fund (the “Construction Fund”) to be used solely to defray expenses of the Improvements and the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds prior to the completion and payment of all costs of the Improvements. Any balance remaining in the Construction Fund after completion of the Improvements may be used to pay the cost in whole or in part of any other improvement instituted under the Act. When the Improvements are completed and the cost thereof paid, the Construction Fund is to be closed and subsequent collections of Assessments for the Improvements are to be deposited in the Debt Service Fund. 4.03. City Covenants. The City hereby covenants with the holders from time to time of the Bonds as follows: Resolution No. 18-38 -7- May 15, 2018 (a) It is hereby determined that at least 20% of the costs of the Improvements to the City will be paid by Assessments. The City has caused or will cause the Assessments for the Improvements to be promptly levied so that the first installment will be collectible not later than 2018 and will take all steps necessary to assure prompt collection, and the levy of the Assessments is hereby authorized. The City Council will cause to be taken with due diligence all further actions that are required for the construction of each Improvement financed wholly or partly from the proceeds of the Bonds, and will take all further actions necessary for the final and valid levy of the Assessments and the appropriation of any other funds needed to pay the Bonds and interest thereon when due. (b) In the event of any current or anticipated deficiency in Assessments, the City Council will levy ad valorem taxes in the amount of the current or anticipated deficiency. (c) The City will keep complete and accurate books and records showing: receipts and disbursements in connection with the Improvements, Assessments levied therefor and other funds appropriated for their payment, collections thereof and disbursements therefrom, monies on hand and, the balance of unpaid Assessments. (d) The City will cause its books and records to be audited at least annually and will furnish copies of such audit reports to any interested person upon request. 4.04. Pledge of Tax Levy. For the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds, there is levied a direct annual irrepealable ad valorem tax (the “Taxes”) upon all of the taxable property in the City, which will be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general taxes of the City. The taxes will be credited to the Debt Service Fund above provided and will be in the years and amounts set forth in EXHIBIT C. It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of Assessments and the foregoing Taxes will produce at least 5% in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. 4.05. Certification to County Auditor as to Debt Service Fund Amount. It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of Assessments and the foregoing Taxes will produce at least 5% in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The tax levy herein provided is irrepealable until all of the Bonds are paid, provided that at the time the City makes its annual tax levies the City Finance Director may certify to the County Auditor of Hennepin County the amount available in the Debt Service Fund to pay principal and interest due during the ensuing year, and the County Auditor will thereupon reduce the levy collectible during such year by the amount so certified. 4.06. County Auditor Certificate as to Registration. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. Section 5. Authentication of Transcript. Resolution No. 18-38 -8- May 15, 2018 5.01. City Proceedings and Records. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, may be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. 5.02. Certification as to Official Statement. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and Finance Director, or any of them, are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement. Section 6. Tax Covenants. 6.01. Tax-Exempt Bonds. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary to ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the Bonds. 6.02. No Rebate Required. (a) The City will comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds under Section 103 of the Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States, if the Bonds do not qualify for the small issuer exception to the federal arbitrage rebate requirements. (b) For purposes of qualifying for the small-issuer exception to the federal arbitrage rebate requirements, the City finds, determines and declares that the aggregate face amount of all tax-exempt bonds (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City (and all subordinate entities of the City) during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000, within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code. 6.03. Not Private Activity Bonds. The City further covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or the Improvements financed or refinanced by the Bonds, or to cause or permit them or any of them to be used, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be “private activity bonds” within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. Resolution No. 18-38 -9- May 15, 2018 6.04. Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations. In order to qualify the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are not “private activity bonds” as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (b) the City hereby designates the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (c) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than any private activity bonds that are not qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all subordinate entities of the City) during calendar year 2018 will not exceed $10,000,000; and (d) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during calendar year 2018 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 6.05. Procedural Requirements. The City will use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by this section. Section 7. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City. 7.01. DTC. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each such Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns (“DTC”). Except as provided in this section, all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. 7.02. Participants. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (the “Participants”) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Registrar) of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Resolution No. 18-38 -10- May 15, 2018 Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City’s obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words “Cede & Co.,” will refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Registrar and Paying Agent. 7.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (the “Representation Letter”) which will govern payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent or Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation Letter with respect to the Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times. 7.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof. 7.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC’s Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter. Section 8. Continuing Disclosure. 8.01. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate will not be considered an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however any Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section. Resolution No. 18-38 -11- May 15, 2018 8.02. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate” means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Clerk and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. Section 9. Defeasance. 9.01. Pledges, Covenants, and Other Rights to Cease. When all Bonds (or any portion thereof) and all accrued interest thereon, have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Resolution to the holders of the Bonds (or respective portion thereof) will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all Bonds (or respective portion thereof) which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full or by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a suitable institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America, or any other security authorized under Minnesota law for such purpose, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates and in such amounts as shall be required and sufficient, subject to sale and/or reinvestment in like securities, to pay said obligation(s), which may include any interest payment on such Bond and/or principal amount due thereon at a stated maturity (or if irrevocable provision shall have been made for permitted prior redemption of such principal amount, at such earlier redemption date). If any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) Resolution No. 18-38 -12- May 15, 2018 _____________________________ 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: 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 No. 18-38 -13- May 15, 2018 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. ) CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on May 15, 2018 with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $2,950,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A of the City. WITNESS My hand of the City this 15th day of May, 2018. City Clerk Golden Valley, Minnesota Resolution No. 18-38 -14- May 15, 2018 EXHIBIT A PROPOSALS Resolution No. 18-38 -15- May 15, 2018 Resolution No. 18-38 -16- May 15, 2018 EXHIBIT B FORM OF BOND No. R-_____ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND, SERIES 2018A Rate Maturity Date of Original Issue CUSIP June __, 2018 Registered Owner: Cede & Co. The City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the principal sum set forth above on the maturity date specified above, unless called for earlier redemption, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2019, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by U.S. Bank National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. The City may elect on February 1, 2027, and on any date thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2028. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such order as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. The Bonds maturing on February 1, 2028, February 1, 2031, February 1, 2034, February 1, 2036 and February 1, 2038, shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “Term Bonds.” The principal amounts of the Term Bonds subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on any date may be reduced through earlier optional redemptions, with any partial redemption of the Term Bonds credited against future mandatory sinking fund redemptions of such Term Resolution No. 18-38 -17- May 15, 2018 Bond in such order as the City shall determine. The Term Bonds are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and shall be redeemed in part by lot at par plus accrued interest on the sinking fund installment dates and in the principal amounts as follows: Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2028 Term Bonds 2027 $160,000 2028 (maturity) 160,000 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2031 Term Bonds 2029 $165,000 2030 125,000 2031 (maturity) 130,000 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2034 Term Bonds 2032 $135,000 2033 140,000 2034 (maturity) 145,000 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2036 Term Bonds 2035 $150,000 2036 (maturity) 150,000 Sinking Fund Installment Date Principal Amount February 1, 2038 Term Bonds 2037 $155,000 2038 (maturity) 160,000 The City Council has designated the issue of Bonds of which this Bond forms a part as “qualified tax exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) relating to disallowance of interest expense for financial institutions. This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $2,950,000 all of like original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on May 15, 2018 (the “Resolution”), for the purpose of providing money to finance various improvement projects within the City, pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, and the principal hereof and interest hereon are payable from special assessments against property Resolution No. 18-38 -18- May 15, 2018 specially benefited by local improvements and from ad valorem taxes, as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy additional ad valorem taxes on all taxable property, in the City in the event of any deficiency in special assessments, and ad valorem taxes pledged, which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution, Charter of the City and laws of the State of Minnesota, to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness. This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: , 2018 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (Facsimile) (Facsimile) City Clerk Mayor Resolution No. 18-38 -19- May 15, 2018 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By Its Authorized Representative _________________________________ The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT _________ Custodian _________ in common (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or by entireties Transfers to Minors JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and Act . . . . . . . . . . . . not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ________________________________________ ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto _________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ___________________attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Resolution No. 18-38 -20- May 15, 2018 Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program (“SEMP”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program (“MSP”) or other such “signature guarantee program” as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held by joint account.) Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below. Date of Registration ________________________ Registered Owner Cede & Co. Federal ID #13-2555119 Signature of Registrar _____________________ Resolution No. 18-38 -21- May 15, 2018 EXHIBIT C $2,950,000 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A Post-Sale Tax Levies Payment Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% Overlevy Assessment Levy Required Levy/Collect Year 02/01/2019 130,000.00 3.000%57,116.51 187,116.51 196,472.34 200,000.00 (3,527.66)2017/2018 02/01/2020 145,000.00 3.000%86,681.25 231,681.25 243,265.31 65,970.93 177,294.38 2018/2019 02/01/2021 145,000.00 3.000%82,331.25 227,331.25 238,697.81 61,166.66 177,531.15 2019/2020 02/01/2022 145,000.00 3.000%77,981.25 222,981.25 234,130.31 59,057.46 175,072.85 2020/2021 02/01/2023 150,000.00 3.000%73,631.25 223,631.25 234,812.81 56,948.26 177,864.55 2021/2022 02/01/2024 150,000.00 3.000%69,131.25 219,131.25 230,087.81 54,839.08 175,248.73 2022/2023 02/01/2025 155,000.00 3.000%64,631.25 219,631.25 230,612.81 52,729.88 177,882.93 2023/2024 02/01/2026 155,000.00 3.000%59,981.25 214,981.25 225,730.31 50,620.68 175,109.63 2024/2025 02/01/2027 160,000.00 3.000%55,331.25 215,331.25 226,097.81 48,511.48 177,586.33 2025/2026 02/01/2028 160,000.00 3.000%50,531.25 210,531.25 221,057.81 46,402.30 174,655.51 2026/2027 02/01/2029 165,000.00 3.000%45,731.25 210,731.25 221,267.81 44,293.10 176,974.71 2027/2028 02/01/2030 125,000.00 3.000%40,781.25 165,781.25 174,070.31 -174,070.31 2028/2029 02/01/2031 130,000.00 3.000%37,031.25 167,031.25 175,382.81 -175,382.81 2029/2030 02/01/2032 135,000.00 3.125%33,131.25 168,131.25 176,537.81 -176,537.81 2030/2031 02/01/2033 140,000.00 3.125%28,912.50 168,912.50 177,358.13 -177,358.13 2031/2032 02/01/2034 145,000.00 3.125%24,537.50 169,537.50 178,014.38 -178,014.38 2032/2033 02/01/2035 150,000.00 3.125%20,006.25 170,006.25 178,506.56 -178,506.56 2033/2034 02/01/2036 150,000.00 3.125%15,318.75 165,318.75 173,584.69 -173,584.69 2034/2035 02/01/2037 155,000.00 3.375%10,631.25 165,631.25 173,912.81 -173,912.81 2035/2036 02/01/2038 160,000.00 3.375%5,400.00 165,400.00 173,670.00 -173,670.00 2036/2037 Total $2,950,000.00 -$938,829.01 $3,888,829.01 $4,083,270.46 $740,539.83 $3,342,730.63 - Resolution No. 18-38 -22- May 15, 2018 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY AUDITOR’S CERTIFICATE AS TO COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TAX LEVY AND REGISTRATION I, the undersigned County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, on May 15, 2018, levying taxes for the payment of $2,950,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A, of said municipality dated June14, 2018, has been filed in my office and said bonds have been entered on the register of obligations in my office and that such tax has been levied as required by law. WITNESS My hand and official seal this _____ day of _________________, 2018. County Auditor Hennepin County, Minnesota (SEAL) Deputy Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 6. B. Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan - Release for Public Review and Comment Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Beginning with the release of System Statements by the Metropolitan Council in the fall of 2015, staff, consultants, Commissioners, and City Council Members have been working with the public and other stakeholders to develop Golden Valley’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This effort involved a public Kick-off and Open House, several “Comp Plan Conversations” around each of the chapter topics, meetings and discussions with many of the City’s Commissions, public testimony and feedback on proposed Goals and Objectives, participation by interested groups utilizing the Comp Plan in a Box tool, cable TV stories, newsletter articles, City-wide mailings, tables at civic events, diligent work by City staff, and regular feedback from the City Council. The City is now ready to release the draft plan for public review and comment. The document, along with supporting technical information, can be found on the City’s web site: http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/comprehensiveplanupdate/index.php Once the draft plan is released by the City Council, a 60 day comment period will commence with opportunities for the public to provide written comments on the plan. In addition, the document will be shared with Golden Valley’s adjacent communities as well as affected jurisdictions including MnDOT, Hennepin County, Hopkins and Robbinsdale School Districts, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. The Metropolitan Council will also perform a preliminary review of the plan. Any necessary revisions or corrections will be conducted over the summer of 2018 and the final plan is anticipated to be ready for approval by the City Council in the fall before being submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Recommended Action Motion to release the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan for public review and comment.                     Executive Summary For Action  Golden Valley City Council Meeting  May 15, 2018  60 day deadline: June 26, 2018    Agenda Item  6. C. Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No. 112, Amendment #2 ‐ 5200 Wayzata Boulevard ‐ Global One Golden Valley, Applicant    Prepared By  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager    Summary  The Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No. 112 (also known as the Three•Nine•Four apartment  project) was approved in October of 2013 and finalized in January of 2016. The project was approved  to include two buildings: an apartment building with 303 units and a senior building with 137 units of  assisted living and memory care. It is located in the northwest quadrant of Highway 100 and I‐394.    In November of 2017, a Minor PUD Amendment was approved to reduce the height of the senior  building (5 stories) and the number of units it contains (98). A second amendment has been  requested by the developer of the senior building to convert an activity room on the second floor to  an additional studio unit (99 units total).    Based on the criteria for classifying amendments to PUDs outlined in the City Code and based on the  type of modification being requested, staff has processed this proposal as a Minor PUD Amendment,  which requires review by the City Council. The Council may approve or deny a Minor PUD  Amendment by a simple majority vote without a public hearing or may refer the matter to the  Planning Commission for its input and recommendation.    Planning staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds it is not expected to generate  additional impacts and is therefore recommending approval.    Attachments   Location Map (1 page)   Narrative (1 page)   PUD Permit ‐ Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No. 112 (4 pages)   Plans received April 27, 2018 (1 page)    Recommended Action  Motion to approve the plans for Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No. 112, Amendment #2 and  to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the amended PUD Permit.      500 506 516 549 500I 535 600 701 500 616 632 624 616 601 V 621 530 608 605 701 601 611 621 637 633 629 625 /"';;plkE iZO 721 621 617 613 605 901 5420 5410 5400 5320 5310 53005230 54205210 5200 5120 5701 5100 yc Cu DLY.".; 5020 5010 s 5 411 5301 5231 52 21 5211 5201 5121 5223 5111 N 5101 5150 5011 5001 1201 5100 5200 5050 5500 5426 Subject Property 5073 AER 2 7 '113 NARRATIVE- MINOR PUD AMENDMENT (PUD 112) This proposed plan meets the Intent and Purpose Provision in the PUD Section of the Golden Valley Zoning Code. The only change related to this amendment is to add in one additional studio unit of 452 SF into our Global Pointe Senior Community Building. This will change the unit count in the Building from 98 total units to 99 total units. We have some underutilized common area space on the Second Floor of the Building. We converted an Activities Room into a 452 SF studio unit. We then took a portion of our Life Enrichment Area and converted it into a dual use area which could also be used as an activities space for our residents. So now we have a combined Life Enrichment Area and an Activities Room. Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112 City Council Approval: October 15, 2013 Amendment #1 City Council Approval: November 8, 2017 Amendment #2 City Council Approval: May 15, 2018 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Project Name: Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112 (Talo Apartments and Global Pointe Senior Living) Location: 5307 Circle Down and MnDot Parcel 38 located at the northwest quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100, Golden Valley, Minnesota Legal Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3 Block 1, Globus Golden Valley P.U.D. No. 112 Applicant: Global One Golden Valley, LLC Address: 900 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Owner: Global One Commercial Address: 900 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Zoning District: 1-394 Mixed Use Permitted Uses: The PUD Permit allows for the construction of a six-story, 303- unit apartment building and a five-story, 98-unit senior living building. Components: A. Land Use 1 . The plans prepared by Tushie Montgomery Architects dated September 3, 2013, October 9, 2013, and October 20, 2017, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The Applicant is assessed a Traffic Management Fee of $43,328.10 per City Code. Payment of half of the fee ($21,664.05) is required prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. (The remaining half of the fee is required to be paid prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.) 3. Amendment #2 allows the developer of the senior building to convert an activity room on the second floor to an additional studio unit (99 units total) per the plans prepared by Tushie Montgomery Architects received April 27, 2018. Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112 Page 2 4. Snow shall be stored in designated areas only. 5. A Park Dedication Fee of $54,300, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid by the developer prior to release of the Final Plat and the issuance of any building permits. 6. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. B. Construction 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated March 4, 2013, shall become part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memos from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated August 2, 2013 and September 12, 2013, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The design specifications, including building location, facade treatment and materials, and site design, as submitted by the applicant, shall become part of this approval. 4. A Construction Communications Plan will be developed and provided to the neighborhood including residential and commercial properties. 5. The existing Mayfair apartment buildings shall be removed with 120 days of the approval of the Permit. C. Grading, Utilities, Access and Other Engineering Issues 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memos from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated August 2, 2013 and September 12, 2013, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The developer shall work with the City's Engineering Division to review modifications to the project's stormwater calculations and to make any necessary revisions to the stormwater management plan. D. Subdivision 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction within PUD No. 112, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the City for approval. Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112 Page 3 2. Proof of filing of the plat shall take the form of a certified copy of the fully recorded plat, or a receipt from the County specifically noting that the applicant has paid for such a copy to be sent to the City when it becomes available. 3. The name of the final plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 112" in its title. It is hereby understood and agreed that this P.U.D. Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on October 15, 2013 and November 8, 2017. Any changes to the PUD Permit for the Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112 shall require an amendment. Global One Golden Valley, LLC Witness: By: Title: Date: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Witness: By: Shepard M. Harris, Its Mayor Date: Witness: By: Timothy J. Cruikshank, Its City Manager Date: Globus Golden Valley Addition P.U.D. No. 112 Page 4 394 Associates, LLP consents and agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the PUD Use Permit attached. 394 Associates, LLP Witness: By: Title: Date: Warning: This permit is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. I P N � I N W?'cn g J uow-3yo S 9 T VSS 1�W `1f911 tl uaPiorJ a �w�ws3� os s � A. p.MAZ)Inog L-lez�fem 0029 ZX W M-2 t °o OW 3 z w � r w _ iiz o LL(A �°�x rutniZ �oivas a�uTod i�galrJ mzn gr J 0 d UO °ZU OU kNE 1usOQ N 44 10 IR ® ® o a --- o4 =off O D MID o ®m� o o o o � � ® m 4 LJ C Ellfill-- a o6 W MOE= v A ®nye ®® o a ® o moi o � O El ® o O o0 HIS m3 O ® O m o 0 o0 8 0 oCDP O o ® o ® °o [Ella � 0 CL t3 agz 0Lj Li 0 D 0 � 13 o D O D o Z J U. o— ® C ig H N = ®O m ®O � a � N Oo a Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Agenda Item 6. D. Second Consideration - Amendment to Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under this Chapter - Procedure and Administration Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary The City is in the process of recodification of the complete City Code. Staff would like Council to consider an ordinance amendment at this time to Section 5.02, Application and Licenses under this Chapter - Procedure and Administration of the Alcohol Beverages Licensing and Regulation to incorporate language from the League of Minnesota’s Model Ordinance to the Application subdivision and update language in the subdivisions regarding Investigations, Action and Persons Disqualified. The first consideration of this ordinance was presented at the May 1, 2018, Council meeting. If the Council adopts the ordinance on second consideration, the new ordinance would be effective after publication on May 24, 2018. Staff recommends the Council approve the attached summary publication of the ordinance. To approve summary publication the council must determine that publication of the title and a summary of the ordinance would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Attachments • City Code Section 5.02: Procedure and Administration, with underline-overstrike language (7 pages) • Ordinance #637, Amendment to Chapter 5: Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Regulations Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under this Chapter - Procedure and Administration (7 pages) • Summary of Ordinance #637 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #637, Amendment to Chapter 5: Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Regulations Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under this Chapter - Procedure and Administration. Motion to approve Summary of Ordinance #637, for Publication based on the finding that the title and summary clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. § 5.00 Golden Valley City Code 1 Section 5.02: Applications and Licenses Under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration Subdivision 1. Application All applications shall be made at the office of the City Clerk, at least sixty (60) days prior to the projected effective date, upon forms prescribed by the City, or if by the Commissioner, then together with such additional information as the Council may desire. Information required may vary with the type of business organization making application. All questions asked or information required by the application forms shall be answered fully and completely by the applicant. Every application for the issuance or renewal of a liquor or non-intoxicating malt liquor license must include a copy of each summons received by the applicant during the preceding year under Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.802. A. Form. Every application for a license issued under this ordinance shall be on a form provided by the City at least 60 days prior to the projected effective date. Every application shall state the name of the applicant, the applicant's age, representations as to the applicant's character, with references as the City may require, the type of license applied for, the business in connection with which the proposed license will operate and its location, a description of the premises, whether the applicant is owner and operator of the business, how long the applicant has been in that business at that place, and other information as the City may require from time to time. An application for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Public Safety and shall also contain the information required in this Section. The form shall be verified and filed with the City. B. Financial responsibility. Prior to the issuance of any license under this ordinance, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility as defined in Minn. Stat. § 340A.409, as it may be amended from time to time, with regard to liability under Minn. Stat. § 340A.801, as it may be amended from time to time. This proof shall be filed with the City and the Commissioner of Public Safety. Any liability insurance policy filed as proof of financial responsibility under this section shall conform to Minn. Stat. § 340A.409, as it may be amended from time to time. Operation of a business which is required to be licensed by this ordinance without having on file with the City at all times effective proof of financial responsibility is a cause for revocation of the license. *Subdivision 2. Limitations on Licenses Off-sale licenses shall be issued only to exclusive liquor stores and drug stores. On-sale licenses shall be issued to hotels, clubs, restaurants or organizations with the approval of the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety or congressionally chartered veterans, provided the organization has been in existence for at least three (3) years and liquor sale will only be to members and bona fide guests. These limitations shall not apply to pre-existing licenses. *Subdivision 3. False Statements It is unlawful for any applicant to intentionally make a false statement or omission upon any application form. Any false statement in such application, or any willful omission to § 5.00 Golden Valley City Code 2 state of any information called for on such application form shall, upon discovery of such falsehood, work an automatic refusal of license, or if already issued, shall render any license issued pursuant thereto void and of no effect to protect the applicant from prosecution for violation of this Chapter, or any part thereof. *Subdivision 4. Investigation Fees In accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 340A.402, the City shall conduct a background and financial investigation on all new application, applications to transfer a license, and requests for approval of a new operating manager under this Chapter. The City may conduct a background and financial check on an application for a renewal of a license if it is in the public interest to do so. At the time the initial or renewal application is made, an applicant for a license under this Chapter shall accompany such application with payment of a fee to be considered an investigation fee to cover the cost to the City in processing the application and the investigation of the applicant or the applicant's manager or agent. No such fee shall be required of an applicant for a temporary non-intoxicating malt liquor license. For investigations conducted outside the State of Minnesota, the City may recover the actual investigation costs, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any fees due in excess of the fee accompanying the application must be paid prior to the license hearing and before the City Council considers the application. Failure to fully pay investigative fees within thirty (30) days of billing shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of license. *Subdivision 5. Action A. Granting. The Council may approve any application for the period of the remainder of the then current license year or for the entire ensuing license year. All applications including proposed license periods must be consistent with this Chapter. Prior to consideration of any application for a license, the applicant shall pay the license fee, and if applicable, pay the investigation fee. Upon rejection of any application for a license, or upon withdrawal of an application before consideration by the Council, the license fee shall be refunded to the applicant. Failure to pay any portion of a fee when due shall be cause for revocation. B. Issuing. If an application is approved, the City Clerk shall forthwith issue a license pursuant thereto in the form prescribed by the City or the Commissioner, as the case may be. Except as otherwise specifically provided, all licenses shall be on a fiscal year basis, July 1 through June 30. For on-sale licenses issued and which are to become effective other than on the first day of the licensed year, the full fee shall be paid with the application but may be prorated after issuance. Licenses shall be valid only at one location and on the premises therein described. There shall be no prorations for off-sale licenses. C. Transfer. No license issued under this ordinance may be transferred without the approval of the Council. Any transfer of stock of a corporate licensee is deemed to be a transfer of the license, and a transfer of stock without prior Council approval shall be cause for revocation of the license. An application to transfer a license shall be treated the same as an application for a new license, and all of the provisions of this code applying to applications for a license shall apply. § 5.00 Golden Valley City Code 3 No license shall be transferable between persons or to a different location. Any change in individual ownership, incorporation or substitution of partners is a transfer. Provided, however, that as to the issued and outstanding shares of a corporate licensee, only the transfer of shares which constitutes either 1) an increase in the transferee's aggregate interest to five percent (5%) or more, or 2) a new acquisition of five percent (5%) or more, shall be a transfer for the purpose of this Section. The enlargement, alteration, or extension of premises previously licensed shall be considered a transfer to a different location. Upon learning that a license has been transferred by the licensee, the Council shall revoke the license unless a new, complete application for the transferee has been receive by the City within twenty (20) days of the transfer, in which event the Council may consider issuance of a new license to the transferee. D. Refusal and Termination. The Council may, in its sole discretion and for any reasonable cause, refuse to grant any application. No license shall be issued: 1) to a person of questionable moral character or business reputation; 2) to a person or establishment not eligible for a license under state law or this Chapter; 3) For any establishment upon which sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited; 4) to a person that is not eligible to receive a license under state law or ordinance or to who state law or ordinance prohibits issuing a license. Licenses shall terminate only by expiration, revocation, or ceasing to do business. E. Council Discretion to Grant or Deny a License. The Council in its sound discretion may either grant or deny the application for any license or for the transfer or renewal of any license. No applicant has a right to a license under this Chapter. F. License Denial: If a license application is denied, the earliest an applicant may reapply is twelve (12) months from the date the license is denied. G. Public Interest. No license under this Chapter may be issued, transferred, or renewed if the results of any investigation show, to the satisfaction of the Council, that such issuance, transfer, or renewal would not be in the public interest. H. Revocation or Suspension. In addition to any criminal penalty provided by State Statute or this Code, the following civil penalties shall apply to violations of this Chapter or the conditions of any license issued hereunder: 1. Revocation on the first violation for the following types of offenses: a. Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity; b. Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension. 2. The following matrix applies to these violations: a. Sale to underage person; b. Sale after/before hours; c. Consumption after hours; § 5.00 Golden Valley City Code 4 d. Illegal gambling, prostitution, adult entertainment on premises; e. Sale to obviously intoxicated person; f. Sale of liquor that is not permitted by the license; g. Licensee permits illegal acts upon the licensed premises; h. Licensee has knowledge of illegal acts upon the licensed premises, but failed to report same to police; i. Licensee fails to cooperate fully with Police in investigating illegal acts upon licensed premises; j. Activities of licensee creates a serious danger to public health, safety or welfare. License Type 1ST Violation 2ND Violation 3RD Violation 4TH Violation On-sale Liquor $500 plus 1 day suspension $1,000 plus 3 days suspension $2,000 plus 10 days suspension Revocation Off-sale Liquor $750 $1,500 plus 1 day suspension $2,000 plus 6 days suspension Revocation On-sale 3.2 percent Non- intoxicating malt liquor/wine $350 plus 1 day suspension $700 plus 3 days suspension $1,500 plus 10 days suspension Revocation Off-sale 3.2 percent Non- intoxicating malt liquor $250 plus 1 day suspension $500 plus 3 days suspension $1,000 plus 10 days suspension Revocation Violations will be counted over a period of three (3) years. Any of the foregoing civil penalties may be imposed by an administrative citation under City Code, Section 2.90, or in the alternative by action of the Council. If one (1) of the foregoing penalties is imposed by an action of the Council, no fine, suspension or revocation shall take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the Council, a committee of the Council as may be determined by the Council in action calling the hearing. Such hearing shall be called by the Council upon written notice to the licensee served in person or by certified mail not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date, stating the time, place and purpose thereof. The licensee may agree to such fine, suspension or revocation imposed by an action of the Council without a hearing by providing the City Manager or his/her designee with a written notice of hearing waiver and acceptance of penalty. § 5.00 Golden Valley City Code 5 In lieu of the civil penalties and license suspensions imposed above, whether imposed by administrative citation or an action of the Council, the licensee may choose to surrender the license to sell alcohol for a minimum period of twelve (12) months from the date of license surrender. I. Business Corporate Applicants and Licensees. A business corporate applicant, at the time of application, shall furnish the City with a list of all persons that have an interest of five percent (5%) or more of common stock issued in such corporation business and the extent of such interest. The list shall name all shareholders owners and show the number of shares interest held by each, either individually or beneficially for others. It is the duty of each corporate business licensee to notify the City Clerk in writing of any change in legal ownership, or beneficial interest in such corporation business or in such shares. Any change in the ownership or beneficial interest in the shares entitled to be voted at a meeting of the shareholders of a corporate licensee, which results in the change of voting control of the corporation by the persons owning the shares therein, or any other change in ownership or control of a corporation, shall be deemed equivalent to a transfer of the license issued to the corporation, and any such license shall be revoked thirty (30) days after any such change in ownership or beneficial interest of shares unless the licensee has notified the Council of the change in ownership by submitting a new license application for the new owners, and the Council has been notified of the change in writing and has approved the transfer of the license it by appropriate action. At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in stock ownership or any other change in the ownership or control of a business corporation, the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee to be determined by the Council. The Council, or any officer of the City designated by it, may at any reasonable time examine the stock transfer records and minute books of any corporate business licensee in order to verify and identify the owners, shareholders, and the Council or its designated officer may examine the business records of any other licensee to the extent necessary to disclose the interest which persons other than the licensee have in the licensed business. The Council may revoke any license issued upon its determination that a change of ownership of shares in a corporate business licensee or any change of ownership of any interest in the business of any other licensee has actually resulted in the change of control of the licensed business so as materially to affect the integrity and character of its management and its operation, but no such action shall be taken until after a hearing by the Council on notice to the licensee. *Subdivision 6. Duplicate Licenses Duplicates of all original licenses under this Chapter may be issued by the City Clerk without action by the Council, upon licensee's affidavit that the original has been lost, and upon payment of a fee for issuance of the duplicate. All duplicate licenses shall be clearly marked DUPLICATE. *Subdivision 7. Posting All licensees shall conspicuously post their licenses in their places of business. *Subdivision 8. Manager or Agent Before a license is issued under this Chapter, the applicant or applicants shall appoint in writing a natural person as its manager or agent. Such manager or agent shall be § 5.00 Golden Valley City Code 6 primarily located in the state of Minnesota and, by the terms of his/her written consent, (1) take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises, and, (2) serve as agent for service of notices and other process relating to the license. Such manager or agent must be a person who, by reason of age, character, reputation, and other attributes, could qualify individually as a licensee. If such manager or agent ceases to act in such capacity for the licensee without appointment of a successor acceptable to the City, the license issued pursuant to such appointment shall be revoked. The licensee shall notify the City of any change of manager or agent. The licensee shall provide the City with all information on the new manager as if licensee was submitting a new application for a license. The City may conduct an investigation into the new manager or agent and the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee to be determined by the City. The City shall revoke the license if the new manager is determined to be unacceptable to the City and licensee fails to replace the new manager with a manager acceptable to the City. At all times when customers are on licensed premises, there shall also be a person responsible for the conduct thereon, and, upon inquiry by any peace officer of an employee, such person's identity shall be immediately made known. *Subdivision 9. Persons Disqualified Ineligible for License A. State Law. No license shall be granted to or held by any person made ineligible for such a license under Minn. Stat. § 340A.402 subd. 1. B. Operating Officer. No License shall be granted to a business that does not have an operating officer or manager who is eligible pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. C. Real Party Interest. No license shall be granted to a person who is the spouse of a person ineligible for a license pursuant to the provision of subsections A and B of this section or who, in the judgement of the Council, is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business to be operated, under the license. D. Interest Defined. The term interest as used in this section includes any pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management or profits of a retail liquor establishment, but does not included: bona fide loans; bona fide fixed sum rental agreements; bona fide open accounts or other obligations held with or without security arising out of the ordinary and regular course of business of selling or leasing merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such establishment; or an interest of less than five percent (5%) in any business holding a liquor license issued by the City. A person who receives monies from time to time directly or indirectly from a licensee in the absence of a bona fide consideration therefore and excluding bona fide gifts or donations, shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in such retailing license. In determining “bona fide”, the reasonable value of the goods or things received as consideration for the payment by the licensee and all other facts reasonably tending to prove or disprove the existence of any purposeful scheme or arrangement to evade the prohibitions of this section shall be considered. E. Outstanding Debts. No license shall be granted or renewed for operation on any premises on which real estate taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the City or of the state are due, delinquent, or unpaid. If an action has been § 5.00 Golden Valley City Code 7 commenced pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 278, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the Council may, on application by the licensee, waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes, or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one year after becoming due unless such one year period is extended through no fault of the licensee. A. No license under this Chapter may be issued to: 1. A person who within five (5) years of the license application has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a Federal or State law, or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution, of alcoholic beverages; 2. A person who has had an intoxicating or 3.2 percent non-intoxicating liquor license revoked within five (5) years of the license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent (5%) of the capital stock of a corporate licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; 3. A person under the age of twenty-one (21) years; or 4. A person not of good moral character and repute. B. No person who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer or wholesaler may have any ownership, in whole or in part, in a business holding an alcoholic beverage license from the City.   ORDINANCE NO. 637, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Chapter 5: Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Regulations Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 5.02, Application and Licenses under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 5.02: Applications and Licenses Under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration Subdivision 1. Application A. Form. Every application for a license issued under this ordinance shall be on a form provided by the City at least 60 days prior to the projected effective date. Every application shall state the name of the applicant, the applicant's age, representations as to the applicant's character, with references as the City may require, the type of license applied for, the business in connection with which the proposed license will operate and its location, a description of the premises, whether the applicant is owner and operator of the business, how long the applicant has been in that business at that place, and other information as the City may require from time to time. An application for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Public Safety and shall also contain the information required in this Section. The form shall be verified and filed with the City. B. Financial responsibility. Prior to the issuance of any license under this ordinance, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility as defined in Minn. Stat. § 340A.409, as it may be amended from time to time, with regard to liability under Minn. Stat. § 340A.801, as it may be amended from time to time. This proof shall be filed with the City and the Commissioner of Public Safety. Any liability insurance policy filed as proof of financial responsibility under this section shall conform to Minn. Stat. § 340A.409, as it may be amended from time to time. Operation of a business which is required to be licensed by this ordinance without having on file with the City at all times effective proof of financial responsibility is a cause for revocation of the license. Subdivision 2. Limitations on Licenses Off-sale licenses shall be issued only to exclusive liquor stores and drug stores. On-sale licenses shall be issued to hotels, clubs, restaurants or organizations with the approval of the Commissioner of Public Safety or congressionally chartered veterans, provided the organization has been in existence for at least three (3) years and liquor sale will only be to members and bona fide guests. These limitations shall not apply to pre-existing licenses. Ordinance No. 637 -2- May 1, 2018 Subdivision 3. False Statements It is unlawful for any applicant to intentionally make a false statement or omission upon any application form. Any false statement in such application, or any willful omission of any information called for on such application form shall, work an automatic refusal of license, or if already issued, shall render any license issued pursuant thereto void and of no effect to protect the applicant from prosecution for violation of this Chapter, or any part thereof. Subdivision 4. Investigation In accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 340A.402, the City shall conduct a background and financial investigation on all new application, applications to transfer a license, and requests for approval of a new operating manager under this Chapter. The City may conduct a background and financial check on an application for a renewal of a license if it is in the public interest to do so. Subdivision 5. Action A. Granting. The Council may approve any application for the period of the remainder of the then current license year or for the entire ensuing license year. All applications including proposed license periods must be consistent with this Chapter. Prior to consideration of any application for a license, the applicant shall pay the license fee, and if applicable, pay the investigation fee. Upon rejection of any application for a license, or upon withdrawal of an application before consideration by the Council, the license fee shall be refunded to the applicant. Failure to pay any portion of a fee when due shall be cause for revocation. B. Issuing. If an application is approved, the City Clerk shall issue a license pursuant thereto in the form prescribed by the City or the Commissioner, as the case may be. Except as otherwise specifically provided, all licenses shall be on a fiscal year basis, July 1 through June 30. For on-sale licenses issued and which are to become effective other than on the first day of the licensed year, the full fee shall be paid with the application but may be prorated after issuance. Licenses shall be valid only at one location and on the premises therein described. There shall be no prorations for off-sale licenses. C. Transfer. No license issued under this ordinance may be transferred without the approval of the Council. Any transfer of stock of a corporate licensee is deemed to be a transfer of the license, and a transfer of stock without prior Council approval shall be cause for revocation of the license. An application to transfer a license shall be treated the same as an application for a new license, and all of the provisions of this code applying to applications for a license shall apply. D. Refusal and Termination. No license shall be issued: 1) to a person of questionable moral character or business reputation; 2) to a person or establishment not eligible for a license under state law or this Chapter; 3) for any establishment upon which sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited; 4) to a person that is not eligible to receive a license under state law or ordinance or to who state law or ordinance prohibits issuing a license. Licenses shall terminate only by expiration, revocation, or ceasing to do business. Ordinance No. 637 -3- May 1, 2018 E. Council Discretion to Grant or Deny a License. The Council in its sound discretion may either grant or deny the application for any license or for the transfer or renewal of any license. No applicant has a right to a license under this Chapter. F. License Denial: If a license application is denied, the earliest an applicant may reapply is twelve (12) months from the date the license is denied. G. Public Interest. No license under this Chapter may be issued, transferred, or renewed if the results of any investigation show, to the satisfaction of the Council, that such issuance, transfer, or renewal would not be in the public interest. H. Revocation or Suspension. In addition to any criminal penalty provided by State Statute or this Code, the following civil penalties shall apply to violations of this Chapter or the conditions of any license issued hereunder: 1. Revocation on the first violation for the following types of offenses: a. Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity; b. Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension. 2. The following matrix applies to these violations: a. Sale to underage person; b. Sale after/before hours; c. Consumption after hours; d. Illegal gambling, prostitution, adult entertainment on premises; e. Sale to obviously intoxicated person; f. Sale of liquor that is not permitted by the license; g. Licensee permits illegal acts upon the licensed premises; h. Licensee has knowledge of illegal acts upon the licensed premises, but failed to report same to police; i. Licensee fails to cooperate fully with Police in investigating illegal acts upon licensed premises; j. Activities of licensee creates a serious danger to public health, safety or welfare. Ordinance No. 637 -4- May 1, 2018 License Type 1ST Violation 2ND Violation 3RD Violation 4TH Violation On-sale Liquor $500 plus 1 day suspension $1,000 plus 3 days suspension $2,000 plus 10 days suspension Revocation Off-sale Liquor $750 $1,500 plus 1 day suspension $2,000 plus 6 days suspension Revocation On-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor/wine $350 plus 1 day suspension $700 plus 3 days suspension $1,500 plus 10 days suspension Revocation Off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor $250 plus 1 day suspension $500 plus 3 days suspension $1,000 plus 10 days suspension Revocation Violations will be counted over a period of three (3) years. Any of the foregoing civil penalties may be imposed by an administrative citation under City Code, Sec. 2.90, or in the alternative by action of the Council. If one (1) of the foregoing penalties is imposed by an action of the Council, no fine, suspension or revocation shall take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the Council, a committee of the Council as may be determined by the Council in action calling the hearing. Such hearing shall be called by the Council upon written notice to the licensee served in person or by certified mail not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date, stating the time, place and purpose thereof. The licensee may agree to such fine, suspension or revocation imposed by an action of the Council without a hearing by providing the City Manager or his/her designee with a written notice of hearing waiver and acceptance of penalty. In lieu of the civil penalties and license suspensions imposed above, whether imposed by administrative citation or an action of the Council, the licensee may choose to surrender the license to sell alcohol for a minimum period of twelve (12) months from the date of license surrender. I. Business Applicants and Licensees. A business applicant, at the time of application, shall furnish the City with a list of all persons that have an interest of five percent (5%) or more in such business and the extent of such interest. The list shall name all owners and show the interest held by each, either individually or beneficially for others. It is the duty of each business licensee to notify the City Clerk in writing of any change in legal ownership, or beneficial interest in such business or in such shares. Any change in the ownership or beneficial interest in the shares entitled to be voted at a meeting of the shareholders of a corporate licensee, which results in the change of voting control of the corporation by the persons owning the shares therein, or any other change in ownership or control of a corporation, shall be deemed equivalent to a transfer of the license issued to the corporation, and any such license shall be revoked thirty (30) days after any such change in ownership or beneficial interest of shares unless the licensee has notified the Council of the Ordinance No. 637 -5- May 1, 2018 change in ownership by submitting a new license application for the new owners, and the Council has approved the transfer of the license by appropriate action. At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in ownership or control of a business, the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee to be determined by the Council. The Council, or any officer of the City designated by it, may at any reasonable time examine the transfer records and minute books of any business licensee to verify and identify the owners, and the Council or its designated officer may examine the business records of any other licensee to the extent necessary to disclose the interest which persons other than the licensee have in the licensed business. The Council may revoke any license issued upon its determination that a change of ownership of a business licensee or any change of ownership of any interest in the business of any other licensee has actually resulted in the change of control of the licensed business so as materially to affect the integrity and character of its management and its operation, but no such action shall be taken until after a hearing by the Council on notice to the licensee. Subdivision 6. Duplicate Licenses Duplicates of all original licenses under this Chapter may be issued by the City Clerk without action by the Council, upon licensee's affidavit that the original has been lost, and upon payment of a fee for issuance of the duplicate. All duplicate licenses shall be clearly marked DUPLICATE. Subdivision 7. Posting All licensees shall conspicuously post their licenses in their places of business. Subdivision 8. Manager or Agent Before a license is issued under this Chapter, the applicant or applicants shall appoint in writing a natural person as its manager or agent. Such manager or agent shall be primarily located in the state of Minnesota and, by the terms of his/her written consent, (1) take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises, and, (2) serve as agent for service of notices and other process relating to the license. Such manager or agent must be a person who, by reason of age, character, reputation, and other attributes, could qualify individually as a licensee. If such manager or agent ceases to act in such capacity for the licensee without appointment of a successor acceptable to the City, the license issued pursuant to such appointment shall be revoked. The licensee shall notify the City of any change of manager or agent. The licensee shall provide the City with all information on the new manager as if licensee was submitting a new application for a license. The City may conduct an investigation into the new manager or agent and the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee to be determined by the City. The City shall revoke the license if the new manager is determined to be unacceptable to the City and licensee fails to replace the new manager with a manager acceptable to the City. At all times when customers are on licensed premises, there shall also be a person responsible for the conduct thereon, and, upon inquiry by any peace officer of an employee, such person's identity shall be immediately made known. Subdivision 9. Persons Ineligible for License A. State Law. No license shall be granted to or held by any person made ineligible for such a license under Minn. Stat. § 340A.402 subd. 1. Ordinance No. 637 -6- May 1, 2018 B. Operating Officer. No License shall be granted to a business that does not have an operating officer or manager who is eligible pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. C. Real Party Interest. No license shall be granted to a person who is the spouse of a person ineligible for a license pursuant to the provision of subsections A and B of this section or who, in the judgement of the Council, is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business to be operated, under the license. D. Interest Defined. The term interest as used in this section includes any pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management or profits of a retail liquor establishment, but does not included: bona fide loans; bona fide fixed sum rental agreements; bona fide open accounts or other obligations held with or without security arising out of the ordinary and regular course of business of selling or leasing merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such establishment; or an interest of less than five percent (5%) in any business holding a liquor license issued by the City. A person who receives monies from time to time directly or indirectly from a licensee in the absence of a bona fide consideration therefore and excluding bona fide gifts or donations, shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in such retailing license. In determining “bona fide”, the reasonable value of the goods or things received as consideration for the payment by the licensee and all other facts reasonably tending to prove or disprove the existence of any purposeful scheme or arrangement to evade the prohibitions of this section shall be considered. E. Outstanding Debts. No license shall be granted or renewed for operation on any premises on which real estate taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the City or of the state are due, delinquent, or unpaid. If an action has been commenced pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 278, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the Council may, on application by the licensee, waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes, or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one year after becoming due unless such one year period is extended through no fault of the licensee. F. No license under this Chapter may be issued to: 1. A person who within five (5) years of the license application has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a Federal or State law, or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution, of alcoholic beverages; 2. A person who has had an intoxicating or 3.2 percent liquor license revoked within five (5) years of the license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent (5%) of the capital stock of a corporate licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; 3. A person under the age of twenty-one (21) years; or Ordinance No. 637 -7- May 1, 2018 4. A person not of good moral character and repute. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 5.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. These amendment shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of May, 2018. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 637, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Chapter 5: Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Regulations Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration This is a summary of the provisions of the above ordinance which has been approved for publication by the City Council. This ordinance amends Section 5.02: Application and Licenses under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration of the Golden Valley City Code by updating the language to clarify the application and background check procedures, simplify language related to the transfer of licenses, add a provision requiring applicants to wait 12 months to reapply after denial of an application, and update language related to persons disqualified for a license to conform to state statute. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection during regular office hours at the City Clerk’s Office. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of May, 2018. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk